Knowledge-on-需要・要求する

Can knowledge be switched on and off - and can it be 蓄える／店d outside of our 長，率いるs?

By Karl-Erik Tallmo

支配（する）／統制する and personalization seem to be two very strong 影響s coming from the use of computers - and maybe 特に from the utilization of 網状組織s. In a working 過程, for instance, people want to 支配（する）／統制する more and more of the 手続き themselves, 操作／手術s that earlier were 分裂（する） up between several individuals. Maybe this was as most obvious in 早期に desktop publishing, where all of a sudden the same person could 令状, proof-read, photograph, do design, 過程 images and colors, and print out camera-ready copy. At the same time you want to put your personal stamp on both the content and the 道具. You never saw a typewriter decorated like a computer 審査する, with all of the special desktop images, icons, colored menues and trash cans you may 任命する／導入する. If this 観察 is 訂正する, then what will happen to knowledge and our 態度 to it? Will we want to keep it inside of our 長，率いるs or outside? Will our 支配（する）／統制する of it be optimized, when it is 蓄える／店d on servers and hard 運動s all over the world, when it is possible to turn off and on through our portable miniature computers? Or, will personalization be the most important 面? Will we individualize knowledge by making our own 選択s, our own 裁判／判断s, our own 解釈／通訳s? If so, what does it take to be able to do that?

There is a third factor that comes into play in this 状況, in both 事例／患者s: the 傾向 that metainformation becomes everything, and that everything becomes metainformation.

New techniques 明らかに give us 接近 to the collected knowledge of the world, we only need to 押し進める a few buttons. 本人自身で we only need to 所有する （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） about where to find other pieces of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. Metainformation, that is. But what does it really mean, this diffuse phrase ”接近 to （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）”? Downloading, copying, or print-outs? Or agile 使用／適用 and imaginative practice, maybe even a creative 肉親，親類d of understanding that might lead to 延長するd knowledge? その上に, metainformation tends to be a 決定するing factor in many areas in society. When 従業員s, 顧問s, and (n)役員／(a)執行力のあるs 代表する the most important 資本／首都 in a 会社／団体, and they keep it in their own brains, then metainformation becomes 必須の for an organisation to 生き残る. 戦略s, 決定／判定勝ち（する）s, historical evaluations, constructions and work-flows must be 文書d, or else the whole 商売／仕事 stands or 落ちるs with a 確かな person's leaving or staying. I also believe - and the most eager 支持するs of AI and intelligent 決定／判定勝ち（する）-making robots might not agree with me on this point - that the opposite might be the 事例／患者. Everything will become metainformation. All 肉親，親類d of 伝統的な knowledge - 特に good old basics from elementary school - will become 検問所s, beacons that guide us to other 肉親，親類d of knowledge, and this knowledge will help us to find a 状況 for what we retrieve from different computer 網状組織s, it will help us 評価する veracity and relevance. *** It is said that we live in the （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） Age, but many of us feel as though we are surprisingly uninformed. （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 科学（工学）技術 has long had the 傾向, so to speak, of 存在 more about 科学（工学）技術 than about （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. This paradox is somewhat akin to a physicist discovering that 増加するd 粒子 activity at the molecular level does not result in 増加するd heat. Or rather, heat is 生成するd but nothing gets warm.

When everything becomes （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） - 宣伝s, political 宣伝, school 支配するs, 通貨の 処理／取引s, 測定s and bits and bytes in computers - then a couple of important distinctions are lost. すなわち, the difference between data, （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and knowledge.

