Knowledge is What Awareness Does - Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define Knowledge Precisely

What is this video about?

In this introductory video I would like to explain what knowledge representation is, how to build and apply them. There are basically three phases involved in the process of building a knowledge representation. Acquisition of data (which includes staging), collation and the representation itself.

The collation and the representation phases of the process are mentioned here, but I will explain them further in future videos.

You are now watching a simulation of the acquisition phase as it collects and stores preliminary structure from the data it encounters in terms of the vocabulary contained within that data. Acquisition is a necessary prerequisite for the collation phase following it, because the information it creates from the data are used by the collation algorithms which then transform that information into knowledge. The statistics you are seeing tabulated are only a small subset of those collected in a typical acquisition phase. Each of these counters are being updated in correspondence to the recognition coming from underlying parsers running in the background. Depending upon the computer resources involved in the acquisition, these parsers may even even run concurrently as is shown in this simulation.

 

The objects you see moving around in the video are of two different kinds: knowledge fields or knowledge molecules. Those nearest to you are the field representations of the actual data being collected called knowledge fields. They could represent an individual symbol, punctuation, morpheme, lexeme, word, emotion, perspective, or some other unit of information in the data. Each of them contain their own signature – even if their value, state or other intrinsic properties are unknown or indeterminate during the acquisition.

Those farther away from the view are clusters of fields which have already coalesced into groups according to shared dynamically adaptive factors such as similarity, relation, cardinality, ordinality,...

These 'molecules' also contain their own set of signatures and may be composed of a mixture of fields, meta-fields and hyper-fields that are unique to all others. The collation phase has the job of assigning these molecules to their preliminary holarchical domains which are then made visible in the resulting knowledge representation. Uniqueness is preserved even if they contain common elements with others in the domain they occupy. Clusters of knowledge molecules and/or fields grouped together are known as 'knowledge domains', 'structural domains', 'dynamical domains' or 'resonance domains', depending upon which of their aspects is being emphasized

 https://independent.academia.edu/CareyGButler for the more information.

Does a Nobel Prize Automatically Make You Correct?

My attention has been recently brought again to the book: Thinking, Fast and Slow. There is so much ‘work’ out there to comment on that it would take many lifetimes to cover it all, but this one hits me right in the gut: it’s about heuristics. This post will delve into the misconceptions in the book regarding a heuristic and heuristics in general with respect to mind, thought and, most importantly, knowledge and its representation.

Of course there are many insightful aspects to the book and I hope this post induces people to buy and read the book! It is definitely worth that effort! There is much truth in the book and useful considerations regarding the psychology of thought (at least for me).

There is a universal constant in our universe that I call the ‘Near and Far Contraposition’. This constant is responsible for the effect we experience when we look at things close up verses far away. It ‘makes it’s appearance’ when we say things like; “He can’t see the forest for the trees.” I will describe this constant more below as time permits me to do so.

His System 1 (Intuition) is, in reality, taking relational bearing on entities involving deeper scope (among other factors) than in his System 2.

Whereas his System 2 is taking that relational bearing with entities involving more shallow scope (among other factors) to entities than in his System 1.

His systems will be shown to be completely unnecessary. There are ‘systems’ within consciousness, but they are not where Daniel says they are.

I’m amazed that someone of his depth is unable (or unwilling) to recognize this!

Your thoughts are welcome too. We all are impacted by this artificial environment created for us that causes stress and economy in our lives. It is possible to an extent to ‘divorce’ ourselves from these frenetic states, but when our customers do not ‘cooperate’ (due to different priorities, perspectives and needs) with our efforts, then it does present challenges for us.

Sally Kohn: Let's try emotional correctness

 

 

Emotional correctness: a new way to be trendy

It used to be called tolerance and empathy.
Social engineering that shifts the responsibility of an individual to a group.
Very crafty stuff. The people in the audience lap it up like its a Popsicle.

Steven Pinker - Too Much Morality?

Steven Pinker - Too Much Morality?

Too much morality? I'm listening to this right now. I'll post my thoughts on it here when I get the chance.

