Home | News&Press-releases | Products | Company Overview | Investor Relations | Order&Buy


Our Philosophy
Technology
Our Team
Articles
Contact Information



The Role
and Meaning of Consciousness, the Subconscious and Intuition in the Search for Information




Why?
 
Some time ago the author of this article decided to create his own website on the Internet. Then he tried to find that site by using standard search engines in wide use – Yahoo!, AltaVista, HotBot, etc.
 
And the Site Wasn't Found!
 
The author began to study the problem and found that there was no system in existence for finding necessary information . At all ! There is no understanding of what information actually is, and no understanding of how to look for it.
As a result, the author created a system for seeking information according to the context and subtext of those texts that contain information .
 
What Is Information ?
 

The author defines information as "something" that manifests in the process of communication between two sides, and which can be taken as a third side.

That is, information isn't just words…

 
Consciousness.
 
Consciousness appears – according to the author's somewhat idiosyncratic definition, of course – as the manifestation and result of an immediate and (in other words) tactical striving on the part of every person to bring his whole self and all the parts that make it up into a state that each person subjectively identifies as ideal .
 

In the Biblical tradition this type of striving is called the passion of the flesh , and its unattainable result is righteousness . In Plato, the corresponding concepts are the doer of good and perfection .

 
The Subconscious.
 
The Subconscious, in turn, is the manifestation and result of a long-term – one might say, strategic – striving on the part of every person to bring his whole self and all the parts that make it up into a state that each person subjectively identifies as ideal .
 
The Ideal.
 

The state that every person considers to be ideal for the parts that make him up and his self as a whole – and for which every person strives – is always defined by each person subjectively, and never objectively. Therefore, each person's ideal state implies a particular arrangement of the surrounding world that satisfies each person's view of that world. 

The Bible and early (pre- Republic ) Plato are unanimous in affirming that there are no righteous ones , not even one, and, consequently, our ideals are no more than illusions, the blowing of a breeze, and the world that surrounds us is imperfect.

 

Experience and Intuition.

 
Life experience – which, as we all know, is the fruit of grave mistakes – is understood to be an acquired habit of receiving and understanding, in a specific way, external and internal facts [1] in so far as they favour the attainment of a certain state (of one's self and of the surrounding world) that each person considers to be ideal . Intuition, as the author of this article understands it, is a certain by-product of life experience. That is to say, in practical terms, intuition is a strategic sense of the paths that lead to the attainment of a longed-for goal – the subconscious in and of itself, not laid out in any (not necessarily verbal) structures.
 
The Search for Information.
 
Information is sought by every person in so far as it can be useful in bringing one's self and the surrounding world to a certain state that is subjectively identified as ideal . (Obviously, sometimes we seek it just for the sake of curiosity.)
 
At the Present Time
 

At the present time the basic depository of information in the form of texts is coming to be (if it isn't already) the computer.

 
The Computer.
 
The author understands a computer to be no more than a certain means for accumulating and processing information [2] , stored in primarily textual form and entered, directly or indirectly, by the computer user – a human being.
Thus the computer is understood to be an inanimate intermediary in the striving to obtain, objectively and automatically , that information which is necessary for the attainment of a certain ideal state.
 
We're All Different
 

But people are different. That's a fact . And they each have their own representation – distinct from everybody else's – of the ideal they must attain. And that's also a fact , already established two and a half thousand years ago by the authors of the Bible and Plato. Somebody wants a biceps 52 centimeters in diameter, and somebody else wants the Nobel prize. And somebody else might want both. In consequence, each person wants to find that information which is necessary for him – and for him only – to attain his own – and only his own – ideal ! For that, one must know which information is necessary for each user, and consequently, who each user is.

The cardinal solution to the problem, which we offer in this article, is the objective and automatic articulation and storage in a certain personal template (physically, an ordinary file) of the context and subtext of every text used and/or created by each person, containing abundant and objective information on the ideal and the goals of each person who creates and/or uses them.

 
And Then?
 

The author supposes that each person seeks/uses information that is not only necessary for the attainment of a certain ideal state, but that is in a form best suited for its assimilation by each person – information that each person can, without expending any particular effort, read and hear when using a computer to receive it. In other words, every person creates and uses information on an easily accessible but exclusively individual level.

This means that such information is, first and foremost, in habitual form ; where habitual form is taken to mean an aggregate of words familiar to the user – certain meaningful combinations of words – that have been assimilated in the process of learning and as the result of a certain life experience. In other words, we explain various facts of the surrounding world in a language that is the product of our life experience.

 
The Philosophy of Language.
 
