Lecture
Это продолжение увлекательной статьи про знание.
...
theory. Thus, whole layers of statements — ethical, aesthetic, emotional, phenomenological — fall outside the scope of the theory of verification itself. In part, such statements, which certainly do not assert anything, are checked for truth, because their meaning is indirectly connected with objective reality, reflecting the psychological and physiological structure of the actors who speak out. True, this is clearly not enough for meaningful verifiable sentences. But any verifiable scientific proposals are also relative, not axiomatic, not protocol (not atomic), because they are expressed by a limited, finite (in physical space-time) human reason based on data obtained from limited, finite (in the same space-time continuum) sense organs and instruments. For the same reason, the positivistic theories of falsifiability (K. Popper), probabilism (C. Pierce), fallibilism (Charles Pierce, K. Popper), methodological anarchism (P. Feyerabend) are also not working. Thus, axiomatic, truthfulness any suggestions are relative. Then, perhaps, the truth consists in the mutual agreement (coherence) of several sentences, where agreement is not a tautology, but the consistency of the proposals to each other (coherence theory)? But coherent sentences are selected subjectively, and it is possible that the most significant may rely our own proposals, with which we will coordinate other people's proposals, and not vice versa. If my - the last criterion, then it is a dead end.
It seems to us that the problem lies in the artificial nature of the generally accepted discrete forms of logic (formal and mathematical) as a discrete, finite-dimensional way of thinking, claiming to understand and explain the continuum (or close to the continuum), infinite-dimensional being. Abstract-logical thinking is mainly engaged in the left hemisphere of the brain, starting from a certain age of the owner, and this is already alarming. After all, consciousness, thinking, attitude and understanding of the world are products of the whole brain or of that unknown Logos, which, according to the apologists of cosmism, may use our brain as a secondary tool, and not the primary generator. Moreover, we have no reason to deny participation in the thinking of the whole body, because the state of the latter directly or indirectly affects consciousness and cognitive acts.
The philosophical search for the meaning of reality brought to the result is identical with the understanding of reality. Meaning is a correlate of understanding. At the same time, the Cartesian science thinks rationally (discursively, demonstratively, explanatoryly), but not rationally (holistically, meaningfully, understandingly). Sensually not worrying about the object of thought, rational thinking leads us to knowledge, but not to an understanding of the known (one can know something without understanding). Discretion of discourse as its objective property is negative thinking, often overlooked. Perhaps, Zadeh was the first to pay attention to this, proposing in 1965 the concept of fuzzy sets, which led to the development, in particular, of fuzzy logic and the theory of approximate reasoning: "man thinks not with numbers, but fuzzy notions. " B. Russell at that time focused on social and political activities and did not adequately react to the new logical-mathematical paradigm, however, like other philosophers. And she deserved it.
After all, modern branches of logic (formal, mathematical, machine, etc.) are the same artifacts as human languages. The discourse based on them is limited by the rules of logical inference and the discreteness of the language, and therefore is itself discrete and programmed by logic and language. Discreteness is always poorer than continuity. The combinatorics of letters, finite words and phrases gives a finite (albeit extremely large) variety of messages. Only with a potentially infinite alphabet and / or potentially infinite words (phrases) a variety of messages will be infinite, covering the continuity of being and its understanding, but this is unrealistic.
The discreteness of information generation in the memory thesaurus ("Information genesis and self-organization") is imposed on the discreteness of the discursive logic of reason - a kind of "discreteness in the square" is obtained. Hence the problem of the adequacy of explanation and understanding.
Example 1. It is not so easy to express the inner, intuitive understanding of God (“don't remember the name of your Lord in vain”), sincere, music, poetry, painting cannot be reproduced from the heart in the form of “explanatory notes”, the words of love turn pale before the language of feelings . If we turn to the mathematical theory of sets, then we refer to the Richard paradox, which consists in the fact that only a small part of real numbers allow a verbal definition — a language suitable for typing on a keyboard is insufficient to characterize each number (each point of the continuum) individually. Similarly, the discretization of a continuous process with the help of a finite number of samples hides, distorts its true character. Something similar happens with the verbal interpretation of understanding with the help of a finite set of combinations of sounds, phonemes, letters and words.
Example 2. A one -dimensional continuous numerical axis does not provide an evidentiary idea of an N-dimensional space; need N such axes. And at the same time, N discretized numerical axes describe the "grid space", in which entities and phenomena that are possible only provable in mesh points, but not inside its cells, are potentially provable. If the discursive "grid" introduces a regulatory start into the input stream of statements within the framework of a deductive evidence system, then part of the statements will obviously be missed through the holes of the "grid" discreteness, as fish fry are missed through a large-mesh fishing net designed for large fish. Moreover, this is true for one-dimensional discourse.
In general, any discretization leads to inevitable errors of cognition, explanation and, finally, errors of understanding of being. The dismemberment of the knowledge of the whole object to the knowledge of its individual properties, due to the limited means of cognition, is the same discretization with inevitable errors of subjective understanding, even if each of the funds separately is analog, and not discrete by the principle of operation. The object is considered as if in several projections and sections, the number of which is of course determined by the number of means. To know the whole object, this number must tend to infinity, which is unrealistic. Arithmetic (and mathematics in general) are not exceptions.
