Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:27:19 GMT
is from a Facebook link, pasted the entire statement into a word.docx and been contemplating a response. This very ambitious and comprehensive and "include everything" kind of model is fascinating, and more or less along the line of stuff I am exploring -- and with quick cursory reading, no doubt I have missed many details. But what is happening in my little brain -- is that I want to respond from the point of view of what is meaningful for me, and why I would be messing with any such exceedingly speculative ambition or design -- and what constraints I might want to impose...
So, a few thoughts.
In this current harvest/October cycle, what is happening for me is that I am looking into politically-motivated network projects of high inclusion. I am interested in various notions of what might be called a "People's Digital Congress" -- which might emerge under the influence of many discussions related to "electronic democracy" (see the 2009 book "Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful" by the head of ht tp://thegovlab.org/ ). So, this suggests one big possible difference in motivation. I am less interested in a "tool" for any purpose imaginable -- and much more interested in a comprehensive framework supporting comprehensive enlightened collaboration having to do with collective problem-solving. That difference might disqualify my comments immediately. My attitude is -- Planet Earth and the USA are more or less in a high dimensional very complex crisis, and we need a very sophisticated collaborative system-science solution. So, a model such as you describe might be able to assimilate a tremendous amount of relevant input, help sort it out, etc.
A second point for me -- has to do with my own personal need that sophisticated and revolutionary network projects emerge through a framework grounded in what I would call an "integral ontology". I need to see an underlying unity and integrity in the overall project framework that is based on an "enlightened" notion of semantic and concept-structure fundamentals. Of course, the issue of "what is enlightened" could be understood as endless -- but I don't happen to think so. I think there are better and worse -- and even "best" -- design protocols -- having to do with parsimony, elegance, comprehensive inclusion, simplicity, balance, etc. I do have a rather knee-jerk reaction to "bottom-up only" network models, including semantic networks. The great challenge today, I think, is the development of a comprehensive integral ontology that can (somehow) accurately map bottom-up network processes into an integrating top-down framework -- in a way that establishes common protocols across the entire process, while still preserving local/immediate freedom. This is, of course, a huge scientific challenge, and right now, this possibility just doesn't exist. So, if it's going to happen, somebody has to create it.
So, this point of view could be seen as a design prejudice from the point of simply "creating a tool" for any purpose. I personally want a tool to enable collective social response to collective social crisis, in ways that are generally motivated along those lines. Generally, for me, the entire huge "billion points of input" network should/can/must be constrained or framed in some way within a context of "oneness" or "wholeness" -- with a kind of ascent up the ladder of abstraction into a common wholeness, probably along the lines of "holons" -- a concept basic to the development coming through Bret A Warshawsky. There is in some sense a single common container, a single common center, replicated everywhere.
So yes, maybe this is an ethical or moral vision of an integral/holistic world based on something like "the common ground of humanity" -- call that a religious vision if you want to -- but for me, that is the motivation. We have to find each other, and work together, at all levels of scale and region, around every critical issue we share or face in common.
So, for me -- it's not so much a "vast random free-association input framework" supporting any possible motivation as it might be a "I want to enter into a common high-dimensional creative vortex that takes on every issue facing the world" kind of framework.
I am starting to explore the notion of "omnicentric" as a fundamental design principle that might overcome the categorical rigidity we see in any traditional top-down category system, as well as the problems that normally flow from any sort of centralization. We do need absolute fluency in the way categories are formed, and we need local/individual freedom. Reality is an integral continuum with no differentiations or distinctions -- but the human mind and the formation of concepts depend on distinctions and labels and categories -- and we do form those "dualistic" distinctions with every action ("is it safe to cross the street: yes or no?").
For me, the core drivers of this work are emotional and political. We've got to stop killing each other in crazy ways -- whether in Syria, Iraq, or Roseburg Oregon.
Through I've read through this article, and thank you Bruce Smith -- and I've been influenced by many of the sames writer and visionaries as you -- I realize this comment mostly reflects my own motivation. Your comprehensive vision is very interesting -- and I suspect that some new kind of net-weaving capacity will emerge that does make it possible to interconnect "everything" in the kind of very fluent way you suggest. Maybe "one giant graph" (or "mind-map") is possible and desirable. Maybe a new science of taxonomy or categories or semantic ontology will make it fully possible in coherent ways. Thanks for a suggestive and stimulating article. http://origin.org
Sat, 03 Oct 2015 23:39:25 GMT
This is very interesting. I think I will reply over in G+ since (for reasons unknown) some people can't see these Muut comments!
Sun, 04 Oct 2015 01:29:49 GMT
Much appreciated. This has been interesting -- and Jack Park is right. It's fun. :)