The following premises will be given as postulates: a habitual linguistic construction , used by each individual person, is a construction that contains the Name (or Names) of the subjects/objects of a fact and its Ethical and Aesthetic evaluation. A total Ethical and Aesthetic evaluation is an interactive evaluation relating to both the position and the changes in position of spatially limited subjects and objects in space, plus an interactive evaluation of temporally limited changes in their internal and external situation. In turn, there can be no Aesthetic evaluation of subjects or objects without its Ethical component, and vice versa.
 
And What Does That Mean? The Name? Aesthetic and Ethical Evaluation?
 
After a careful examination of the grammar of various languages, the author has come to the conclusion that nouns play the role of the habitual, generally recognized appellations (Names) of the subjects/objects of particular events. At the same time, common sense, based on the study of Spinoza and Kant, gave the author the hint that the combination of verbs and prepositions is the Ethical and Aesthetic evaluation of events.
 
Linguistic and Grammatical Structures
 
In spite of the principles currently dominant, the author has had to refrain from dealing with grammatical (rather than linguistic [3] ) structures. After all, grammatical structures – for example, subject, predicate and object – are always, whether identified as such or not, certain parts of speech – that is, linguistic structures. Second, the subconscious semantic load of certain words people use plays too large a role. For example, the preposition "in" – crucial for profiling – means the same, in most cases, as the adjective "internal". Unfortunately, this subconscious meaning of words gets lost when one works with grammatical structures. And third, the number of parts of speech in any given language is limited, which has helped to put together a competent patent claim.
 
All That's Left to Do Is…
 

All that's left to do is to bring out all the combinations (for instance, noun-verb-preposition triads) in every clause (taken as the smallest construction with definite meaning in a text) and compute how often they occur in the entire text. Thus the most commonly used linguistic constructions are brought out – the ones habitual to the author of every (and any) text.

We can affirm that the most commonly used linguistic constructions of a particular type – noun-verb-preposition and pronoun-verb- preposition, for example – represent the context and subtext of the text, correspondingly.

 
The Articulation of Linguistic Habits .
 
It has been demonstrated experimentally that only 5-7% of the linguistically habitual triads that represent the contexts and subtexts of texts are repeated more than twice in a text of any given length. This is undoubtedly related to the fact that the lexical supply available to every person is, however large, still finite. It is well known that even professional philologists don't know more than 25,000 - 30, 000 words, and make active use of even less than that. For example, if the total number of triads in the texts of Lenin, Russell and Churchill, each consisting of 50,000 words, came to 0,7 - 1,2 million, then only 9,000 - 10,000 triads would be repeated more than twice.
 
Here are some statistics relative to various celebrities:

1. 179240 triads - Albert Einstein (23,453 words)

2. 285208 triads - Abraham Lincoln (21,112 words)

3. 594821 triads - Adolph Hitler (52,112 words)

4. 513741 triads - Anton Chekhov (53,570 words)

5. 811808 triads - Augustine (53,510 words)

6. 748549 triads - Benedict Spinoza (48,207 words)

7. 1038385 triads - Benjamin Franklin (50,023 words)

8. 461051 triads - Bertrand Russell (51,635 words)

9. 173034 triads - Bill Gates (text in 31,961 words)

10. 460630 triads - Carl G. Jung (50,247 words)

11. 1320667 triads - Daniel Defoe (50,795 words)

11. 854885 triads - Dante (50,117 words)

13. 746921 triads - David Hume (50,715 words)

11. 446160 triads - Dwight Eisenhower (41,462 words. His speeches were used)

15. 840160 triads - Edgar Allan Poe (52,095 words)

16. 467310 triads - Fyodor Dostoyevsky (50,322 words)

17. 1047118 triads - Franklin D. Roosevelt (51,264 words)

18. 329613 triads - George Washington (11,311 words)

19. 63102 triads - Harry Truman (neither a writer nor an orator – 7,151 words)

20. 541305 triads - Hillary Clinton (51,744 words – the author used her speeches as the basis for the text)

21. 85009 triads - Homer (54,071 words from the Iliad and the Odyssey )

22. 533508 triads - John Dewey (52,241 words)

23. 1384133 triads - Julius Caesar (53,433 words – a disciple of Cicero)

24. 716752 triads - Kafka (31,403 words)

25. 511764 triads - Karl Marx (50,607 words)

26. 740178 triads - Leon Trotsky (51,035 words)

27. 179658 triads - Lev Vygotsky (29,745 words)

28. 68115 triads - Ludwig Wittgenstein (17,615 words)

29. 466018 triads - Mao Tse-Tung (53,837 words)

30. 778752 triads - Mark Twain (50,036 words)

31. 261869 triads - Martin Luther King (26,857 words)

32. 81669 triads - Napoleon (a text of 5,906 words – Napoleon wrote no more than that)

