Identity-DNA

As I look at uniqueness & identity I see something in the domain of experience that is far more special than biological DNA. Like typing in the first few characters of a word & getting the whole tag or subject each of us has a unique set of experiences that transcend upbringing, biology, and categories of experience in the sequence of moments of experience called life. Can the categories of experience be specified sufficiently to use the sequence as an identity as well as an identifier in the semantic web? 

Tags

  1. indentity
  2. experience
  3. identity-dna
  4. direct experience
  5. private experience
  6. public experience
  7. linkeddata

Comments


Seth says
Ok i get it ... these molecules will evolve.  It took millions, perhaps billions, of years for our DNA to evolve.  The Internet is yet only a score of years old.  Think of how useful these molecules will be when they have evolved just 20 more years ... a thousand ... a million.  Go RDF ... go !


Seth says
... or in a tweet

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-08 05:26:18 14050
Ok i get it ... these molecules will evolve.  It took millions, perhaps billions, of years for our DNA to evolve.  The Internet is yet only a score of years old.  Think of how useful these molecules will be when they have evolved just 20 more years ... a thousand ... a million.  Go RDF ... go !

     It doesn't take billions of years if you know where you are going!  From Sputnik-I to Apollo-11 was only 11.79 yrs.  Of course if you expect random changes to get you there then you are like the old Bob Newhart routine of the 1000 monkeys in a typewriter room expected to yield a Shakespearian play given enough time. "To be or not to be das is die gezornenblat".
     IMHO, CyberMind was a much more advanced concept.  Too bad it never got updated for the context of the Web, cloud computing & such.  Words, tags & the such are flat & mean nothing except to the humans that use them.  Expecting meaning to come out of a bunch of flat words on the internet (or coded words that a human may not even understand) is a bit much; no matter how many of them you eventually have. I guess I have lost the point or what the semantic web's goal is.
 


Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-07 13:16:36 14050
M 2010-07-07 13:11:06 14050
seth 2010-07-07 12:57:53 14050
Well yes you certainly can identify an individual by a sequence of experiences.  Example: {a man who grew up in a family with 3 mothers, worked at NCR in the 70's, went to John Adams Junior High School} is probably sufficient to identify me. 
Leave the 3 mothers out & it may be more difficult.
The point is more subtle.  Even though you & I have a lot in common up to a point it diverges. Even identical twins have a divergence at some point.  Instead of SS#, DOB, Mother's maiden name etc.  There is a secondary level of experience which may be coded or specified which could double check.
Yeah got it.  And the "subtle point" is?
Well it may be fleeting but:
Source: ... The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.
... is also equivalent to a long base 4 number.  If you can code your experience in quads then you have some similarity to DNA.



Seth says
M 2010-07-08 09:12:19 14050
seth 2010-07-08 05:26:18 14050
Ok i get it ... these molecules will evolve.  It took millions, perhaps billions, of years for our DNA to evolve.  The Internet is yet only a score of years old.  Think of how useful these molecules will be when they have evolved just 20 more years ... a thousand ... a million.  Go RDF ... go !

     It doesn't take billions of years if you know where you are going!  From Sputnik-I to Apollo-11 was only 11.79 yrs.  Of course if you expect random changes to get you there then you are like the old Bob Newhart routine of the 1000 monkeys in a typewriter room expected to yield a Shakespearian play given enough time. "To be or not to be das is die gezornenblat".
     IMHO, CyberMind was a much more advanced concept.  Too bad it never got updated for the context of the Web, cloud computing & such.  Words, tags & the such are flat & mean nothing except to the humans that use them.  Expecting meaning to come out of a bunch of flat words on the internet (or coded words that a human may not even understand) is a bit much; no matter how many of them you eventually have. I guess I have lost the point or what the semantic web's goal is.
 
People and companies make changes in their products.  Each change is made for some immediate benefit.  I wouldn't call them random.  The net effect over time is that products improve ... witness the large clunky radio's of yesterday, compared with the almost miscule radios of today.   The same goes for the Internet.  Over time markup has become more powerful.  The web services of today make those in '96 look pallid. 

If i build a bell on my desktop connected to the internet via a USB and a #linkeddata parser, it could filter social streams tuning into my intentions.   When you twit {<bozo> <gizmoA> <sell>  <$200>}, it could sound off.  Your twit "meant" ring to my bell.   What other kind of meaning are you searching for?

Mark de LA says
Most of my post related to the concept of Darwinian evolution as applied to the Internet; being stimulated by "billions of years to evolve" comment. My post still considers the challenge of finding meaning as per the notion of semantics (We're talking about the Semantic Web)
semantics Look up semantics at Dictionary.com"science of meaning in language," 1893, from Fr. sémantique (1883); see semantic (also see -ics). Replaced semasiology (1847), from Ger. Semasiologie (1829), from Gk. semasia "signification, meaning.