Example 3. K. Godel's theorem proved (1931) that any adequate consistent arithmetic logic is incomplete, i.e. there is a true statement about integers that cannot be proved in such a logic. In addition, it follows from this theorem that it is impossible to prove the consistency of arithmetic logic (even if incomplete) by methods that are expressible in this very logic. Godel's theorem calls into question the universality of the mathematical language of explanation (proof): "... the concept of truth (the majority) of mathematical statements includes the idea of ... infinite series of tests. Meanwhile, any mathematical proof ... is an essentially finite procedure" (Yu.I. Manin ).
Gödel’s merit is that he rigorously mathematically proved the intuitively clear relationship between the language of understanding and the discrete mathematical language of explanation, the incompleteness of the latter. The philosophical consequence of the Gödel incompleteness theorem can be assumed to be the unattainability of an absolutely accurate (complete and non-contradictory) scientific explanation of being based on mathematical discourse. In this connection, mathematics and the natural sciences based on it acquire, besides the “exact”, humanitarian status. How, in this case, to fill the discourse, to compensate for the incompleteness of its informational order, rigidity, creative lack of freedom? This suggests an answer - the disorder, lack of firmness, free will, which carries the irrationalism of intuition, imagination, empathy, faith. Irrationalism supplements the finite with infinite, discrete continuous, speech intonation, facial expressions and gestures, text with imagination, music and painting, formally unformalized, explained by an understanding, determined by the accidental, the real possible. In mathematics and computer science, artificial intelligence systems, the paradigm of fuzzy (multi-valued, infinite-valued, continuous) logic is becoming increasingly important. Gödel's theorem, which is valid for the arithmetic logic of countable sets, does not yet extend to the continuous logic of continuums. At least, we are not aware of such applications of this theorem and it is not known how Godel himself perceived the emergence of a new logical-mathematical paradigm.
Gödel's theorem on the incompleteness of logic and the subsequent work of mathematicians, logicians and philosophers were corrected by L. Wittgenstein, who asserted that "there is no secret. If a question can be posed at all, then it can be answered." It turns out that there are secrets, because there are incompleteness and inconsistency of logic and discourse, ambiguity and unverifiability of their linguistic means, leading to the unprovability of many statements (scientific and unscientific).
The scientific method forces us to accept the result of the theory by the power of our abstracted evidence, as opposed to the unscientific method, which is devoid of such compulsion and therefore resort to such dubious means as bringing a competing theory to contradiction, speculation on its mistakes and / or difficulties, rejection of scientific "heresy" favor of the imperative of faith, which does not require proof. But the evidence based on a single method, a single argument, a single authority, is not impressive; evidence must be multidimensional, polymorphic. Unlike faith, turned to feeling, proof appeals to reason, but, as shown above, rational (discursive) knowledge is useful, but not complete: "life is infinitely fuller than rational definitions, and therefore no formula can accommodate all the fullness of life" (PA Florensky "Pillar and affirmation of truth").
Nevertheless, the construction of discreteness in the cause of the incompleteness and inconsistency of discourse is not so obvious on closer examination. The piano is also discrete, as is the musical staff, and as evidenced by Chopin! Stupidity and hatred are continual, but how unsubstantiated they are!
Imagine discourse as a regulator, deductive proof of some statement (theorem) as an object of regulation (control), statement flow as a perturbation of an object, logic as a control effect of discourse on evidence, and significance of statements as an output reaction of an object. The scale of significance of formal and mathematical logic is limited to a small volume of scale values ("true" and "false"), and all statements must be squeezed into this Procrustean bed of significance through the proof. Such a logical control system is homeostatic. Consequently, it must comply with the information law of the necessary diversity of administrations ("Information and Management"). According to this law, a variety of statements (perturbations) is parried by a variety of logical operations (controls). Each object — deductive proof — can be outraged by a practically infinite number of statements. Much of these statements are non-judgmental and metaphysical. В то же время узость (одномерность) пространства логических управлений доказательством (даже с учетом вложенности, иерархичности этих управлений) не позволит парировать все высказывания. Дедукции не хватает многомерности, в результате нарушается закон необходимого разнообразия и гомеостаз доказательства. Следствие – остаточная неопределенность доказательства, имеющая, как мы знаем, информационное измерение ( "Физика информации" ) и характеризующая неполноту логики.
Example 4 The physical relations of uncertainty have an informational dimension and to a certain extent also characterize the incompleteness of the logic of physical evidence. In particular, the Heisenberg-Bohr uncertainty relation characterizes the incompleteness of the logic of proofs of quantum physics. J. von Neumann in 1932 proved that this incompleteness due to the inoperability of the laws of causality at the subatomic level cannot be overcome by any “accurate” measurement of the values of hypothetical “hidden variables”. Neumann's theory creates the illusion of "logical completeness of quantum physics", which does not contribute to the depth (for example, to quarks): "... the very interesting and promising possibility is the laws of the sub-quantum mechanical level containing hidden variables (Bom D." Causality and chance in modern physics " , 1959.) ". This example is not accidental - we see the common nature of such uncertainties, due to the discreteness (quantization) of logical models and the insufficient dimensionality of logic.