33. 545711 triads - Sigmund Freud (51,031 words)

34. 639287 triads - Tacitus (51,909 words)

35. 1047118 triads - Theodore Roosevelt (51,264 words)

36. 693559 triads - Thomas Jefferson (51,897 words)

37. 207900 triads - Vaclav Havel (a text of 13,111 words)

38. 95465 triads - Vilfredo Pareto (10,002 words)

39. 1052287 triads - Vladimir Lenin (51,397 words)

40. 717444 triads - William James (51,397 words)

41. 768323 triads - William Shakespeare (51,292 words)

42. 520469 triads - Winston Churchill (52,116 words)

The author found the texts on the Internet. On the average he chose texts slightly over 50,000 words long.

 
And More…
 
Different people like different things – different books, for example. All of us like books of particular genres and by particular authors. That's a fact , isn't it? Well, when we consciously choose, say, a favourite genre of books, we are subconsciously choosing the subtext and context of the text of some one book – out of all available books in a given genre – that are habitually familiar and intelligible to us. That is, one can affirm that preference in the choice of books depends on a subconscious choice of not only the text, but also the subtext and context of the texts of books. Usually, for instance, when we're looking for a book, we simply leaf through its pages, cursorily analyzing its text, subtext and context, or we find out about its unquestionable qualities and flaws from someone who's already read it and whose judgment we trust.
 
The methodology for computer-assisted searches here presented consists of fixating by means of a template the context and subtext of a computer-read book, and then automatically finding it at the user's request. This means:

1. All the books belonging to a group that corresponds to the seeker's conscious choice are searched for according to consciously formulated criteria – for instance, the seeker may indicate that the book he's seeking belongs to a particular genre.

2. Then one correlates the subtext and context contained in the seeker's individual template with the contexts and subtexts of all the books in the chosen genre in order to make a definitive choice of one book whose subtext and context corresponds most fully with the seeker's subconscious demands.

But on What Basis…
 
As is well known, "what hurts someone is what he talks about." Translated into the language of high science, this means that the quantitatively dominant linguistic constructions in a template – that are objectively habitual to "someone" – carry information about what is most important subconsciously for the owner of the template, and that they are in fact the linguistic representation of his subconscious .
 
Demonstrations.
 
 In so far as one knows who/what is with us, that one/that thing isn't against us, then every person subjectively – and, of course, subconsciously – identifies which kind of world order is indispensable to him – i.e., that order which he – or in the case of Hillary Clinton, she – would like to impose on the surrounding world to make it subjectively ideal . This kind of approach gives the author a perfectly sound basis to affirm that the subconscious use of the preposition "in" in particular sentences and next to particular words indicates a special relevance of the subject matter of that sentence to the author. As can be seen from the templates, such linguistic constructions are the ones that occur most frequently.
In the godlike Gaius Julius Caesar's template, created on the basis of his work De Bello Gallico , we can see that the commonly occurring noun-verb-preposition triad is "caesar-be- in", which, on the strength of the fact that "Caesar" has become a common noun, bears witness to his unquestionable – one could say, divine – personal modesty. The following triads – "all-be-in", "all-have-in", and "caesar-have-in" – tell us that all must be together with Caesar in his perfectly organized, enormous and bright world!  Caesar's beloved army must also be there: "army-be- in", "legion-be-in" and "camp-be-in". And all the godlike one's enemies must follow in as well: "enemy-be-in" and "gaul-be-in".
 
In the odious Hitler's template, based on the English translation of his speeches (3), the most commonly occurring triads are "people - be - in", "german - be - in", and "state - be - in", indicating (in full agreement with the author's general theory) that Germany must conform to Hitler's philosophical representation of it in spite of everything; where the triad "one - be - in" indicates that God (the author takes it upon himself to demonstrate that the word "one" is used subconsciously in any template to mean the one God) must be with Hitler; where the triads "must - be - in", "have - have - in", "german -have - in" explain the pathology of Hitler's choice of harsh means for bringing Germany into line with his inner purpose; and the triad "war - be - in" explains the psychology of his inner world: he is constantly living in a state of war.
 

Speaking of Daniel Defoe, we can see that he, like most of us, has the traditional certainty that all and everything should be with him in his subjectively well-organized inner world: "all- be-in". But, as would be traditional for an English skeptic, a gentleman, and the father of the English intelligence service, "if-be-in?" is presented as a question. To which he himself subconsciously replies: "much-be-in". Which means that, yes, there must be a majority. But not everybody! At the same time he's no stranger to the concept of Messianic mission – "out-be-in" – which indicates that he wouldn't be against bringing those who are still not in his world into it. And it's possible that he means children – "little-be- in". Isn't this an original reading of Robinson Crusoe , on the basis of which the template was created?

