Where are the Knowledge actually hiding and when will this terminological chaos end?
As it is known, information technologies are directly connected with Data Bases (DB), without which no serious internet product specializes today, specializing, for example, in the field of analytical processing of natural language texts for machine translation or used in modern search engines.
Recently, IT specialists and enthusiasts increasingly have to deal with a new and rather strange trend - various developments have begun to enter the market, claiming, according to the declarations of their creators, that these programs operate not only with data but also with “knowledge ”, That is, they use certain“ Knowledge Base ”(BR), and are also able to“ extract knowledge from the text ”and are even capable of creating“ new knowledge ”. Is this not a direct application for "machine intelligence"?
Well, very serious statements that arouse, on the one hand, a strong interest among the developers of “intellectual programs” who trust this information, and, on the other hand, a great skepticism among experts who “have eaten more than one dog on this topic”.
')
The author, referring himself to the second category, would like this publication to reveal some underwater aspects of this looming “drug iceberg”, finding out at the same time “how much is the terminological opium for IT people today”.
Let's start, as it were, somewhat from afar. When a child in his childhood is still learning to talk, the process of his learning the language follows. For example, a grandmother says to her grandson: "This is a mother." Dityo, smiling happily, looks at his native face and sees his mother, visually highlighting her from the surrounding space, as a certain identical Object of visual format, since the Object is perceived (recorded) by the visual channel. At this moment a certain Image arises in the child's mind (otherwise, the Image Model or the Image Model) already in a virtual format, but corresponding to the Visual format “Mama” object seen through the visual channel. Remember this moment, as it is very important for a correct understanding of everything else.
Let's call this appeared virtual Image of the visually perceived “Mom” Object for brevity, as VOVO. Then, along with this, another virtual Image appears in the grandson's mind for another, now sound (audible) Object in the form of a verbally pronounced word {mother}, which the baby simultaneously hears through a different, auditory channel. Let us designate this second image appearing in consciousness as WOCO (virtual Image of a Sound Object). Remember that not one Image arises in consciousness, but two whole!
Now we note that at this very time two parallel events occur in the child's mind - the repeated pronouncing of the word “mom” and pointing to the real “Mom” object helps remember both Images (and VOVO “mom” and WHO, {mom}), and also sets between them is the CONFORMITY. Now, when the grandmother or someone else utters the word {mom}, then the already remembered VOVO "mom" will instantly and ASSOCIATIVELY arise in the children's thinking apparatus. This action is due to the fact that the word {mother} heard by the child, received by the child via the sound channel, is first recorded as WHO, {mom}, and then, as a matching ID, corresponds to the previously remembered VOVO "mom", even if no at this time nearby.
This is how the child’s TWO-CHANNEL education is carried out. The Visual Channel allocates an Object of a visual format that consciously forms a virtual Image of this Object, and its auditory channel receives its Audio Identifier in the form of a sound Object that also forms a virtual Image, but already for an Object of audio format - (WHO). These two different Images (VOVO and WHO) human consciousness and establishes compliance. Now, when a child sees his mother (as a visual Object), his thinking associates her with the verbal word {mother} (as a sound Object). And vice versa, when he hears the sound of {mom}, then he associates this with VOVO "mom".
This is how RECOGNITION of Objects!
Let us pay attention here to the root “KNOW” in the word “recognition”, which is directly related to KNOWLEDGE. No wonder that the thousand-year wisdom of the people used this fundamental principle in this application.
We now turn to the happy school period of the child in question. Teaching his pupil with an epistolary literacy, the teacher, in principle, acts the same way as the child’s parents did at his early age, that is, the teacher simply utters the word {mom} in front of the class and simultaneously writes it on the chalkboard - [mom]. At this moment, the student forms a new type of correspondence - the written grapheme-lexeme [mom] (say, graphic format) is matched with the phoneme lexeme {mom} in the form of a sound format through the creation in memory of a child of a new virtual image of a graphic Object (VOGO) [mom] . And WHO, {mom}, as is already known, has a correspondence with the VOVO "mom".
