Ming the Mechanic:
Blindness and cognitive panoramas

The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Blindness and cognitive panoramas2007-12-08 23:53
picture by Flemming Funch

An article I had meant to comment on for some time: "Playing Go - Braille Alphabet - Cognition - Creativity - Intelligence / Choice" by Heiner Benking. I don't always understand everything Heiner says, but we're on the same wavelength.

In today's information world I feel rather blind. There is more information available than ever before, and it is more easily and more instantly accessible. But it is hard to make sense of it, other than in little pieces at a time. I feel like a bat without my sonar, flapping around in the dark, bumping into stuff.

To make sense out of what is going on, you don't just need a lot of data. You don't just need a zillion disjointed pieces of information. It helps a slight bit that I can search on information by keywords, or that I can get chronological lists, but not much.

For information to have meaning, it needs context. You need to know what it relates to, and how. You need the background, you need to know how it came about, and you need to be able to cross-relate it with other information.

We do have new ways of discovering context and supporting information in the internet world. I can more easily than before find out more about an author of some piece of text. I can more easily get to talk with them. I'm more likely than before to already know them, and have some idea of their history. But the information we're talking about is still isolated clumps of somewhat arbitrary data. Articles, blog postings, comments, e-mails. People can organize them, bookmark them, tag them, link to them, quote them, but they still fit together rather badly.

A fundamental problem is in how our language works. It consists of words strung together. That is adequate for telling stories, or for working out how to work together on common ventures, or for sharing our day to day experiences with each other. Even for discussing deep philosophical issues. But it is not very adequate for examining, understanding or sharing something that is really complex. It can be done, but it is really cumbersome.

Yes, 10s of thousands of people might work together to design and build an A380 airplane, despite that none of them could do it alone. That takes 100s of thousands of documents and diagrams and complicated communication system. And they still discover when they try to put it together that the pieces the Germans made don't at all fit into the pieces that the French made. Nobody could see it, even though it was obvious once you saw it. Because large amounts of information don't necessarily add up to seeing the whole.

And it is seeing the whole thing we have a dire need for. The rapidly more complicated and complex inter-connected globalized world. Hardly anybody can see what really is going on, so we each specialize in some little slice, which we can gather enough information about to be able to seemingly talk intelligently about.

The computerized information revolution is mostly amplifying the little part of our minds that we could call the analytical or logical mind. Left brain. You know, where we try to focus on some facts in order to deduce their logical consequences. The same part of our mind that is incapable of focusing on more than 5-7 different things at the same time.

But we're not getting much help for the bigger part of our minds, the sub-conscious, the intuitive, the wholistic, the right brain. Which probably is atrophying rapidly.

Oh, the internet world has lots of raw material one could be creative and intuitive with. But it is not particularly wired to amplify our wholistic, intuitive way of seeing things.

I get back to dimensions again. The space of information we now live in has a great many dimensions to it, many more dimensions than we've lived in before, many more degrees of freedom. Yet all our tools have only a very small number of dimensions to them, and many limits and restrictions. You move around on the net and read documents, you can get lists of them, organize them on your desktop. You use an assortment of different applications that all have their own features, limitations and peculiarities. Much of that is cool. But all of it either has too few dimensions or not access to the data I'd want to see.

I'd want to not just have access to 100 billion articles, but more direct access to the actual information sources. Visual, auditory, kinesthetic channels, digital channels, all the raw numbers. And I'd want to be able to organize and visualize that as it suits me. Again, not as a catalog of articles, but as a mostly visual information space with many dimensions. And, since I can't make sense of it all alone, I need ways of navigating in multi-dimensional information spaces shared with others, and model shared meaning within them.

I'd certainly need the semantic web along the way there, or something better. A universal way of storing information so that it can be cross-related with any other information at will.

As to how to look at it, I don't know how exactly that will look, but I do know it has to be several quantum leap paradigm shift orders of magnitude above the collaborative newspaper interface we have to the net today.

