[Arisbe] Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry

[Jon Awbrey]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Howard Pattee wrote (HP):
Seth Russell wrote (SR):
Paul Simon wrote (PS):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):

HP: There is nothing to lament but lament itself.
    Creating machine tools to support the intellect
    is an aim worthy of discussion.  Where in the
    course of inquiry, using any epistemic diagram
    you choose, do you feel the inquiring mind needs
    the most help?  Or is it more modest to ask where
    we could expect technically plausible software
    (and hardware) to help the most?

JA: Ah, where to begin!?  Being there is so much to do,
    and we cannot do otherwise than to start as we are,
    it may be the case that we can't do better than to
    let all pick their own eigenvectors as the optimal
    direction for them severally to go -- and yet that
    incurs the risk of chaos if there be no other form
    of community among them.  Something I worry about.

SR: Why not assume the community as prior.  In other words,
    find communities that are already interacting and make
    automated tools to help them.  That way your worry
    goes away ... right?

JA: You're new at this, aren'tya?

SR: Nope, I actually consider it my life work :) ...
    i call it finding a needel in a haystack.

JA: Have you never seen the resistance that a community
    will exhibit against moving in the direction of its
    e-spouted aim?  Yes, I'm sure you have seen it, but
    acknowledging the pattern of it is another question.

JA: Here's a hint:

PS: http://www.songfta.com/songs/ghe-ssa.html

SR: Sorry your response is a bit too cryptic for me to grok your intented meaning.

If it were insipid clear, if it were not deep,
what gusto would there be in the quench of it,
what quaff could there rest in the grok of it?

Yet another clue in a labyrinth I never made:

PS: http://www.songfta.com/songs/otp-hthawiy.html

SR: But I would bet that you harbor assumptions about my meaning that are erronious.

I do not harbor a whit --
I am the harbor --
q, q, q-chu

SR: One does not impose any direction (even its e-spouted one)
    on a community by providing it tools.

Did I say that?  Show me where it says I said that.

SR: In fact such orgazitional tools can be developed exteranlly
    to the actual communitie's endevours.

On my premiss, necessarily so.
On my premises, potentally so.

SR: As they become effective tools, the community member will use them else
    they will find themselves at a disadvantage within their own community.

No, I afraid it's the pathe of least resistance
for the entired community to resist as one mime.

SR: For example:  suppose that I were to read the entire corpus of the
    Generic Ontology Group archives into an indexer, automatically isolate
    clusters of concepts using SOM and LSI and provide a mechinism for people
    to retireve documents from those clusters.  I would call such a tool AI in
    the sense of (Amplyfying Intelligence);  and I rather suspect that the members
    of this group would find no problem with contibuting energy to sophisticating the
    vocabulary\ontology used in the indexing process.

I am guessing that this Hive is far too buzzy being about
its Fodder's buzziness to bother bussing its own Arc-Hive.

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