Example 5. In sociology, the effect of non-transitivity of matrices of pairwise comparisons is known, when a respondent who prefers object A to object B and object B to object C, is unexpected for a sociologist who may prefer object B to object A than violates transitive logic: if A is better B and B are better , then A is better than B. But such is the reality of the contradictory multidimensional logic of the respondent, and the sociologist has no choice but to reckon with it.
Example 6. The creators of computer networks in order to avoid problems of incompleteness and inconsistency (conflict) of the interactions of application programs implemented a multi-level system of communication protocols, which is nothing but a technical implementation of the multidimensional logic of mutual understanding of open cybernetic systems (workstations, servers, hosts, etc.). ).
Formal logic (Aristotle and others) is a product of the human mind, based on human experience, but abstracted from the latter, as it should be in the deductive method. As a result, instead of concrete things - the Sun, this ant, that stone, Socrates, my thought - formal logic deals with abstract classes of things - stars, ants, stones, Greeks, thoughts - at best, some of them, where "some "- a logical quantifier, but not a transition to specific things. Logic operates with classes in syllogisms, propositions and predicates, without worrying about the individuality of the elements of a class. And if a specific Ivan is mentioned in the statement, then for logic it is equivalent to "some Russian." However, there are statements, the accuracy of which depends on the individual meaning of words denoting things. In this situation, formal logic is powerless; it does not catch the individual meanings of words with its discrete “network”, intended for the larger “fish” - classes of things. Here the semantic dimension is important, which seems to be less discrete than the formal-logical dimension, and therefore used in understanding languages. At the level of understanding thinking, a fundamentally different logic is required, perhaps, Kant's transcendental logic, the subject of which is not so much the formal logical constructions of statements and predicates, but their meanings and values for the reflecting subject.
If we don’t have enough to prove a linguistic, semantic or some other anthropic logical dimension, then we can turn to non-human logic, for example, the logic of fauna or flora, to the logic of other civilizations that left traces of memory in the information field. In other words, we should not neglect another logic, but study it as a product of another mind dealing with another experience. We do not enclose these other logic, reason, experience, in quotation marks, believing that only arrogance of a person ignores and even rejects them without due reason, even when a person with his own logic, reason and experience is faced with a dead-end problem. A dead end is a sign for searching in other directions, other dimensions. Logical deadlock is no exception. We believe that only a polymorphic logical conclusion allows, within the framework of the law of the necessary diversity of departments, to successfully regulate the homeostasis of the system of imaginable evidence.
The maxims of unity of knowledge of a single universe and methodological polymorphism do not contradict each other. To achieve the first maxim, it is so important to stick to the second. Methodological monomorphism at all times led to stagnation and delusion, because, without knowing it, it violated the law of necessary diversity by not parrying the diversity of experimental data with methodological regulatory diversity. The logic of monomorphism: "if it is not clear, then it is false." Logical monomorphism does not allow optimally recode a variety of statements into their own variety of deductions in order to effectively manage the evidence. But the logic is responsible for the correctness of the evidence.
The discursive left hemisphere logic of reason must be complemented by the logic of other dimensions - the holistic-shaped right hemisphere logic of feeling and super sense (intuition, subconsciousness, faith), the logic of the noosphere. Then, perhaps, it will approach in its properties to the concepts of completeness and consistency.
Example 7. Philosophical evidence usually comes down to the protection of an advanced concept and is often based on very far from each other doctrines (scientific, political, philosophical, economic, ethical, aesthetic, etc.). At the same time, unlike logic and science, philosophy is not responsible for the correctness and truthfulness of evidence. The search for the meaning of statements is irresponsible, not punishable, the direction of the search vector is arbitrary, reflection has an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The philosopher can, but is not obliged to deduce in his reflection. Nevertheless, by reflecting (logically deducing or fantasizing outside logic), the philosopher justifies his concept, his vision of the problem under investigation with the sole purpose - he seeks (albeit involuntarily) the a posteriori minimum of uncertainty of the provable, i.e. maximum information content. In maximizing the informativeness of evidence, the goals of logic, science, and philosophy meet. It would be strange, to put it mildly, philosophizing, which does not pursue this goal, when the a priori ambiguity of statements, the meaning of which the philosopher should have clarified, did not diminish a bit or decrease insignificantly.
The means of maximizing the informativeness of evidence must be related to the semantics of provable assertions. The deeper the statements, i.e. the greater the variety of states of affirmed entities or phenomena these statements describe, the greater must be the variety of means of proof that are adequate to the content of the provable statement. We call this property validity of evidence (valid (English) - valid, valid - from validus (Latin) - healthy, strong). Recall that the logic of evidence is responsible for its correctness, but not for the truth of its initial premises and results, and the communication channel (between the source and consumer of the evidence) is not responsible for the content of the evidence submitted.
