ORB Visualization
(soon)
Summary communication
2/2/2004 8:51 AM
There is an excellent position statement on the relationship between biology and social science in this paper by Steven Thiele. Michael Lissack has an excellent paper on Indexical Catalyst and Leda Cosmides & John Tooby a excellent paper on evolutionary psychology.
These papers are downloadable from:
http://www.bcngroup.org/transfer/ThreePapers.zip
We also reference Mike Turvey's tutorial on ecological psychology
http://www.ecologicalpsychology.com/
and some representative thought from the Eastern European schools of "semiotics"
such as Kalevi Kull's paper at
http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/copytr.htm
The spectrum of concepts that we feel are relevant include Dr. David’s Woods work on data overload and cognitive systems diagnosis.
http://www.bcngroup.org/transfer/finaldiagnosisCTW.pdf
To make an addition to the above “spectrum” of concepts
OntologyStream and the BCNGroup, are defining the political basis for a National Project
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm
The National Project will address the following issue
There is a noticeable failure in the intelligence vetting process by most governments. Are some aspects of this failure due to the use of “shallow science” in the design of intelligence information technology? If so, why is the science that is available NOT being fully used in the development of future intelligence information technology?
We are prepared to make Congressional testimony in regards to what many scientists feel is a decades long distortion of the natural sciences by federal funding mechanisms, and by mainstream computer science. At one level this distortion is understandable because of the confusion within the academic community over scientific reductionism and the application of Hilbert type mathematics to complex systems such as social systems and biological systems.
However the trend in computer software development based on shallow cognitive science has, we claim, caused a downward spiral in the quality of science in the academia itself. Our problem is then global in nature, relating to the use of computer technology in human communications. Is this use based on poor natural science?
We have sought and received assistance from intelligence analysts who will testify about specific instances and primary (academic) scientists who will talk about the issues of science. The testimony has multiple events and is ongoing. Some of these efforts are in regards to government agencies not involved in intelligence generation.
For example, the issue is exposed in a GAO-filed Waste Fraud and Abuse complaint made regard what is the core phenotype of the underlying problem (a "meme-plex genotype"?) in academic science. This phenotype is perhaps one manifestation of the dysfunction of IT procurement processes within the federal government.
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/FCCcomplaint.htm
But, of course the dysfunction of intelligence community software is slightly different specific instance (phenotype) of this, conjectured, underlying (genotype) problem in science.
Second, there is a long lasting "dualism/reductionism" in which most (or some) biology and social science is locked into a myopic view of reality. One has to be careful here in making inferences as to why there appears to be a problem. But the conjecture we have advanced for consideration is that control oriented political and religious interest create and maintain this myopic view.
We agree with Steven Thiele paper on this point. The inference should be "bracketed" and carefully examined.
Dr. Thiele makes the point that, to some extent, the social science has a more difficult problem than the biologist IF a unified science is to be constructed.
The core issue has to do with fundamentalism and the various forms of reductionism. But to get into a discussion as to why reductionism is not supportive of a unified science is often not productive. One has to show a new approach where reductionisms, like fundamentalisms, are seen as artificially constructed. This is where we point to the work by David Woods, Michael Turvey and others whose referencing can really only be done if our group acquires some exploratory funding and assumes a position of leadership and collaboration.
We are using a process development methodology called AIC (appreciative, influence, control) which suggests that foundational beliefs be suspended while a larger appreciative field is developed.
We have a Groove collaborative space set up to share documents and discussions, while realizing that not everyone will want to use this free software. It is only for windows also - which is a shame but it is as it is.
http://www.bcngroup.org/transfer/GrooveInvitation.zip
***
Now we move to the point regarding inference. One might easily infer that our position requires us to not be open to a type of machine intelligence that is "mostly" computational and has a type of value envisioned by the AI community (but which has not be demonstrated). The paper by Leda Cosmides & John Tooby talks about the brain as a physical system that is involved in "computation".
At first we COULD go off and think that the terms "computation" and "physical system" have a meaning given by those whom we criticize as being reductionist, and in Thiele’s words "dualist". But we do not make this inference.
This "poor behavior" would be exactly that; poor behavior. Clearly Leda Cosmides & John Tooby mean something more complex that the type of “Hilbert mathematics” - type computation that never has to address the open nature of the real world, nor the indeterminate natures that sometimes become critical in maintaining fidelity between the "physical world" and the scientific effort.
Your support and comments are requested