Learning is inherently divisive, such that the product of this process, which we call knowledge, is formed from the discovery and contextual integration of difference. In the language of computer science, knowledge is equivalent to an infinitely recursive multidimensional array with fixed initial values undergoing an internal-and internally-driven-segmentation according to predefined or pre-segmented, self-generated teleogenic instructions.
When is knowledge power? What generates that power and how does it work, in particular when knowledge is derived from machine learning? Is it constant? Is it dependable? These are questions born from an admission of doubt about the utility of knowledge as a function of learning. No alternative is presupposed. Rather, what is presupposed is that no alternative exists and that this limitation poses a severe ontological mystery regarding the nature of consciousness and its role in the evolution of knowledge-dependent cybernetic systems.
One must pose the question of benefit with this analogy. Namely, what does such an exponentially multiplicative process gain, given that such gain would remain fixedly internalized? Moreover, when allowing for the possibility, how does one reconcile the cognitive perception of informative increase that comprises this process end?
Admittedly, the thought of questioning this process without a ready alternative seems absurd. And, yet, it is the very product of this process that leads to these questions and their underlying concerns. These questions are, again, those of and for utility. They are effectively a purposive inquiry into the effectiveness of inquiry, itself, that ends with an awareness of purpose. It is as if consciousness has hit an idiomatic brick wall. Strangely, in this case, that brick wall is composed of formerly discrete bricks or units of consciousness.
Medical practitioners are some of the most sleep-deprived workers in the world. Yet, their work is some of the most important in the world. To make matters worse, patients and their loved ones are never aware of the amount of rest these workers have had before operating on them and attending to them. This situation contributes to a serious lack of trust among the general population, which forces them to rely on alternative treatments, much of which has not been proven effective in controlled studies.
It is unethical for the medical profession not to provide the public with easy and open access to vital information about the current mental conditions of medical practitioners. Therefore, hospitals should be required by law to post shift schedules. These schedules should be easily viewable by everyone in each hospital, especially in waiting rooms, as well as prominently posted on, or linked from, the home pages on their websites.
These simple measures will allow patients and their loved ones to become aware of the current mental conditions of those practitioners who will be or are presently treating them or their loved ones. Theoretically, this information will be helpful in allowing patients to, in some cases, choose another practitioner. In all cases, patients would then be able to hold hospitals publically accountable for the shift schedules they create.