Sunday, February 20, 2005
BCNGroup Evaluation of
CoreSystem
On the Nature of science and
cultural Polemics ŕ
On the discussion of data
regularity ŕ
On the Stephenson Cyber Attack
Taxonomy ŕ
(Download a 10 meg zipped
Macromedia presentation on CoreSystem.) ŕ
Mike,
The discussion can be opened up into a new vista. We use an AIC methodology in planning the National Project, where the first step is to develop a social field of appreciation, then develop lines of influence and then exercise control. At first it is easy to mis-communicate so we all take the time to develop our communications with care and sensitivity.
We do include in some emails a lot of individuals and attempt to make the discussion coherent and non-objectionable; and inviting of thoughtful new communications. The idea is that the discussion needs to include some specific viewpoints that do not usually get expressed. We invite these communications, and in most cases edit them with the author to publish into a type of gray literature.
I am sure that you agree with the thesis that how a collective, humanity, works a problems can over time create a specific set of limitations and successes. In some cases, we collectively get locked into a way of thinking where the underlying notions are challenged only at great risk of placing oneself outside of the community.
Your said:
"I hoped that comments I provided from the other Sandian would be
of value illustrating the points I made, add some other thoughts to the
discussion, and furthering my understanding.
Again, they are offered in support, but acknowledge that defining the
space being explored is important in applying the results."
I agree but in a way that I do not communicated well. It is with the greatest sorrow that I acknowledge my failure in this respect. Please accept my apology to the extent that I do not communicate this perfectly.
We feel that “most” individuals in the labs and in the academia are thinking in a certain way that they are not always interested in examining carefully.
There are some easy and objective tests to this conjecture. Does what is being proposed and done really stand up to inspection, or is it held together with authority figures? I guess this would be my test for funded projects at the labs and within the funding structures; ARDA, DARPA, NSF, NIST etc...
Collectively, even the greatest scholars among us have defined a notion of pragmatic to have almost the same semantics as "must find an immediate buyer for" or "must find a program manager who will support this". How can we survive otherwise?
To the degree that an individual scientist feels bothered by this, the system makes life a little uncomfortable for that individual. And so we have an evolutionary utility function that drives the science culture more into a one sided domination by fundamentalisms or one type of the other. Those who agree to the rules stay and have the good life. Those who do not agree are removed.
One problem with this funding driven science is that the type of full awareness of science, and value that science might bring to a situation, is not often present in the decision making of the processes that currently finds markets for innovations. The situation is more complex then this, and so what I have said is both incorrect (in some situations) and correct (in other situations).
Ok, now to the question of pragmatics
What is important, to the emerging knowledge sciences, is that reality in the present moment has a pragmatic axis that is not an abstraction, but is "real" in the fullest sense.
Here is the space that cA and eC concepts are being applied to. CategoricalAbstraction and eventChemistry are theories about how abstraction occurs in the mind, and how physical process form into complex systems.
A CoreOntology is a construction that presents a real time measurement of reality through some set of instruments, and is encoded into data constructions (such as OWL, or Java Beans or CoreTalk binary executables). In this space, there is structure in the expression of complex systems are generated by the patterns of behavior that individual systems choose to exhibit. These patterns are a means to reduce the struggle in living. These behaviors are NOT randomly generated and the consequences (the impact) of expressed behaviors are NOT randomly responded to.
Point in case. It is predicted with confidence that the next major terrorism attack will result in secondary damage as the national resources react to the uncertainly caused by the attack. The impact will be the designed effect, not the attack itself.
The means to measure these patterns MUST assume that problems are not infinite, as some academics want to claim, but that there is a whole - part relationship that works under conservation laws.
What the nature of these conservation laws is only now is being examined using tools like the computer. Stochastical work is essential in this area, as you pointed out. However, categorical theory is as important or more so; because it is so rarely used.
Peter’s thesis about a higher-level abstraction ontology for risks/gains fits in with the discovery of several whole-part conservation laws, and the development of some phenomenological equations where measurement process roll-up the specific observed occurrences of patterns and parts of patterns so as to give a value to this "phenomenological equations", (given in our paper).
In the Red team Blue team concept one can create a simulation and develop philosophical arguments about the concept of infinite, and then say, "in theory, no system can be proved to be immune". Peter’s discussion on this point was complete and correct. It is an argument that Stephanie Forrest (one of Hofstadter students) has been making for two decades.
But more to the point is instrumentation and data encoding. The difficulty we face with Risk ontology, whether about terrorism or cyber threats, is in not having instrumentation that tells an information-gathering program about the details of state changes. I have some work on this that I might be released to talk about if my contract with Customs goes away (which it is in the process of doing). My inquiry about a short term visiting position at one of the labs was to build this system (See temporary posting named 6 frameworkontology.ppt )
I recently visited Pacific National Northwest Labs on a quest to find a place to put myself while these more complex issues gets worked out. I enjoyed the visit, but there was not a place at this time for me. The National Project is far greater in scope that I can imagine being “about me”. It is not. There are specific arguments that mathematics and some of the notions related to precision and exactness needs to be adjusted if science is to understand things like the root cause of terrorism, or world poverty.
Then if there is instrumentation, as we would have in a CoreTalk system, we need also categorical collapse to occur in such a fashion that the event structure is revealed in the abstract. Like finding the integers, the abstractions are used to do the accounting over very real commercial transactions. Sandy’s concepts fully address this in the context of a Open but Protected IP model.
You stated:
"I've not had time nor the information to grasp the system to be
red teamed and do not yet understand how we could be most effective.
The system to be red teamed is CoreSystem used to create a CoreOntology management system for the Intelligence Community. (see PowerPoint :named 2 By-pass.ppt).