Summary:

Mahayana Buddhism gives us basic element analysis. Basic element analysis is a theory (practically developed and applied) of what constitutes the smallest possible 'atoms' of human experience. A basic element is constituted of a subject, object and the relationship between these components (see basic element analysis node). This underlying structure to all experience is mirrored in every form of knowledge that is symbolised (language, music, mathematics, architecture etc.) If we can build a machine that can unpack symbolised knowledge back to its basic elements and can manipulate that knowledge on this basis - the sky is the limit :-). What I am suggesting is that basic elements are an extremely important level of granularity (see granularity bubble from Jack) for the project of federating knowledge, making knowledge 'searchable' and finding hidden relationships between aspects of knowledge. Fundamentally knowledge is a form of expereince. If we understand experience we understand what underpins knowledge. If we can unpack and repack experience from its finest level of granularity, its most basic elements to its most complex expressions as knowledge then we have a means to tackle complexity that honours the nature of human consciousness and the warp and weave that all knowledge is constructed from.

What:

I think it is possible to index all of human knowledge in a manner that makes it possible to preserve all aspects of meaning and make them 'searchable'.

Why:

I believe that basic element analysis gives us an 'atomic model' for all of human experience. If this is preserved in our interpretation of knowledge then the complexity of experience that this knowledge represents can be preserved. It is important to recognise that at any given time only a small percentage of all of human experience is symbolised into knowledge and this knowledge is only a select approximation for that experience.

How:

By cumulatively creating agents for UIMA that are able to assess the different aspects of knowledge, all of which acknowledge the underlying structure of experience.

Related concepts:

Related concepts from conversations with Jack: granularity, object boundaries, object infrastructures, Geoffery Boker and Susan Leigh Star

AH thesis Method: nodes, relationships, semiotic square, cluster analysis

AH: thesis Theory: basic element analysis, other material from Mahayana Buddhism (mental factors, wheel of karma/causality), Semiotics

AH thesis Methodology: of my thesis that show the relationships between basic element analysis, language, semiotics, Gendlin, Greimas 

Further comment:

The tendency in Western philosophy to see knowledge, objects and subjects through the lens of Cartesian dualism (the mind-body dichotomy) has created a number of divisions that are fundamentally illusory. The distinction between conscuiusness and matter is a primary example. We have been led to assume that these are separate and incommensurable realms. In philosophy of mind/ cognitive science/artificial intelligence this dichotomy is referred to as "the hard problem". The problem with the hard problem is that the problem is the problem itself. If we do not begin from a position of assuming there is a disctinction between matter and consciousness and instead use phiosophical tools that work across this apparent divide then the problem becomes redundant (see bubbles on "the hard problem" and "cartesian dualism"). The Eastern wisdom traditions provide us with numerous such tools.

I believe that one of the most important common threads across matter and consciousness is information. If we have a science of information then we can move freely from consciousness to biology, from psyche to soma, etc.  A science of information is what would allow a continual movement between these apparently incommensurable realms.

One necessary insight is the understanding of the importance of relations. Most of the information in any situation is not heald within the matter but within the relationships between the objects. The very thing that determines what is an object is its relationships to other objects, not the matter that it may be constituted from.

Theorists whose work align with and suppliment this perspective include: Fransisco Varela and the Neuropehnomenology research programme, Rosen's work in biology and recent developments in Entropic Gravity (see papers in Entropic Gravity bubble).

Of particular interest in this respect is Evan Thompson's concept of Enculturation (see bubble). Thompson addresses the current thought on genotypes, phenotypes and the means by which culture and social information is transferred from one generation to the next. He shows that these  end up expressed in constellations of matter; different realm from consciousness (don't believe that; is a dichotomy inhereted from enlightment philosophy that doesn't hold0