tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post4183695050637008450..comments2024-03-29T08:44:12.249-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Types of Knowledge and Connective KnowledgeStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-21314014389851007242008-12-27T16:06:00.000-05:002008-12-27T16:06:00.000-05:00I am interested in your perspective in connectivis...I am interested in your perspective in connectivism as a third type of knowledge. I've uploaded a comparison chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p0b8V3n8LND0a7Uj_ZTkaYg) on research methods and would appreciate any information you (or anyone else) can add to this table in facilitating my understanding of these differences.Benjamin L. Stewart, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15607774636169935278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-54939073748249925582008-09-22T11:27:00.000-04:002008-09-22T11:27:00.000-04:00Yeah that makes sense. One might say the wave is t...Yeah that makes sense. One might say the wave is then a condition. If that condition is present and then the other condition of perception takes place, then cause may occur.<BR/><BR/>That's probably a little simplistic and in fact, other key conditions (e.g. the veracity of the wave to begin with) may be identified, but I think I see what you are saying.<BR/><BR/>What is also interesting is that the cause can then become another effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-18795468725691342082008-09-22T09:32:00.000-04:002008-09-22T09:32:00.000-04:00Peter, your interpretation is subtle, but it is co...Peter, your interpretation is subtle, but it is correct.<BR/><BR/>I have argued on numerous occasions that the patterns created by a network - such as those we see in society - are a matter of <I>perception</I> and <I>interpretation</I>. They must be <I>recognized</I> by a perceiver. They do not have some sort of inherent existence, and the only 'objective reality' about them describes the individual elements themselves, not the patterns.<BR/><BR/>This is important from the perspective of agency. Such a pattern could be said to 'cause' some effect - for example, a wave of green-sentiments in society could be said to 'cause' a lowering of gas consumption - but only through intermediaries. The 'wave of green sentiment' does not itself cause anything - it only has an effect insofar as it is perceived <I>as such</I> by people who, as a consequence, lower their gasoline purchases.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-18919885617672812682008-09-22T01:43:00.000-04:002008-09-22T01:43:00.000-04:00"Societies can know things individuals don't. That..."Societies can know things individuals don't. That's harder to see."<BR/><BR/>A society is an abstraction. It is very real, but an abstraction. That is, I can't literally go to one thing we call "society" and ask for its opinion or feedback. Society as one voice can't talk to me, only those who constitute what we call society can do this. However, we can aggregate feedback from many individuals and call *that* a snapshot of societal knowledge. Within that snapshot could lay knowledge (via connections) that individuals at first are not aware of...it has yet to be discovered at that level. And once they look at the aggregation, they might be able to pull knowledge from it (by discovering connections) and make it their own.<BR/><BR/>Is this sort of what you mean, Stephen? Or am I way off here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-79550255509346648082008-09-19T16:22:00.000-04:002008-09-19T16:22:00.000-04:00Re: "Societies can know things individuals don't. ...Re: "Societies can know things individuals don't. That's harder to see."<BR/><BR/>I'll say. Who gets to see this, Stepehn? and how is it determined to be just?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17462957723334149373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-39220988415190664832008-09-18T19:04:00.000-04:002008-09-18T19:04:00.000-04:00"These together may give the organic feel that you..."These together may give the organic feel that you're after, or you may have yet another type of dynamism in mind..."<BR/><BR/>-exactly. The network/ecology dynamism is the complex adaptive characteristic that I am after. Thanks for the rich description!royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09238943135916575618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-46864583176144280462008-09-17T21:35:00.000-04:002008-09-17T21:35:00.000-04:00> "these bonds can be thought of as connec...> "these bonds can be thought of as connections" or not!<BR/><BR/>Works for me. Think of them as connections.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-3465886520034065562008-09-17T20:15:00.000-04:002008-09-17T20:15:00.000-04:00"these bonds can be thought of as connections" or ..."these bonds can be thought of as connections" or not! They are bonds because the limitations of our knowledge currently require this metaphor in order for us to make sense of the world. An object has real mass but only has "connections" as a metaphor for the probability cloud that make up the individual electrons. -- GeoffGeoff Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06997344068009095701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-56242156461175022372008-09-17T19:52:00.000-04:002008-09-17T19:52:00.000-04:00> Just one addition to the 'carbon atoms ca...