As such correspondences are established between VOGO and WTO, the student may subsequently direct directly cross-correspondences between the graphic Object (in the form of a written word) [mom] and VOVO "mom".
From here it should be clear that Knowledge arises in the only case when certain Virtual Figurative Models (PTO) are created in the human consciousness. Actually, it is these very PTOs that are the Knowledge that appears due to the “two channels” of the knowledge of the world around people.
And now let us ask ourselves this question, is it possible to learn and know the reality around us, having at our disposal only one channel of perception? Many people can answer this question positively, saying that yes, it is possible, and will give as an example blind people who do not have a visual channel for perceiving information, that is, they do not “operate with a visual format for representing Objects”. And make a mistake at least twice. First, a person has several backup channels working in other formats, for example, a tactile channel, with the help of which blind people in the childhood comprehend the world by touch, adjusting their tactile sensations (in a tactile format) with sound, and then also study the alphabet in braille alphabet. Secondly, a single-channel world with the same presentation format of Objects DOES NOT ALLOW to describe any one Object of the same format with a set of other Objects of the same format. And without this, there can be no knowledge of it. This prohibiting principle, bearing the name of its discoverer (see Edward Khachukayev, “Braynetics ...” - iknowww.ru), does not allow to establish correspondences to two one-format Objects. That is, it is impossible to recognize VOVO through VOVO, WHO through WHO, VOGO through VOGO, but it is possible VOVO through WHO, or BOTO (tactile channel) through WHO. In other words, terms of one format, having no matches for them in other formats, cannot describe a new Object.
And what about the VOGO? On the one hand, this is the same visual channel that forms the VOVO in a person, and on the other hand, it seems, Objects of a different format. There is a visual "mom", and here the word is a grapheme [mom].
This question is answered by the second, permissive part of the above principle, which says: “Within one information channel, in order to match the two generated virtual Images for two Objects of different formats, a third DYNAMIC Object will be required.”
For example, in a school for deaf-and-dumb, the teacher can teach his students the correspondence between two visual Objects, say, the “table” object and its language writing [table] will require some additional intermediary instrumental channel — a dynamic “sign language” with which ( dynamic gestures) the teacher, pointing first with his finger (or something else) to the Object “table”, then transfers the index finger to the word [table] written on the board, thus bringing two differently formatted Objects for one and th channel as a visual learner, overcoming the problem of formation in the mind deaf and Wowo VOGO for the object "table". Naturally, the teacher does not say a word.
So, we summarize that without the presence of two formats for representing the same Object in two different information channels, or the same in one channel, but without the participation of another, additional Object of a dynamic format, it is IMPOSSIBLE to recognize the primary Object in the future.
This is a very important conclusion, which allows us to understand why it is impossible to KNOW or KNOW the Objects of the surrounding world without virtual Images that are formed in the human consciousness in two-channel or two-format way. That is, Knowledge is directly related to virtual copies of real Objects. The presence of Knowledge, means the presence in our memory of VOVO, WHO, VOTO and so on according to the number of various information signals (infal, see iknowww.ru). Accordingly, the absence of virtual images in the consciousness also testifies to the absence of Knowledge itself.
From here follows another, no less important conclusion that the organization of “machine knowledge” will require exactly the same technology of a two-channel two-format or single-channel three-format representation of Objects. In modern software products, including computer hardware, neither the one nor the other, IMHO, is NOT USED. Therefore, there can be no such Knowledge in them, since computers still work with only one information channel, say, text. And for the creation of Objects of the “third dynamic format” there has not even been developed a conceptual approach, not to mention its practical implementation.
So, when we can do this, then we will talk about the “Knowledge Bases”, but for now we will be content only with Data Bases, in which, as we know, there is bare data or symbols and there is no dynamics. Moreover, there is no Knowledge in them, as there are no them in books, magazines, the Internet and various other information carriers, except for naturally intellectual ones.
Finally, I note that the one who first creates a BZ based on two-channel or dynamic technology will be the first to organize the “Artificial Mind” or “Thinking machine”, and there it’s not far to the AI.
