[humanmarkup-comment] on Complex Adaptive Systems and StratifiedComplexity

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

<header>  This is a discussion regarding the contributions (or absence of
contribution) from the academic disciplines to the KM certification
curriculums now being accredited by various government contracting
organizations.  The core claim (I make) is that these certifications are NOT
solely serving the interest of government - even to the degree called for in
legislation.  So, we wish to make the curriculum better.

http://www.ontologystream.com/distanceLearning/VKC.htm

Again, if you are too busy to read this, then please delete it - or pass it
to someone who can spare the time to read. Please make replies to the forum,
not the cc list.   Points of contact at OSTP, DARPA and NSF must be
preserved. </head>

*****
This is not a simple communication.  However, it may be as simple as can
possibly be and still address the real issues.  I suggest that the
communication be printed.
*****

At:

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

Jerry said to Ed:

"I am not clear at all about your knowledge economics
infrastructure at both micro and macro level. You are
saying "expand beyond the classical economics
instrument limitations to develop explanatory and
predictive models".  This strikes my concern that knowledge
economics model can be expanded or derived by
modifying existing ones.

From complexity perspective, structure can not be
predicted or introduced but emerged. In my opinion,
global knowledge economics maybe possible when working
on conditions and models in micro level and allow
macro infrastructure to emerge."


<Paul Prueitt's reply>

The complexity perspective of the Santa Fe Institute is perhaps less radical
than the paradigm of Stratified Complexity (SC).  As most know, I have
proposed that Stratified Complexity is a proper extension of the Complex
Adaptive Systems (CAS) paradigm.  CAS is about artificial life and computer
simulations of natural systems.  SC is based, largely, on an appreciation
that Robert Rosen, and those who were influenced by him, regarded as the
category error of thinking that the artificial simulation environment fully
models the natural systems.  It is more Peircean than some would like.

Can one really study physical emergence using a von Neumann processor?  Well
yes, of course.  But is the artificial simulation the emergent process that
is being studied?  Well no, of course.

On prediction: the prediction of an emergent process is by definition under
constrained - not formally but in reality.  But there is a rough set
architecture that allows this prediction to work without using statistics.
A small e-forum is working on this notion at:

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

and I hope that both Polish and Russian logicians will begin to have a
greater voice.  L. Zadeh (Berkeley) has agreed with me in the past
(privately) that fuzzification has not worked as he wished and that rough
sets are different in exactly the sense that fuzzification keeps the logic
constrained to a "single closed formal system" whereas rough set allows one
to weaken the foundations of set and category theory to get a stratified
theory where completeness and consistency is seen in a different light.
Yes?

Professor Smolensky (John Hopkins) may have something to say about this?

*****

Ed said to Jerry:

"I do not agree that current cognitivists are as narrowly viewed as you
suggest. It might have started that way with the work of Herbert Simon,
but the view has since expanded due to research in cognitive
neuroscience and the addition of evolutionary biology."


<Paul Prueitt's reply>

And I agree here with Ed - COMPLETELY.  There are schools of thought in
academic cognitive science that have moved way beyond the folk psychology
that is narrow, reductionist, and which reinforces the pre-Newtonian and
Newtonian view of cognition and logic.  The relationship between computer
science and cognitive science has had some real problems, to put this
politically.  This is the issue that I have felt important to raise at the
policy level at NSF.

The linkage between science policy and the business mind MUST be decoupled
if the nation is to develop the knowledge sciences and have benefit from the
as yet not developed knowledge technologies.  (Yes, as Dr. Ballard points
out, a pencil is a knowledge technology.)

Paul Werbos might be the person to speak frankly about this issue, if he has
time (and perhaps some political cover).  Paul has had a unique perspective
on this issue for over 20 years.

I will also say that I have reviewed Ed's economic theory, and I find very
little to fault here; and much to support.  I would anticipate that a
virtual PhD program in Knowledge Science would see Ed's work as a thesis of
some high value.  There are many who should have, but do not now have, an
opportunity to publish and to earn the final advanced degree.  Moreover,
there are many thesis that should be following his way of thinking about
knowledge economics.

There is, however, less that 30% of the proper Knowledge Science curriculum
defined in this work (in my opinion).  When I look around to see other 20%
here and there.  It is not for one person or organization to put all of this
together.  Therefore facilitating Masters and PhD programs in Knowledge
Science in many universities seems proper.

No one should seek a monopoly on a new and proper KM curriculum.

There are also competing information technology platforms and these vendors
have a tendancy to be less that fair to other vendors.  It is a tower of
Babble - and the behavior of the vendors makes the transition to a knowledge
ecology more difficult:

http://www.ontologystream.com/forums/Acappella/keco.htm

(A paper of transitioning knowledge ecosystems (that exist now) to knowledge
economic systems.  This is a different view, more idealistic, of knowledge
economy that the view that Ed has.)


***

As for the ownership of a process that produces proper KM curriculums.  Well
if innovators in KM where not so punished by the business mind - then I
conjecture that both Ed (as one example) and I (as a totally different
example) would be less bruised.  We are bruised, and whether or not it is
politcally correct to popint this out, I DO NOT CARE ANYMORE.  The fact is,
that I have a positive probability of having a stroke before the end of the
year.  So, I am just writting (my) history, in case all of you go away -
unexpectantly.  (I guess this is my right, and that I have not signed this
right away with some Industry NDA?  But who knows?)

The Union Institute has been a primary source of inspiration to me for over
20 years.  But as Dr. Murray knows, George Washington University and many
other bricks and mortar universities are struggling with the radical changes
the KM *taught academically* to adult learners might bring to the notion of
a university.

Ed, I am sure that universities are well aware of responsibilities with
respect to everything we could possible talk about.  They seem to have been
there and done that for forth years of so.  Yes?

Doug Weidner's primary innovations is in how to deliver content in a new
way... that accounts for many or all of the well known limitations and
weakness of distance learning systems and practice.


***

I am not looking for anything to conclude regarding this... but I am willing
to dedicate my life to this issue if there is a reasonable partner that
provides to me a means to teach and publish research.  This is my offer to
any organization that can help me shelter my children - while not
compromising the very foundation of my innovations.

http://www.ontologystream.com/bSLIP/conceptMaps.htm

(The above is a peom and a concept map that is dedicated to my oldest
daughter Jenni.)

My recent experiences with Industry have been hopeful, but also profoundly
disappointing.  The systemic behaviors of the business mind is simply
daunting.



My most recent work (4 pages) is on the basic notation for "The Functional
Load of a Concept".



http://www.ontologystream.com/bSLIP/FLC.htm


I feel that this is as good as the 1997 voting procedure (3 pages)
formalism.


http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Appendix.htm


I ask for comments and hope that others forgive me in my imperfections and
typos.