> Just one addition to the 'carbon atoms can connect differently to yield different things' metaphor. <BR/><BR/>There's value to that suggestion.<BR/><BR/>In my own understanding of networks, we add to the (admittedly very simple and static) connection of the carbon atom in a variety of ways:<BR/><BR/>- the entities are multi-state - unlike carbon atons, that just sit there, the connected entities can be off/on, can be multi-valued, can be analog (think, eg., electron potential, excess potassium, whatever - there's a variety of ways to have different states)<BR/>- the connection is stateful - what I mean by that is that a change of state in one entity can result in a change of state in the second entity<BR/>- the connection is communicative - that is, there is a way to interpret the connection as the transmission of a signal (sometimes, as in neurons, there is not a single thing sent from A to B... but you can see one thing cause another cause another, which could be interpreted as a signal)<BR/>- the connections can have different 'strengths' or 'weights' <BR/>- the set of connections between entities changes (this is known as neural 'plasticity) based on various factors such as input, proximity, back-propagation, thermodynamic (boltzmann) mechanisms<BR/><BR/>These together may give the organic feel that you're after, or you may have yet another type of dynamism in mind...Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-57022388093674197452008-09-17T19:45:00.000-04:002008-09-17T19:45:00.000-04:00...differently. (sorry, should have added it to th......differently. (sorry, should have added it to the previous post!)royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09238943135916575618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-62572402998295569422008-09-17T19:41:00.000-04:002008-09-17T19:41:00.000-04:00I find the attractor 'connectivism' interesting, b...I find the attractor 'connectivism' interesting, but I am not yet sure of its limits and limitations. (Too many for me at the moment, but lets keep that one open for now).<BR/><BR/>Just one addition to the 'carbon atoms can connect differently to yield different things' metaphor. I have to make a distinction between what I call (reasonably) 'predictable variables'(inorganic, in the scientific sense) and 'complex variables (or organic, ditto) - the latter I prefer to call 'variables with attitude' and they include anything from viruses upwards - one of their key characteristics is that they are self-reproducing, and self-organising (hence the attitude). <BR/><BR/>Given this fundamentally dualistic ontology (and no, I am not in favour of dualism) has implications for how we approach the connectivism of coal (no attitude, unless its C14, radioactive, I suppose) and of humans (attitude in spades as they say - with a nice pun coming out there on spades and coal, no?)royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09238943135916575618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-32662841920276717312008-09-17T04:30:00.000-04:002008-09-17T04:30:00.000-04:00(sorry for the length, got it out of my blogpost, ...(sorry for the length, got it out of <A HREF="http://ignatiawebs.blogspot.com/2008/09/cck08-what-is-knowledge-where-is-ethics.html" REL="nofollow">my blogpost</A>, hence the more lengthy approach.<BR/><BR/>First of all this evolution of many brains making knowledge seems very natural to me as the same thing happens in nature already (most quoted species: ants), so I am happy to read a simple framework to get to this point. <BR/><BR/><B>Connective knowledge has gotten humanity to where it is today</B><BR/><BR/>After reading this (accessible) article I did get visions of connective knowledge building throughout human history. In a way history has always used connective knowledge and has build upon it as soon as enough people were curious enough to take it into consideration and replicating it. It is only because Darwin’s knowledge got out, got discussed, was first accepted by a few and got picked up by a growing number of scientists, that Darwin’s theory on the Origin of Species began to be seen as common ground. So in a way, because of several networks and their dynamics knowledge was picked up, tested through discussions and taken in as ‘solid knowledge’.