[topicmaps-comment] Everchanging subjects [ Notions haveexistence ...]

[David Dodds <drdodds42@hotmail.com>]

Thomas said
"Do you think that machine processing will be/should be/has to be
very different in its essence from human use of the same topic maps?"

I think of necessity that human *use* of a _given data structure_, topic 
maps in this case, will be more sophisticated than the *use* of the same ds 
by a computer. This is true because (except for possibly severely retarded 
people) most people bring the sophistication of situated activity to bear on 
use of TMs , and they would just as much if they were shovelling dirt 
instead. Humans are INTEGRATED in the use of their mental powers, they are 
"conceptually organic" as it were, they use ganzfeld, they make/use context. 
The computer, on the other hand, in most cases: THERE'S NO ONE HOME 
there!!!! helllooooo!!!!!! computers are not organic, not self-integrated, 
they do not natively process as though through a ganzfeld, they do not 
natively make and use contexts, and especially not situated ones.  This last 
thing is exactly why Im trying to get people to realize!, that "mechanical" 
robot-brain type programs ARE CLUED OUT. Example, factory robot control 
programs have to specially programmed by humans so as to do something smart 
when their gripper drops something by accident. If the human forgot to 
explain in the program how to do that the factory robot just continues, only 
assinignly with nothing in its gripper as though nothing happened. I ve been 
on factory robot floors Ive seen this happen. That kind of stupid behaviour, 
not recognizing that something nonroutine must be done when you (the robot) 
drop something during the assembly process. because nobody is home the robot 
behaves stupidly, vapidly. Its computer doesnot have any situatedness!! it 
isnt even working in a context.
if socalled knowledge technology software operates with the same bareness, 
lack of situatedness/context then it will be just as vapid.
I also caution that the business world already got a load from the expert 
systems companies who overhyped their products in the mid 70s to mid 80s. 
There was a "financial nuclear winter" in AI following what those folks did 
with their bogus claims of knowledge systems. We in the world of knowledge 
technology cannot afford (financially) to have the semantic web turn out to 
appear to be a pig in the poke, because the knowledge technology software is 
just too conservative, too IT-like (inorganic, non ganzfeld, non tacit, not 
situated, not contextual).

been there, dont want to play in that game again.

the difference between agents (such as humans or programs) doing organic 
perception and agents doing inorganic perception is major, it is the 
difference between what a person brings to bear using a topic map and what 
nematode brings to the same topic map "usage". Only a pointy headed 
programming-only immersed person cant see things like tacitness and 
metaphorical/analogical activity accompany human activity and just aint 
there at all in business-programming-headed software.

look at the difference between Sony's robot dog and a real dog (chihuahuas 
are excluded because they are rodents not real dogs :) )


David Dodds



>From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
>To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] Everchanging subjects [Re: Notions 
>haveexistence  ...]
>Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:18:20 -0400
>
>Remember, when I weighed in on this thread, I said that I had decided to
>avoid all the difficult philosophical questions by operating as if concepts
>were in fact platonic?  Well, it's obvious that I don't think that they 
>are,
>so how can I reconcile entertaining two such different viewpoints?  Easy, I
>have a physics background!
>
>But in fact, most of the structuralist, interconnected, shifting stuff goes
>on transparently, doesn't it? In everyday life, we are not usually aware of
>those things going on, unless we have studied hard or otherwise sensitized
>ourselves.  So for people, it's not so hard to get along while being
>flexible.
>
>  I think the machine aspect, the good old semantic web stuff, is a 
>different
>story, though.  But here, as I said in my last post, I expect that a lot of
>the processing will be of a more formal nature, in which the "real meaning"
>of the subjects won't necessarily matter so much.  I'm much less confident
>of this, though, and I'm very interested to hear what you all have to say
>about it.  Do you think that machine processing will be/should be/has to be
>very different in its essence from human use of the same topic maps?
>
>
>
>[Murray Altheim]
>
>
> > This said, the idea that subjects are somehow *not* intimately and
> > inextricably interlinked seems a bit hard to fathom. I don't think
> > of this as a difficulty for topic maps, taxonomic or ontological
> > systems in general, though it's certainly something to keep in mind.
>
> > BTW, it doesn't seem surprising that there is a strong affinity
> > between what's happening with topic maps and conceptual graphs, and
> > Mary Keeler's PORT group (Peirce Online Resource Testbed), which is
> > why I'm quite happy to be involved there:
>
>Oh, good, I'm going to go look at your links.  I thought most of that 
>Pierce
>activity had faded away.  Thanks, Murray.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tom P
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp