Another thought: the distinction between 'information' and 'knowledge'. I think these words should apply to somewhat different concepts: 'information' is the reduction of uncertainty. One can have 'information ;which is not yet turned into 'knowledge'. I don't want to quibble about the meaning of words, which don't have inherent meaning anyway. But it seems that these words refer to different although overlapping concepts. Knowledge is brought into being when patterns are spotted in information, and generalizations are made on that basis. — Doug1943

The same guy, David Deutsch, came up with the following distinction: knowledge is information with causal power:

https://twitter.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/1055180893483081729

That is his current working definition of knowledge, before that he used to have these:

'Information that is the same across many universes'
'Useful information'
'Information which, once physically instantiated, tends to cause itself to remain so.'
'Information that can program a programmable constructor'

So, he must have thought a lot about knowledge throughout his life. Here is his TED interview in which he mentions that definition:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-ted-interview/e/56853300

If you do know how, tell me how to digest complex foods, because I don't know. However even though I don't know, I can also. — 420mindfulness

Good point, I can't explain exactly how I walk, even though it is a voluntary conscious activity, unlike digestion. I can say that I move my legs in front of me, alternately, but this doesn't really explain much, or even if it does, I can't explain how I manage to move my leg, or maintain the balance when I am standing, although I can do it.

Information doesn't exist in non-material things, you always need a memory of a dna or a tape or sth, — Frotunes

Exactly, there always must be some material substrate that carries or stores information, but the information itself transcends it. Think of the flow of some idea from one brain to the other, and all possible routes it may follow, and all possible converters on its path.

David Deutsch. I love that guy. I once went to a lecture by him on Quantum Computing, decades ago. Didn't understand much, but his books are wonderful. One sentence in a fairly recent one made my hair stand on end -- it was something about how if we had had the Enlightenment a couple of centuries earlier, by now we'd all be immortal.

I managed to exchange a few e-mails with him, sent him a few of my essays and he responded. I respect him also, but I am a little bit more ambitious, trying to understand his constructor theory as much as possible, having a background that I have, and even to question some of his views.

I mean, it is ambitious due to my educational and professional background, being an electrical engineer, working as a software engineer practically all my life, I know that I lack both math and physics knowledge to be able to grasp all that this theory is about, although I love both these areas, and try to catch up on my own in the spare time.

Anyway, the point about digesting complex foods was good, by both Frotunes and 420mindfulness, as this is exactly the distinction between being able (=know how?) to do something, and being able to explain how you do it, ie being able to pass that knowledge. So, there are two interesting cases (at least to me) in which there is know how, not followed by explain how in satisfactory way. First one is about creating the artificial ribosome, that is about grasping the knowledge from molecules, because the best way to show that you know how something works (protein synthesis in this example) is to produce it by your self in a lab. This is a great success because these molecules kept that secret from us for a long time, not explaining much to us by themselves. The other is the case of Alpha Zero, in which superior knowledge of playing various strategic games is created automatically by an algorithm, and stored in a an artificial neural network. However, grasping that knowledge, is not easy for human players, as playing power is not followed by explanatory power. So, even if Alpha Zero can destroy you 1000 times out of 1000 games played, it cannot teach you how to become a better player, the way human coach can. So, another type of software, that interprets that knowledge in humanly understandable way is needed.

Is there anything to read on this matter that you guys know of? — Frotunes

Try this:
Handbook of the Philosophy of Science
Volume 8: Philosophy of Information edited by Pieter Adriaans and Johan van Benthem
General Editors: Dov Gabbay, Paul Thagard and John Woods

Sorry friends for not posting the replies I ought to, I'm a little busy now, but I will get back at the topic this weekend.

I came up with the third interesting case, and that is know how versus explain how to compose a beautiful, but I mean really exceptionally beautiful music. I usually judge about that fact, if this is clear or not to a musical composer, by listening his/her music. If I was bored after hearing 9 out of 10 pieces, and remotely interested in hearing again the 10th, I would say that is not entirely clear to that person, if on the other hand I am very interested in hearing again at least 9 out of 10 pieces, I would say that person knows how to write a good music. So, it is basically a pure statistics.
However, if that person is able to write a computer program that is able to produce at least 9 very interesting pieces out of 10, without much input given to it by a skilled person, that would show another level of understanding of the art of musical composition (that would also show a computer programming capability as a bonus). The question is however, is something like that possible at all?
Although, there is a problem of objective evaluation of how pleasing certain music is, my subjective judgment about computer generated music is that I am not impressed with what I heard so far, although I know for a fact that much of what I heard recently, and was pleased with, was composed with the aid of computers. As I am not musically educated, although I listen to music all my life, and have a developed musical interest, I am not clear is the art of musical composition objectively explainable and describable by a computer program? I am divided in half with respect to that question.

So, logical summation of my last two posts should be this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8UawLT4it0

that is Alpha Zero composing its own music, after just hearing a lot of human composed beautiful music, using the same algorithm that was capable of learning chess, shogi and go, but I am not entirely sure if that really answers the question. At least what I could hear from that link, it doesn't.

First of all because I said "without much input given to it by a skilled person". This is not how Deep Mind A.I. composes, I guess...

Is it possible to write a program, like a Watson, that would be able to pass a Turing test for an interesting philosopher on thephilosophyforum.com ? So, after it creates an account (by itself of course, if it is so smart that it can produce interesting questions, it should be smart enough to be able to perform such a trivial task too), it starts posting and receives many likes, because its questions and discussions are entertaining, thought provoking, but, it is actually just a computer program that analyzes internet searching for a material to discuss, processes that information and posts?

OK, that would not be entirely possible here, as there is no liking here, just flagging, even views are not registered or visible, the number of replies is the only (vague) indicator of successfulness of the original poster, but I like this forum in spite of that, much more than some others where such things exist.

OK, although this may look like an attempt to extort compliments for the original poster, that is a program called Hrvoje, I assure you it was not. I already complimented Frotunes and 420mindfulness, and I would add now that I think that Doug1943 is an excellent poster too (be they all real persons or just fine computer programs that cannot be distinguished from real persons).
Besides the question of comparison of these powers:

explanatory power (ability to cause understanding in other intelligent agents through communication)
descriptive power (how exactly is it different from explanatory power?)
learning power (ability to gain knowledge)
memory power (ability to store information)
constructive power (ability to perform a task based on stored information or received via some communication channel)
working power (based on energy)

here were tackled some questions I thought a lot about by myself too, but didn't manage to comment on yet:

Does information exist in a non-animate world, besides the artificial devices in which it is implemented by humans?
Is knowledge and free will and intellect and cognitive power only a human attribute?
If some animals may process information only through reflex-responses, where exactly is a dividing line between these and those who can do more than just that??
Is anthropocentrism luring as again here to think we are something special, without much justification?
What about plants in the same context?
Determinism in a macro world vs quantum indeterminacy, predictability of living entities and their decisions based on determinism or randomness, is there a link between these facts?