These ideas deeply resonate with my efforts to integrate understanding across academic domains, which failed due to a number of issues. I am an interdisciplinary researcher, no longer part of Academia.... and my fields of 'expertise' are extremely diverse, but include material science, intelligent systems, modeling & simulation, information visualization, complexity, system dynamics, and I'm a creative artist, adventurer, and grandmother... I was designing curriculum for teaching computing to art & technology students as a PhD effort...when a complex family trauma event happened...7 years ago...which triggered childhood trauma. I studied models of consciousness and have been able to 'flip my beliefs' and 'heal from trauma'.......based on my understanding and included these ideas in my curriculum, including teaching neuroscience of kindness and branching narrative stories for animators and game designers. If we consider the universe as a fractal unfolding, learning skills to integrate 'negative feedback'....while pushing forward to gain new experiences based on subconscious 'fears'....can allow for developing personal momentum and a trajectory of wisdom...where intentional exposure to novel experiences can guide neuroplaciticty to search for and understand connections across domains....but giving up on the illusion of control and trusting that one can use AI systems to help integrate and present insights. It's an interesting journey and I hope to help inspire more interdisciplinary questions about the nature of relationships between knowledge, understanding and wisdom that you are considering. Reach out if you'd like to chat.
Love the article Andrew - and I appreciate the hand drawn diagrams =)
I feel like the spikey models make a lot of sense and I think a lot about (to bring Rumsfeld back into it) the known and unknown unknowns. All those spaces we haven't explored or willingly haven't resourced for exploration because they are discounted as unimportant.
« Will AI ever be able to transcend the “knowledge closure boundary” » -- As long as the AI in question is Turing-complete, my answer is "yes". To argue otherwise requires taking the position that there is something about the computation that happens in human brains that is beyond the physical. That creativity is magic. For me, the world is simpler: a computable function is a computable function.
Thanks for the link -- really interesting! And not surprisingly I agree with you, although it's interesting to see a) how this discussion is evolving in AI circles and b) how little people are thinking about the nature of discovery and knowledge generation more broadly. And then you have the question of whether embodiment is necessary for "true" discovery -- which I am still not convinced of as it's never held philosophers back 😊
Wait, stop, please slow down. Before we get all wrapped up in overthinking knowledge development, let's first question the assumption that forms the foundation of such a discussion, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge.
What is the logical consequence of knowledge development proceeding at one pace, while human maturity development proceeds at a much slower pace? The gap between the two widens over time. And if knowledge development proceeds at an accelerating pace as new knowledge feeds back in to the process, then the gap between power and maturity may widen at an accelerating pace too.
If the above is true, then going forward humanity will be ever more like the 8 year old child whose just been handed the keys to mom's car, a case of booze, and a loaded handgun. That is, the relationship between power and maturity will become ever more out of whack.
If the above is true, then the very sophisticated calculations you and your sources are engaged in don't really matter, because it's only a matter of time until the modern world spins out of control and everything you're trying to build is destroyed.
The "more is better" relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of the modern world is built upon an assumption that human beings have an unlimited ability to successfully manage ANY amount of power and change delivered at ANY rate. That is, without realizing it, the philosophy underneath modern science assumes that human beings are essentially gods.
These ideas deeply resonate with my efforts to integrate understanding across academic domains, which failed due to a number of issues. I am an interdisciplinary researcher, no longer part of Academia.... and my fields of 'expertise' are extremely diverse, but include material science, intelligent systems, modeling & simulation, information visualization, complexity, system dynamics, and I'm a creative artist, adventurer, and grandmother... I was designing curriculum for teaching computing to art & technology students as a PhD effort...when a complex family trauma event happened...7 years ago...which triggered childhood trauma. I studied models of consciousness and have been able to 'flip my beliefs' and 'heal from trauma'.......based on my understanding and included these ideas in my curriculum, including teaching neuroscience of kindness and branching narrative stories for animators and game designers. If we consider the universe as a fractal unfolding, learning skills to integrate 'negative feedback'....while pushing forward to gain new experiences based on subconscious 'fears'....can allow for developing personal momentum and a trajectory of wisdom...where intentional exposure to novel experiences can guide neuroplaciticty to search for and understand connections across domains....but giving up on the illusion of control and trusting that one can use AI systems to help integrate and present insights. It's an interesting journey and I hope to help inspire more interdisciplinary questions about the nature of relationships between knowledge, understanding and wisdom that you are considering. Reach out if you'd like to chat.
Love the article Andrew - and I appreciate the hand drawn diagrams =)
I feel like the spikey models make a lot of sense and I think a lot about (to bring Rumsfeld back into it) the known and unknown unknowns. All those spaces we haven't explored or willingly haven't resourced for exploration because they are discounted as unimportant.
Traditional Knowledge is such a space.
« Will AI ever be able to transcend the “knowledge closure boundary” » -- As long as the AI in question is Turing-complete, my answer is "yes". To argue otherwise requires taking the position that there is something about the computation that happens in human brains that is beyond the physical. That creativity is magic. For me, the world is simpler: a computable function is a computable function.
On a related note, you might enjoy the results in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18074
Thanks for the link -- really interesting! And not surprisingly I agree with you, although it's interesting to see a) how this discussion is evolving in AI circles and b) how little people are thinking about the nature of discovery and knowledge generation more broadly. And then you have the question of whether embodiment is necessary for "true" discovery -- which I am still not convinced of as it's never held philosophers back 😊
Wait, stop, please slow down. Before we get all wrapped up in overthinking knowledge development, let's first question the assumption that forms the foundation of such a discussion, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge.
What is the logical consequence of knowledge development proceeding at one pace, while human maturity development proceeds at a much slower pace? The gap between the two widens over time. And if knowledge development proceeds at an accelerating pace as new knowledge feeds back in to the process, then the gap between power and maturity may widen at an accelerating pace too.
If the above is true, then going forward humanity will be ever more like the 8 year old child whose just been handed the keys to mom's car, a case of booze, and a loaded handgun. That is, the relationship between power and maturity will become ever more out of whack.
If the above is true, then the very sophisticated calculations you and your sources are engaged in don't really matter, because it's only a matter of time until the modern world spins out of control and everything you're trying to build is destroyed.
The "more is better" relationship with knowledge which is the foundation of the modern world is built upon an assumption that human beings have an unlimited ability to successfully manage ANY amount of power and change delivered at ANY rate. That is, without realizing it, the philosophy underneath modern science assumes that human beings are essentially gods.
Is that true? Are we gods?