Genezistan

In terms of perception serving as input to process all sensory information to make sense of what is happening, or „what the case is[1]” it is necessary to chunk or „digitalise” the environment into moving and non moving elements. As a result you have discrete and continuous signals, where discrete signals are identified as objects, continuous signals as representing movement or the change of discrete, non moving objects: Such change or movement is the function of human perception hence it is a relation between objects, i.e. a human and his environment. The size of this environment is perceived in human terms, in the bandwidth and range of human perception which relation is represented by various verbs, such as see hear, smell, etc. Such relations correspond to verbs and some of the relations are attributed to the objects themselves (properties), while such relations are either „created” by one or more objects in space time where objects are connected or related in may ways.Moving objects in space time as we can call our environment in a generic way calls for the capability of identification of objects. As we have a replica of the environment available for mental processing such mental representations tend to show the same properties as the actual physical objects with respect to the possible reaction of a human or an animal for that matter without even having a name or a tag to them. So the shear sight of the object will evoke the relations that are  not numerous, such as fight or flight, edible or not edible, etc. If later such objects are given a name the names themselves are likely to work similar ways.

Therefore with respect humans who need to eat, drink, etc. objects become objectives, whether in reality or in their mind, just as they become objectives for many mammals. An object can become an objective (apart from its attractive properties), if it can be recognised, localised and accessed, therefore it is the operand of a targeting activity which calls for precision to be successful. Viewing interactions in this simple model offers us a broad perspective to interpret human history as the development of targeting technologies and tools for the delivery of objects into the objectives at an ever increasing level of precision. The distance between a human and his environment, or the object in focus to target some other object to hit it or to match it is very wide in terms of the measurements of a human body, which was first used as a gauge for any measurement of extent.  Thus we have a mental operation projection/perception that results in an object with the property of being objective, something to be contacted or reached. In mental terms an objective is not difficult to contact as there is no distance that is not covered „instantly” in the mind, unless you are aware of the steps to be taken, or the verbal know-how of how to hit that objective. Obviously, such knowledge comes from experience, from trials and errors as in sports. It does not necessary involve calculations of distances and angles (triangulation), sometimes it is enough to have a notion of time and a sense of time passing „coded in the motor system[2]” to estimate the time it takes to get there. This is also knowledge, practised sufficiently to come near to automation as all the blind people can tell.  Consequently, while it is not a problem to give a name to an object that does not move, or that has constant properties, it is a problem to name motion or a change itself. In identifying a change you may have more than one object in sight, such as in case of the collision, disappearing or reappearing of objects in space where by default there are other objects related to the moving object in space time, otherwise you cannot notice change. Verbs by themselves are therefore words that express actions (relations) and state of affairs (properties) resulting from such actions. They have aspect to show how the verbs are related to time. Therefore a verb indicates a relation of change of an object where change may be induced by another object, and where the property or the state of an object is also changed that way. The most generic state (property) of an object is existence, hence an object may exist or may not, and a verb (relation) is needed to change the condition of that object from one state to another.  Thus we have the triple of an object, relation and property. An object is related to another object of a given property, which relation is change, and which results in the change of that property or even a new object, if such property was the quality of the object. Clearly, the issue is if the first object is a prime mover, or an object that in itself has the property of being capable to relate itself on its own to another object resulting in (causing) thereby a change in the property of that object. This has been debated for a long time in Philosophy, Theology and Physics. The outcome is still undecided, but that should not worry us, because what we are interested in is how all that is reflected in the mind.  In the mind we tend to have objects with properties that govern the affinity of such objects  in reality. In a simple ontology model LORP, we only work with three entities

representing the outside world that seem to be language independent, because they are generated[3] (created) and processed by mental operations that seem to be common across humankind and even with some species in the animal kingdom. Such pre-language knowledge is then coupled with a particular language to extend the precision of communication beyond a simple set that nevertheless exists and could be used to document what is happening in the mind before one says something in any natural language.Obviously, as we have no organ to reflect what is inside, we need to use what we have developed for the purpose of making our inter reflection available to the outside world by starting with voices, speech, writing, counting, etc. Note that counting is a facility used to ensure clear communication above all and it is an ongoing automatism that generates questions of inquiry after one problem is sorted. Counting or enumerating coupled with arithmetic operations, such as addition facilitates analysis, the source (activity of acquiring) of empirical and theoretical knowledge. The difference between the two is in verification, falsification or checking for reality and ontological commitment.

