ORB
Visualization
Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process
3/19/2004 7:29 AM
Guys,
The practical challenge of the complex behavior put forward by members of the Semantic Web community is going to be resolved in the following way.
In cases where individuals do not want to have their communications posted, we will endeavor to not use full names in future beads.
The full communication will be then be restricted to email and to those whom I put in the bcc who have felt an interest in helping bring more balance between engineering and the life sciences. I understand that J has the proper position that he is too important and busy to attend to every issue brought to his attention. This is the position of many who control the peer-review in the area where the knowledge sciences must compete. There are very few people who are both qualified and who will work within the system.
I also understand that there is a willingness to engage in a series of conferences if proper funding and political support were to materialize. We are working on acquiring this support.
However the thematic objectification of this discussion will continue to be posted. The fact is that this thematic objectification will simply not be about personalities, but about a large social phenomenon that is persisting and which causes specific harm. So a large part of the complex behavior has to be left behind and only documented here and there so that the objective rendering of the social discourse is made (including your objections that the bead game itself violates social rules and runs on a set of principles that are not public.)
B said at one point:
I generally don't like too much the practice of
those multi-cc messages. I don't know everyone in the cc list - far from it -
feel free to answer privately if needed. If this is of public interest and you
think it deserves some sort of debate and follow-up, why not porting it to some
relevant public forum? Jim, Eric, I suppose www-rdf-logic@w3.org would be a
good place for that kind of stuff ?
J said something similar:
I won't waste your time with any further debate with Paul on this list and apologize for taking your time, however if you have questions please feel free to send them one-to-one or to contact me at the number below for higher bandwidth.
It is easy to misunderstand something, and then to not know that there is a misunderstanding. I think that this is that case now.
The problem is absence of a more full and correct knowledge about the nature of the world, not merely the social world but the natural world.
We are making no claim on knowing THE ontology, but I am pointing out that claims on ontology put forward by the engineering mindset is not found acceptable in the life sciences - except in so far as federal and corporation funding forces individual scientists into publishing as if life can be reduced to an engineering problem. This theme leads into an analysis of how federal funding is wired into the system, and the influence that business has found on what and whom gets funding.
There is no evidence that allows this engineering mindset to set aside all discussion that might be offered.
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/techInnovation/nineteen.htm
The evidence is that a great deal of social investment has occurred, and that a type of religion has been created, where the foundational assumptions are not allowed to be questioned and are reinforced by social status and economic reward. This religion type phenomenon can be challenged and an adjustment can be made.
The adjustment we seek requires a broader educational curriculum to be used in computer science departments so that computer scientists do in fact understand the silliness of this AI mythology. This curriculum will also be “encoded” into knowledge bases as part of a Knowledge Technologies Toolkit for Kids (K-12) CD and made available within the Knowledge Sharing Core (a peer-to-peer “knowledge operating system based completely on Open Source software.)
that allows those who believe in this way to make a transition to a more informed and broader notion of the properties of computers and programs and the human mind.
Memetically, there may be a way to make objective the general systems properties related to why important academics and thought leaders in the Semantic Web community continue to use language as if the computer processor "understands" the state transitions that engineering has forced to occur using very neat technology.
But, the fact is that neither a single state change, or changes that accrue over time as a program runs, is similar to the physical processes involved in perception, memory, awareness and anticipation by living systems. The computer program produces mixed results, sometimes useful and sometimes terribly misleading.
The problem that is faced is precisely the engineering profession’s attitude regarding the life sciences.
This is why one of the key points of contention is the use of language as if computer process understands what is processed, and all of the related specialized language. As long as this false language is used, the understanding and evaluation of what follows can never make sense. New DARPA or NIMA funding projects that produces one more poorly designed intelligent system like the NIMA Glass Box will not do anything to change the confusion that besets us.
These projects, like the Glass Box, are little more than toys that the intellectual leaders of engineering disciplines can play around with, not expecting to have to deliver anything because of the confusion and stove piping that exist in the client communities (CIA, NIST, etc).
For many in the life sciences this is simply offensive, and yet there has been until now little that could be done. The National Project is designed to change this situation by developing a curriculum for the knowledge sciences based on the natural sciences and the use of computer technology in a way that is consistent with HIP.
The total information awareness (DARPA TIA) and other tools for measuring public opinion and the social discourse makes it a lot easier to sample and then represent the concepts and claims that then justify behavior. Over 100 Million was actually spent on this DARPA program and on the evaluation of itself and the management of itself. For example Hicks & Associates Inc spent 14 M in one year (2002) with the single Statement of Work: evaluate technology for TIA. This was a shame, and we have both personal and secondary testimony prepared for Congressional hearing on why this specific expenditure should be investigated as Waste Fraud and Abuse.
The beads are just an attempt to objectify the discussion and to bring light on why there is a problem.