It can happen in many small steps, of course. Google Earth and iPhone multi-touch interfaces go in that direction. Simple intuitive ways of accessing vast amounts of information quickly, without it ever getting complicated. More clever inventions like that might take us somewhere.

Anyway, back to Heiner's article a bit. He references some concepts and terms that hint at some of the thinking needed. And envisioned solutions like:

A conceptual superstructure that defines and identifies topics as logical places, displays relations and connections within these topics or issues"
This concept has been introduced by H. BENKING. The following comments are BENKING's explanations, plucked from a series of papers and lectures (see bibliography)
"The cognitive panorama is a metaparadigm to counteract cyberculture's anticipated impact due to its: 1)open-ended universality, 2) loss of meaning' 3) loss of context"
It is now obvious that we risk drowning in an ocean of incoherent data which could lead us to total conceptual anarchy.
According to Benking, the proposed cognitive panorama "allows us to embody and map concepts in their context and develop common frames of reference"
Such a conceptual superstructure " helps us to locate and become aware of: 1) what we know or miss, 2) where we are and what we think, 3) where we miss, underuse or manipulate information. By avoiding a "flat" chaotic mess of data which leads to the known "lost-in space" syndrome, we actually define cognitive spaces.
Through reflection on conceptual positions, outlining and embodying situations or topics (logical places or containers) we can follow meaning into embodied context and semantic spaces, and also scrutinize abstract "realities" by exploring participatory and collaboratory approaches.
®Conceptual navigation; Convertilibilty of meanings; Ecocube; Harmonization; Knowledge map; Underconceptualization
Yeah, I'd like one of those.

I think humanity has the potential for a great evolutionary leap, or several. But just like software lags years behind the capabilities of hardware, our information structures lag years behind the actual information. I hope we somehow can catch up, so I can feel a little less blind.

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]



9 Dec 2007 @ 01:10 by bushman : Hmm,
How about you turn that information into a picture, and then do that fractal trick they do with pixilated pictures to make them become seeable? Don't know if that makes sence. Intresting there is a show on PBS right now about fractals, and they just showed how they fix a low resolution pic into high resolution, that you can zoom into it and there is never any pixals showing up. Seems to me, that could be done with any kind of data. You wouldnt even have to know what the data is because the whole mass of the data is just all there compressed into each pixel of a pixel, and so on, then you just somehow use a reversed fractal with the criteria in whatever catagories your looking for, and just zoom in on it. Hmm, maybe thats googles secret, lol. I spose the point of haveing something like a webcrawler takeing accual pictures of every page on the net, rather than just looking thru stacks of information and storing it. I spose it would have to beable to make a fractal out of every word and another for all the different meanings of the same word, and one for relating words , and meanings for the different orders of words put together that end up meaning something. Well you know the old saying "A picture is worth a 1000 words"  

9 Dec 2007 @ 16:57 by ming : Fractal
Yeah, some kind of fractal thing. What's cool about fractals is that they store something complex in a small place, with a relatively simple formula.

As you say, It is like how "a picture is worth a thousand words". When we see a picture, we don't see 2 million pixels of different colors, we see something coherent that makes sense to us. Something that has many, many pieces nevertheless presents itself to us as being "one thing", something simple, something we can see.

We might read a few thousand words and "get it", condense it into "the point" of what is written. But what we translate it to is no longer in the form of thousands of words, it is some kind of image that is clear and coherent. It would be so nice if we could transmit meaning in some format that's a little closer to that.

When we figure out how to do that, we might as well finally have invented artificial intelligence at the same time.  

