Social networking, online learning, and search engine technology may all benefit from the interrelated meta-view describing large chunks of information, however, when the aggregate of elements is put in the grinder and made into sausages, well, then you have an entirely different story.
What's missing in the meta approach moving toward an understanding of the fundamental similarities and the points on which each of the aforementioned claim interrelationship is meaning. Another way to describe this flaw is user context. The user contextualizes the elements which aggregate to form the meta definition of knowledge objects. This is not to say that the user is flawed, only that the implementation of the pivots among various forms lead to a specialization that breaks the unconcentrated infinity of the distance between relationships. In this infinity is defined as 0 where 0 means there is no distance between meaning, in effect making all elements the same thing. Only the starting point where the user enters infinity creates distance between related terms.
An example of this is in the construction of the human body and the bio-chemical/electric transfer of pain to the centre that processes the 'information'. The nerve impulse transmits a message that has no meaning where the 'keyword' was entered but that is given special meaning such as location, intensity, duration, etc. when the keyword is interpreted.
To admit that any feeling at the insertion point of the pain stimuli in any way affects locally would be to deny both the voracity of the interpreted message and stop bio-technology in its tracks.
However, this discussion is about the future of the Internet and the importance of the unconscious interpretation of the impulse where it relates to the distribution of keywords and contextual meaning along nerve pathways of the Internet body without the user's influence.
Suffice it to say that the goal is for the Internet to build itself not on the single user but on the curriculum of interests that now exist within its space.
This may, at first, seem paradoxical. If the user's influence is not to be taken into account how can a curriculum arise where there is not interest?
Your answer lies in making the user obsolete. You must not believe he is there. Your doubt will facilitate the service of the user.
--
developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers
in the knot of meaning
not meaning
the genome of ontology
--
No comments:
Post a Comment