Re: [-empyre-] n-dimensional cobwebs of meaning
On May 10, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Kenneth Fields wrote:
Rock-Music, Rock-Chair are associational relationships. In ontological
terms, Rock inherits properties from Object/NaturalObject/Rock.
Specific kinds of Rocks (MoonRocks) inherit from Rock, but add their
own distinctive properties not found in all Rocks (specificallyLocated
Moon). RockMusic on the other hand is not an object, it is a kind of
Radiating/RadiatingSound/AudibleSound/Music. In ontology,
relationships are expressed in such ways as 'isA, hasA, PartOf...
Music isA Art, Music isA FieldOfStudy, Music isA Punishment(face the
music), isA Business, Hobby, etc.............
Right, but the question is how do you visualize those relationships.
"Rock" in liken is an object, a genre, an action, and more. As you
said, "is conceptual 'space' more than a metaphor?" Is there a good way
to translate these associational links to a visual plane, or does it
become too complex to be helpful?
In Liken you're giving unique id's to both nodes and paths.
EveryLikenThing isA Node or a Path. Can you start to differentiate a
little bit more - what type of node (peopleNode, conceptNode), path
(associationPath, prototypePath, poeticalPath). See, we start getting
In a technical sense, only nodes are assigned unique ids -- paths are
properties of those nodes. The nodes have a variety of
[classes/properties]. Right now, a node can exist as a: Person, Liki,
Comment, Interview, Resource, Architecture. More can be added pretty
seamlessly. Paths are generally divided into three categories: Fixed
(red), Liken-generated/Grace-period (very dark green), and Normal
(shades of gray).
I'm anxious about adding too many other classes, or of even displaying
these classes for the user. I think it gets confusing for people if
there are too many different kinds of nodes and paths, so for now, we
kind of make that transparent.
Maybe we need some kind of Godelized methodology, where you can warp
in and out of spatial/associational/nodal 'space.' Space isn't just
spatial :). Time isn't just temporal (Ouch).
Definitely. I wrote these notes a while ago:
"One of the features of a conceptual relation is the very fact that it
defies spatial and temporal constraints; for example, one person might
find Roman gladiators and contemporary boxers to exist in conceptual
proximity. This revelation might also bring certain related concepts
together (the boxing ring may suddenly seem similar to the Coliseum),
while others gain no ground (the Roman's thumbs up/thumbs down judgment
having no obvious corollary). What has happened is that a sort of
wormhole has formed between two galaxies of thought, a span of billions
of miles suddenly folding into a few short steps. One wormhole is hard
enough to visualize -- how can one depict a journey through a universe
of concepts when every step in the path is a wormhole to a different
location in timespace?"
The problem is really how to navigate an n-dimensional cobweb of
meaning. What does a hyperMap/criticalMap look, feel and sound like?
AI is moving to AH (artificial hermeneutics) - intelligence and
interpretation are both quaiifiedBy Artificial.
Yes, definitely. Understanding is the key to intelligence. Right now
liken doesn't even attempt to interpret the meaning of anything, but it
records all kinds of interesting data about words and their
relationships that we don't use yet. That would be an interesting
plug-in for someone to develop. Someday it would be nice for liken to
read every node, so that you could ask it questions. That would open up
the realtime MUTE/MOO/MUD interface that we talked about to some
fascinating conversational possibilities!
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and