Being paranoid of terrorism these days, I hope your app of action at a distance evolves slower that human ethics & morals evolve toward the Golden Rule. I am probably more interested in information, knowledge & wisdom than products.  Presumably the Semantic Web will refine the process of finding things & information.  A highly responsive spare brain would be an interesting meaning for the Semantic Web.  Currently we have more of a dictionary or encyclopedia. The Mind of Man was the other idea.  Right now we have a lot of data some bordering on information, some on lies & no good way to tell the difference. OTOH, for spiritual human progress it is probably good that we don't give over our thinking to electro-mechanical processes in the Internet.


Seth says
Well yes, me thinks that the Internet is in fact evolving to be a "spare brain".  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my intelligence has been enhansed by use of the Internet.  For me there is not a whole lot of reason to distinguish the Internet at large from the Semantic Web. 

"Spiritual Progress" cannot be understood without agreement on a whole slew of  assumptions.  Those assumptions are very subjective for each human individual.  My thinking processes seem to me to be enhanced by the "electro-mechanical processes" coupled to the social processes on the Internet today.  I see no non-dogmatic reason that should intefear with anything that i might call my "Spiritual Progress". 

C says
     I often think of external things like computers & calculators in terms of multipliers of my own ability go solve problems & find answers; often using the terms of AI in that vein to bypass the Turing test for artificial intelligence. I don't know whether my own intelligence is multiplied or not in that regard; just my problem solving resources.
     No doubt, spiritual progress is an individual matter. The tree of life has two ends & it's your choice, following that metaphor, to go up or down & humanity's choice likewise. There is always the possibility of mitosis for humanity in which parts which can no longer go on together make a break for it. I hope you & I find ourselves going essentially in the same journey for many futures to come.


Mark de LA says
C 2010-07-10 09:05:47 14050
Try sharing any experience with another & you won't be able to do it completely except perhaps fucking & even then there is the yin-yang duality.

Do your children learn from your experience? If not, why not? Could it be you can't communicate the full depth of your experience or perhaps your children don't want your experience. I am calling the latter the Frank Sinatra effect ("I did it my way").


C says
seth 2010-07-10 06:49:57 14050
Well, not to mince words about this, i have always though that RS's attitudes towards physical processes is  a bunch of crap.   I love the process of life and it is a physical process.   RS's preference for private experience, which cannot be shared and must be taken on faith, over public experience, which can be shared and does not need faith is, imho, a poor choice indeed.  But, hey bro, have fun with your choice ... go for it ... how does it make you feel to say things like "i have direct experiences that you cannot share" ?
The term direct experience that I use comes from Zen & ontology - not RS.  Unless you are an alien, your experience of your own self, your "I", as clear & true as you can get to it is not very shareable - a description is not the thing itself - you can't describe it. You may pass it off as just another electro-chemical storm in the brain, but that doesn't do more than stick a hokey imagination on top of an indescribable experience. Try sharing it & see how far you get! See if the other person actually gets it. 

Mark de LA says
So it's a long train of thought.
Keith S.on Facebook:

Keith S.Keith S. ‎"All certitude contains something incommunicable. Nobody can truly attain to any knowledge other than by a strictly personal effort; all that one can do for another is to offer him the opportunity and indicate the means by which to attain the same knowledge."

You just can't transmit your own experience in hi fidelity to another. The notion of public experience which can be shared is an illusion. It's a creature of the news, the media, memes & historians; people of good will & not so good will. It contains very little truth & a bunch of lies, distortions & generalizations. More on that aspect when I finish reading The Karma of Untruthfulness. I will probably put my summaries in group UnhackTheBrain!


Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-12 12:31:49 14050
Nope i did not avoid a self contradiction.   There was never any self contradiction.  You just chose to misinterpret what i said in some utterly ridiculous manner.  But, hey, fluff it off as usual, then you won't ever need  to understand what i said.
Please clarify your statement as you see it now in the context in which you understand it in a new item because your words in this one clearly contradict eachother.


Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-12 11:35:03 14050
source: MR (i presume) above
"The notion of public experience which can be shared is an illusion."
It may, or may not, be interesting to note that nobody has ever proffered an idea that "public experiece can be shared" in the sense to which you referred to it  above.  That kind of Vulcan mind meld is strictly science fiction and a diversion from anything that i said.  Do you really think that i am that stupid? 

So then what was i refering to when i said  the following?

"RS's preference for private experience, which cannot be shared and must be taken on faith, over public experience, which can be shared and does not need faith is, imho, a poor choice indeed."

To answer that question you would need to switch to the technical usage of the terms "public" and "private" in the field of psychology.  

