Category: Uncategorized

That Baloney Generator – This was one of the items I also picked out in my review of Pinker. This link is to Searchlight an interesting Blog by cmac (?) at Chicago Uni. (Recently recommended list includes Lila !) David Gurteen also commented on the baloney generator. In Pinker’s words [Quote] The conscious mind — the self or soul — is a spin doctor, not the commander in chief.[Unquote]

Avoiding the Charybdis of Scientific Fundamentalism – A paper from Dr James Willis given to an audience of medical practitioners last year. Those of you following my blog will notice I’m working my way through James’ work and find that he voices the need to avoid the extremes of scientific fundamentalism as he calls it (hyper-rationalism as I’ve said) with a passion and humour born of hard-bitten experience. In our context here – don’t ever assume knowledge can be represented by some fixed ontology backed with numbers. (I’ve just obtained another of his books, Friend’s in Low Places.)

Just capturing these links for now – need to find time to read and digest.
This from Dave Pollard on the future of KM as a subject. [Ref this earlier.]
This from Paul Kelly on Philosophy’s Darwinian influence.

BlogTalk – Looks like a great time was had by all – so disappointed I couldn’t be there – maybe next time ? All these people (and more) conspicuous in photographic evidence and in copious postings from the event and in reflective post-event blogs.

Matt Mower
Paulo Valdemarin
Lilia Efimova
Dan Gillmor
Haiko Hebig
Heiko Hebig
Jorg Kantel
Thomas Burg
Seb Fiedler
Martin Roell
Ton Zijlstra
David Weinberger
Phil Wolff
Oliver Wrede
And many more ….

Most of Monday 26th. Sorry – day job calls today.

Fireworks for all

A Soundtrack To Blog By – Liked Ayda, for the backing track (plus references to Michael Moore and Nilsson ?)

To illustrate my recent points [eg here] about memes suffering from too much communication ….

In my manifesto I mentioned the fact that “rabbits run”. An idea, a piece of information released into the world, is very difficult to control being spread and multiplied by onward communication. Normally recognised in relation to subjects where there is some a priori reason for confidentiality or controlled timing, and where a misleading (or embarassing) half-truth escapes. My point relates even to the communication of well considered messages. You know the case. You’ve spent the last two weeks honing that presentation getting those bon mots just right, and the following week someone quotes you, but “That’s not what I meant, but, but, ….” Too late. Face the fact that in effect that IS what you meant, if that’s what was understood. The effort needed to change the situation to your original intent, or a considered revision of that view, escalates as the rabbits breed.

Always a suspicion of conspiracy theory – your words being twisted for someone else’s ends – or stupidity if not – did you deliberately misunderstand me you dimwit ? Speed of light communication of memes just accentuates the effect, conspiracy or cock-up is irrelevant, forget causality, it’s nature.

See, even me too. My apologies for doing it with the word meme itself – I actually no longer have any precise recollection of what Dawkins or Blackmore actually defined the term to mean, just the general idea – received / perceived wisdom – in practice I just mean “a thought shared by communication, which can be further shared and can mutate in the process”. A paradox I see, not something I’m advocating you understand, is that without some species boundaries to communication, mutation is degeneration all the way. Someone tell me I’m wrong, please. (Or is success just a numbers game ?)

The Nonsense of Knowledge Management – Paper by Professor Tom Wilson [via Oryon] lamenting the fact that KM is just the latest fad in management bandwagons. Actually he’s more objective and less scathing than that, but I have offerred the same lament once or twice recently. KM is becoming de-valued jargon linked with every management issue, and the new followers would do well to research some of the more general organisational management subjects before adding the KM tag. Tom also, like me, is concerned with narrowing the definition of Knowledge itself to distinguish it from Information, something which I approve in theory, but accept that language defines itself. Interesting that Oryon’s only problem with this is the Popperian view that one cannot scientifically “prove” the meaning of any word – 100% correct, about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle – that’s science for you.

Actually this is the same issue I blogged about memetic evolution suffering from too widespread communication too soon. A term like KM can only ever come to mean some watered down mediocre average of what anyone who first coined the term could have really intended. Fortunately this doesn’t change the significance of the issue intended. Tom actually seems to shoot his own argument in the foot by placing any credibility on the numbers-game head count of of references to KM in various management consultant papers etc, though I guess that’s the Catch-22 of having to prove his point – scientifically.

The Future’s Bright … ? From Future Meetup (4th Thursday every month) a subset of Blog Meetup (3rd Wednesday every month) via Ming The Mechanic (A blog I’d lost contact with until today.) “Future” blogs are blogs by futurists, and their meet up agenda includes these two points.

? Ray Kurzweil has suggested that by 2099 humans and machines will be indistinguishable from each other. Can this be a good thing?
? How can we maintain the higher elements of the human spirit as computers begin to exceed human intelligence in our lifetime?

Anyone who believes that by 2099 humans and machines will actually be indistinguishable or that computers will begin to exceed human intelligence, is either barking or provocatively witty, I think I know which Ray Kurzweil is. The two questions posed suggest these futurists are actually taking the suggestion seriously.