  28 Jul 2007 @ 15:01, by Heiner Benking
I was intrigued by the recent article about computability of games - how homoludens is outmastered by the computer, when playing Chess, Backgammon, ... but not Go !
Why ? and what that means for cognition, imagination, and pattern-languages, but also to the Braille-Alphabet for us blind people in modern media and globalisation, and what I think can be done to add human capabilities to keep "in check" advanced full-text research research like from Google, and add the big picture of the context, the broader orientation or big picture. See Panopticon.
I was intrigued by the recent article about computability of games - how homo ludens is out-mastered by the computer. How the computer wins when playing Chess, Backgammon, ... but being hopelessly loosing when playing Go !
Why ? and what that means for cognition, imagination, and pattern-languages, but also to the Braille-Alphabet for us blind people in modern media and globalisation, and what I think can be done to add human capabilities to keep "in check" advanced full-text research like from Google, and add the big picture of the context, the broader orientation or big picture. See Panopticon.
But one after the other. Computers can not cope with humans playing GO as it need visual and intuitive components and if compared to chess has 64 versus 361 fields and allows 10 power120 versus 10 power 761 for the game Go.
Using a matrix, a schema, or grid allows the human eye to see contexts and situations, I was always intrigued by when seeing masters playing simultan chess, and so I explored 3 D chess and looked into chess with three parties on a hexagon "grid" (which I developed as a student in the early 70ies and was excited to see the alternatives, social dynamics, and patterns evolving).
So what s the Braille Alphabet? A grid for the blind to help them read. What is the Ekistic grid? A way for a science and practice to look at different scale platforms and different structure elements at the same time. So what is a general Switching Systems for Archiving?
(by Ingetraut Dahlberg ISKO founding president) It is a way to bridge terminologies of disparate repositories and the grid in the left space of the Cognitive Panorama. And maybe as a combination of the above schemas: What is the Cognitive Panorama and Cognitive Spaces, where areas of meaning can overlap like a venn diagram for Cognitive Spaces.
Why all the trouble? Why look into intuition, visualisation and intelligence?
Well Humanity has open new realms with Globalisation, and new technologies like multi-media, and nano-technology, but we are still stuck in our box of the meso-scale, tangible, and material. We cross scales and dimensions, but close our eyes hoping or unconsciously trying to avoid to confront the effects we inflict. We leave our new generation without orientation and elders in power. They seem to be groping in the dark, like a drunken searching his key in the dark, as that seems to be the only obvious way to search/look ....
I explored mind architectures, deep knowledge-spaces{link:http://benking.de/meta-paradigm.htm, -maps and -metaphors&analogies, meta-paradigms,
creativity and cognition over the last 10 years, but it looks like the sciences are stuck in their box turfs as well and nobody seems to be in charge for or interested in something "outside" or "general". So how can we share - not to consider managing - something "outside there".
The design discused here is definitely not flat like a chess-board, it has to include different times, languages, cultures, perspectives, signs,... and so it has to be "deep". More needs to be written about this elsewhere if there is time ... for the beginning I propose to visit:
Interdisciplinary Conference 2004: The Evolution of World Order - EWOC
Towards one Possible Global Embodied Covenant: Models, - not just Systems, Signs, Words and Images“
Using Maps and Models, SuperSigns and SuperStructures - CODATA 2005 see also: conference text with links
Again, why the trouble, isn't it it enough to say exactly what you mean, and if the people do not get it give some definitions?
I think no, because the context varies and is situational.
To get a broader picture waht issues, books, or orgnaisatrions "are about" we have done some exercises in schools, so the pupils marked in a concretely defined and outlined! field of schema, call it knowmap or interest map, what for an example a book is about, where an organisations is working, or where individuals interest is, or what they need to know, .... So it was not multiple-choice in the conventional sense of hierachical lists like we use in "tests", but having the pupils mark any field "connected" to the issue to be registered. The outcome is a diverse matrix of interests or subjects where the depth or shading depends on how a majority feels something belongs to, think of meta-tag fields, matrixes or patterns that overlap and relate !!
This has to do with the tagging we know ten years later, or what was considered with new approaches to information management, beyond a World Press Center, see WORLD BANK letter by John O'Connor "What is going on in ICT", .
and Augmented Understanding. and how to overcome labeling and "isms", about our ways to think in boxes and consider it clear, logical and final. But this is quite another contribution as involves magnetic portals, knowbots, hypertext and hyperframes, and what they call now Web2.0....
|
|