9 Dec 2007 @ 23:31 by bushman : Hmm,
seems easy, just write a paragraph about information your looking for, the reasons you will use the info, then use a fractal that puts all the websites that relate to what you wrote on one page, maybe in a expanding spiral of relevance to your paragraph, center would be the paragraph, then refine your search with the same basic math but with some exclusions of the obviously wrong info amongst those pages, and so on, till you get nothing but the exact info your looking for in a single group. A blury pic made into a sharp image. Wish I was good at math, lol. :}  

11 Dec 2007 @ 21:21 by vaxen : Train Strikes and...
Ever tried InfoRapidKnowledgeMap? Remember Xanadu? I think Ted (Nelson) has left the 'web' entirely for points way beyond (Oxford++) and...

How about using your 'brain?' Kidding, of course. That old Turing machine has long since been outmoded. Distributed Computing Networks: Get hot on this!

Welcome! The Freecycle Network is made up of 4,188 groups with 4,177,000 members across the globe. It’s a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (& getting) stuff for free in their own towns. It’s all about reuse and keeping good stuff out of landfills. Each local group is moderated by a local volunteer (them’s good people). Membership is free. To sign up, find your community by entering it into the search box above or by clicking on “Browse Groups” above the search box. Have fun!


Some software


A nice paper on data mining


InfoRapid KnowledgeMap


Multidimensional data mapping/mining...using outmoded systems won't work. No wonder you feel frustrated. Asymmetrical data mining sans proto patterns?

Don't you think that 'compression' holds many keys? Know about PARDES (PRDS)...? It's Hebrew, it's Quabbalah, It's multidimentional...it's code.

Ted Nelson and Xanadu:

+"xanadu" +"Ted"

For fun (Do you have any?)

Serial Experiments Lain

Ten Gazillion Bazillion Megaverses Multiversically found in a wisteria blossum.Not, of course, a very literal translation of: Ichi Nen San Zen. (Ten thousand worlds in a momentary (A point) 'state' of existance.) From the Maka Shikan.  

12 Dec 2007 @ 14:34 by jmarc : Atrophy and senses
Check out superhuman #2 in this article The Boy with Sonar Vision. Who knows what other things we are capable of? Neccessity is the mother of invention.  

2 Jan 2008 @ 18:56 by Heiner @ : FLEMMING - TED NELSON vaxen above
Yes Ted Nelson and hypertext is important in this regard - I called these the fields or bodies of knowledge "hyperframes" 17 years ago.
[http://benking.de/GI_IFIP-Education.html] [http://open-forum.de/encyclopedia-pragmatics/systemic-cybernetic-model-language.htm] [http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/isss98/house-of-eyes.htm]
Ted Nelson is still up and runing (i will forward this message) - we just congratulated him at his birthday, and thanks Flemming - it looks like a birthday present for me - THANKS ! heiner  

4 Oct 2010 @ 15:53 by mc @ : mc
You are putting great info  

4 Oct 2010 @ 15:54 by replica designer shoes @ : replica designer shoes
i came across to the and found it very helpful  

3 Dec 2010 @ 09:08 by designer handbags on sale @ : designer handbags on sale
a great post i like it  

9 Dec 2012 @ 16:24 by Sherry Steigerwald @ : THe photo in your article
Love your article. I would like to purchase this photo for my husband for Christmas. Is their a poster size photo like this for sale? Please email me and give me a price. Thank you and again great article.


9 Dec 2012 @ 16:27 by Sherry Steigerwald @ : Graphic in article
Loved your article. I would like to purcase a poster-sized copy of the graphic in your artcle. Please respond so I may purchase it for my hsuband for Christmas. Again your article was great.
Thank you,


Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other stories in
2014-09-27 00:04: You must be an expert by now
2014-09-26 15:15: Brevity
2011-11-06 21:33: Counting what counts
2011-01-23 13:46: Authenticity
2010-08-23 01:31: Semantic Pauses
2010-06-27 02:28: Doubt
2009-10-25 17:04: Opinions, perceptions and intuition
2009-10-15 08:32: Abstraction
2008-06-29 16:47: Complicated and Complex
2008-02-20 16:39: The universe as a virtual reality

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 

Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001907.htm
Main Page: ming.tv