[topicmaps-comment] on the Manhattan project for the KnowledgeSciences

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Open public letter..  please forward as you wish.

Rex,

In reading your message to me, and in reflecting on some parts of other
recent conversations, I realize - once again - that it is a hard sell for me
(or anyone) to indicate that there MIGHT be a bias against the biological
model of intelligence by computer technologists (and IT marketers) ... that
it is not merely (as you put it) "basic laziness or unwillingness to spend
time outside their normal activities and habits" .

The deficit to this bias, if it does exist, might be reflected in the
limitations that we clearly see in the kinds of artificial intelligence that
folks like the FBI Director think is going to make things a lot better in
terms of intelligence vetting.  It is not ranting, on my part, to suggest
that AI does not and can not solve the decision support and recognition of
novelty problems that are likely to the be next threat that the "system"
does not see. Penrose and Rosen and others set the problem out very clearly.

What the FBI "need" for AI will do is put more money, much more money, in
the pockets of DoD IT vendors, who think that R&D is a buzz word having
something to do with selling half baked product.  As a general principle, IT
vendors are focused on making money, not on solving problems.

During the confusion involved in spending this money no one will be able to
criticize the effort based on scientific merit.  And later next year when we
get hit again...  some how the whole claim that AI will make it predictive
and preventative will be forgotten.

It is as if we (with the help of our news media) can not remember those
things that we should remember.  What was the intelligence failure when all
intelligence agencies failed to predict Pakistan starting to test atomic
bombs?  It was the notion that - in spite of the clear evidence - no one
should expect what actually happened.

I would not be making this type of message public except that I am very
fearful about the New War taking an unexpected turn that need not occur if
openness, truth and honesty were the first principle of our foreign and
public policy.  If India attacks Pakistan, and there is a Nuclear war there,
then an American city will suffer a similar fate soon after.  Why?  It is
simply because of the tremendous suffering that (predictably) some people in
the East will feel should be shared by those who they feel built the weapons
and made the war a reality.  This is Predictive Analysis Methodology, and
this is not understood in the Middle East, and not in our establishment.

Society is too powerful to not have real knowledge of what is really going
on in the world.  We must find our way to the knowledge age, and in doing
so, we must avoid all of the religious fundamentalists and the scientific
reductionists also.  We must take the babble that they say openly as how
they really feel.  Their intense believes drives them to make their vote
count many times more than those who are the mainstream.  War and confusion
is on the path to the rapture, and thus is desirable (to them).

What will make human/machine intelligence predictive and preventative is a
system of knowledge sharing and the avoidance of making everything useful
classified.  This means, oddly enough, that we can win the New War by
returning to the democratic practice of informing the public about what is
actually reality.  We can lose the New War and the democracy by pumping
billons more into IT concepts that are illusions and then so abuse the
Constitution so as to invade the privacy of anyone...  and to look the other
way while this invasion of privacy is happening big time by the Microsoft
developers community.

The common factor is control of social reality by pure blind and greedy
economics.

My feeling (after hearing the FBI Director make statements that clearly are
not and can not be TRUE in the Sunday talk shows) is a reinforcement that
this American administration is going to get milked by IT and the DoD
cottage industries (again) over this AI Dream myth.  My feeling reminds me
of my feeling about the comments of National Security Advisor Ms. C. Rice,
"no one could have expected 9-11" when one frustrated FBI agent had just
finished writing an entire book, 3 days before 9-11 took place on the fact
that intelligence vetting or the known facts (pre - 9 -11) regarding Bin
Ladin's use of US flight schools to train for the next big attack, was being
actively blocked by the administrators of the intelligence systems.  These
folks is expensive suits.

Clearly there were folks who did expect something, and they did this without
AI and without the full support of the intelligence systems. They opened
their eyes and looked.

Why is it that we (?) hid information from the public?

So the FBI Director wants computers and AI to solve the problem of a
Predictive Analysis Methodology?  Well, I  .....  (redacted) ...  he is
listening to the same folks that will get a trademark on the term PAM
(Predictive Analysis Methodology) and then go and try to find a scientist to
put AI into the cyber warfare systems (without having a clue as to the real
issues involved in the prediction of complex reality).  The Nation's
(www.thenation.com) cover asking if the President is clueless is getting
close to the mark.  But one hopes that he and our Nation will look closely
at this funding the problem and avoiding the solution behavior.  God bless
him and our Nation.

***

The solution is a new kind of computer science, one that recognizes the
difference between the cause in a formal system (logical entailment) and the
causes in a natural system (physical entailment) such as a human mind or a
human community.  And the solution is a new kind of openness about the
failure of not only the human organizations that hid incompetence and
laziness, behind the notion of "National Security", but also the information
technology that our society has paid for and paid for and will pay for
again... but that has still not addressed the required grounding of computer
theory in some type of natural science.

I think I have the argument down to the relationship between reductionism,
the defense of a status quo that has perhaps lead us down the wrong path (to
scientific reductionism and AI) and the technical difficulty of the
backgrounds that I have learned (over forty years of hard work) ...
advanced and pure mathematics and foundations of logic plus a considerable
amount of cognitive neuroscience and immunology...

Perhaps the single easiest entrance into the grounded understanding of the
limitation of the current computer science paradigm is in the computer
science community's use (mis-use) of the word complexity.  In the scholarly
work to which I make reference in:

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm

we define complexity in a way that would give a computer an halting
condition with formally both a = b and a Not(=) b at the same time.  So in
the category theory of Rosen and perhaps Penrose, there simply can not be
computational complexity - when defined in this natural science sense.
Complexity is a property of all real systems, even any non living system
like a computer is complex (has quantum mechanical fluctuation for example)
.... but not a property of a computer program (oddly enough). All computer
processes are simple, even the entire Internet (.. Kat, I say this to you
again. .. )

The "stratified complexity" view of natural science has huge implications to
computer science and ultimately to the kind of knowledge technology that the
FBI Director needs but does not know about.  Human markup of communication
and human behaviors can be made sense of only if one sees what those in the
science of human memory, awareness and anticipation see... that separate
levels of organization are responsible and necessary to natural intelligence
and human behavior.

Also, using the notion of emergence, one can show that in most cases,
natural science would define emergence to be a process that has the property
of being non-reversible - and nothing in the computer's finite state machine
can ever not be reversible.

There are questions about the fundamental differences between "simulating
the effects of natural law" and having natural law cause motion.

The specific argument is given in

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm


So your position is partially correct.

But the issue is action perception cycles .. and all that this really
entails if we are to develop a "stratified" computational kernel for
knowledge technology.  I think that we can do this and will write about it
in the next few days.

Thank you for looking at "Detection Event in Computational Space"

http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/papers/cA-SPS.htm

My work on a the computational kernel for knowledge technology is being
developed at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/KTEcosystem.htm

and I now have everyone's agreement that this presentation can be made
public.

It is only a working concept, and I ask that anyone who is able to bring the
work of the human mark up community to this work to please give me a call.

The NIST ATP deadline is June 10th... and I am interested in adding other
junior partners to the Knowledge Net Consortium for those who feel that they
should be in involved in this.

My work on the proposed Manhattan Project for the Knowledge Sciences is at:

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/manhattan/sindex.htm


Paul Prueitt, PhD
703-981-2676