Your shifting of context to psychology to avoid the overt self-contradiction in your previous statements is appreciated. Psychology is much less rigorous than experience & ontology and anything is up for grabs in that arena; the truth notwithstanding.  Perhaps is really is time to push the  button on this thread!

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-12 09:43:54 14050
M 2010-07-12 09:35:22 14050
seth 2010-07-12 08:41:44 14050
Well with the differences in our agendas and the confusions of our references, this train of though has gotten not just a little bit too tedious to untangle.    If there is something important for you to communicate, can i assume that you will bring it up again?
Yep, the radical diversion started when you decided "not to mince words". Guess it doesn't matter!

Well that's the way dialogue is supposed to work ... sure, there is a thing to keeping on topic ... but there is also a thing to mutating the topic.  Sometimes you get lost if you hold too fast to the former and don't notice and appreciate the latter.
Personally, I think it's up to the moderator of the group or its owner to say when the topic has been lost. This one strayed somewhat, but is an illustration of connections not likely to be found or made in the Semantic Web. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2010-07-12 12:50:20 14050
M 2010-07-12 12:38:15 14050
seth 2010-07-12 12:31:49 14050
Nope i did not avoid a self contradiction.   There was never any self contradiction.  You just chose to misinterpret what i said in some utterly ridiculous manner.  But, hey, fluff it off as usual, then you won't ever need  to understand what i said.
Please clarify your statement as you see it now in the context in which you understand it in a new item because your words in this one clearly contradict eachother.

No need clarify, I already said exactly what i meant and expressed it properly.   Just read it in the context of psychology "public behavior" "private behavior".
Your substitution response leaves the conversation inprecise & meaningless & will serve the topic by showing what kinds of meaning the Semantic Web should screen out. Please stop on this node!


Adam Purcell says
Interesting conversation. If you want more on DNA you can have a look here:

http://www.basicbiology.net/micro/genetics/dna/

See Also

  1. Thought #ThreeLawsOfReality with 575 viewings related by tag "experience".
  2. Thought #WillToBelieve with 168 viewings related by tag "experience".
  3. Thought Browsing the Semantic Web with 78 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  4. Thought about: Time Might Only Exist in Your Head. And Everyone Else's with 78 viewings related by tag "experience".
  5. Thought I can walk and chew gum with 72 viewings related by tag "experience".
  6. Thought Money is not Valuable with 45 viewings related by tag "directExperience".
  7. Thought Socrates Cafe August 23 2017 with 42 viewings related by tag "experience".
  8. Thought Sequence of Encounter reply in Newsletter with 35 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  9. Thought About beliefs with 27 viewings related by tag "DirectExperience".
  10. Thought about: The Illiative Sense with 14 viewings related by tag "experience".
  11. Thought about: Consensual Reality - comment 61266 - comment 61327 with 6 viewings related by tag "experience".
  12. Thought Nepenthe circa 1970 with 6 viewings related by tag "experience".
  13. Thought What is the mentography of JSON ? with 6 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  14. Thought The wisdom of the natural seperating of being with 3 viewings related by tag "experience".
  15. Thought Naming Context with 3 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  16. Thought My direct experience with 2 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  17. Thought Schrodinger's Cat with 2 viewings related by tag "experience".
  18. Thought The New Semantic Web ? with 2 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  19. Thought Dualities listed with 1 viewings related by tag "private experience".
  20. Thought about: sequence of encounter with 1 viewings related by tag "experience".
  21. Thought about: google open source blog: cayley: graphs in go with 1 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  22. Thought Belief with 1 viewings related by tag "experience".
  23. Thought Commercial aspects of Smart Agents and Bots with 1 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  24. Thought Peter Ralston's attitude twards representations ... with 1 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  25. Thought about: paper.li - read Twitter as a daily newspaper with 1 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  26. Thought about: "Seeing God" Nabeel Afsar -- a Muslim with 1 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  27. Thought I do not create 100% of my experience with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  28. Thought Knowing with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  29. Thought The Volcano Effect with 0 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  30. Thought Experience with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  31. Thought My Reality with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  32. Thought The Metaworld VS Direct Experience with 0 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  33. Thought Social Media Space Agnostic Comments Demo with 0 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  34. Thought about: me at sig.ma with 0 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  35. Thought A question about consciousness ... with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  36. Thought Effect ... with 0 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  37. Thought Which is the authentic experience? with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  38. Thought Nature in Me with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  39. Thought Me represented in the Linked Data Cloud with 0 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".
  40. Thought Everything is Metaphysics with 0 viewings related by tag "direct experience".
  41. Thought [title (19141)] with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  42. Thought The emotion of Grief with 0 viewings related by tag "experience".
  43. Thought Serendipituous playing in open LinkedData Spaces with 0 viewings related by tag "linkeddata".