Example 8. If a statement explicitly or indirectly contains information about biophysical and mathematical phenomena, then valid proof should use adequate biophysical and mathematical laws and regularities in their logical interconnection for complete, consistent reasoning. If the statement is classified as ethical, aesthetic, emotional, metaphysical, etc., then valid proof (if it is possible) should use adequate means that go beyond logic with its informational order, structural rigidity, and creative nonfreedom.
The validity of the proof is similar to the ohmic and amplitude-phase-frequency matching of the electrical communication channel with the input-output loads. Without such coordination, a significant part of the energy spectrum of the electrical signal may be lost in the communication channel. Similarly, non-valid evidence as an information process destroys its information content, its diversity by the logical inconsistency of evidence. But no matter how hard we try, the number of such means is of course, and as a result, the proof does not reach the goal absolutely. Required misunderstandings and questions. From experience, the new material is perceived and understood by up to half even by colleagues, not to mention the students. The reasons lie not only in the internal invalidity of the evidence, but also in external factors: limited operational memory of consumers, interference in the communication channel (transmission-reception), insufficient reception sensitivity and throughput of the communication channel, lack of demand for evidence. To compensate for these factors, redundancy (repetition, code multidimensionality) is introduced into the "proof code", the form of the proof changes (recodes).
The concept of informativeness of evidence cannot ignore its duration. Indeed, the performance of the source of evidence and the bandwidth of the communication channel are tempo characteristics (measured in bits / s), which must be coordinated with each other (See also the aesthetic quality criterion of Gemstergeys - topic 3, section 3.5.).
With regard to tempo informational content of evidence, the principle of reliable Shannon coding acquires a real meaning: if the rate of information production in the process of proof does not exceed the capacity (throughput) of consumers, the evidence can always be encoded so that it will be transferred to consumers without delay with an error probability that is arbitrarily close to zero (but not equal to zero).
As for the ambiguity of verbal coding, then we believe that the preference given to it by tradition by the majority of humanities, in particular, by philosophers, over other forms of codes is unconvincing, given the peculiarities of consumer thinking. For consumers with a developed abstract-logical thinking, discursive codes of formal logic, mathematics, and natural science are preferable. For consumers with a developed holistic imagery, graphics, eidetic codes, and gestalts are preferable. We also pay attention to the specific intra-system interference generated by the transmission channel of evidence by consumers of this evidence. Such interference is substracted in the form of a priori installations of the consumer, accompanying or interfering with the receipt of evidence by the given consumer. These interferences are objective in the sense that any subjective thinking in the process of receiving (perception) of evidence has a priori information that is generally not the same (at best partially coinciding) with the original premises of the logic of the proof and its codes. This information to some extent conflicts with the evidence, interferes with its adequate reception, unacceptably chokes the input of the receiver, raising over the threshold the thresholds for detecting and distinguishing signals. With particularly intense interference, collisions like "I do not want (I can not) understand", "I do not understand, it means wrong", etc. are possible. To compensate for such intra-system interference, it is necessary to introduce adequate redundancy into the logic of evidence, for example, through mechanisms of repetition, testing, analogies, etc.
A special subclass of intra-system interference is made up of language interference.
Example 9 Command control languages (in the army, programming, automated control systems, etc.), scientific and technical languages, languages of mathematics and logic, aimed at unambiguous information concepts, judgments and conclusions, often do not reach the goal, because they are subjected to unconscious, objective interfering effects of ambiguous languages (ordinary, literary, publicistic), habitual and inevitable for any language environment. These interference languages create the so-called language noise, which does not allow even the most organized language — the artificial programming language — to achieve unambiguity. Starting from a certain threshold of complexity, no program works without errors, is repeatedly edited, and still “the worst mistake will be revealed only when the program has been in production for at least six months” (A. Bloch. Murphy's Law). A careful analysis of the causes of algorithmic (most dangerous) errors in programming (in grammar these are syntactical errors) shows that inexperienced programmers have a greater effect, and experienced ones have less pronounced influence of language noise, expressed in unconscious attempts to impose logical structures of ordinary language on the programming language. Language noise contributes to the limitations of rational (discursive) knowledge.
We comprehend the results. To prove his case, a person spends a lot of resources, writes books, denunciations, dissertations, conducts lengthy expensive experiments and exhausting discussions, starts wars, kills, dies himself (sometimes heroically) - all for the sake of one or several bits of information, for which ephemeral true or false! What is the price of the information contained in all the tested evidence of a person and counted in many trillions of bits ?! And how many losses did a person suffer in the process of mining, proving his case at the cost of health and even life, and also by force, starvation, disinformation, bribery ?! What useful, besides the obvious harm, gave and give to humanity the antagonistic relations of cultures based on various religious-religious or political-ideological platforms, on the binary ("black and white") logic of thinking "my right, yours is not right"?