Data are basic 測定s, 指示／教授／教育s or 観察s of some sort - 32 km, three seconds, last year, to the 権利 - that can be building 封鎖するs of both （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and knowledge. （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） is acquired only when these pieces of data are 解釈する／通訳するd in some way by 存在 put into a 状況. Then, if a deeper understanding of that （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） is acquired, enabling it to be used again, then one has reached the level of knowledge. Having the 訂正する direction pointed out to you is （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）; knowledge is 存在 able to find your own way. In other words, 存在 井戸／弁護士席 知らせるd, as it is so often called, does not やむを得ず mean that one knows anything. An スパイ／執行官 who is 軍隊d to 明らかにする／漏らす secrets through 拷問 may be 井戸／弁護士席 知らせるd, bursting with strange （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） he does not himself understand at all. Of course, the 正確 of the （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） is enormously important. Data, unlike facts, do not have to be true. That is why （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） must also be 評価するd. We usually instinctively associate knowledge with some form of truth, or at least a correlation with reality and its 需要・要求するs. In other words, （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） can be 誤った, but knowledge should have some element of truth in it. This is where we find many of the shortcomings in this new （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 科学（工学）技術 as it is 適用するd today. For （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） to truly be informative, that is, to be possible to use as knowledge, it must be true, 関連した, 理解できる and, most of all, accessible. 接近 to （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） has, of course, both 肯定的な and 消極的な 面s. Incredible 量s of 以前 unreachable （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） has been made globally accessible through the Internet, for example, and all of a sudden it seems as though the 量 of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） in the world has suddenly 増加するd 劇的な. To some extent this is an illusion. It is mostly the actual flow that has 増加するd. But, if one has too much 接近, without the proper 道具s for selecting and 評価するing the 構成要素, then one really doesn't have 接近 to anything at all. In the Middle Ages, before the 革新 of 調書をとる／予約する printing, when things were still written by 手渡す, the individual copy was the constant in the 過程. This does not 暗示する that the copy always was true, but at least it was 公正に／かなり invariable. With the advent of 調書をとる／予約する printing, the 可能性 to 直す／買収する，八百長をする text 延長するd from the copy to the 版 - an incredible 進歩. At the moment of printing, text was frozen and each and every copy （機の）カム out the same as all the others. In that 尊敬（する）・点, however, we have now taken a couple of steps backward, where electronic texts today do not 現実に have any 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 判型 at all. When we を取り引きする the electronic word, the problematic of authenticity and 保護 becomes 明らかな as soon as we type a few characters on the keyboard. We have no 保証（人）s that it will be saved or saved 正確に の上に the hard disk. And when texts are subsequently 分配するd 経由で 網状組織s or on diskettes - or, for that 事柄, on CD-ROM disks which now 存在する in recordable form - then we can no longer be sure that texts will look the same as they did when they left us. For a long time, people have talked about the problem of 安全に transferring account numbers over the 逮捕する ーするために 容易にする electronic 商業. And of course that is a very important question. But people are just now starting to realize that the 移転 and 貯蔵 of texts on different servers, in a way that they cannot be falsified, is also a very big problem. Why is that so important, and who would get the idea of falsifying something? It is important because we will soon be living in a society where a large 部分 of education and 決定／判定勝ち（する） making will be based on electronic 文書s. Why, then, would anybody want to falsify （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）? The most obvious is probably for political 推論する／理由s. Revisionist historians who want to rewrite history 調書をとる／予約するs and 削除する the 残虐（行為）s of Nazism, for example. Of course, it doesn't have to 伴う／関わる such みごたえのある 問題／発行するs, but could also, for example, be about 保留するing （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） which one does not believe should be 分配するd at a given point in time because political opinion is leaning a 確かな way. 研究員s who want to 前進する their careers could alter electronic texts that they make 言及／関連 to in such a way as to support their hypotheses. 