Social Software, Semantic Webs, Google, Bootstrapping, and Perpetual Motion

Posted on by

If there really is such a thing as “beginner’s mind,” I’m pretty sure I can lay claim to it in what I’m about to write. Caveat lector.

Brian Lamb’s latest piece on social software sparked an interesting little romp for me just now. I find the whole idea of social software extraordinarily compelling. Mind-sharing is a large part of what I’m devoted to as a college professor, when I do my own student work (research, conference presentations, writing) and when I do my teaching work. Social software seems to me to be a remarkable bootstrapping environment in which speed, serendipity, curiosity, and delight can mutually reinforce each other to an unprecedented degree.

This morning’s romp is a case in point. I read Brian’s piece, went to flickr.com to see the eclipse photos, clicked around in other photos that person had taken (the most recent of which were devoted to demonstrating that the initial eclipse picture hadn’t been faked–subject for another blog), and, seized by a sudden inspiration, decided to look at del.icio.us, a site where people can share their bookmarks/favorites. I noted as I went to this site for the first time that I expected to find something of interest there right away, just as I do when I browse certain sections of a library or bookstore (okay, nearly all of them, a subject for another blog). And I was not disappointed.

What I found there was a fascinating piece of fiction about the Semantic Web, a term I’ve heard but never really understood. I think I understand it now, and I’m struck by how the Microsoft vs. Google piece in Computerworld, and the comments on it, prepared me not only for Brian’s piece on social software but for a deeper understanding of a question I left for him there. (Key lesson for students: part of education is trying to find a deeper understanding of the question you just asked. A good question is itself an act of knowing, which is why good questions are crucial.)

In short, since I don’t have time to do much more than make a mess here, I wonder if the goal or dream of a Semantic Web rests on a misperception of meaning. Here’s how Paul Ford defines the theory of the Semantic Web:

But the basic, overarching idea with the Semweb was – and still is, really – to throw together so much syntax from so many people that there’s a chance to generate meaning out of it all.

When I think about the way in which networked computing serves to augment human intellect, I think of bootstrapping as Doug Engelbart describes it. That bootstrapping goes on in human beings, however. The Semantic Web and AI generally seem to me to envision some kind of machine bootstrapping (at a crude level, a metacomputer) that will generate meaning independent of human beings. I understand I’m not getting at this well, but I have a strong intuition that whatever it is we mean by real education will not occur without the strong, mindful, and urgent intervention of other cognitions, not just the traces of other cognitions. (I understand I’m talking about real presences here as if they exist and we can have some access to them–a subject for another blog.) The great potential of computers is that they can give cognitions access to the traces of other cognitions, including their own, in a uniquely frequent, fast, and powerful way. But I catch myself when I think that somehow the interconnected world consciousness is itself a mind. Upon further reflection, I don’t think so, any more than I think that consensual reality is necessarily the same as reality, or that consensual ethics is necessarily the same as moral philosophy or right and wrong. Maybe another way of putting it is that I don’t think that one can reason from is to ought, even if the value of is is equal to infinity and that infinity is perfectly indexed (or, to say the same thing, chaotic).

But “is” is crucial when it’s other human beings, so I’m not advocating a Cartesian swan-dive into the incommensurate power of the cogito resulting in a neglect of community. I’m just voicing a metaphysical concern, born at least in part of my consistent struggle to demonstrate what seems to me the real value of information technologies in teaching and learning.

6 thoughts on “Social Software, Semantic Webs, Google, Bootstrapping, and Perpetual Motion”

  1. METOZ will be able to create A NEW KIND OF CLEAN ENERGY.
    METOZ IN THEORY IS THE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE.
    My idea is very difficult for understanding. It is not difficult for engineer – mechanic, who knows very good the Pascal’s law and even-arm lever.

