A new intelligence paradigm

[Paul Stephen Prueitt <bcngroup@erols.com>]

cc to the KMCI virtual chapter, Einstein Institute, and various other
e-forums

This message is copy-lefted and thus may be posted anywhere.  Please
circulate.

Regarding a discussion at humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org.

In general:

Perhaps the lessons learned will be the wrong lessons, so that actions taken
in response to something does NOT lead to an outcome that is good for the
overall health of the Nation, but rather is "good for" only some short term
value as measured by part of the establishment.  This response may be
predicable and exactly what was intended by an attacker or attacker
community.

Should someone somewhere talk about this possibility?

I think that everyone agrees that yes, this must be talked about - in all
countries everywhere.

In the United States, it may not be something that is polite, however -
since there is a systemic failure at the core of the many technological and
social issues.  We must listen and not be petty in our response.

As Director of the BCNGroup

http://www.bcngroup.org/admin/Charter.html,

I ask that those who are interested in positive (scientific) work on these
issues come together (virtually) in order to put forward a scholarly based
proposal for informational transparency with selective attention
automatically oriented towards attacks in cyberspace.

I have a small contract within the DoD establishment that will likely be
increased in proportion to the perceive value of our work.  It is time to do
something, do you not think?  Most of you all do not need huge hourly rates,
but rather long term support for contributing research and software
development.  Working together we will be able to create (and put into the
public domain) a new technology that "looks at the informational exchanges"
around the world with a selective attention to areas of risk to life and
liberty.

I am able to send to each person who asks some of the preliminary work on
mapping communities and community boundaries.  It is a new technique that I
have developed, but this technique needs to be enriched with behavioral
models (encoded into Petri nets).  It will be public domain, not secret and
not proprietary.

The theory of reflective control captures many of the salient problems in
the control of social action when the social action is shallowly figured
out.  Such reflective control (developed primarily in the Soviet Union, see
the work of Vladimer Lefebvre (Univ of Calf) for the Soviet work.  One sees
the type of reactions consistent with reflective control theory in the
movement of the President's plane yesterday, and in the protection of vital
assets throughout the country today.

The control of process must be deeper that what we (our DoD establishment
and our supporting cognitive science and artificial intelligence) have had
to the present moment - BECAUSE there are systemic problems with the way
science and the establishment go about developing theories of behavior.
As those in the kmci-Virtual-Chapter know, I advocate a replacement of the
current failed IT paradigm by a stratified theory of complex natural systems
(where individuals are modeled as having a hidden complex interior.)

What we see is history in the making.  What some of us are concerned with is
that there are (to use a kind term) airheads in the military and in the
cottage industries who have little insight into the nature of the problems
of terrorism, and a large financial stake in their continuing control of the
funding of DoD contracts.  They will lead us into more destruction if the
policy leaders are not wise or/and not informed.

A segment of the population are raising the notion that we must act now to
spend more money (on the kinds of stuff that we already have) because to do
this leads to the outcome that they receive more money.  This is pure
capitalism at its worst.  National intelligence is simply not reducible to
the economic value for those who are in control of the infrastructure.

The problem is not how much money is spent, but rather that the process of
gathering intelligence and being completely moral has failed us.  (The
failure is not a complete one, of course and there is great value in the way
that capitalism works.  We are moral in most ways, but not in all ways. )

We must listen to new ideas and adopt new paradigms - if we are to develop
informational transparency on situations of National well being.

The notion of increasing on the ground human intelligence sounds wonderful,
but this is not a question of a one year budget.  It takes decades to
develop such human intelligence and involve the tests of allegiance where we
end up harming ourselves to prove ourselves.

The notion of develop new type of innovations for intelligence and
understanding of human behavior is considered "research", and is not to be
considered as a priority.

Laurence, I agree with your quote


"One refusing to outlay a hundred pieces of gold and
thereby does not know the enemy's situation is the
height of inhumanity. This one is not the general of
the people, a help to the ruler, or the master of
victory. What enables the enlightened rulers and good
generals to conquer the enemy at every move and
achieve extraordinary success is foreknowledge.
Foreknowledge cannot be elicited from ghosts and
spirits; it cannot be inferred from comparison of
previous events, or from the calculations of the
heavens, but must be obtained from people who have
knowledge of the enemy's situation." (Sun Tzu)

However, there are computational techniques for bringing informational
transparency to situations that past patterns of behavior indicate lead to
outcomes (both positive and negative).

The use of gestural forms is one way to increase selective attention to
situations that should concern us.

The proposition that I am making to this group is that a subset of us work
on this issue together.

Ranjeeth, you said:

".  Paul:  I've gotten a chance to briefly survey your paper, and your work
and certainly your project bears relevance.  There are various issues of
implementation that we could talk about further, which lie outside the scope
of the project's next steps, but very interesting how such systems can be
built using various HumanMarkup sets. "

Here your notion of WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE puzzles me.  Who determines what
the next step is.  I will not be put off from moving forward by waiting
around for THE PLAN to align with what I as a scientist feel is the next
step.  I invite those who are interested to join me in making decisions
about what the next step (for us) will be.

When you say that the notions that I have developed (of gestures and state
transition) lies outside of the scope of the project's next step - I have to
stand back and ask that a new project be considered.  For those that would
feel willing to help in this new project, we can create a special e-forum.
Perhaps this is a sub-process that can go and do some work and then report
back later on to the larger project?

Let us discussion what to do at :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stratifiedcomplexity

a new forum created for this purpose.

(Please forgive me if I seem rude or insensitive - I hope that my motivation
is not questioned negatively - as I simply am acting out of private
conviction that I and other that I work with can create a new type of
intelligence infrastructure that addresses informational transparency
without giving the treasured notions of freedom and respect for individual
rights.  )