Representing knowledge by words

Example:

Noun: analysis

Dictionary definition:

“A process of studying or examining something in detail in order to understand it or explain it, or a process of examining in detail in order to find out what it contains and also the process of examining someone’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviour as a way of understanding and dealing with their emotional or mental problem”

Analysis is the name of the operation to analyze, the result of which is an object, a document  or verbally formulated analysis, reflecting the mental operation, and a property of that operation in the forms of adjectives (participles) analyzing and analyzed and the noun itself (analysis).Analysis is seen in the definition as a process rather an act performed with an aim, namely to understand or to explain an object, including an act to examine an object to see what that contains, for example someone’s thoughts, feelings deemed to make up one’s behaviour.  So the meaning of the process is that it may be a number of acts over time or a prolonged act with an aim of understanding which involves seeing and examining an object assumed to be made up from part or containing some parts, presumable other objects. So the main components are then the operations to describe, to explain assuming a relation of objects being in containment. Note that description means documentation, possible by suing a natural language, while explanation is annotation attached to something so described or identified.  Now let us se the components further as thy are outlined in dictionaries.

Verb: examine:

to look at something carefully in order to find out about it or see what it is like

if a doctor examines you, they look carefully at your body to check if you are healthy

to study a subject or consider an idea or plan carefully

to ask someone questions in a legal trial, and

to give students an examination to test their knowledge

The senses listed above indicate similar steps where the objective is to gain knowledge about an object, to establish its properties, whether such an object is a physical object, a person or a body of knowledge, in other words a representation, such as an idea, a plan or a concept. Examination becomes an interrogation, a  dialog when the object examined is capable of answering questions, therefore this act may also be called as retrieval, a test or a query or search for the existence of information, or evidence in another object, a person or a computer.

Notice that in physical analysis you expect to start off from a whole object and decompose or disassemble it into its constituent parts in a manner that fits the purpose of such breakdown. The same exercise (analysis) done mentally is different however, because you use isolation and abstraction to derive properties of that object, properties that do not exist on their own, they cannot be added together to reunite in the original object. But despite their name property, they are not possessed as a separate object such as a property (article of possession). However, by applying another mental operation they can be turned into an object that again can have properties. But that object is still not a physical object, but a concept which is an object created or originated by humans, unlike many of the objects that are created by the forces of nature. Nevertheless concepts are documented, hence they are physical objects as well, whether they are words of a language, or a model, or a picture or any other kind of replica, etc. used for reproduction.

Of those words used for communication some are used to identify objects, some are used to regulate the way words may be put together as a string. Such strings of words usually come in clusters that are again used either to identify an object, such as a title, or to tell you what an object is about. Other clusters of words containing a verb element are different as they are messages, they tell you more than what an object is identical with or about what is a cluster created. It should be the cluster of words that make sense as opposed to single words that do not make sense on their own, just as properties do not exist on their own. And semantic analysis is about examining a text to see if it makes sense, or what sense it makes. Therefore we are interested in content words and will show why they are useless as tags, although they are extensively used with internet publications.

Example: The Hub

Content words (occurring five times or more) as tags in The Hub

Nouns (stand alone interpretation): e.g. communication, internet, reality, content, language, understanding, message, knowledge, analysis, syntax, illusions,

Dual duty (function): object, design, process, result, search, help (six ambiguous)

Adjectives: semantic, verbal, smart

Verbs: follow, think, see,Problems:

1. Ambiguity due to context (collocations) removed, or the reduction of phrases to a single word (no collocations)

2. Frequency is not the function of information value – see grammar words (the are most numerous).

3. Nouns are more numerous than verbs and adjectives. Nouns may not only be dual duty parts of speech, but may be used in adjective position in clusters.

4. It is assumed that content words such as nouns are objects, adjectives are properties and verbs are relations. But the relation between nouns and objects is not one-to-one.

5. Also, properties may be in other forms than adjectives, for instance a possessive structure or a proposition.

6. The relation to be interpreted as existing between verbs and relation is limited to verbs that are in the predicate role in a sentence or proposition.

