ONT Re: Information = Comprehension x Extension -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
ICE. Discussion Note 20
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
HT = Hugh Trenchard
JA = Jon Awbrey
JP = Jack Park
Re: ICE Discussion 19. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05297.html
In: ICE Discussion. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd1.html#05274
Cf: ICE. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-March/thread.html#194
Cf: ICE. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-April/thread.html#356
HT: Before I get to my substantive questions, I should find out if it you
think it appropriate for me to "reply all", or would you prefer I reply
only to the GB group?
All of those lists distribute to subscribers only, largely due
to the ever increasing spam factor, so unless you spy something
else on them that interests you enough to sign up, it won't matter.
Being cross-disciplinary by nature I tend to operate in overlapping
circles, but this is a slightly bigger overlap factor than usual and
probably won't last forever.
HT: To the questions of substance: I think I understand what you
mean in principle when you talk about quotient operations as
a means of filtering, if I may, the information content of
certain order systems.
I spent all day trying to work out an application of the
quotient concept to Peirce's example, but it's still not
ready for prime time yet. In the mean time, it's not so
much a filtering operation as collapsing distinctions,
or identifying elements that were previously distinct.
HT: My problem is nearer the beginning: Can you provide an example
of a global abstraction? Are you talking about thoughts which,
if viewed from the point of view of physical origins, are those
which are highly distributed; i.e. those which involve highly
interconnected neural processes? Put in more abstract terms,
is a global thought simply one that involves abstract concepts
describable by language or mathematics, thus applying greater
mental resources, as it were? This would exclude such thoughts
as perceptual memories (i.e the memory of an event), a perception,
emotion, or fleeting notion, all of which are never crystallized
in the form of language.
There I was looking for some way of formalizing,
in my own way of thinking, what Jack said here:
JP: A *topic* is the *one* place you go to find out
everything that is knowable about one *subject*.
I made several attempts to grasp what it would really involve
in practical computable terms to achieve this unitopian ideal:
1. If there were not a Global_Brain's_Grandmother cell,
it would be necessary to invent one.
2. If a global information system bears any virtual information about
a subject, then there ought to be ways to make it actual and local.
3. Is the sought for e-merge of topics really just
our old friend abductive synthesis in disguise?
To say it as simply as possible, right now there is all sorts
of virtual information on the web about all sorts of questions,
but no way as yet to extract all of the potential knowledge and
to bring it to focus on points of its most critical application.
HT: Depending on the answer to this question, I may have
further questions (compound uncertainty of four? :-) )
Surficient unto the day ...
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o