By Joshua Cheatham

How would a computer know that when we talk about a “book of paper” we are referring to it’s composition whereas when we talk about a “book of unspeakable lies” we refer to the content of the message printed therein?

The way that this is handled is through ontology.  Whether you know it or not, each and every person’s fundamental understanding of her surroundings is based on a personal ontology.  Now “ontology” is really just a technical word for something that is at the same time simple yet crucial; an ontology is a hierarchical framework used to understand and classify things.  Let’s take a look at ontology information for cat, for example:

• A cat is a type of mammal which is a type of living thing which is a type of thing. (Classification of a thing)
• A cat has legs, fur and eyes.  (Parts of a thing)
• A cat has mass, height, lifespan and color.  (Attributes of a thing)
• Examples of a cat include Felix, Sylvester, Socks and Garfield. (Instances of a thing)

So it is these basic knowledge relationships – known as ontology – that form the most fundamental of common sense.

Going back to our conundrum with the books:  In a well-developed ontology, such as the one we’ve painstakingly implemented in the Neuric Brain, there’s a place for classifying everything, including book, paper and lies.  Even notions as varied as itch, vagabond and obstruction are in differnt branches in the ontology for the Neuric Brain.  So based on where concepts are located in the ontology the Neuric Brain can make heads and tails of things in the real world.  Ontology allows the Neuric Brain to identify whether we’re talking about composition of the physical book (paper), or the content of the book’s message (unspeakable lies).

Ontology:  You’ve got one.  I’ve got one.  And so does the Neuric Brain.