This is the price of a unit of information — a bit — which is immeasurably greater than the price of a unit of energy or unit of mass of a substance. First, it indirectly indicates a significantly greater value of information (ideas, knowledge) compared with matter and its energy (informational expansion), and secondly, about unclaimed reserves of the human mind. If these reserves in the foreseeable future are not included in the work, one should speak no longer of the reserves of reason, but of the unreasonableness of humanity. Something can be proved only through the logic of pluralism, through mutual understanding achieved in some field interaction through its information component, while eliminating the distorting influence of the power component. Traditional information-energy, "costly" evidence of how management should give way to a purely informational, resource-saving understanding as a link . This is, in our opinion, the hermeneutic essence of the dialogue of cultures; the implementation is seen in the low-energy or low-energy information processes oriented towards the language of understanding and excluding the noisy sign transformations of the coding - transmission - decoding of information of the traditional discursive dialogue.
So, rational (discursive) knowledge must “get engaged” with the existence of the life series (faith, hope, love, suffering, passion, intuition, pleasure, etc.) in order to turn into rational knowledge and “revive” it. From the standpoint of neurophysiology and neuropsychology, this means a transition from primarily one-hemispheric thinking to two-hemispheric thinking with the participation of the whole brain (and not just the big hemispheres), from the standpoint of psychoanalysis to the mutual work of consciousness and the unconscious, from the standpoint of cognitive psychology - from a person who knows to a rational person, from the standpoint of Buddhism - to achieve Nirvana as the highest spiritual state of illumination with true knowledge. This transition is possible with the help of intelligence ("Information and consciousness").
Artificial intelligence invaded the human creative laboratory on the rational principles of rationality, countability and technocracy, creating a hidden threat to the rational essence of man and the world cultural process. The problem is not to reject the informatization of creative acts (this can no longer be avoided), but to reveal its positive boundaries, beyond which there is a negative, regress of a rational person and human culture. It is important to distinguish natural-human, primitive culture, albeit embodied in objects, signs of "second nature" (including knowledge bases), from cultures of artificial, second-natural origin, in particular, from information (computer) subculture (This term is not canonized and used here in a local sense.) artificial intelligence.
A machine is a product of human logic, but man is illogical in its genesis and only partly logical in its acquired mentality. "Human, too human" is alien to the machine - to the artificial "subject", the calculating impassivity of the machine sickened man. The ripening conflict is not new, it is inherent in human-machine relations in industrial society, but the conflict of a rational person with a reasonable artificial subject is characterized by a new quality - this is a conflict of competing intellects. Today, a computer is just an amplifier of human intelligence, tomorrow is a carrier of its own. As a result, conflict between human culture and machine subculture will one day break out, known now only in its infancy as the conflict between materiality and spirituality, reason and mind, rationalism and irrationalism, creator and creature, man and machine. We believe that the conflict-free development of artificial intelligence in the information society is possible not outside the person, but only inside him at the level of introspective "self" - self-awareness, self-education, self-learning, self-knowledge. The whole process of education and training in the information society should be aimed at creating an internal border imperative that carefully protects the human in man from the extrahuman, natural from the artificial, passionate soul and the spirit of human intelligence from the passionless logic of artificial intelligence, a free lifestyle of a "cultural man" from program - hardware dependent Web-style of life "business person". However, this imperative should not be considered "categorical", because any (sub) culture is characterized not only by self-development, but also by promoting dialogue with other subcultures, including Web-culture. Thus, the problem under consideration acquires a psychological aspect, immanent for each individual individually and through the harmonious motivation of all participants in the cultural process - a common aspect for society as a whole. In the above sense, rational (holistic) knowledge of homo sapiens and society should be general cultural, all-encompassing, if you like, philosophical.
“Despotic dichotomy” (according to N. Goodman) scientifically comprehended and artistic-emotional is groundless, there is no reason to talk about the different nature of scientific and aesthetic experience. According to L. Wittgenstein, scientific proposals are equal participants in contextual "language games", along with other types of sentences - ethical, metaphysical, aesthetic, everyday, etc. A. Poincaré, L. Brower, M. Klein, Yu.I. Manin and others. Mathematicians noted its conventionalism and "humanitarian" character in a number of other humanitarian fields of knowledge. Suffice it to recall the battles of recognizing zero as number or emptiness (metaphysical "nothing"). It is enough to recognize that the concepts of beauty, divinity on the one hand, mathematical and natural-scientific rigor, on the other hand, are not antipodes, but twins. In mathematics, there are concepts of beauty of evidence, expectation, confidence probability, in the physics of the microworld - the concept of charm (charm), color charge, in computer science appeared "cloud computing" (cloud computing). Do not blame those who are trying to "believe algebra harmony" of music, literature, souls - algebra and harmony are open to interpenetration and mutual enrichment (within reason). Accordingly, if for understanding the information processes in the cultural layer of society, it is useful to use knowledge of similar processes in technical systems created by the same cultural layer, then humanities should hardly be annoyed about such incursions into their “elite diocese”. The progressing informatization of culture is a fact, a given, as well as humanization, the cultivation of informatics. We repeat: the problem is not in prohibitions, but in understanding the permissible limits of cultural informatization.
