On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 09:52 -0500, John F Sowa wrote: (01)
> I agree that we need a lot of human thought and reflection to make
> sense of the overwhelming volume of data on the WWW. No automated
> tools will be able to replace human analysis and thought for a
> long, long time.
> (02)
I agree, insofar as NLP aims to re-vivify precise mental instruments of
knowledge and argument from imprecise orthographic and rhetorical
conventions. (03)
But I believe there are reliable ways to *capture* standard
machine-readable transcriptions of human analysis and thought *at the
moment of creation*. Such transcriptions could be used to augment the
reader's understanding and exploration of documents, by using an
enhanced viewing application that could interpret the logical layer. (04)
What would a transcription of human analysis and thought look like?
There is nothing new to discover here; only to recover--and put into
markup--the traditional methods of discourse, discovery, and argument
first codified in the logical works of Aristotle and refined by
subsequent scholars. In modern times these methods are popularized by
Adler in "How to Read a Book", and Joseph, "The Trivium". (05)
It is not entirely idle to speculate on the reasons why ca. 2015 our
mainstream information and communication technologies are so poorly
suited to augmenting human knowledge. But this is probably not the
thread for it. (06)
Regards,
--Paul (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (08)
|