Talk:Cognition

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merger Discussion[edit]

This is the Start of something New. Let No Premature Mergers occur. -- Dionysios (talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity Institute of Thought, Date: 2007-07-14 (July 14, 2007) Time: 1944 UTC

I agree. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger proposals and will go ahead and remove them. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Massive Recurrent Neural Network[edit]

Your Servant is quite taken with the words of Dr-now, which He Shared with Us on His User Page:

The Internet is a Recurrent Neural Network with Computers and Humans as Nodes = A "Hyperbrain"
File:Blaise Pascal.jpeg
We are in the new age of enlightenment...let us pray!
"I liken what is happening to the Internet to the recurrent neural network (shown above), which has properties similar to neurons in the human brain. The Internet is a massive recurrent network of pages and links, with human beings acting as the super-nodes creating and editing content and programs. This is creating a new type of consciousness or at least a new type of society. The mash-ups and open source creation that is taking place on Wikipedia and thousands of other sites are creating a new world. Let us make it a good one!
"Wikiveristy will allow diligent students to work on projects that further the goals of the whole group. Each participant who is an active learner, can excel to whatever aspiration he/she desires."
...
"Here is to the new days fully embracing innovation and invention. I believe if Open Source development is included in the curriculum, then the position and clout of the Wikiveristy School of Computer Science will be strong as if not stronger than the position of bricks and mortar institutions.
"While I am certainly no Blaise Pascal, I noticed in the painting below how he smiles. He is in the bliss of the enlightenment. Let us move Wikiversity forward with this attitude as we climb, stumble, and seek."

This gets at the point of all that Your Servant is attempting at Wikiversity.

After Dr-now, and with apologies to him, (So far as This Participant knows Dr-now has expressed no view on this Proposed Merger; and the Links are This Participant's and not Dr-now's, Your Servant says, "The Internet (read here: Wikiversity) is a Massive Recurrent Neural Network of Pages and Links, with Human Beings Acting as the Super-Nodes (Super-Nodes) Creating and Editing Content and programs. This is Creating a New Type of Consciousness or at Least a New Type of Society. The Mashups and Open Source creation that Is Taking Place on Wikipedia and Thousands of Other Sites Are Creating a New world. Let us make it a good one!

Wikiveristy Will Allow Diligent Students to work on Projects that Further the Goals of the Whole Group. Each Participant Who Is an Active Learner Can Excel to Whatever Aspiration He Desires.

Here is to the New Days Fully Embracing Innovation and Invention. Your Servant Believes that the Inclusion of Open Source Development in the Curriculum Will Strengthen the Position and Clout of Wikiveristy to Beyond that of the Bricks and Mortar Institutions.

While Your Servant, as Dr-now, Is also Certainly No Blaise Pascal, He also Finds Pascal's Smile Captivating.

Let Wikiversitans also Remain in the Bliss of The Enlightenment. Let Us Move Wikiversity Forward with an Attitude of "Climb, Stumble, and Seek".

What Thought 5501.01 and its Many Cousins is all about is Massive Recurrent Neural Networking. Please: Let none ask Your Servant to tell Him what He means in this contribution. Every Significant Word is Definitively Linked.

The Content of Cognition and Thought 5501.01 will widely diverge. Cognition is Named; Not Numbered; Thought 5501.01 is Level 5000 The anticipated uses of these Pages are very different.

Your Servant would now request that the Proposal of Merging Cognition and Thought 5501.01 be withdrawn. Those who are involved with these Projects could be more productively Editing Pages than Debating Proposed Mergers.