PS
Ask habrovchan posting a link to the prototype of the IGO, which allows you to clarify what "virtual knowledge".
Recently, IT specialists and enthusiasts increasingly have to deal with a new and rather strange trend - various developments have begun to enter the market, claiming, according to the declarations of their creators, that these programs operate not only with data but also with “knowledge ”, That is, they use certain“ Knowledge Base ”(BR), and are also able to“ extract knowledge from the text ”and are even capable of creating“ new knowledge ”. Is this not a direct application for "machine intelligence"?
Well, very serious statements that arouse, on the one hand, a strong interest among the developers of “intellectual programs” who trust this information, and, on the other hand, a great skepticism among experts who “have eaten more than one dog on this topic”.
')
The author, referring himself to the second category, would like this publication to reveal some underwater aspects of this looming “drug iceberg”, finding out at the same time “how much is the terminological opium for IT people today”.
Let's start, as it were, somewhat from afar. When a child in his childhood is still learning to talk, the process of his learning the language follows. For example, a grandmother says to her grandson: "This is a mother." Dityo, smiling happily, looks at his native face and sees his mother, visually highlighting her from the surrounding space, as a certain identical Object of visual format, since the Object is perceived (recorded) by the visual channel. At this moment a certain Image arises in the child's mind (otherwise, the Image Model or the Image Model) already in a virtual format, but corresponding to the Visual format “Mama” object seen through the visual channel. Remember this moment, as it is very important for a correct understanding of everything else.
Let's call this appeared virtual Image of the visually perceived “Mom” Object for brevity, as VOVO. Then, along with this, another virtual Image appears in the grandson's mind for another, now sound (audible) Object in the form of a verbally pronounced word {mother}, which the baby simultaneously hears through a different, auditory channel. Let us designate this second image appearing in consciousness as WOCO (virtual Image of a Sound Object). Remember that not one Image arises in consciousness, but two whole!
Now we note that at this very time two parallel events occur in the child's mind - the repeated pronouncing of the word “mom” and pointing to the real “Mom” object helps remember both Images (and VOVO “mom” and WHO, {mom}), and also sets between them is the CONFORMITY. Now, when the grandmother or someone else utters the word {mom}, then the already remembered VOVO "mom" will instantly and ASSOCIATIVELY arise in the children's thinking apparatus. This action is due to the fact that the word {mother} heard by the child, received by the child via the sound channel, is first recorded as WHO, {mom}, and then, as a matching ID, corresponds to the previously remembered VOVO "mom", even if no at this time nearby.
This is how the child’s TWO-CHANNEL education is carried out. The Visual Channel allocates an Object of a visual format that consciously forms a virtual Image of this Object, and its auditory channel receives its Audio Identifier in the form of a sound Object that also forms a virtual Image, but already for an Object of audio format - (WHO). These two different Images (VOVO and WHO) human consciousness and establishes compliance. Now, when a child sees his mother (as a visual Object), his thinking associates her with the verbal word {mother} (as a sound Object). And vice versa, when he hears the sound of {mom}, then he associates this with VOVO "mom".
This is how RECOGNITION of Objects!
Let us pay attention here to the root “KNOW” in the word “recognition”, which is directly related to KNOWLEDGE. No wonder that the thousand-year wisdom of the people used this fundamental principle in this application.
We now turn to the happy school period of the child in question. Teaching his pupil with an epistolary literacy, the teacher, in principle, acts the same way as the child’s parents did at his early age, that is, the teacher simply utters the word {mom} in front of the class and simultaneously writes it on the chalkboard - [mom]. At this moment, the student forms a new type of correspondence - the written grapheme-lexeme [mom] (say, graphic format) is matched with the phoneme lexeme {mom} in the form of a sound format through the creation in memory of a child of a new virtual image of a graphic Object (VOGO) [mom] . And WHO, {mom}, as is already known, has a correspondence with the VOVO "mom".
As such correspondences are established between VOGO and WTO, the student may subsequently direct directly cross-correspondences between the graphic Object (in the form of a written word) [mom] and VOVO "mom".
