The Differences Between Knowledge and Information: Part I  Building Knowledge Systems versus Informational Networking.

by Hugh M. Lewis

In the strictest sense, the real difference between "information" and knowledge may be in fact a moot point. The way information is defined, in information theory, is relative to the significance of the content of information to the receiver, or what can be called the "effectiveness" of the communication, over the efficiency of the transmission or signal, or the ratio of meaningful signal pattern over noise or chaotic signal pattern. The effective value of information therefore is relative to the received content of that information, versus all other possible signals that may occur in its place instead. In short, both information and knowledge are relative to the context of its transmission and reception, and achieve value only within such contexts.

On the other hand, from a qualitative standpoint, we expect something more from "knowledge" that we do not usually expect from mere "information." Reading the current share-prices on the daily stock exchange is only so much ticker-tape of information--finding a pattern in this information that may affect the outcomes of one's investment decisions, especially in a successful manner, and this process takes information one step closer to becoming true knowledge. Without experience to know what one is looking for, to infer larger patterns in all the signals that are not directly self-evident by the print alone, the information presented on the daily stock market page of the newspaper would be meaningless--as it seems to be to most readers who simply ignore that part of the paper.

Another way of putting this critical difference between information and knowledge is to suggest that while both forms of "communicative symbolism" may carry meaning, by whatever means of signal conveyance, or vehicle, the kind and quality of meaning that is carried by information is fundamentally different than that carried by knowledge. Knowledge implies a sense of understanding, especially understanding that has functional or other value in an active sense. 

When we speak of dead knowledge, we refer to forms of information that no longer have current relevance or significance beyond their own intrinsic patterning. Latin has been called a "dead language," not only for the lack of a native speaker community of Latin, but because as a system of meaning it is attached largely to a bygone era that no longer as any great significance in the modern world.

Roughly the difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence, between a machine and a mind, is analogous to the critical difference between an information network, on one hand, and a knowledge system, on the other. It is mainly in terms of such analogy that we can best and most immediately comprehend this kind of contrast, as otherwise it is a problem too difficult to concisely articulate. Another comparison that seems apt is between the communication system of an ant or other insect colony, well organized, predictable, run purely on "numbers," that depends on the transmission of signals, whether chemical or visual, and the language of a human cultural grouping, depending not so much on the force of numbers in communication, but on the sophistication and tonal/behavioral qualities of mutual understanding and "intuition" between speaker and listener.

Another way of looking at the problem, is to state that while all knowledge systems are informational systems, by default, and must depend upon an informational system (i.e., meaningful or significant communication), we can say by the reverse token that not all information systems are sufficient to or necessarily knowledge systems.

Are there non-human knowledge systems? Perhaps in the greater sphere of the universe there are intelligent civilizations that have developed their own independent knowledge systems. We can impute knowledge systems to many forms of life, especially advanced species of Kingdom animalia that require a degree of infant dependency and environmental contextualization for learning appropriate behaviors for survival and social interaction. It is known that many predators, raised in captivity or domestic situations, lack the capacity to stalk or hunt prey in a successful way, or to forage on a natural landscape within which their feral species has evolved a capacity for adaptive success. The degree to which instinct plays a part in this process, integral to it to say the least, is indeterminate and probably variable depending on the species in question, but undoubtedly we can conclude that the boundary between neuronal organization of natural knowledge systems, and genetic organization of information on a more basic level, is not as clear-cut as some would otherwise like to think.

What are some other facets of knowledge systems that are different from what we can identify as information processing or communication systems? One set of differences includes the level of value that may be attached to a certain pattern or bit of information. "Facts" or "data" at least in a superficial way represent various forms of information that are themselves knowledge only if they find a function or use in human terms, whether directly as a source of understanding, or indirectly in the operation of systems of production or behavior that affect the outcomes of the modulation of human life-worlds.

The Webster's unabridged dictionary sitting now on my bed side-table is a compendium of "information" about virtually the complete English lexicon. It sits mostly unused except when we need to look up a special word, usually for writing purposes. We say it contains a lot of information, for those who can access it and understand English. If a Russian or Spanish speaker who knows no English access it, they are liable in the first instance to find it rather confusing, if not downright meaningless. On the other hand, it would contain enough information that either speaker could eventually learn the complete English language by means of this book alone, if given enough time and motivation to learn. This dictionary can be said to be both an information system and a knowledge system, if and when we fit it into the right context, the appropriate provenience of its culture-historical background, being English and not Russian or Spanish. It is an informational system that becomes a knowledge system upon its being accessed and utilized for purposes of deriving meaning in linguistic (namely English) terms.

If this dictionary perchance became buried in a safe location that preserved its acid-free pages and protected its binding from destruction, it might be possible that in a few millennium some future archaeologist, speaking some other language written in a completely different script than English, would dig the dictionary back up to discover a treasure chest of information about not only a lost language, but a lost culture and civilization as well. But what if English by then were a dead and forgotten language, and this period became a era of another lost civilization? 

If this dictionary turned ancient artifact of a lost civilization were found in isolation, in a remote place, disconnected from anything else of meaning connected to its place and time of origination, then it may prove a challenge for the future archaeologist to decipher its contents and interpret its true significance. Of course, the many small pictures it contains would provide vital clues that would assist in unscrambling the many pieces to the puzzle.

This is precisely the problem the contemporary archaeological record confronts in dealing with periods and places of human civilization remote and somewhat lost from our own current worldview. We know there is information in the artifacts we unearth, and we have developed rather clever and sophisticated methods for increasing the kinds and quality of information we can derive from various artifacts, but unless we can contextualize these artifacts in a larger, more complete view of lost worlds, we cannot claim that such an artifact would represent a knowledge system that is accessible in an complete manner to ourselves.

Why do I bother to be a dilettante about this kind of difference. I would say primarily that it has become a kind of difference that carries special and decisive significance for our modern age. It is furthermore a kind of difference that will grow increasingly important in our common future. A case in point--most companies have turned to computing and computers to help manage their informational and networking needs, even though these computers are almost never utilized to anywhere near their complete capacity, and often times are poorly employed compared to their relative cost. In short, computers as informational carrying & processing devices have a tremendous and almost unlimited capacity, but as knowledge systems that assist us in the mediation of our world, they remain somewhat underdeveloped and underutilized. Our knowledge systems have yet to catch up to the current trends in the development of informational systems, and this lag is not only widening, but critical in the outcomes of whatever we may do, and how and why we do it. Thus, we remain largely underdeveloped in terms of the state of our knowledge systems and the kind of understanding that these bring with them, while we are largely overdeveloped in terms of the state of our informational systems, with the kind of often empty communication patterning that we associate with these systems.

Furthermore, we may point to a sense of critical feedback that occurs between information systems on the one hand, and the kinds of knowledge systems that we configure from our informational background. If for instance, knowledge is erroneous, we are liable to draw poor conclusions, even if our conclusions are entirely logical based upon the received "facts" of the case. But even more importantly, the facts themselves may in fact be defined and interpreted in terms of the knowledge systems we use to contextualize and bring relevance to the information that we receive. This is the classic case of distinguishing between a wink and a blink--or telling the difference between the two sorts of signals. 

Thus, to summarize, it is important to distinguish between information and knowledge, especially in an emerging information economy, in order to know where one kind of pattern and meaning leaves off and another begins, and thus not to confuse the one kind of pattern for the other.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I