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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi David, and Everyone,

I seriously dislike making claims I can't keep, so I am not going to
say more than that there MAY be a breakthru possible in the human
side of these problematic areas. So, if anyone can assist Paul in a
significant way, I would still recommend it. However, what I am
referringto  neither precludes the desirability of Paul's project nor
suggests more than that it would be beneficial to have it in place if
other developments move along the hopeful path. I also, obviously,
can't say that Paul's project is possible separate from the NIST
Advanced Technology Project's deadline for funding in the 2002 fiscal
year. I believe it is desireable this year or next year, along with
parallel projects.

When, and/or if it turns into something more than vapor, I will let
you know. As of now it consists of the kind of inquiries into
HumanMarkup by people looking for better solutions to the problems
you and Paul have described. These folks can best be described by the
advance agents of a wary, and worried, establishment. That much is
significant.

So let me repeat: I absolute detest raising hopes even by the most
minimal amount, and this message is meant to let you know that only
the least possible opening has occurred into this area where
behind-covering has traditionally prevented an outbreak of tangible
intelligence, by which I mean the least admission on a fundamental
level that the ubquitous powers-that-be have made that maybe they
don't have the answers they thought they had, or assumed that they
had, to be more accurate.

I won't tempt fate more than that. But I won't fly American Airlines either.

Ciao,
Rex

At 10:26 PM -0700 6/2/02, David Dodds wrote:
>Hi Rex
>
>I do not have the time to do the work either by the 10th, as you
>said hope somebody in the group can do it.
>
>
>I hope not to inject a note of pessimism in the goal of our works
>but as Paul Prueitt points out it really isnt the snazzy technology
>that ultimately protects North America, detects problems and
>anomalies, its PEOPLE who push buttons that cause machinery to
>execute instructions , such as launch. With current systems and or
>Paul's systems in place we are all still at the mercy of the
>military/governmental establishment.
>
>If these advanced systems provide warnings and detections that are
>then consequently sloughed off by one or more humans in the command
>structure
>then even a truely omniscient system such as "DeepThought" would be
>only of passing help to us citizens who rely on the establishment to
>protect our persons and property.
>
>In Cybernetic terms we need to not only adress dramatically the
>"skill level" (lack of it?) in conventional IT and AI (GOFAI), but
>we also must address the (interfering) factors of human factors. IT
>and GOFAI designs tend to ignore or eliminate design aspects of what
>impact is has having HUMANS in the loop. Cybernetic designs INCLUDED
>them, and so were more complete and wholistic. BTW, IT comes from
>automating bookeeping and sending goods or transactions through some
>conduit, delivery system etc.
>
>Bankers and businessmen, the buyers of IT, dont want any deviation
>from rather simplistic repeated actions, like ledger keeping or
>shipping records etc. Its money! we're dealing with here after all..
>;)
>
>Looking to IT type solutions for any kind of intelligent or adaptive
>operation is a non-sequitor and a nonstarter.
>
>In philosophical circles (What Computers Still Cant Do, which was
>published back in the days when steam powered computers :) ) it has
>been known for YEARS and years that there are philosphically
>detectable problems with rule-based systems (ie Expert Systems), and
>also, I have personally worked with neural net software enough to
>know the many pitfalls of that area. (hint,"nobody is home" in ANNs)
>
>Still, as PPrueitt also said, because the systems which protect us
>are ultimately SOCIAL systems populated by humans (people), who have
>a great deal of power ("discretion") to operate (or not) defensive /
>offensive weaponry at our behest, the *systems analysis* of what
>needs to be done must also be cognizant of the "imperfections"
>(power tripping, thick headedness, need to "control",etc) of the
>military and government personnel "manning" these systems.
>
>Those of us, including myself, who have done computer based
>modelling of human/social systems are already aware that it is "the
>human factor", the imperfections and weaselness of some humans in a
>human-vetted system that make such a system vulnerable and exposed.
>(of course a system built with any of today's technology that
>controlled weaponry but had no vetting by humans in the loop would
>have us all glowing in the dark wthin a few months of the power
>switch going on.)
>When the very powerful radars of the DEW line were first turned on a
>squadron of fighters was sent out to shoot down the moon. Nowadays
>we have nuclear cruise missiles and there ARE pilotless aircarft NOW
>in the skies, computers run them, they are not flown directly by
>humans. fortunately a human or two sits and watches some panels and
>guages to "oversee" what these computer controlled planes are doing.
>
>has anybody seen "Terminator"?
>
>I think that human markup group has a postive part to play in all of
>this , my own HML research shows that HML DAML can be used in
>conjunction with Lakoff-deBono active diagrams to effect some
>'understanding' (in a "computer") of social behaviours. It looks
>promising. This sort of thing can be used to do modelling of the
>human aspects of human/machine systems such as our defense system.
>
>David Dodds
>
>
>>From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
>>To: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>, Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
>>CC: Humanmarkup-Comment <humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>>categoricalAbstraction <categoricalAbstraction@yahoogroups.com>,
>>Topicmaps-Comments <topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>>associates@thenation.com
>>Subject: [topicmaps-comment] Re: on the Manhattan project for the
>>Knowledge Sciences
>>Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 20:51:02 -0700
>>
>>Hi Paul,
>>
>>I can only speak for myself and say that I just don't have enough
>>time for the all-out effort that would be required from me for making
>>the June 10, 2002 deadline, not without sacrificing previous
>>commitments. However I hope someone in our effort can find the time
>>to do so.
>>
>>The president of American Airlines seems intent on making himself and
>>the rest of the airline fleets a stunning example of just how
>>shortsighted we can be since he just voiced his opinion that the
>>extra security we placed on our air fleets are no longer needed
>>because he does not think that the airlines are a target for
>>terrorists any longer.
>>
>>Best of Luck, it looks like we'll need it.
>>
>>Rex
>>
>>
>>At 9:08 PM -0400 6/2/02, paul wrote:
>>>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
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>
>David Dodds
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
>http://www.hotmail.com


--