To achieve their goals, man and mankind should consider understanding and mutual understanding as comprehension or generation of the meaning ( essence ) of entities to be perceived as the most important value of rational knowledge. After all, most wars, conflicts and collisions of history (this “ocean of slander” according to M. Arnold) can be explained by lack of or lack of understanding of the enemy, people's inability to understand and understand, lack of understanding language in the arsenal of knowledge. The language of understanding is in the sphere of interest of the philosophy of information. Understanding is "the process of building knowledge from that which is not knowledge" (A.I. Rakitov). On the one hand, language as a code obeys the principles of information coding, language as a relation obeys the principles of communication between sources and consumers of information, language as a structure with dynamic diversity obeys the principles and laws of the behavior of information diversity and management of this diversity. On the other hand, the hermeneutic phenomenon of understanding bases any information communication on the search for the meanings of statements.
Example 10. As soon as evidence is required from some source of understanding, an explanation of something “they understand” (meaning “something”), the language of subjective understanding is translated (recoded) into the language of explanation (interpretation) and vice versa - the latter is decoded into the language of the consumer’s subjective understanding ) proof of. Communication (transmission and reception of signals carrying information) is mandatory between the stages of coding and decoding. In the aggregate, this is a typical information process “understanding → coding (interpretation) → communication → decoding (deinterpretation) → understanding” (“Information processes”). The seeming simplicity of the process hides a whole layer of complex problems: the problem of primary understanding ("I do not understand anything, it means nothing to explain"), the problem of coding understanding ("I understand, but I can not explain"), the problem of decoding explanation (proof) into understanding (" the explanation is incomprehensible "), the problem of mutual understanding (" we do not understand each other, "" explained so that he understood, and they do not understand "). These problems are aggravated by the problems of discrete discourse discussed above.
We believe that the language of understanding of meanings is the highest form of any language, which existed, possibly, long before the appearance of the known methods of communication: “... social animals can have active, reasonable (italics V. G), flexible means of communication long before the appearance of the language” (H Wiener). On a long path of development, the language of communication as one of the linguistic artifacts of symbolic human activity has gone from primitive sensory-figurative copying of reality with the generation of its associative images to the combinational relationships between copies (subconscious correlation analysis and selection of "strong" links) and, finally, to abstract logical grammar of language invariants - classes of images. But in this way of the language of communication, the language of understanding has not lost its relevance. Many philosophical problems arise as a result of a misunderstanding of the language or are generated by the language: "people do not understand each other because they do not speak the same language, and because there are languages that cannot be learned" (A. Poincare) ; "... philosophy is a constant effort to find a language ... a constant torment of lack of language" (H. Gadamer); “language is a special equation between what is reported and what is silent” (H. Ortega-i-Gasset). We add that this "equation" with many unknowns (if we recall the ambiguity, inaccuracy of the language), then, strictly speaking, there are solutions to the equation, but there are countless many. Even speaking one native language, people can actually speak different languages.
Example 11. Knowledge is manifested in the form of language, and language is dead without knowledge. If the last metaphor is taken as an a priori installation, then, consequently, knowledge gives life to the language, or, more specifically, knowledge gives rise to the language . And just as the properties of children genetically inherit the properties of parents, so the ambiguity of the language inherits the ontological relativity of knowledge. What, for example, is the above proposition: "knowledge begets a language" ?! Here, according to the syntactic rules of the Russian language, each noun can be subject to or complement with a corresponding inversion of meaning. And only the reflexive-contextual initial setting allows us to choose one of the alternatives. The relationship between knowledge and language, as well as between classes of chickens and eggs, is not as trivial as they were at the very beginning. As soon as the unidirectional linear structure "knowledge → language" turned into a bidirectional "knowledge-language", and this happened probably quickly, a thesaurus appeared, which could be filled only in a language form, albeit different and unusual. At the same time, the transition from primitive signaling associations of right-brain thinking to combining and selecting connections between associative images signified a transition from the relict pre-linguistic continual understanding language to the primary discrete explanation language, the crown of which is the language of logical abstractions as a product of left-brain thinking. In other words, the genesis of the "crowned" discourse should be sought in the language of understanding.
So, the language of understanding is a philosophical-cultural problem, and it consists in the difficulty, if you will, of not being able to reveal the meaning as a correlate of the understanding of the inner information of a knowable entity from the available external information, which allows for infinitely many discourses and meanings introduced by them. Философия в расхожем понимании – генератор проблем, вопросов, но не решений, ответов, свободная рефлексия, цель которой – "показать мухе выход из мухоловки" (Л. Витгенштейн). Эта мухоловка построена дискурсивным языком, околдовавшим наш разум.
Example 12. Linguistic relativism is caused by the ambiguity of textual interpretation as a kind of interlingual translation of languages. Even if the text (in a broad sense) is reduced to atomic axiomatic statements, when, it seems, the issue of translation does not arise, we are dealing with a degenerate intra-linguistic (homophonic) translation, which is also relative. So, any statement "X is Y" can be misunderstood even in the native language, and then we have the right to ask: "In what sense is X a Y?". Translation is simplified when it deals with factual statements, but the farther away from experience (and the closer to metaphysics), the more difficult and arbitrary translation is. And purely metaphysical statements of ethical, aesthetic, poetic characters are sometimes simply untranslatable in the form of "explanatory notes" or interlinear signs. Any translation (translation) is controlled by our grammatical and semantic "police" apparatus. Under these conditions, a prudent translator will follow the prescriptions of this apparatus even to the detriment of the original text, i.e. just betray the last one. Traduttore - traditore (it.): The translator is a traitor. This is an axiom of linguistics.