恐らく, this already happened in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs a couple of years ago. When 決定／判定勝ち（する） making is 自動化するd, it is important that the computer programs and the 法律制定 that such 決定／判定勝ち（する）s are based upon, have not been manipulated by someone who could 利益（をあげる） by a 確かな 結果. The question then becomes, is there a way, in the electronic realm, to 回復する the 信用／信任 in and prestige of the source? With the 援助（する） of electronic 署名s and other tricks, one can at least try. Every publisher could, perhaps, reserve a special server that he or she has 支配（する）／統制する over, and which could be 絶えず 監視するd. さもなければ the problem is the endless 量 of backup copies 広まる and mirror 場所／位置s 含む／封じ込めるing the same （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. Such a special server would be the 公式に 権限を与えるd source for 研究員s and academics to turn to when they need reliable （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. This 問題／発行する of 取引，協定ing with several copies of the same とじ込み／提出する out on the 逮捕する is both a problem and an advantage. They say, one should not have all one's eggs in one basket, and the more copies of a 文書 that there are, the safer it is, of course. But at the same time, this creates a problem with authenticity. Some of the copies could be falsified. Or all of them could be 誤った, creating, for example, a big problem for 新聞記者／雑誌記者s who use the classic method of checking two 独立した・無所属 sources before 令状ing an article. How does one know that （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 設立する at two different 場所s on the Internet are 独立した・無所属? They could be direct copies of each other. So, perhaps the most important thing is to foster a level of healthy 懐疑心. One must learn to consider （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） taken from the 逮捕する as 存在 equal to having heard it from an 知識; and one must continually take into consideration the reliability of that 知識. Is this a person who without hesitation passes on legends or who usually embellishes his or her stories, or is this a reliable and truthful person who does not usually comment on things that he or she has no personal knowledge about? Is the person speaking in the capacity of a professional, a 私的な individual or 単に out of general 利益／興味? Typical for the Internet is that so many 非，不，無-professional publicists have a 発言する／表明する there. This is both the 逮捕する's strength and its 証拠不十分. All types of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） may co-存在する here, 商業の and 非，不，無-商業の, 権限を与えるd and unauthorized. My understanding is, however, that these 判型s complement each other. Almost daily, I use （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I also frequently glean （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） about obscure 支配するs from enthusiastic amateurs; things which 簡単に are not 利用できる from 伝統的な sources. At the same time, I am glad that I am somewhat 井戸／弁護士席-一連の会議、交渉／完成するd. For the same 推論する／理由s that I would not dare 信用 a calculator without having some idea of multiplication （米）棚上げする／（英）提議するs, I would not 信用 the Britannica without having at least a cursory overview of history, 地理学 and other basic facts. That is why I think it is incredibly important that our schools do not make it their 最初の／主要な goal to turn our children into 十分な blown 多数伝達媒体を用いる 生産者s, but rather to teach basic 支配するs. 多数伝達媒体を用いる 科学（工学）技術 can easily be learned on the 職業, but few companies teach, for instance, the rivers of Africa or South American 資本／首都s. *** Three years ago, I wrote an article in the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet about this problem, and I 結論するd then that we could leave the tech part of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 科学（工学）技術 to the 専門家技術者s. But the （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） part of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 科学（工学）技術 we would have to jealously guard ourselves. Today, I would like to 改訂する my position a bit. I am afraid that we must also 監視する the 科学（工学）技術 part with a degree of 疑惑. There are now many systems 存在 created that 扱う （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and knowledge in a way that will perhaps change the entire human knowledge 過程. First of all, systems and programs are now 存在 created to 補助装置 決定／判定勝ち（する） 製造者s, 自動化するing 確かな 決定／判定勝ち（する）s. As I have already 示唆するd, not only must the 法律制定 that the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s are based on not be falsified, but the very 選択 機械装置s and other 基準 that the programs 利用する, must be 保護するd from unauthorized 接近. It should also be 公式文書，認めるd that the means by which the 政府 供給するs itself with （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） will surely change, things such as 委員会s, 報告（する）／憶測s and investigative 操作／手術s. In Sweden, for instance, the forms for this are 存在 discussed; i.e. one man 調査s versus 議会の 調査s. More than likely, 完全に new forms of 接触する between 専門家s, 代表者／国会議員s in 議会, and grass roots will be developed. Secondly: for some time now we have heard about so called data 採掘  - the extraction and 精製するing of 関係s and 関係s from databases, a sort of 知識人, mathematically defined 過程ing of raw 構成要素s. Now there is even talk of text 採掘,  which 伴う／関わるs 調査するing grammatical 関係s with the help of 人工的な 知能-like 手続きs which can 抽出する new and 予期しない facts and correlations between and within texts. I 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う that this idea of 見解（をとる）ing （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and text as a sort of mineral or raw 構成要素 will, in many 尊敬（する）・点s, permeate an 増加するing number of fields. Even within the 私的な realm, people will probably tinker with some form of text 採掘.