<BR/><BR/>But not all knowledge gets appreciated from the beginning and sometimes very valuable knowledge gets overlooked thus stopping further evolution of that knowledge. (example: only a couple of years ago a lost (thought lost) manuscript of Archimedes (the so called Method) was found in Paris. The manuscript was overwritten by religious texts, just because at the time those religious texts seemed more important than Archimedes’s. After deciphering parts of the manuscript scientists found that Archimedes put down essential modern mathematical proves that are now at the basis of big inventions. Because Archimedes’s knowledge was ‘lost’ and history was focusing on different types of knowledge, mathematical (and scientific) knowledge was (temporarily stopped)). <BR/><BR/>So although I think connective knowledge gathering seems to have been around forever, it does not persé solve the problem of knowledge being lost or not being valued to the potential it has. <BR/><BR/>If you are interested in the Archimedes documentary regarding this manuscript (but beware there are almost no links to the actual text that Archimedes wrote down in his Method, look <A HREF="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4124638623515601807" REL="nofollow"> here)</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>In an increasingly specialized world connective knowledge can keep humanity together</B> <BR/>As connectivity looks at society as a whole as well as connections between information, it can be holistic. In this capacity it can add to interdisciplinary understanding and find mutual evolutions or parallel discussions. This holistic and connected knowledge ability does speak to my imagination, because it could bring all the specialist domains together again (and I believe that building bridges between disciplines always results in new ideas). <BR/><BR/>But could this <B>result in the need for new professions</B>? Not specialists in the classical sense, but specialists in superficial knowledge gathering. People that only know the basics, but of different disciplines and these people could than be knowledge bridge builders. I would like that type of profession :-)Inge (Ignatia) de Waardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03170929012404880320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-60103896202869875142008-09-16T10:54:00.000-04:002008-09-16T10:54:00.000-04:00Hmmm, I guess that my interpretation of connectivi...Hmmm, I guess that my interpretation of connectivism and how it works is that it <I>is</I> bigger than just one small idea - like one particular lump of coal - and that it is a way to connect and combine the various relational aspects. Going by what you are saying, what we know is actually 3 things in general about <I>all</I> lumps of coal: "its colour and shape and other qualities,<BR/>its mass and size and other quantities,the way its parts are connected." These reliable aspects that define "coal" connect each single lump to all other lumps of coal forming a network of "peers". In addition, the way the parts of coal connect to form a lump of coal are an intrinsic network, but they are only one particular network of connections that a lump of coal, or "coal" in general, is involved in. What we know about one example of one thing - coal - inevitably networks into what we know on a larger scale. Otherwise, it doesn't seem that there is a potential for learning.Heidi Ashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010606297263751733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-64701277050457587412008-09-15T21:32:00.000-04:002008-09-15T21:32:00.000-04:00Alan, you ask: "knowledge-- where connections are ...Alan, you ask: "knowledge-- where connections are forces of what?"<BR/><BR/>"Biorhythms. Astrology. Harmonic convergence. The 100th Monkey phenomenon. The music of the spheres. Intuition."<BR/><BR/>Take your pick. Because, as far as what is scientifically observable or measurable, we have no idea (yet).<BR/><BR/>Maybe there is some Force connecting us together in the physical world, but for now we'll have to settle for the virtual.Eyal Sivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053761151840918993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-16380789203627544102008-09-15T19:47:00.000-04:002008-09-15T19:47:00.000-04:00Hmmm, at least we did not descend to quarks and mu...Hmmm, at least we did not descend to quarks and muons inside that lump of coal. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps there is some difficulty leaping from the lump of coal, who's connections are properties of physical forces of heat, pressure, ane sub-atomic physics, to knowledge-- where connections are forces of what?Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980801837743251948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-31134706055986551292008-09-15T18:21:00.000-04:002008-09-15T18:21:00.000-04:00Heidi, nothing you're saying is wrong, but you are...Heidi, nothing you're saying is wrong, but you are including the whole world in an example I wanted to keep nice and simple.<BR/><BR/>If we have a lump of coal - and *only* a lump of coal, then there are three types of things to be known about it:<BR/>- its colour and shape and other qualities<BR/>- its mass and size and other quantities<BR/>- the way its parts are connected<BR/><BR/>And as a result, we have three types of knowledge about this particular lump of coal:<BR/>- qualitative<BR/>- quantitative<BR/>- connective<BR/><BR/>Yes, I know you actually get your knowledge from other sources, and that there are other ways to know about coal. But they are not relevant to this example.