RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [topicmaps-comment] Re: on the Manhattan project for the Knowledge Sciences

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Human Markup is focused on enablers or observables.  Not inferencing. 
This is critical and key.   A real time system for analyzing the 
observables in order to make recommendations to analysts and policy 
makers is not beyond the scope of applications of HumanML.  It is 
beyond the scope of the markup itself.

A stratified policy system is not unlike the kind of policy analysis 
scenario simulations that have been used for some decades now and 
have even been topics of televised programs on PBS (Arthur Miller 
hosted these as I recall).   Factors of human indifference, different 
focus, different agendas, were surfaced by the questions the host 
mediator posed during the debate.  Note the criticality of a mediator 
trained to change the problem under observation to enlighten the 
participants to the fundamental differences in their viewpoints. 
Note also that they did not make decisions; they evolved a 
consensus on a recommendation that was then forwarded to a human 
empowered politically to make a decision: the commander in chief. 
This works in accordance with the highest principle of our 
philosophy of republican government:  of the people, by the 
people for the people.  Leaving people out of the intelligence 
equation is to abandon all common sense and much of common decency.

To repeat a saying from olden AI days, the principle of rationality 
is a weak predictor of human behavior.  Yet it is the over reliance 
of depending on a common definition of "rational" that is weak.  To 
the terrorist who developed in a refugee camp, a world view of 
western domination and corruption, the act of flying an airliner 
into a building is rational.  It represents an exchange of value 
for effect; life for notification.   While of interest to delve 
into the deeper meaning of that notification, this will not prevent 
the act itself.  To do this, the individuals with that definition 
of rationality, with the means to act, and the acts that prepare 
for an act must be identified.   The concept that regardless of 
the internal motivation, the pattern of behaviors that precede 
an act of a declared type is the working definition of emergence 
is the behaviorist view.   This view is sufficient to enable 
public safety systems to work in concert to defend against such 
acts.

There is no perfect security.  Just assessments of risks and 
costs of managing these risks.

The costs of HumanMarkup beyond the tool costs are the direct 
costs of using analysts from different fields to provide information 
into a common framework of markup declarations such that *different 
computational approaches (including biological models)* can be applied 
to real time and near real time information.   The basic problem 
that our technology must solve in the domains of defense are asset 
management, asset dispatch, post-hoc analysis, and identification 
of pre-call for service events that may in fact, predict emergence 
of a call for service.

We don't yet need a Manhattan Project.   We must very quickly and 
somewhat loosely couple existing systems to enable better use of 
existing assets.   Then and only then should we be looking to 
more exotic or emerging systems to strenghthen that capability.

The single best move will be to enable and train the neighborhood 
watch systems.  Human intelligence is the only real intelligence 
at our disposal.   Better enabling it must be the goal of any 
program or project attempting to add to the list of solutions for 
our current problems.

len