As an example, I myself have often 残酷に butchered electronic 調書をとる／予約するs that I thought were too slow to 扱う or さもなければ idiotically made. In those 事例／患者s, I 解除するd out the pure text from its graphical interface or search engine or presentational form that the 生産者 had chosen. Then I could use some other form of search 道具, a 正規の／正選手 word 過程ing program for example, ーするために more efficiently search through the text. This 提起する／ポーズをとるs, of course, 非常に／多数の questions regarding redefining 概念s such as reproduction for one's own use, the 所有物／資産／財産s that 構成する an artistic work that can be 合法的に 保護するd and other 問題／発行するs which I won't go into here. The most 利益／興味ing thing here is, however, the fact that this is 覆うing the way for a new, more 固める／コンクリート 外見 of the personal reading 概念.

Until now, when we have been referring to a person's own reading of a 確かな work, we meant his or her inner 行う／開催する／段階ing, 見解／翻訳／版 or mental 解釈／通訳 of it. In the 未来, a more 有形の, personal reading style will 全く reformulate what a work is. 作品 will change and become something else with every new reader or 使用者, depending on which reading 道具 he or she chooses. Soon, I believe, one will 簡単に 購入（する） a raw 団体／死体 of text or other （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） which one will then read using one's own 道具s of choice, retrieving （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and finding 関係s, structures and other 関係s within the texts. Man is the 手段 of all things, and perhaps one of the results of the new 科学（工学）技術s, 特に within 人工的な 知能, will be that after centuries of dreaming, we will finally be able to have a (n)艦隊／(a)素早いing sense of what it is like to 見解（をとる） humankind from the outside. Perhaps we will be able to let a 非，不，無-human 支配する give us momentary insights from another 視野. To 要約する, I believe that many 傾向s are in 衝突 with one another, and that the 結果 is uncertain. As I have already について言及するd, one of the 問題／発行するs before us is the 問題／発行する of 僕主主義. As recently as yesterday, Bo Södersten (in an article in Dagens Nyheter, December 14th, 1997) discussed the special 避難 in society reserved for 通貨の 政策, and it is striking how many of his 基準 that may be 適用するd also to （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. The question, in other words is: will （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） become yet another 孤立するd and 保護するd area, or will it lead to greater 影響（力） through direct democratic methods and 増加するd public 接近 to 公式の／役人 sources through IT? In a 類似の manner, there is a 衝突 between freedom of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and the more greedy watch over every little thought as a 可能性のある golden nugget. There is a lot of talk, in the 商売／仕事 world, about knowledge 株ing. によれば a 最近の 熟考する／考慮する by the Delphi Group in Boston, this is taking place very slowly. More than half of the 650 IT 経営者／支配人s interviewed saw 現在の 商売／仕事 culture as a 妨げる to knowledge 管理／経営. Jeff Held, of Ernst & Young's 科学（工学）技術 中心 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, was 引用するd in Computer Sweden on Friday (no. 82, December 12th, 1997) 説: ”One can talk about knowledge 管理／経営 until one is blue in the 直面する, but nobody 株 what they know before finding out what sort of advantage they will get themselves.” Thomas Jefferson is often 引用するd in the discussion of freedom of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）. He said that one can 株 （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） without loosing anything, in the same way that someone ”who lights his 次第に減少する at 地雷, receives light without darkening me.” It is, of course, a very 控訴，上告ing thought. Still, one has to wonder if that was not an 態度 that was easily taken and more affordable when, at the time, the 構成要素 world was still the 焦点の point for 商業 and 貿易（する）. Freedom of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） versus （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 保護貿易主義. This is where the 現在の 戦う／戦い over copyright plays a big roll. Usually, copyright is 見解（をとる）d as having two dimensions, the 経済的な 面 and the moral, the latter 取引，協定ing with the 正直さ of the work, how it is 現在のd and 分配するd, so that it does not appear in a form or in a 状況 that the originator has not 想像するd. The more we become an （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）-based society, with 解放する／自由な-flowing data unconstrained by 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 版s, the more important the moral 面 of copyright will probably become. Authenticity and moral 権利 seem, under the 現在の 状況／情勢, to be a ”marriage made in heaven.” In the long run, I think, other means will be 要求するd. Who knows, perhaps we will return to a ”中世” system where not even the author is always a constant. Maybe, our new （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） systems will throw the old ones out of gear. By the old ones I mean （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） systems in a 幅の広い sense, e.g. money (蓄える／店d labor) or 法律s (蓄える／店d 倫理学 or politics). 関わりなく the 結果 of such Utopian or Dystopian 見通しs, the question is what happens with our knowledge, our thinking, and our 見解（をとる） of ourselves in this world. Shall we 限界 our 存在s to become mere 大型船s for metaknowledge? But then, will we not 基本的に become only appendices to the machines, will we not be the ones serving the search engines and the artificially intelligent 評価するing 加工業者s instead of the other way around?

At least in Sweden, the presence of computers in the classroom has の中で 政治家，政治屋s become an 平易な way out of a problem of 減少（する）ing 教育の 基準s, that has been going on for １０年間s. And of course, when suddenly there appear machines that make the students sit 負かす／撃墜する nicely and quitely, it may seem as a god-sent gift. But then what - when the students have 収集するd their papers by cutting and pasting from CD-ROMs and from the Internet? Do they really have to read it 同様に?

I think （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） 科学（工学）技術 in the classrom might accentuate strengths 同様に as weeknesses, 正確に as the computer in general seems to amplify all sorts of human ideosyncracies. If you have problems in school, these might get worse if you just smear some computer polish over it all. But if you have a good 気候 for learning and use all of the new 道具s not as 奇蹟 治療（薬）s, but as enhancements of what you want to 達成する, I think you can get very far indeed. The excitation over technique at the expense of content has become more and more obvious in several areas. And I believe that the insight that we need content also, is about to 攻撃する，衝突する debaters within the education 部門 too. I don't believe knowledge is something that can be switched on and off. It 要求するs a 持続する, long time 関係 between the world and your own 裁判／判断.