Re: [-empyre-] archiving + preservation

On May 6, 2004, at 7:40 PM, Jaka Zeleznikar wrote:

I find this a bit suspicious:
- dragon (at least in my culture) has noting to do with computers (so you can link anything to 'computer')
- 'foxglove' can be popuped to 'fox' and 'glove' (but does it make sense?)
- 'rob' can be linked to 'rob' (first 'rob' in English, second in Slovene (meaning 'border') ...
- dragon: 'drag' 'on' ...
- 'd' 'r' 'a' 'g' ...

True, although liken does not support links at the atomic level -- that is, we don't allow individual characters to become links. The cool thing about Chinese/Kanji is that each pictogram represents one or more concepts(although its true as Ken pointed out that they also describe a sound), whereas in the Roman alphabet, "c" has no particular meaning. While the sub-concepts of a complex word (ie, "dragon" in computer) may have little or nothing to do with the complex word, that is not necessarily a drawback in the context of liken, and may actually be a benefit. To address the "rob" issue, liken was really intended to be used with one language and its sub-dialects at a time; once you introduce more than one language, things quickly get too wiggy. Although the idea of a pictogram-native and pictogram-only wiki/liki continues to intrigue me.

Liken was designed with the knowledge that its suggested links may sometimes be non-sensical [and/or] irrelevant -- to criticalartware, this was an interesting feature of the system. Since liken's decision to proactively link two things is never actually random, but rather based on word frequency, it could link two documents that have nothing to do with each other, but that use similar language. A system of paths that was at least partially based on a common lexicon or snippets of shared language was exciting in the extreme.

If you take this further to the autolinks ("liki" links), "foxglove" can break down to "fox" and "glove," it's true. But "fox" and "glove" are not likely to be extant nodes in liken, since its goal is not to be a general purpose knowledgebase. However, "strong" will display a link for popular motion picture "TRON." Does that link make sense? Maybe not. But does the [practice/procedure] itself make sense? I think so. You don't wan to limit "TRON" to linking to just the word "TRON," because what if you get this: "TronCycle"? You definitely want that to link up. We'd have to have millions of nodes before over-atomization became a real problem.

I've come to love these features of liken, since they underscore the design goals of connecting disparate chunks of information. To navigate liken is to walk into a world of serendipity, ultrahyperlinking, complete relevance and utter nonsense.

+ if I understood correctly links are made more visible by being more visited.
I understood Vanevar B. and some other people that they wish something similar to
the way we think - and we think in emotions also (so some terms in way of
links might be more visible relating to our emotional state and not only conceptual,
so one day strongest link from rock might be music and the other day geology)?

Most definitely! However, liken is a bit different than a singular mind, because all of our users help shape and alter the structure of liken. We like to point out that liken is like a neural network, but the local computation is not being done by small computing processes or neurons, but rather, by human computers.

So in that way, liken reflects how the collective consciousness of our users thinks. So one day, the strongest link from rock might be music, and the next day it might be geology, but it won't be because of one person, but rather the distributed neural net that you're already participating in by posting to empyre!

+ any way I find the project extremely interesting

Thanks! We continue to be inspired + excited by our users, and we constantly [re]examine our methodology...


- ben

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.