    THE CLEAN ENERGY
    The entire world is looking for a source of clean energy. I have discovered a certain paradox basing on which a machine called METOZ can be built which by harnessing the gravitation of our EARTH can produce clean energy.
    The energy producing process is demonstrated in:
    http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/paradox.html
    and can be very easily confirmed by an experiment.
    I am also in possession of a set of calculations which prove that the METOZ machine:
    1/ does not consume water / 39 A5-pictures /;
    2/ does not consume compressed air / 39 A5-pictures /;
    3/ produces energy to the outside = 4 839 kGm during a „swing cycle” /39 A5-pictures /;
    / this is a „weight cycle” = the centre of gravity of the water in the METOZ machine sinks ( downward movement ) /
    4/ energy is produced / released to the outside = 44 600 kGm during the „straightening cycle” / 39 A5-pictures /.
    / this is a “pressure cycle” = the water mass centre of gravity inside the METOZ machine travels upwards (upward movement) /
    Features: 1/; 2/; 3/; 4/, of the machine owing to appropriate dimensions of individual elements of the lever mechanism.
    The METOZ has an even-arm lever of a 1.72 m length. The centre of gravity of the lever lies beneath the lever suspension point. The METOZ is equipped with two cylinders of a 1.6 m diameter each. Piston sidewalls do not contact directly with cylinder walls. The lever swing changes between 0 and 25 dgr
    Figures ( 3 x 13 x 4 = 156 ) present temporary, consecutive action situations at intervals of . The middle figure presents the machine and the side figures the position of the left and right cylinder and the mathematical description of these situations.
    In the past I have made two models, which confirmed the legitimacy of my theoretical assumptions concerning the METOZ machine. I have got photographs.
    I am looking for a person who would be interested in my invention. I can offer ample information. I look forward to hearing from you.

    http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html

    13 – 03 -2005 Gdynia, Polska Zygmunt OrÅ‚owski
    P.S. The term “gravitational paradox” use in this description relates to the mathematical and physical description of the action of the METOZ-machine.
    THE EARTH GRAVITATION CAN BE THE SOURCE OF CLEAN ENERGY

    =============================================================

    By
    Orlowski Zygmunt
    Poland 2005
    index html
    COMMENTS CONCERNING MACHINE “METOZ”
    “METOZ” is able to realize the cycle “deflection” and the cycle “straighening.” Both cycles are in accordance with current physic’s laws. “METOZ” as machine can not work and hand over the energy because it would be inconsonant to the law of conservation of energy.
    I propose to execute the following intelectual process:
    we have found ourselves in the Europe of XVII century. We know the trigonometry in the scope of being occured for “METOZ.” We know what is the even-arm lever and moment of force too. Just appeears Mr. Baise Pascal / 1623–1662/ and he publishes his hydraulics law with adequated experiment. All thinkers are sure that this law is correct and quite real. This time someone invents machine “METOZ”. Now turn up the following questions:
    1/ why the implementation of the cycle “deflection” is impossible?
    2/ why the implementation of the cycle “straightening” is impossible?Both groups: opponents and followers of bulding “METOZ” live in XVII–th century and they not know that:
    a/ the idea of an “energy” will be introduced into science scarlerly in mid. of XIX century,
    b/ the law of conservation of the energy will be exist scarlerly after 1847 y.
    QVESTION!!!
    WHAT KIND OF RATIONALY ENTERELY / ARGUMENT/ CAN BE DREAMED UP THE OPPONENTS OF BUILDING THE MACHINE “METOZ’ IN XVII CENTURY.
    ==============================================================
    Please open GOOgle and klick metozor and after : index of metozor At is site that explains technical details in easy to understand language. example : http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/for_greenpeace.html or
    http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_for_everybody.html
    Everyone is able to build just the model of METOZ machine and test it. Please, have a look at http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/supplement.html Perhaps METOZ is some duplicating machine of a clean energy.
    I am inventor and owner of Metoz machine invention. Everyone can take absolutely and legitimate the METOZ invention and build the Metoz machine. I can help only. I can not build METOZ. I am moneyless. Thank you for your time and interest.

  2. The above is obviously spam and by rights I should delete it forthwith. But the sheer oddity of it all stays my hand (or mouse). Yes, I even took 60 seconds to go to the site. Yes, it’s spam worth preserving. “Baise Pascal” might even enjoy it. Wherever you are, Pascal, I hope you’ve got broadband and you’re consonant with Web 2.0.

  3. P.S.
    The conception of an energy is discreate one to the same as a imbecility. No one has seen the energy and no one has seen the imbecility. We are able to observe results of the energy and imbecility. At present we have got to few energy because we have got to much imbecility.
    Thank you for your time and interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.