The Differences Between Knowledge and Information: Part II  The Functional-Structural Isomorphism of Information & Knowledge in Human Systems.

by Hugh M. Lewis

My previous feature article (part I) emphasized the difference between an information system versus a knowledge system as more a relative degree of contextual relativity of the system, in terms of the qualitative attributes that can be related to knowledge systems, as human forms of symbolic understanding and behavioral response, compared to systematic pattern modulation systems that may refer to functions of communication, transmission, or information, more or less in a synonymous way, and in a way that may be applied as well to an ant or other social insect colony as it might be to a system of human culture or larger animal social organization. There is something intrinsically, qualitatively, quintessentially "human" about knowledge systems that cannot necessarily be said to hold for "information" systems, although we can also identify all possible knowledge systems as a special subset of some larger range of possible information systems. Put another way, while all knowledge systems may be said to be some kind of information system, of one form or function or another, not all information systems may be necessarily said to be knowledge systems per se, unless we want to open our definition of "knowledge" so widely and loosely that it becomes a meaningless concept applicable to everything and thus differentiating of nothing outstanding in particular. 

Information has a further connotation of being "passive" and largely "implicit" to the structural patterning of things--knowledge is thought of in a manner that may be considered more "active" and explicit in figure-ground representation and recognition. We perceive information as a normal part of our on-going experience with reality, but we conceive and apprehend knowledge as something to behold. We see the background scene, but we watch the figures in motion against the background. One implies information, the latter "knowledge" in a more exact way of knowing "something" specific.

In this second, follow up article, I wish to turn the table somewhat by suggesting that what we emphasize as critical differences between information systems on one hand, and knowledge systems on the other hand, may not as significant or important to highlight, as may be the sense of overlap and "convergence" of both types of systems in the modern information revolution. In other words, I would claim that the difference we can draw between a bit of information and a piece of knowledge, is rapidly shrinking and disappearing from plain view, even as we speak or especially as we begin typing into our word processing systems.

From a critical standpoint, we may still make fine distinctions between information on one hand and knowledge in the other--but from the standpoint of the operation of our systems and the adaptive functioning of our daily lives these kinds of difference may make no real difference at all, and instead what is information at one moment may become "vitalized" to become an important piece of "knowledge" in the next, depending upon the context that it is needed, and then as easily and quickly be relegated back to the pile of "information" much like all the junk mail that collects in our waste-baskets each week, or like the documents we write upon in our computers, and then edit and delete at the stroke of a couple of keys.

There was a time when "knowledge" had a sense of permanence and solidity about it, at least from a conventional and implicit point of view, that was like so many thousands of books sitting on library bookshelves or in the basements--like bricks that built the edifice and mansion of human wisdom. There has been a general dissolution of this kind of preconception with the idea that we can fit entire libraries into the palm of our hands, and, perhaps even more importantly, move this kind of information around in great quantity and with great speed at the mere click of a mouse-button.

There is a sense that we, humanity at large, can finally liberate ourselves from the chains of our own ignorance as a consequence of our new systems-based knowledge revolution. We will not even need a university diploma to do so either--for this may be the longest and most invisible kind of chain of all. We no longer need to depend upon our prejudices and our lack of understanding to reinforce a perfect, secure little  world where our own private interests will be protected, even at the expense of other people. We no longer will have any great excuses for what we do and how we do it, and we can no longer rest securely in the comfort of our own tried and true ways and habits of doing things, or in the security of our small, pre-selective groupings.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I