[humanmarkup-comment] FW: [topicmaps-comment] referring to a topicfrom outside a TM

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Martin,

I know what you have said to be true (see copied message below).  The
motivation of the true founders of Topic Maps clearly had a grounding in the
social and cognitive realities of what should be, but is not, regarded as
the nature of "ontology" by the IT standards folks.

The point that I have for so long suffered the TM community with is that the
market forces distort the original intent of anything that is properly
having of a "epistemic" gap between one complex subject (a human) and the
computer world.  We forget about the Nash equilibrium theorem, and a whole
host of other "stratification" considerations.  We forget about Wittgenstein
and Whorf. We forget about Robert Rosen and Roger Penrose.  We forget about
all cognitive science except that fringe that cow tals to the IT influence
lobby at NSF/DARPA and to the strong AI Dream (that a machine can think and
that a machine is the proper model for studying biological intelligence.)
Write the AI Dream in you NSF proposal and get funded.  But flip this, and
write that IT should more deeply adopt the biological model of intelligence
and you are wasting your grant writing time.  Yes?

If one can control the funding so that only the wrong paradigm is accepted
as the "best science", then one can naively ask starving scientists for $2
million dollars to have the lobbyists get some of the $800 million available
next year for basic research on the cyber security problem.

But if the science funding process is correct then there is much less
ability for lobbyist to exercise this control and steal this money from the
government.  So the system becomes perverted so that money can be acquired
by the lobbyists.  The same is true of the ISO and perhaps other standards
processes.  We are being played.

What is of great excitement to me and a few others, is that the ontology
about addressable subjects can (we have demonstrated) be formative - where
the formative process has three distinct phases.

1) the production of a graph where nodes and links are categories of
repeated occurrences of things addressable in the computer process streams.
2) the "real time" viewing of that graph (with labels) by a human
3) the control of the process #1 in real time by the human

What this seems to be is a **synthetic perceptual system** that looks into
the addressable space from the non-addressable space, and is fast enough in
the processes so as to achieve real time reactions.  A knowledge operating
system.    We have not realized such a system, but are perhaps three good
months of work away from this.

http://www.ontologystream.com/journal/vader.htm

actually perhaps less time, but we do need to find about 40K (in living
expenses) to complete the first controlable **synthetic perceptual system**.
It will be made public domain and the software given away.


Knowledge can in no way be considered to be machine addressable.  This has
nothing to do with what the ISO, or whom ever, require.  The observed fact
is that ISO procedures, itself, **require** a reduction of the complete
notion of an Topic Map to addressable subjects.  This requirement is due to
the folk psychology that these folks suffer from.  The need for social
agreement, when there are members of this community infected with the strong
AI Dream, will always lead to reductionism. We are fooled into thinking
otherwise.  Being infected with the AI Dream is only rationally understood
when one looks at who gets funding, since clearly there is not a single
example of a machine that can think - in spite of perhaps 400 - 900 million
is direct government R&D for AI.

The notion of an non-addressable subject is the notion that the problem of
ontology is not reducible to what exists in the machines.  yes?

The insistence in no way changes the reality that the topic map was supposed
to have the nature of a mental event.  Late binding of scope is the core
technical issues that can not, in theory, be resolved.  Wow, a unsolvable
problem.  And one that we can define a cottage industry around!!!

***

The work on visual abstraction can be viewed at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/SLIP/index3.htm

where we have free software for research purposes.  The export of formative
ontology into a Topic Map with HyTime rendering of actionable affordance is
reasonable; but would take anyone who worked on this away from the demands
of these powerful social forces (such as the CIA representatives etc.)
intent on reductionism.  Someone needs to hit them folks over the head and
tell them that their view of the world is a national security vulnerability.
Other systems of ontology representation in Russia, for example, is
specifically open as a conscious attempt to over come the Western IT
infrastructure in time of a great war.  (This goes back to the very large
programs funded in since the 1960s).  These systems have not been
economically viable for reasons that have to do with the selection of which
innovation school gets funded by capitalists.. so the deep struggle between
capitalism and socialism is a root cause of the vulnerability.

Capitalism may lose on this one.

Nature does not and will not take sides on this one.  Scientific and
methodological reductionism linked to capitalism and then put in control of
our democracy defines the vulnerability, and there is simply no relationship
between Paul Prueitt and the fact that this vulnerability has existed and
will continue to be a problem for the Nation.

I would be happy to discuss this further in the eventChemistry forum...  as
I do understand that my presence in the topic maps forums is not always
appreciated.

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

It continues to be my hope that the Humanmarkup community forum will see the
formative ontology as a pre-processor to automated human markup.  Semantic
nets are created automatically and viewed in the form of these visual
abstractions, where one foot of the abstraction can act as a perfect
retrieval engine and the other foot of the abstraction is being experienced
in the mind of a single human.

In so far as the topic map machinery that the community has worked on now
for several years, I feel that it is proper for one of the cyber security
folks who knows topic maps very well should work with Dean to develop a
knowledge operating system for the viewing and control of events that occur
in the addressable space of Internet transactions.  Yes?



-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bryan [mailto:mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:15 AM
To: psp
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] referring to a topic from outside a TM


>these are not comments
> about the nature and reality of topic maps (no one here is in a position
to
> discuss the clear shortcomings) it is a technical discussion that serves
to
> disguise the fact that the relationship between addressable subjects and
> non-addressable subjects is no longer of any technical importance to
> anyone - including the original group that so clearly spelled out the
> issues.

While I understand your frustration I must correct two inaccurcies in the
preceding paragraph before you leave the list:

1) The relationship between addressable subjects and non-addressable
subjects is of technical importance to some of us, but the effort in trying
to get others to listen to the arguments properly has proved not to be worth
the effort (as you note)

2) The issues were originally clearly spelt out and discussed while we were
developing ISO 13250. The fact that XTM has chosen to ignore the issues,
despite clear warnings given to them at their opening meeting that they were
taking an incorrect approach, should not be laid at the door of those
involved in the original work.

Martin Bryan
Co-editor of ISO 13250