The Neuronal Model of Knowledge Systems, Data Mining, and the Performance of Organizations

Why do we continue with our misplaced confidence in this primitive model? Among the possible reasons, I propose the following four key factors. First, since the middle of the twentieth century, we have accumulated and have become accustomed to an enormity of data and information. We designed and constructed massive warehouses—physical and electronic—to store and to manipulate this massive collection. We currently, for instance, have information on almost all working people, including their credit history, economic and financial activities, and their health and employment experience. To the chagrin and desperation of supporters of individual liberties and of privacy advocates, almost all private and public organizations are in possession of even minute details of our lives. In short, as a society, we have too much data and information at our disposal, and we continue to collect and store an ever-growing quantity of whatever information we are allowed to gather.

Epistemetrics

This chapter is focused on the ways and processes by which we measure human knowledge at both the individual and organizational levels. “How” we measure knowledge is strongly related to the notion of “what” we measure, described in the previous chapter. The nature of knowledge that can be measured is the externalized or explicit knowledge shared and diffused among individuals and their organizations. We recognize the existence of KANEs as the clustering of sensorial input, but we are unable at this point to adequately measure them. We have the capability to measure sensorial activities and the locations in the brain of excitations and activities that signify cognition and emotions, but we are still unable to measure knowledge at the fundamental level of clustering of sensorial inputs.1

The Cumulation Hypothesis and the Model of Continuous Cumulation

We generate, store, organize, and utilize knowledge in order to represent complex phenomena in ourselves and in our environment. We accumulate knowledge consistently and furiously from the moment of our birth to the last breath of air we take. Further, we catalog and preserve knowledge in various forms: in our memories, in oral story telling, and in physical modes such as written language, architecture, art, and with our genetic materials. Thus, we impart knowledge through our own biological traits and by all the means we use to impact our environment.

How We Organize What We Know

In developing the model of the structure of knowledge, I embraced the risk of wandering off into the wilderness of marginal, perhaps inconsequential, modeling. This first part of the book addresses the structure of knowledge, whereas the second part deals with how knowledge grows, progresses, and advances. I had written several papers about how I believed human knowledge progresses. I had flatly rejected the evolutionary model of knowledge growth and progression. My views had congealed in the form of a different, clear, and consistent model.

Seeds of Knowledge

What is the basic unit of knowledge? To answer this pesky query means to also reveal what is knowledge and perhaps even what is the structure of knowledge. In such a pursuit we should start with some definitions of types and forms of knowledge, so that we can possibly gain desired common ground. In the previous chapter I discussed the recent focus on propositions and language as descriptors of knowledge. These are active at the level of words, concepts, and even complex notions, such as “belief” and “justification.”

Synaestesia

A good portion of brain research has been directed towards its anomalies, and mental illnesses that result from them. Examples include Alzheimer’s disease and synaesthia.1 This is due partly to the desire of researchers to assist in understanding diseases and hastening cures for them, and partly because the study of anomalies is a better way to understand how complex systems such as the human brain actually function (Harrison, 2001).

Epistemetrics

Every nugget of knowledge is relevant and useful. There is no knowledge that can be described as immaterial, irrelevant, unnecessary, or without potential use. Since knowledge advances and grows by means of cumulation, every nugget adds to the pool, like every brick which is an essential component of a wall. The only possible shortcoming of any nugget of knowledge is the extent to which the transactor or user of knowledge is able to cluster it with other nuggets in his possession. The fault in any knowledge not being considered relevant and useful is not in the knowledge itself, but in the transactor or the user (e.g., Card, 2000; Davenport & Volpel, 2001; Patriotta, 2003; Rajan, Lank, & Chapple, 1998).

The Evolutionary Model

It is often heralded that we live today in the “knowledge economy” and the “knowledge society.” It has become quite a traditional endeavor to divide the history of human progress into three main phases: the agrarian economy, the industrial economy, and the contemporary economy. The agrarian economy was based on labor and land, the industrial economy on labor and capital, and the contemporary economy on labor and knowledge.

Knowledge is Clustering

The emergence of the basic unit of knowledge (by conjoining multiple sensorial intervals) is possible by means of the mind’s ability to cluster such sensorial intervals. As I outlined in Chapter IV, this is a mechanistic or structuralist approach.1

Crucible of Synthesis

Why is the search for the basic unit of knowledge possible and necessary, even when separated from larger philosophical and scientific questions? There are three main reasons. First, one such problem deals with the process by which knowledge is gained about the external world and rational beings interact with their external environment. A second problem examines the existence or ontology of this external world: is it real or an artifact of the mind? Thirdly, another area of inquiry concerns the degree to which we can trust our senses. Are the inputs we receive from the external world “true” representations of the external reality?