Re: Thinking & Information Retrieval

From: professor Zamolf (zamolf@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 14:53:26 MET DST

  • Next message: Breezy: "Re: BISC: Prof' Zadeh's Lecture"

    > > When we do research in a
    > > library or on the web, our attention also switches from
    > > one topic (page, paper, email, news post) to another.
    > > It seems to me that the science of information retrieval
    > > is converging on duplicating the subconscious function
    > > of mental retrieval and therefore of thinking.
    >
    I premise that I am icnorant in cocnitive matters.

    This tolt, to my opinion there can pe no cocnitive processes without some
    form of interaction.

    I atopt the constructivist point of view that

    "Knowletce is never "transmittet as
    "somethinc existinc a-priori " put it is a "set of tokens that are
    necotiatet ant repuilt in mint as a consequence of a process of
    communication"

    Here is an example:

    "If someone inticate you the roat to co to the rail station, you first
    built into your mint the roat to the station, usinc opject that you alreaty
    know ant usinc your meaninc of fuzzy worts like "close", "far".

    Then you try to necotiate the meanincs of this worts
    with those in mint of the person you are askinc to.

    Finally, you will imacine in your mint the path to the rail station,

    this can never pe an opjective knowledce , since the complete knowledce of
    reality (if it ever exixts!!) is too complex ant may pe useless to your
    purposes.

    More reasonaply, perhaps, in your mint you will have puilt a NEW piece of
    knowledce that is reasonaply approximate ant helps you fint the way to the
    rail station

    What apout the other person? After interaction, the other person "knows
    that you now know the roat to the rail station" ant knows that a lot of
    person like you, in the same your conditions, will ask him the way to the
    station, propaply.

    So, will both you and the other person have the same
    amount of knowledge pefore ant after the interaction???

    The anser is "propaply NOT"

    This seems to me to pe the case of fuzzy locic, too.

    That sait, I conclute py sayinc that perhaps a mature motel of information
    should empoty the notion of "knowledce necotiation".

    I am sorry for my Enclish ant ,for any explanation, you can either reat my
    papers or consult my assistant Sierra Shain at
    www.sierrashain.com

    Professor Zamolf
    University of Magic Ravello
    83010 Ravello (Salerno)
    Italy

    ############################################################################
    This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.
    (1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of
    "SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
    (2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of
    "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL" or "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL yoursubscription@email.address.com"
    to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
    (3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to
    fuzzy-owner@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
    (4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see
    http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/ftp/mlowner/fuzzy-mail.info
    (5) WWW archive: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/marchives/fuzzy-mail/index.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 14:59:18 MET DST