According to the above ideas, when interpreting the understanding of a cognizable entity, the authentic meaning, embedded in the essence by its creator and opened by the knowing subject in the interpreter interpreter codes, merges with an inadequate sense created by the subject himself. This is especially noticeable if the cognizable essence is irrational (spirit, intellect, consciousness, love, hate, freedom, etc.), and the subject is rational and requires proof from the interpreter. Feelings, imagination, faith, the intuition of such a consumer is deaf to the irrational “believe!”, And his psyche calls out “prove it!”. In such a situation, one will have to use many-valued logic, polymorphic deductive-inductive explanation languages, and an understanding language that allows the source and consumer of evidence to interact outside the languages of explanation at the level of mind, feeling, and intuition, not only perceiving, but also experiencing evidence: “to understand means to feel” (KS Stanislavsky). A scientist, an artist, a sage, a stoic, a clairvoyant prophet, a teacher-guru, and finally a charismatic personality with empathy and telepathy skills - that’s how an interpreter should be in one person, trying to prove to everyone, and not reflect on himself: “The artist should inspire, but not to be inspired "(S. Dali). The foregoing does not mean that the languages of explanation should be excluded from the practice in favor of the language of understanding. Each language has its own pragmatic niche.
Example 13. We do not directly speak to a computer in machine language, but use translators-translators of programming languages into binary code. In turn, beyond programming languages - languages of algorithms, for which languages of problems and, finally, languages of understanding of solvable problems. And the transitions between languages are provided by the appropriate "translators" - translators. The musician also uses the language of explanation - the stave, but only as a guide to mutual understanding with the instrument, while experiencing the agony of language shortages. Are not such torments experienced interpreter of painting and poetry, worldview and faith - art critic, philosopher, priest?
So, according to our ideas, the nature of the language of understanding is informational, and all language problems and collisions are purely informational. Consequently, the problem of the relation of the language of understanding and information is an important subject of study of the philosophy of information. Only using the language of understanding, operating with a sense of inner information, complete holistic knowledge will rightfully acquire epithets of meaningful, understanding, wise knowledge (as opposed to judicious intelligent knowledge).
For understanding intelligent knowledge, it is important to have the most valuable information, undoubtedly useful for the system. When considering a priori knowledge, attention was drawn to the need for a priori value of information, so that even before experience, to set criteria acceptable for the system for selecting information, using some intuitive function of the value (utility) of information. Such a function, most likely, should not deal with the amount of information indifferent to reasonable values.
Example 14. The spring warmth received by a plant can be a priori useful for its development, causing sap flow and kidney ejection, but it can also be misleading, since Sudden frosts will kill the kidneys and, possibly, the whole plant. However, quantitative information and misinformation were the same. On / Off Dash Button in the pilot cockpit, it carries one bit of external information, regardless of whether it turns on the lighting, catapult, or opens a bomb bay. The weather report in Tver has a different value for Tveritians and Parisians, causing various reactions (controls) on their part.
What is the value of information and should it be measured? To repeat: by the value of information, we understand the pragmatic relationship between the system, information and the purpose of the system. Suppose value is to be measured, then on what scale: absolute or relative? Practice shows: not a single information in the entire history of nature, life and mind has acquired absolutely valuable status. On the contrary, the next round of development set new goals and changed the criteria of value, and what seemed to be absolutely valuable for all times, acquired the status of relative, myth-making value, or even fell into the dustbin of history and science. You can enter an absolute value scale: it is more valuable to consider the information that generates new information with a greater probability. But how to estimate this probability?
The value of scientific and philosophical works is usually estimated by the so-called. "citation index" (the more often a work is quoted, the more valuable it is, the higher the index). But prominent philosophers and scientists who are not published or “wrote to the table” are known and only after death have they become known to the world. Such is Socrates, who according to the testimony of the disciples (Plato and others) asserted that "the writing is dead." Such is G. Cavendish, engaged in science outside of official science; In his papers, found after death, scientific discoveries and laws were discovered that are known to science in other authorship (Coulomb's law, etc.). These are the founders of many religious teachings and schools. Their teachings, as a rule, were transmitted orally, as were the "catch phrases" of famous people. So, in our opinion, one should not fetishize the citation index as a quantitative indicator of the value of scientific and philosophical information.
The value of information for different systems is related to the purpose of their existence (development), and the goals may be different. If we take some system that has internal information, then external information about the system will have different values for consumer systems that have different goals and use different scales of value. In turn, the system adheres to a completely different scale, different from the non-systemic value scales, because, as a rule, the goals of information consumers and the system do not coincide. Inconsistency of informational value scales often leads to dissensus of systems, as a result of which they do not behave adequately invented instructions, our theories periodically conflict with practice, states fight, fundamentalists of all orientations do not go to the world, tissues of different organisms are incompatible, and the student doesn’t take what does the teacher want from him?
