Let's suspend for a moment the How? of the body mind problem and suppose an ontological paradigm where there are two classes of objects: mental and physical. Also that physical objects are spatially and temporally extended while mental objects are not. Physical things are the objects of everyday experience, and information. Information is physically expressed knowledge e.g. a book or memory. Mental objects are concepts, abstractions, and knowledge. True knowledge is a valid set of interconnections linking concepts, e.g. man and father, or modus ponens.

All knowledge exists simultaneously, but it can only be expressed in the physical if the necessary spatiotemporal structures exist. Thus information is built up over time following the pattern set by knowledge but also informing what knowledge may be expressed. This means that there are two modes of thinking: purely mental where a certain chain of conceptual relations is brought to attention, and physical thought where particular structures are activated or created. It also means that some concepts are more basic (primitive) and others are derivative.

I believe that dualism is a necessary structure to the creation of information, and a basic concept to experiential knowledge. However, we can return to monism by specifying the physical as a substructure of the mental, information is a cohesive linkage of concepts. But note that the mental may be seen as a product of the physical, provided only that incorrect knowledge may be so produced as exemplified by a state of confusion or the expression of untruth...

Question: Has any philosopher asserted that knowledge is atemporal, or made this distinction between knowledge and information?

Edit: "knowledge" here are closely related to what can be discovered by Plato's anamnesis. In fact the only difference is that the base substance can be mental or physical (or more precisely, both). The caveat is that the knowledge of what I will eat next Friday can only become information once the physical (spatiotemporal) structure "next Friday" becomes realized. So there are two basic assertions in question here: 1) All knowledge exist always, and 2) There is a distinction between knowledge and information.

Knowledge can be experienced but not communicated or memorized. Information can be communicated but can only exist contingent on supporting spatiotemporal structure. Knowledge can be accessed at any time, but information exist in a temporal niche. Knowledge cannot be created while information is created by agency such as physical process or human intellect.

  • You can split the whole world in two if you wish. Analyzing problems can be a helpful tool to understand them. Decoupling a system in fundamental parts and syntetizing after that improves understanding but, the fact remains: there is no single thing standing alone. All is related. Even human fancy needs a human been to stand. To think that your dreams exists without you is nonsense. – framontb Jun 3 at 11:41
  • 1
    When you think of it , as says Woody, “Eternity is awful long time, especially towards the end.”. – user39744 Jun 3 at 15:51
  • Plato en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(philosophy) Many have suggested mind is primary and matter secondary, such as Mahayana Buddhism. There are many well established problems with your views, like Elizabeth of Bohemias critique of substance dualism. I would note modern physics is property dualist though (mass/info). Neoplatonism about mathematics is still quite popular, but creates more questions than it answers – CriglCragl Jun 3 at 19:02
  • Aside from the mental and physical there is also the abstract. It is non-physical like the mental (in idealism or substance dualism), but unlike it lacks causal powers and is timeless. A geometric triangle is timeless and causally inert, my thought of it is there when I am doing a demonstration this hour and gone the next, and has causal effects on paper if I am writing it down. Lumping together the mental and the abstract is what Frege and Husserl called psychologism and criticized fiercely. – Conifold Jun 4 at 4:25
  • 1
    Isn't your knowledge vs information dichotomy just a reformulation of abstract vs mental (in the usual sense), scholastic universals ante res vs in rebus, or even Plato's Forms vs embodied form-copies if we want to go all the way. SEP has a long prehistory to modern information talk, so you may want to focus it some more. – Conifold Jun 4 at 8:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.