(s) Dionysios (talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity Institute for Thought, Date: 2007-07-16 (July 16, 2007) Time: 0100 UTC

"Please: Let none ask Your Servant to tell Him what He means in this contribution. Every Significant Word is Definitively Linked." >> I don't think that linking to a page/definition removes any ambiguity, thereby annulling any need to ask and clarify what you mean. I think that all concepts are constructed in the mind on the basis of previous experience, and as a result of social and cultural factors, all of which is far too complex to predict. Personally, I'd rather we continue to ask each other to clarify what we mean in order to make explicit this process of meaning-making, and perhaps to understand our processes of cognition. To be honest, I find the above statement quite hard to read, and even off-putting - even though it is interesting... Cormaggio talk 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Links and Definitions not only do not necessarily remove ambiguity, but also sometimes Links and Definitions increase Ambiguity.
"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder." -- Richard J. Daley, (May 15, 1902 ==> December 20, 1976) Mayor of Chicago, Illinois from 1955 to 1976.
Please: Let none ask Your Servant to tell Him what He means in THIS contribution. Every Significant Word is Definitively Linked. -- Emphasis added. Your Servant does not believe that his above contribution could be more clear.
"Yes, but, what do you mean by ... ?" can be an academic game whereby all forward progress is indefinitely postponed as academicians endlessly ask for finer definitions of smaller and smaller portions of text.
Surely "All concepts are constructed in the mind on the basis of previous experience, and as a result of social and cultural factors, all of which is far too complex to predict."
Your good point is well taken; and Your Servant fervently desires to be clear and to be asked for clarification when it is needed.
To "make explicit this process of meaning-making, and perhaps to understand our processes of cognition" are most worthy. These go to the purpose of this resource; but about What is the Merger Discussion? We are being asked to Merge this resource with the Level 5000 Thought course and with the Cognition Department. To do so would confine us horribly.
It had been hoped that Cognition would
"become part of a larger project about artificial intelligence and research on artificial cognition and artificial consciousness" wherein the Institute for Thought would undertake work in Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Cognition, and Artificial Consciousness. -- Cognition Exchange
Are bandwidth considerations so great that we are to do all of this on a Merged Page or on haphazardly Merged Pages? Your Servant hopes not.
Let us remember that what this Discussion is about is the Proposed Merger of this resource with the Level 5000 Thought course and with the Cognition Department. Your Servant would rather not be asked what he means by his above contribution. It should be very clear that his view is that Your Servant the Proposed Mergers of Cognition, Thought 5501.01: Cognition, and, now, Cognition Department should be withdrawn so that those who are involved with these Projects can get on with their work rather than Debating the Proposed Mergers.
While Your Servant has attempted, successfully, or not, to be eloquent in his argument, who could possibly ask what he means? He means that the Merger Proposals should be withdrawn.
Your Servant does not intend that his Statements should be hard to read, though he knows that a major part of his contribution was almost all Linked; and he apologizes for being off-putting; but he must defend these Pages.
Your Servant is pleased that you found the Statement interesting; he hopes that you also found it convincing. The Institute for Thought needs allies right now.
(s) Dionysios (talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity Institute for Thought, Date: 2007-07-17 (July 17, 2007) Time: 2139 UTC
On mergers, I think the main consideration is whether there are clearly defined parameters for what will be done on one page or another - where there is the possibility of collaboration on a single page (or group of pages), this should be encouraged; where there is a different subject/level/pedagogy, these should be defined, labeled, and the pages kept separate. The problem is not bandwidth, nor 'messiness' - but confusion (and hence usefulness). I can't see the clear parameters for the usefulness of many of these pages (and there are uncertain comments on some of their talk pages), so I would prefer their scope to be clarified before making any sort of comment as to whether they should be merged. Cormaggio talk 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comment. Your Servant trusts that so long as there is usefulness there will be no Mergers or so long as there is real progress toward usefulness there will be no Premature Mergers. What makes Your Servant uneasy is the prospect of the loss of momentum which could occur if Mergers were made without due consideration for what the Participants anticipate doing. Clearly these Pages are the Start of something New. Your Servant, the initiator of the Pages, will continue to work to make them worthy. If it does turn out that they should be Merged, his hope is that it can be accomplished in an orderly fashion. He could ask no more. -- Dionysios (talk), Date: 2007-07-18 (July 18, 2007) Time: 1635 UTC