 

I have already begun to write responses on YouTube. I'm working on my project now so I will get back later. I have to stop for a time to get my work done. There is so much wrong with this 'philosophy' that needs to get out there. Here are the posts thus far:

  

@36:05 you state that terror groups may be started with a half-dozen sitting in a barber shop or pub in the attempt to sell us on the idea that terrorism can arise out of our own midst. Most of the terror groups that ever did so were larger groups and most of them (probably almost all) were infiltrated by our own governmental agencies who then radicalised and financed their terrorism. This was made clear to be the case with the Klu Klux Klan in the 1950s and 60s.

@36:10 “And there can be nasty surprises…”
You don’t take into account the fact that almost all narcissistic despots have been put in by ‘global players’ (and banksters and higher up the ‘food chain’). And for “spreading revolution” why not turn your attention how the US, NATO and Saudi Arabia have joined forces in coordinating Al Qaeda (AL-C-I-A-dah) in Syria?

@36:23 “So there are nasty shocks. There are [sic.] a baseline level of violence that, except for a totalitarian state, you’re never going to stamp out to zero…”
A totalitarian state is where the violence a society endures reaches its climax. At that ‘place’ humanity begins to ‘shed its skin’ and replace the tyranny with liberty and freedom.

 @37:00 “…I think history is going to push in that direction. And it’s not because I think that there’s some forced ‘mysterious’ [facial language nuances attempting to evoke the idea of ridicule of the topic being brought to awareness] dialectical arc of justice that’s gonna’ bring us to Utopia.”
Hegelian dialectic is one of a few dialectical forms that takes on the illusion of being correct. Hegel didn’t honestly consider that there are other kinds of dialectic forms that can occur.

As a professor of cognitive science and psychology you should be aware of a multitude of dialectic forms that build a spectrum of impetus for evolutionary change (I prefer the terms  enfolding/unfolding).

Every time humanity inserts itself as the centre of the universe of discourse, it makes itself sick. Morality becomes negotiable and expedience takes the upper hand. We must save ourselves by not giving into the temptation of believing we must control our mutual reality in all of its forms.

 

This ‘insertion” of humanity is an expression of our tendency towards Anthropomorphism. It is often so subtle that we don’t recognise it in its many forms. We haven’t yet recognised the omni-morphistic structure of our Cosmos (of which we and our universe is a part.) [Please remember this in reading my other comments here!]

@37:38 “We can eke out longer and longer life spans…”
This is not necessarily a measure of progress. Far more important is the quality of that life span. The elitist mindset has a great deal of inherent hubris as it carries out the ‘stewardship’ of humanity. If it were REALLY concerned with the development of better life spans, then it would stop the overwhelming fraud in finance markets and use those ‘resources’ to feed and educate those of need. Look at our cities. Life is being sucked out.

There are so many axes of human development that mankind hasn’t even begun to catalog nor is even aware exists. Some of the most gifted people have to “eke out” (borrowing your wording) an existence on the street and the best our science can do for them is to give them drugs so that they’re quiet and docile. The intellectual ‘body’ of humanity is RESPONSIBLE for the welfare and potential of those who are less fortunate, but instead it occupies itself with overpopulation myths & means of control.

 

One last comment in this ‘instalment': When I refer to Anthropomorphism I include all of its ‘inflections’. If I need to clarify this, let me know (if you even bother to read this).

I’m back to posting on this video in case someone’s interested. Look at the comment section to follow me. Please be patient as I have little time to spare for it, but it is very important to provide an alternative perspective on what Steven Pinker is saying.

 

@42:00 you call for ethics centred upon a spectrum of "who get's hurt/who flourishes" (utilitarianism) and @42:34 you state that thinking like an economist makes people better off! With the world in the shape it's in? Open bankster fraud & fear-control-fetish abounds. Utilitarianism offers no guarantee of individual rights!

It's moral reductionism where the majority decides even over fundamental basic rights of freedom and liberty of individuals. Also utilitarianism is unable to facilitate/account for all of what being human is. Subscribing to a morality based upon utility is inherently a danger to humanity. Means and Ends become disharmonious and lacking integrity.

 

I'm analysing the video in my spare time and have discovered that pinker is a brilliant coordinator or nexus for premature globalism. If I am wrong, please help me out because that's how the analysis is going.