Niels, I must admit, I'm a bit baffled by your response to what I wrote. Particularly, your comment that I was "making analogies to the human mind and the internet" has me curious. I made no comment about the human mind in my post, let alone drawing an analogy between the human mind and The Internet. It is an interesting concept, whether such an analogy could be made, and some of my cyber-jungian friends might argue that there is a collective unconscious in The Internet. However, that is a completely different subject which I haven't really thought out much at all. That said, I would like to respond to some of your individual points. First, you point out that "we really don't know how neural networks ... relate to the processes of the human mind." I'm not sure I see the relavence of this. Neural networks may or may not relate to the processes of the human mind. However, they provide a model for storing of information, just as RAID 5 arrays present a similar model for storing information. Are these models useful for how organizations, whether it be terrorist cells, or 21st century corporations, could store information in a more beneficial manner? I believe that there is some value at looking at the storage of organizational information in such a way. Steve brought up one concern based on a RAID 0 style of storing information; mirroring. Yet a RAID 5 style of storing information doesn't run into these problems. Likewise, I am curious about "the assumption that the internet is of a kind that allows it to be �an organization having knowledge that the individuals don't have�." I am not sure where you find that assumption, for it isn't one of mine. I do say that "if we work from a model of human knowledge and learning as being based on neural networks, then any organization is a network of neural networks, an internet". However it seems to me that there is a profound difference between a network of networks (whether these networks be neural networks, social networks, or any other type of network) and "the internet". That said, there are some interesting questions that come up such as the difference between information and knowledge, for the internet does contain a lot more information that I contain. This leads nicely into the question of how knowledge can be obtained from the information on the internet, another interesting question, but one I haven't particularly struggled with much. Although it seems as if the field of "Knowledge Management" software is very interested in this. Likewise, this brings us to the question of the "tacit knowledge" of an organization, and the questions of how such tacit knowledge might be represented and stored. So, I feel that you missed what I was saying in my message, and I worry that I may have missed something in your message. Aldon --- Niels Ole Finnemann <finnemann@imv.au.dk> wrote:
At 18:01 +0200 on 19/09/01, air-l-request@aoir.org wrote:
I would like to come in with a comment from far away:
In air-l 117 Aldon Hayes wrote: �In neural networks, it is the network itself, and its
connections that store the information and not the individual nodes�.
and he continues making analogies to the human mind and the internet as well as to the supposed network of some terrorist groups. This sort of analogy is widespread, but are such analogies also useful?
I believe them to be strongly misleading metaphors mainly for two reasons:
First, because we really don't know <italic>how</italic> neural networks (supposed to performe the brain functions) relate to the processes of the human mind, ie: mental content, feelings, thoughts and production of, say, scientific theory. We only know that there seems to be some sort of relationship.
Second, on the internet it seems to me that the content is always stored at individual nodes and never on the net. This is also the case even if the content is distributed among different nodes. Even the code allowing the fractional parts need to be stored on a node itself. On the internet information is always stored in a physical place which can be adressed.
I would also doubt the assumption that the internet is of a kind that allows it to be
�an organization having knowledge that the individuals don't have�. Humans may have knowledge and a group of humans may have knowledge that the indiciduals don't have. But the internet??? It reminds me of Wittgenstein saying that even if lions had a language we wouldn't be able to understand it.
Maybe a useful network theory should be elaborated to include such important differences?
Niels Ole Finnemann
********************************************************************************
Niels Ole Finnemann
http://www.hum.au.dk/ckulturf/pages/php/finnemann.html
Lektor, dr. phil.
Leder af Center for Internetforskning, http://imv.au.dk/cfi/
Institut for Informations- og Medievidenskab
Aarhus Universitet
Niels Juelsgade 84 Mail: finnemann@imv.au.dk
8200 �rhus N Tlf: Dir: 89 42 19 34 - Univ: 89 42 11 11
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
__________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/