And now one of the author's favourites, the radiant Anton Chekhov. He believes in God – "one-be-in" – and that we will all be with Him in Chekhovts own inner world – "all-be-in". At the same time Anton is certain that even into there, into his bright inner world, lies will penetrate: "lie-have-in". Nevertheless he's ready to take everyone there: "out-be-in". For his world is full of love: "love-be- in". But the lie will find its way even into there – "lie-will-in" – spoiling and polluting everything: "nothing-be-in". Doesn't a reading of Kashtanka and other short stories lead one to such conclusions?
 

Well, we can't do without the mighty figure of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The primary and traditional triad here is "all-be-in". He's also certain that people are everything: "all-be- all". He believes in God – "one-be-in" – and doubts that all will be with him: "if-be-in". He reckons that there will be more people in his inner world than outside it: "man-be-in", "more-be-in". He's equally certain that true life can be found only in his own world and following his own rules, which all those who are with him will accept: "life-be-in", "all-will-in", "all-have-in". People will, in the future, quite obviously want to come to him – "will-will-in" – because his inner world is the world of love – "love-be-in". This is a fact – "fact-be-in" – and all who will come and share in Fyodor's vision will enjoy unquestionable advantages – "advantage-be-in". This was the latest and most original reading of The Brothers Karamazov .

 
And here are the ideas that dominated the mind of the genius Lenin in 1919: the country, the Party, the Communits, the bourgeois, and the whole mass of people in general must be brought into line with his inner state: "country-be-in", "party-be-in", "all-be-in", "communist-be-in", "bourgeois-be-in", "mass-be-in". Everything must be Soviet – "soviet-be-in" – and all classes (social classes, of course) must correspond to Lenin's understanding of them &# 150; "class-be-in". As a genuine revolutionary – "revolution-be- in" – Lenin is convinced that everything is a struggle: "struggle-be-in". In such circumstances his party is already the majority party, the party of the Bolsheviks (i.e., "majoritarians"), not just any old thing: "party-be-party", "must-be-in", "most-be-in". Despite all this, Lenin is very much a believer: "one-be-in"…
 
To verify all these assertions one need only visit the unisearch.net website and create a template for any person.
 
Synonyms and Intuition.
 
It often happens that a computer user can't consciously formulate the objective of a search. This can be due to a multitude of reasons: a hitherto unfamiliar search topic, simple ignorance of the linguistic constructions generally accepted in relation to the search topic, one's state of health, etc.
 

In all these circumstances the author's patented method can come to one's aid:

1. One finds every possible synonym for every word in the search text [4] submitted by the seeker.

2. One creates a template of the search text – a template that contains all the linguistic constructions in the search text as well as all the possible combinations of synonyms reflecting those particular linguistic constructions that will be used in the search [5] .

3. From the user's already created and stored template one gets all the linguistic constructions that coincide with any such found in the template of the search text.

4. The linguistic constructions thus extracted and the relative frequency of their use are now taken as a new search text containing in itself everything that the user has been and is able to think subconsciously about the search topic [6] , and the new search text is then used in an automatic and objective search for information on the Standard map of any database stored in the computer.

A Standard for Information Searches in Electronic Form.
 
It's obvious that texts created by people involved in the same occupation resemble each other in their frequency of use of specific triads. Thus one can group both the users and the texts of any database according to their templates.
 
The collection of text templates sorted by similarity is called the Standard map of a given database. The collection of personal templates sorted by similarity is referred to as Families.
 
And… What Next?
 
Well, again, why are we certain (if such certainty can be had in general ) that the subtext and context of a text in fact represent the subconscious of the person who created the text?
 

  First, because of the templates – in and of themselves. Studying them, or even just reading them by themselves, leads inescapably to such a conclusion.

  Second, when we're talking about some object – a pen, let's say – out of the whole range of available words we subconsciously choose those words that say something about us, about our own state. Well, there's the subconscious creeping out.
Objectivity.
 

In the author's opinion, the adoption of a single automatized computer method for profiling all the texts used in a search allows one to speak of the objectivity of that search.

 
 

[1] A fact is understood to be the description of a limited quantity of objects in a limited interval of time.

[2] An artificial intelligence hasn't been created so far, and almost certainly never will be. This means that there is no need to expect a computer to be ever anything more than a dead piece of metal.

[3] It would be more proper to say lexical or semantic . But to avoid getting into a terminological quagmire the author is using the term linguistic .

[4] The author understands even one single word to be a text.

[5] Usually this means a noun-verb-preposition triad.

[6] That is to say, intuition is brought into play in and of itself.

 

 



E-mail | Sitemap    

All software and content is copyrighted 1998-2002