From here it should be clear that Knowledge arises in the only case when certain Virtual Figurative Models (PTO) are created in the human consciousness. Actually, it is these very PTOs that are the Knowledge that appears due to the “two channels” of the knowledge of the world around people.
And now let us ask ourselves this question, is it possible to learn and know the reality around us, having at our disposal only one channel of perception? Many people can answer this question positively, saying that yes, it is possible, and will give as an example blind people who do not have a visual channel for perceiving information, that is, they do not “operate with a visual format for representing Objects”. And make a mistake at least twice. First, a person has several backup channels working in other formats, for example, a tactile channel, with the help of which blind people in the childhood comprehend the world by touch, adjusting their tactile sensations (in a tactile format) with sound, and then also study the alphabet in braille alphabet. Secondly, a single-channel world with the same presentation format of Objects DOES NOT ALLOW to describe any one Object of the same format with a set of other Objects of the same format. And without this, there can be no knowledge of it. This prohibiting principle, bearing the name of its discoverer (see Edward Khachukayev, “Braynetics ...” - iknowww.ru), does not allow to establish correspondences to two one-format Objects. That is, it is impossible to recognize VOVO through VOVO, WHO through WHO, VOGO through VOGO, but it is possible VOVO through WHO, or BOTO (tactile channel) through WHO. In other words, terms of one format, having no matches for them in other formats, cannot describe a new Object.
And what about the VOGO? On the one hand, this is the same visual channel that forms the VOVO in a person, and on the other hand, it seems, Objects of a different format. There is a visual "mom", and here the word is a grapheme [mom].
This question is answered by the second, permissive part of the above principle, which says: “Within one information channel, in order to match the two generated virtual Images for two Objects of different formats, a third DYNAMIC Object will be required.”
For example, in a school for deaf-and-dumb, the teacher can teach his students the correspondence between two visual Objects, say, the “table” object and its language writing [table] will require some additional intermediary instrumental channel — a dynamic “sign language” with which ( dynamic gestures) the teacher, pointing first with his finger (or something else) to the Object “table”, then transfers the index finger to the word [table] written on the board, thus bringing two differently formatted Objects for one and th channel as a visual learner, overcoming the problem of formation in the mind deaf and Wowo VOGO for the object "table". Naturally, the teacher does not say a word.
So, we summarize that without the presence of two formats for representing the same Object in two different information channels, or the same in one channel, but without the participation of another, additional Object of a dynamic format, it is IMPOSSIBLE to recognize the primary Object in the future.
This is a very important conclusion, which allows us to understand why it is impossible to KNOW or KNOW the Objects of the surrounding world without virtual Images that are formed in the human consciousness in two-channel or two-format way. That is, Knowledge is directly related to virtual copies of real Objects. The presence of Knowledge, means the presence in our memory of VOVO, WHO, VOTO and so on according to the number of various information signals (infal, see iknowww.ru). Accordingly, the absence of virtual images in the consciousness also testifies to the absence of Knowledge itself.
From here follows another, no less important conclusion that the organization of “machine knowledge” will require exactly the same technology of a two-channel two-format or single-channel three-format representation of Objects. In modern software products, including computer hardware, neither the one nor the other, IMHO, is NOT USED. Therefore, there can be no such Knowledge in them, since computers still work with only one information channel, say, text. And for the creation of Objects of the “third dynamic format” there has not even been developed a conceptual approach, not to mention its practical implementation.
So, when we can do this, then we will talk about the “Knowledge Bases”, but for now we will be content only with Data Bases, in which, as we know, there is bare data or symbols and there is no dynamics. Moreover, there is no Knowledge in them, as there are no them in books, magazines, the Internet and various other information carriers, except for naturally intellectual ones.
Finally, I note that the one who first creates a BZ based on two-channel or dynamic technology will be the first to organize the “Artificial Mind” or “Thinking machine”, and there it’s not far to the AI.
PS
Ask habrovchan posting a link to the prototype of the IGO, which allows you to clarify what "virtual knowledge".
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/146881/
All Articles