[topicmaps-comment] RE: [eventChemistry] process compartment hypothesis

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Don's description of a future potential realization of visual abstraction as visual abstraction databases VAD is instructive to me.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry/message/285

 

I believe that the notions of semiotics and visual abstraction is an acquired taste, and most folks are very intent on seeing something other than this technology.  So we are experiencing extreme difficulty in even getting the very first intentional investment.  TASC's consulting agreement with me last year was accidental in that they did not know what would be invented.  I did not know either. 

 

But funding based on some economic source of revenue is a different matter.  We have to go through the Darwinian evolution where the highest probability is that a new meme (gene) will be road kill as it attempts to express as phenome.   (again this is the D. Campbell model of technology adoption that I talk about).

 

But this situation could change.  Don and I HAVE to depend on someone else to make this case and obtain the first contract.  Why?  Because he and I are involved in the creation of this new technology that the types of demands made by the current rules on technology are deeply disappointing.

 

I am trying to see the differences between a social system before vA and after vA.    Is vA the 0 of KM as suggested at:

 

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/SLIP/index3.htm

 

 

I seem to think that the changes will be good, that informational transparancy will be found on Internet events (Vader) and on data base access events (traceBehavior) and that full text mining using generalized latent semantic indexing will provide a higher fidality representation of concepts from text.

 

We may even get a bead game that identifies the emergence of IP from science communities.

 

So we, as a society, have the new capability to be more protected in cyber space, reduce the use of the Internet as a Dark Alley for crime and terrorism and to develop high productivity rates in how we handle knowledge in common situations - such as the reporting of a medical visit to an insurance company. 

 

But if this is the difference between a social system with vA and a social system without vA; then this may not be enough.  There has to be the use of some capital instrument to make a vA community viable.  Capitalism has many benefits, and we have to get capitalism to work for us.

 

Don is very right about what he and I wish to do, which is to support scientific efforts at understanding what IS vA and eC.  It should be clear that he and I are just touching the surface.

 

vA is visualAbstraction... and vA has a specific foundation in category theory.  eC is eventChemistry and eC is grounded in Peircean logic, the work of the Russian applied semioticians

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm

 

and an intrepretation of cognitive neuroscience.