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-6034543471229224042008-09-15T16:52:00.000-04:002008-09-15T16:52:00.000-04:00As some of the others have said, I think you lost ...As some of the others have said, I think you lost me a little on the coal analogy. It seems to me that the connective nature of what I know about coal would have to do with what I have learned about coal from different avenues or networks - this shapes my individual overall view and identification of coal. For example, I know about how we get coal, coal mining, from what I learned in history books. I know the ecological implications of coal from a variety of media sources such as the web and the television. I know the humanistic side of coal from meeting people who were raised in areas where coal was a large part of their life. So, to me, these examples are all ways that impact how I know about and define "coal", and they have become part of my individual definition because of connective knowledge. <BR/><BR/>This change to the analogy would also seem to fit with your two types of connective knowledge, and your discussion in section 3 of participation in networks - I know about the different networks of knowledge surrounding coal (ecological, humanistic, historic) and I have also obtained my knowledge about coal by accessing or participating in these networks, and then observing and reflecting on how this information meshes with or adds to my own knowledge of the topic.<BR/><BR/>I hope that I am on the right track with this - if not, I would enjoy further explanation of your point!Heidi Ashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010606297263751733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-62179800974442002292008-09-15T15:47:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:47:00.000-04:00"knowledge exists outside of the learner" the way ..."knowledge exists outside of the learner" the way "a car exists outside the learner"<BR/><BR/>A person can be a mechanic while at the same time being a solopsist and an anti-realist. I am evidence (at least to myself) of that.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest - I think that by the time we're finished, the question of whether our experiences 'justify knowledge of the external world' will take on a different light.<BR/><BR/>That said: I will not be addressing realism directly at all this week - this being more in the domain of ontology than epistemology. I do address scepticism, albeit briefly, at the end of 'An Introduction to Connective Knowledge' (see the wiki, week two, optional readings) and may develop that argument further, as needed.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-91360846173169421312008-09-15T15:38:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:38:00.000-04:00Of course he thinks the car exists. But does it?Th...Of course he <I>thinks</I> the car exists. But <I>does</I> it?<BR/><BR/>This seems to be important, because one of your premises is that "knowledge exists outside of the learner." So, does that mean the knowledge exists outside of any learners, even "aggregate learners" (i.e. a network of learners)?<BR/><BR/>Or is this irrelevant to the theory, because even if it exists, we can't observe it (i.e. Berkeley)?<BR/><BR/>In any case, thank you Stephen. I'll have to do some more background reading before asking any more questions.<BR/><BR/>Do you have any recommended links? Or do you intend to cover this stuff this week ("Rethinking Epistemology")?Eyal Sivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053761151840918993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-66612865677654647572008-09-15T15:03:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:03:00.000-04:00Eyal,That's kind of like asking someone who has ju...Eyal,<BR/><BR/>That's kind of like asking someone who has just described a car whether he thinks that the car really exists.<BR/><BR/>Within the context of this course, using ordinary language to speak with other people, I refer to networks the way I would any other object existing in thew world, as a real existing type of object.<BR/><BR/>Adopting a more philosophical stance - I am (more of less) a phenomenalist and an idealist - I think that reality is a construct (of a sort - since it's mostly involuntary) created in an attempt to make sense of sensory input.<BR/><BR/>At best, I hope with my theorizing to, as they say, "save the phenomena".Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-14648677570264134972008-09-15T14:37:00.000-04:002008-09-15T14:37:00.000-04:00Now bear with me, because I've really only been re...Now bear with me, because I've really only been reading about this stuff fairly recently, but I have an epistemological question:<BR/><BR/>In your view, do the connections exist independently of the nodes, in some objective sense (i.e. metaphysical realism), or do they only exist in the context of the nodes (i.e. multiple realizability, "brain-in-a-vat")??<BR/><BR/>And if the latter, you seem to say that the context of multiple nodes (as in your 747 example) can together form yet another context, like a <I>meta-context</I>, correct?<BR/><BR/>So the number of contexts is not just: a) individual (i^1) or b) the whole group (G); it's actually: i^1, i^2, i^3... i^G, correct?<BR/><BR/>I hope that made some kind of sense in the absence of a degree in math or philosophy.Eyal Sivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053761151840918993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-80436682983410340572008-09-15T12:29:00.000-04:002008-09-15T12:29:00.000-04:00Hmm ... not so sure about the focus on Knowledge. ...Hmm ... not so sure about the focus on Knowledge. To me that refers to facts, descriptors and remembering things. I know it maybe just semantics, but I align learning with understanding, competence, wisdom and mastery. Knowledge is just one small part of that.<BR/>I do, however, agree with the network analogy. The key to this is its recursive nature. It holds the same appeal for me as the recursive framework of Stafforsd Beer's Viable Systems Model in a management context.<BR/>In another, more apocryphal, account 'it's turtles all the way down ...'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-16305911755723946682008-09-15T11:46:00.000-04:002008-09-15T11:46:00.000-04:00> The coal analogy: Sorry I don't think that wo...> <I>The coal analogy: Sorry I don't think that works for me. Atoms don't have connections first of all, that is just a concept that stems from our popular beliefs dictionary, but has little grounding in any physical reality.</I><BR/><BR/>Atoms don't have little sticks joining them, true. But atoms in compounds have bonds, and these bonds can be thought of as connections.<BR/><BR/>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/bond.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/08365/h&patoms.htm<BR/><BR/>Carbon atoms admit of several types of bonds.<BR/><BR/>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AliceWarrenGregory.shtml<BR/><BR/><BR/>> <I>The fact that you can derive information from a connection, doesn't mean in actually acquires knowledge does it? that's a few steps for which I really missed the justification.</I><BR/><BR/>That's fine, this is a very introductory set of remarks. If you allow a network to store information, that's good enough for me - we can get to sorting out what kind of information constitutes knowledge later.<BR/><BR/><I>wouldn't that mean that societies, groups or networks know things that the individuals don't?</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly right.<BR/><BR/>Brains clearly know things that neurons don't. That's pretty easy for us to see.<BR/><BR/>Societies can know things individuals don't. That's harder to see.<BR/><BR/>One example I have used a lot (and it's imperfect,. but bear with me) is that of "how to fly a 747 from London to Toronto". no single individual knows all of this - it takes a collection of people, working together, to know this.<BR/><BR/>Another example (and it is flawed in its own way) is Adam Smith's 'Invisible hand of the marketplace'.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-71158765715881687402008-09-15T11:34:00.000-04:002008-09-15T11:34:00.000-04:00An interesting read Stephen, and it has helped me ...An interesting read Stephen, and it has helped me to put this idea of 'connectivism' in perspective. A few questions remain though:<BR/><BR/>The coal analogy: Sorry I don't think that works for me. Atoms don't have connections first of all, that is just a concept that stems from our popular beliefs dictionary, but has little grounding in any physical reality. Secondly, I'm not sure how these 'connections' aren't just another qualitative and quantitative property of coal. There is as much information in the weight of coal, as there is in it's connections isn't there? The fact that you can derive information from a connection, doesn't mean in actually acquires knowledge does it? that's a few steps for which I really missed the justification.<BR/><BR/>Also, for connectivism to 'work' on the social scale, wouldn't that mean that societies, groups or networks know things that the individuals don't? Just like I know things that no single neuron doesn't know? I could possibly see some sort of long term evolutionary path in that direction, but to say that that is a current reality is a bridge too far for me I think. What's your opinion on that?René Meijerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14061978787000049211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-36552953823736131992008-09-15T00:39:00.000-04:002008-09-15T00:39:00.000-04:00At the time I read this post I was discussing conc...At the time I read this post I was discussing concerns with an individual within my network. After reading your post these concerns are still present.<BR/><BR/>In your analogy you use coal (quite effectively) to provide a concrete example of connectivism. However you are using a non-living object to describe connections. Human beings are living organisms with thoughts and emotions that usually hamper our nobler endeavors.<BR/><BR/>Most of us do not intentionally distort information or ignore people. However at times we can all fall prey to our weaknesses, especially when we are online. Can we truly trust our network for knowledge, when we know it can be biased by human emotion.<BR/><BR/>However I feel that these minor concerns can be mediated by taking the broad look at our knowledge (like you mentioned with our society). However what tools are available at this time to quickly ask a question to a network, and still be able to control the human emotions within that network?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com