The definition I'd offer is that to know is to process information correctly. — Hallucinogen

The traditional definition of knowledge is 'justified true belief'; if we need to appeal to interpretation and belief (processing) and truth (correctness) then it seems that your definition is just the traditional one dressed up in different words..

traditional definition of knowledge is 'justified true belief' — Janus

I'd say that belief presupposes knowledge, rather than knowledge being some condition on belief. In order to believe in something, you have to know something about that in which you believe. If you know no details about "it", you cannot rationally believe in "it". What I'm trying to say here is that we don't arrive at knowledge through belief, rather the other way around.

if we need to appeal to interpretation and belief (processing) and truth (correctness) — Janus

You mean if the definition contains these aspects?

I agree that some thing must be known. For me a human definition of knowledge has more than raw data involved. I view knowledge as having weight dependent upon time.

Historical knowledge becomes less and less concrete as the physical items of the past recede into the distance. Abstractions are atemporal, but they are limited in application to items that involve all the nuances of human experience.

The definition I'd offer is that to know is to process information correctly.
Process here means/is defined as a computation, which is the reconfiguration of an input to an output.
Information here means/is defined as any structure (an object, a string of symbols) that can be binary/digitally distinguished. — Hallucinogen

In my estimation, this statement gives credence to the notion that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will truly be sentient. Perhaps even possessing a soul and an afterlife. Because as long as truly "knowing" something is a matter of processing information correctly, these computers will be titans of consciousness; which is the bedrock of every reality, here and beyond.

Your argument may even validate the notion that Narrow Artificial Intelligence is also/already conscious. Implying that anyone's collaboration with ChatGPT is something much grander, more important than "just the amusing mimicry of a chat bot". Thank you for this post and your thoughts.

I think it is wrong to make computer language the universal language in which all types of knowledge would be expressed. For example, if we assume that we know something, and we remember it, this knowledge is not presented in a binary way. This knowledge is presented in the form of images, sounds, words, experiences, etc. also the "processing" of that information doesn't work through binary expressions.


Someone may say: But all of that can be translated into a binary computer language. That's true, kinda, the same thing happens with formal logic. But the translation from one language to another does not imply identity between the two languages, nor a substitution that allows us to determine that one language is better than another for representing something. No matter how much we wish it, a numerical expression is not a memory. Ultimately, knowledge as información is subordinated to the representative activity of the subject. I prefer to say that knowledge is a representation; but not in the sense of copy o resemblance of something. It is more like a relation among sign systems where the cognoscent-sign-system (subject) is just affected and transformed by other sign system (object).


Information is not just knowledge either. A fiction book file may be saved on a computer. In that sense, knowledge is a type of information. And likewise, binary language is just one more language among others in which information can be expressed. It cannot be said that computer language is the substrate of all forms of information.


I think you are making an analogy. You are using a computational metaphor to understand all possible knowledge, like a kind of metalanguage. However, it remains a metaphor and an analogy that cannot be confused with how we are aware of knowledge, or how it is presented in our subjectivity. If we try to confuse it we will lose a lot of information and knowledge.

traditional definition of knowledge is 'justified true belief'
— Janus

I'd say that belief presupposes knowledge, rather than knowledge being some condition on belief. In order to believe in something, you have to know something about that in which you believe. If you know no details about "it", you cannot rationally believe in "it". What I'm trying to say here is that we don't arrive at knowledge through belief, rather the other way around.

if we need to appeal to interpretation and belief (processing) and truth (correctness)
— Janus

You mean if the definition contains these aspects? — Hallucinogen

Belief presupposes knowledge in the sense of acquaintance; I must know you or know of your existence, for example in order to believe something about you. But if I want to say I know something about you beyond your mere existence or merely that you exist or what presents itself immediately to my senses, that presupposes that I believe something about you.

The radical skeptic will say that whatever I claim to be knowledge in the propositional sense is really just belief, because I could always be wrong, which would mean that what I had thought to be knowledge was actually not knowledge.

I don't understand your question: "You mean if the definition contains these aspects?". I am saying that "processing" is equivalent to interpretation and belief and that "correctness" is equivalent to truth.

OK, I agree.

:cool: It's also a shame in a way, because it may signal the end of the conversation.