[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> internetontology[ Diderot, Cyc, Deleuze, McLuhan, and Star Trek ]

[josh zeidner <jjzeidner@yahoo.com>]

 Brian,

  I agree with much of what you have said.  Ideally,
humans could discuss everyday things in terms of a
language that is as exact and objective as
mathematics( interestingly, in Hebrew, mathematical
notation and regular linguistic notation are
interchangeable ) .  Jeffrey Fisher, who participates
on this list, also seems to have particular ideas that
relate to this.  I also have some thoughts:

  In computer science, there seems to be two distinct
schools of thinking.  One I will call the
communicationists and the other, the informationists. 
The first sees computers as a means to communicate
"codes"( or memes if you will ) which are ultimately
arbitary in structure( this would mean that there is
no absolute language in which they may be encoded ). 
The latter school tends to view knowledge as absolute,
and computers are a way to store and index this
knowledge( these people are constantly trying to find
new and more abstact ways to encode information ). 
Cyc and Lenat are most definately of the second
school.

  Knowledge does have a vertical, arborescent
structure, and knowledge often takes the form of an
ontology, however there is also a more subtle form
that knowledge takes, which deleuze calls the rhizome.
 It seems upon close examination, any ontology breaks
down.  And according to phenomenological thought, our
everyday experiential world is based on our
ontological filters( so our everday experiential world
breaks down upon close examination! ).

  So we would assume, that a more basic fundamental
reality is the interplay of rhizomes.  What sorts of
geometries could we use to describe a rhizome field? 
I am taking an intuitive leap here, but this world is
the world of quantum mathematics.  Where each point in
the quantum field effects all the other points, where
everthing is interconnected through a continuum, and
the formal barriers of space-time break down( in this
world , knowledge can be transmitted WITHOUT computers
or books or even conversation ).  Also, if ontologies
are examined enough( or accelerated ), the tangibility
of knowledge breaks down( or if decellerated new
knowledge can be created ).  Our knowledge has no firm
ground on which it is supported, when percieved on
this level.

  It is an accepted fact that there is no absolute
perfect grammar( "all grammars leak" ).  But this does
not mean that grammars are useless, or any real
progress would come through the abandonment of them. 
However, the real noumena of knowledge lies beyond
such structure, and such grammars are its
manifestation.

  I also find it interesting, and I am not sure
whether I want to see my prediction come true, that
technologies such as Cyc could become commonplace in
the near future.  It seems that the main limitation to
speech recoginition( which, if it worked would
completely revolutionize the way we use computers ),
has to do with Cyc-like technology.  Speech
recoginition today is terrible( continuous speech
recognition ).  Try an experiment: listen to a short
phrase of a language that you have absolutely no
understanding of; now try to write down the syllables
you just heard; it is impossible, you would be lucky
if you got a third of them( this is more or less how
speech recognition such as ViaVoice or Dragon works ).
 It seems our understanding of language through speech
relies on our knowledge of syntax and semantics, it is
these filters that sufficiently reduce the entropy of
a phoneme stream so that we can effectively recieve
the message.  So:  our everday use of computers will
be contingent on encoded ontological knowledge of
everday things such as: "birds have wings", "pigs are
edible", and "Mohammed is the one true prophet".  You
can imagine what kind of conflicts will arise in the
use of this technology.

  I really would be interested in reading your thesis,
also I would recommend you send it to the Cyc project(
they are from what I understand, some very smart and
liberal minded people ).  Thanks for the reply- 


  -josh z

[ sorry I wouldnt include your message here unless you
gave me permission to do so... ]



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold