Good morning, all;

I have been looking at a collection of posts over the years regarding the creation and management of (and the perceived benefits of access to) common 'Brains', either through the EKP or the cloud. I believe the need is still there even if The Brain management team seems to have gone kind of quiet over the possibility.

I have what I believe to be a solution for them and I would encourage current users to begin to post requirements to this list.

This approach is a bit unorthodox, but as one poster said: there is a significant opportunity here and revenue is just one way to insure that the functionality we like so much continutes to evolve. I am not selling services or software - just a gentle kick in the pants.

If you want to read a bit about my information management approach, please contact me at john.ogorman@quantumsemantics.ca and I will send you an overview.

Respectful regards to The Brain team and all its fans.

John O'
I know, I know - it's kinda lame to reply to your own post, but as The Brain team will attest, I am nothing if not persistent.

Here is (part of) the pitch:

The Brain is an amazing interface and has the potential to become the defacto UI for many things. The challenge is real estate: how do I compress all my thoughts - or more importantly, my business data - into a more manageable 'space'. The answer, in my humble opinion, is to add dimensionality.  The Brain's architecture has all of the requisite discipline, components and tools to do this, and based on what I have looked in the BrainEKP information that Matt and Tracy sent me, I could do almost everything that I need to accomplish this with just a few critical adjustments to the model. The dimensionality I'm working on may require a 3D brain, but hey: Orville and Wilbur didn't start out with very good dinner service, so why not build on the dream a bit.

Real estate is just one of the challenges with The Brain; another is melding: In my PBrain (don't you just get a big kick out of Brain puns?) I have 17 (seventeen) places named 'Portland'. Why? Because there are 17 places named 'Portland' in the US. If I tried to merge/meld/mash my brain with my brother's brain - a concrete worker in Schenectady, NY - the only Portland he has in his brain is related to cement.

Here is a link to an article I wrote for a UK e-zine that will begin to set the table: http://web.fumsi.com/go/article/manage/4528

In the meantime, keep those emails and requirements coming.

John O'
Oh well, I thought if I got over 100 'Views' I would post another Reply to myself...what the heck, these meds aren't working anyway. (If my screenshots don't show up in the right place forgive me - I'll do better next time.

First, working assumption number 1: The Brain can be used for information management if - and this is the big 'IF' - you constrain the number of classes of information to 19. Taxonomists, developers and database modellers do not like this, but the objective is to make information easier to find, not to build yet another silo. So, here is a screenshot of the nineteen:

Q6 Classes

...and here is a screenshot of some of the nineteen at work:

Berlin Plex

Again, apologies if the pics are out of order or in a strange place, but the point is, I can generate this kind of Plex from nearly any source.

Comments? Anyone? Beulher?

Click image for larger version - Name: Q6_Clasess_19.jpg, Views: 320, Size: 59.35 KB Click image for larger version - Name: Berlin_Example.jpg, Views: 324, Size: 123.99 KB
John O'
That's an interesting system and group of thought types. I have something relatively similar, although it's modified a bit more towards my own uses of PB and set of responsibilities.

I think the problem of making and maintaining "common brains" is one of perspective. Mainly, everyone has a different one.

Common brains will work when it's created for a specific purpose, by a group of people with the same perspective on that purpose (as shown in by a corporate EKP solution). This allows a common language, everyone can agree on definitions, types and knowledge base structures.

However, once you step outside this artificial constraint into a public realm, the difficulty of creating a database that's understandable to everyone grows exponentially. This is why keyword search engines are so popular, and why tagging is mainly a personal solution. A lot of money is being invested in creating a semantic web, but the amount of information and the differences people have in categorizing it makes it a very difficult process, both to implement and get adoption.

Which brings me back to the list of types, which sort of exemplifies the problem. While I have some similar ones, I've had to customize my own for something that makes sense to me. For me to try and fit my data into the tags it creating an artificial restriction, and increases the time it will take to get data into my database and find it. This will increase my frustration, so I'll end up either not using it at all, or customizing it within a month. Some people don't even use types, so it wouldn't work at all for their usage.

I've found that implementing an organization style for myself it a lot of putting stuff in, arranging and re-arranging into something that makes sense, watching my habits, and reading or seeing what others are doing. Even when seeing what others do, I don't implement that exact system. I generally think on it for a few days and incorporate a piece or two into my system and see what works. I have to make it my own.
And that's really what I think the crux of the issue is with common databases. You have to either make it your own to understand it, already have a common perspective around it, or spend a lot of time figuring enough about the layout and information style to internalize it and make it useful to you.

Sorry, this doesn't really help going towards a common brain, or the requirements to do it, it's just more of an opinion around the challenges around it, and that different situations or databases will have different requirements specific to the problem you are trying to solve.


P.S. Where did a 19 class of data restriction come from?
macOS 10.14.6
TheBrain 10.0.54
zenrain, you make some excellent points - thank you for your post.

I think answering your "PS" first might gain the most ground...

I used the same approach in my model as the periodic table: there are 90 or so usable elements that make up everything in the universe. Yes, you can customize Carbon the same way you can customize the word 'palace' with the word 'imperial' but 99.99% of the chemical engineers on the planet understand that Carbon has signature characteristics that make it unique - and identifiable in any application - in the universe.

The impedence to search, discovery and interoperability exists exactly for the reasons you mentioned: everyone who ever designed a database, application or website not only made it purpose-built to suit the occasion, but inferred in the process that their Carbon (or classes, or hierarchy, or object types) were unique.

There is a way to build a 'common' brain and it is not inconsistent with the coexistence of unique thoughts, ideas and content. However, the point is that it is the content that is different not the structure. My brain is essentially the same in terms of layers, functionality and purpose than any other humanoid...how I acquire, organize and distribute and express those thoughts is different but not inside the rules of human language.

Otherwise, how would I communicate them like this?
John O'
The other point I wanted to make was that this common brain I'm envisioning works best in the confines of the enterprise, which is another reason why I think it would be a natural fit for EKP.

Let's use Sony as an example. Their corporate Brain would be called 'SonyBrain' and just like the human brain, has several layers of common information and nodes of specialization. All of the areas of SonyBrain have a similar structure:

Language common to all the disciplines (Consumer Electronics, Legal, Human Resources, Finance, Accounting, Health and Safety) would be the foundation for language that is common to all of Sony but not common to other companies. Likewise, there would be a layer dedicated to the language common to certain areas inside of Sony but not common to all areas of Sony.

Intersecting these layers are techniques to manage two things the Brain (and almost all indexing platforms) can't manage very well: equivalence and homonyms (string matches that mean different things). These same techniques can be used to manage language, acronyms, alternate spellings and abbreviations, making them - together with The Brain's architecture - an easier path to information management than we have seen to this point.

There is alot of power in hybrids. The DNA in our cells, for example, comes from two different sources and we turned out pretty well for the most part.

Finally, my purpose here is one that zenrain touched on in his post: the possibility exists to connect 'common' brains...just the 'how' remains to be seen. 

John O'

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter        Visit TheBrain Blog   Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Twitter       Like Us on Facebook   Facebook         Circle Us on Google+  Google         Watch Us on Youtube  YouTube       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software