Example 15. On the eve of the examination session, the value of information about the teacher’s quirks is much higher than at the beginning of the semester, and about the teacher is incomparably higher than about someone else's. Changing a goal also changes the value of information, but not vice versa, because the value of information is axiologically secondary to the goal pursued by the consumer of information.
The system at each moment of its existence sets goals for itself, which it can realize only through information that possesses the necessary properties for this and is the impulse of purposeful activity of the system. Information is valuable only insofar as it contributes to the achievement of the goal.
Example 16. System - text. Morphology, syntax and semantics are the three indissoluble aspects of textual information that participate in any pragmatic relationship of texts. If the goal of the text is to be understood, and its semantics does not contribute to the achievement of this goal, the pragmatic relationship between the system, the goal and the information is simply destroyed - instead of valuable information (meaning), the text contains data of unknown value. But there may be another goal - to give enjoy the form of the text. Then, the morphosyntactic aspects of the text and the information it communicates come to the fore.
Known quantitative measures of the value of information are based on the fact that value is measured by the degree of achievement of the goal. But these measures are not canonized in information theory (and philosophy), and, as it seems to us, the reason is their utilitarian nature and ignoring the simultaneous diversity of goal-setting systems. It has already been noted that the amount of information transmitted via a communication channel is invariant to its meaning and value, and therefore it cannot fully characterize the value of information.
Perhaps, from the point of view of management theory, this is too strong a word. Indeed, if as a result of obtaining a certain amount of information about a system, the uncertainty of its state decreased by the same amount, then we received really valuable information, and not misinformation (which this uncertainty would increase, on the contrary) or noise (which would leave a priori uncertainty unchanged ). In this case, the amount of information as a measure of the removed uncertainty can serve as a measure of knowledge and claim the role of a posteriori quantitative measure of the value of information. This approach stems from the classical theory of information: information that does not reduce uncertainty, information is simply not.
But in the theory of information there are no concepts of the purpose of the information process and its security, from which it would obviously follow that information is always selected from disinformation and noise. Accordingly, the value metric associated with the amount of information does not provide such a selection. That's the problem with this metric. The problem is also in its a posteriori, often fatal to the system - the selection mechanism begins to work, without waiting for a decision on the value of the information received. For example, it happens to social and political systems during periods of storms and upheavals. Should I be surprised or bite my elbows then that the choice made was a false one?
In general, the problem boils down to assessing the a priori value of information. There is no generalized, philosophically significant a priori measure of the value of information.
Example 17. The effectiveness of the development of a system depends on its ability to accurately select among its states (even if ordered) those that are useful for the purpose of development, and to fix them in their offspring. If the goal is self-healing, the survival of a homeostatic system in a hostile environment, then the system should maintain its vital parameters within acceptable limits regardless of environmental influences. In other words, the system of its management should protect these parameters from the information of the environment. The task of the system controller is to block this information. If we are sick, then our "regulator" has failed to cope with such blocking. In this regard, the selection of valuable (useful) states is equivalent to ensuring the sustainability of reactions (essential variables, parameters) of the system and obeys the law of the required Ashby diversity ("Information genesis and self-organization"). If the goal is improved self-reproduction, the selection evaluates the state of the system for compliance with the changed environment, and even better for predicting the environment. In this case, unsuccessful states along with their conservative carriers are rejected, and beneficial states are inherited. This happens, for example, with mutated gene sets of flora and fauna, new technologies, machines and goods, science and art, and socio-economic patterns.
The technology of selection itself is of a statistical (mass), rather than individual character, and consists in searching (detecting and recognizing) useful states, including them in the thesaurus of the system. The search is random because of the probabilistic nature of mass phenomena and the associated chronic a priori uncertainty of the states of a complex system. Search and selection together form a selection mechanism. There are several methods of random search: trial and error method, Monte Carlo method, randomization method, Ashby homeostat, nabrosovye, adaptive, wandering, bionic search algorithms, etc. Which ones or which ones are implemented in a particular system is not so important for us. It is important that the search results are good options, selected on the basis of accumulated experience and information on sustainable forms. Consequently, the search and selection of valuable for a system of states with a future, precedes the generation of information by the system; otherwise where will the “accumulated experience” or “information on sustainable forms” come from?
Example 18. Trial and error are two assumptions: the non-lethal nature of errors and the absence of a priori considerations about the direction in which to do the tests. As a result, randomness for this method turns out to be the only reasonable measure: randomness is almost worthless and will eventually lead to a solution. But for this, obviously, the search should be quite long. Search performance is important in any information technology, be it an automated process control system (APCS), database management systems (DBMS) and knowledge bases, diagnostic systems, etc. It is even more important in systems development algorithms. After all, we are talking about their fate,
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 6 Knowledge as the highest form of information
Часть 2 Reasonable knowledge - 6 Knowledge as the highest form of
Часть 3 - 6 Knowledge as the highest form of information
Comments
To leave a comment
philosophiya
Terms: philosophiya