Possible solutions:

1. Try to keep a cluster of words that represents or identifies a whole object – real (reference to an existing object) or non real (created by abstraction such as a concept composed of properties)
2. Try to identify messages and headings as separate semantic (and pragmatic) units. This analysis depends on your previous knowledge that can be represented as topic and comment (a proposition) for alignment purposes for a comparison of knowledge with that of other people. Topic would be a title or heading, comment would be a message attached to that topic (heading), either in one sentence or in a proposal as a subject and a predicate. But subject to your knowledge you may find that
   1. A title is too generic (multiple senses, or references) or too specific (has properties unknown to you)
   2. A message is not clear a) because of the composition (collocation), or because of the granularity and/or the under-specification of the verb
   3. Makes (external) references to other points that you are not familiar with
   4. Makes no sense (has no ontological commitment), does not exist, or is a metaphor, etc.
   5. Is a code, an acronym, an abbreviation, a foreign word, etc.

Let us see next the titles as titles are supposed to tell you what the subject (of a piece of writing, such as an entry or a passage) is or is about.

Titles

1. What is the Future of the Internet going to be like?

2. What is the Present of the Internet like?

3. Why drop syntax (analysis)?

4. Selecting the objects of verbal creation

5. Selecting the objects of verbal creation

6. Selecting the level of difficulty

7. The mental operations involved:

8. Organize the information (Do chunking, use Numbered Lists to enable referencing)

9. Generalising

10. The conclusions are

Titles 1,2,3 are questions, titles 4,5,6,9 are labels, titles 7,10 are ellipsis, title 8 is an imperative,

In case of questions you expect to get a reply in the passage in the form of an object named (label),which may have to be defined, hence should be a definition, if you do not know the definition (answer). In case of labels, again, you want to define the object labeled, which in the above cases verbs (gerund), non real, figurative objects. So you either convert them into messages by detailing the properties of them, or by adding a predicate signifying a property of that label (object), or making it a proposition (by using a verb) as to what to do (e.g. an imperative) with the subject (object).

In case of the ellipsis you expect some words to complete the ellipsis to make them either a label or a message. They could be lists, either that of objects (labels) or propositions (messages).

And finally an imperative is a message as it is complete (complemented) with a verb. Notice that the first words of God were also imperatives, in fact, all the imperatives are about becoming (creation), they are the Verb or the words that started off the whole Creation according to the Bible, and which is ever since in the process of becoming[4] something else, whether we want it or not, or sometimes in line with what we desire. 

Now what would best describe the content of that blog entry in terms of labels and messages that are themselves do not represent the whole text?

Is the structure given (the number of titles and the sentences to follow) good enough for the purpose of understanding? Is the structure the only possible one to convey the same message? Clearly, it is not.

Are the word clusters specific enough to make sense (normally a message makes sense, a label does not, unless it precisely identifies an object (it has a referent), preferably an existing and real one). So selecting the following phrases[5] from the text such as would not take us closer to the message of the entry, although it may be a list of messages as opposed to a single one. The more generic a message is, the shorter it becomes, so you would expect an “abstract phrase” to contain the messages identified in detail.

But if those clusters are selected as tags, clearly the answer you expect to get from the text should come to a “what” and a “who” question, meaning that what you are primarily interested in is a definition of such a cluster. This also means that the clusters selected are too generic for you and you want more specific information. To say that they are too generic is the same as to say that there are (may be) more than one referents labelled (tagged) with those clusters.Going back to the analysis of the clusters you can also identify the objects (signified by clusters) dealt with in the entry itself. The objects should be classed as real, existing objects and concepts. When the objects are so identified, they are usually found as the subjects of sentences.

But being too generic also means that the object/subject is too far away from you, as the resolution of objects is a function of distance from the place of observation. As we live in space time, which are mutually related and are often interchanged for identification purposes, the closer you are, the more specific you get, and vice versa, whether you measure the difference of positions of objects in terms of time or distance. And if you get rid of all the specific details that are available to human perception in his immediate environment (space time), then you get something I call the Divine Aspect to inspect the world from with all its subsequent fallacies.

---

[1] Wittgenstein

[2] The tau gap

[3] Notice that in generation you need parents, in creation you need God(s)

[4] See Whitehead

[5] future of the internet, excellent authorities, architecture of the internet, complex system,