Sunday, January 08, 2006
Additional reading:
Cory Casanave's paper on Data
Access
work on ontology for biological signal pathways
[126]
ß parallel discussion in generative
methodology bead thread
Discussion on informational invariance
[342], [343], [344], [345], [346]
Note: Paul Werbos and Paul Prueitt exchanged
several
emails which are not
placed into the bead games.
Note from Paul Prueitt to Paul Werbos and others,
I dreamed about this conversation last night, and reflected on the nature of true conversation. It is nice to be able to talk with someone whom I feel understands what I am speaking to.
Transformation is a progress that comes from unseen forces, and is certainly not reducible to the types of understanding that comes out of Wall Street, or is it? Certainly there might be a market pressure to establish economic systems based on knowledge technology and distributed intelligence where value is seen both economically and in terms of maturing social value for distributed social values. For example, we could see common social discourse agreeing that there are always two kinds of bottom lines to evaluating a corporation. One can see the possibility that “evaluation” of a corporation could be done using social metrics. These metrics would fail our television industry, or beer and gambling industries. But there are many other industries that would be evaluated highly.
Mills Davis has recently circulated at pdf file, which I sent to some of the BCNGroup circle. In this pdf file, Mills represents "long waves of innovation", with "computer" being the current and "distributed intelligence" being the next, and nanotech following that.
An active distributed intelligence might soon be expressed in the virtualTaos concept of an aggregation of the text from web logs into a “Glass bead game”. Might this type of active distributed intelligence serve as an anticipatory mechanism for cultural transformation away from (current) television, beer and gambling behaviors?
I feel that virtualTaos might be one such corporation.
So by the end of this century, we could see a social world very much transformed - but to what? The possibility of deep technology innovation is only part of the picture. If the Semantic Web (ie W3C) vision of the future is achieved, then we will have mechanistic processes automating the behavior of humans. The utility function for automation will be established by de-facto truth making organized by some group. An ability to innovate will itself be shut down, for the sake of the automated whole.
If the OASIS type standards are achieved we will have human centric control over the sharing of validated knowledge about all types of things, like herbs and teas, natural medicines, and our educational processes. Problems identified will be problems solved, not necessarily from a profit motive, but as a everyday activity of emergent groups of human participants.
I see a sea change, from W3C type processes to OASIS type processes. However, at this point the transformation does not own the correct language.
For examples, the concept of Intelligent Design is not be useful because it is a concept that is captured by religious groups, and yet there is something that needs to be said - while grounding the conversation in a science literature - about anticipation. We have no language for this.
The phrases
“formal semantics”, “ontology”, “artificial intelligence”, “formal
expressibility”,
and others phrases are all defined by the strong reductionists. With this ownership the working groups in the federal government continue a process of delaying the cultural and technology transformations that could be occurring.
Paul Werbos said:
"I do not feel it is appropriate for the specifics of spiritual
reality to be taught in public schools... mainly because the would-be teachers
really do not know, and because it is too little a matter of consensus."
<end quote>
I feel the same way about mathematics, and feel that the types of teachers we have in middle and high schools should not teach mathematics. They simply do more harm than good.
But we do teach mathematics, or we say we do.
What is anticipatory of a positive transformation to maturity in issues like "spirituality without religion" and "a comprehension of the value and limitations of reductionism", and a few other things? We need to “own” the proper language.
Paul Werbos said:
"What I see . . .
is a rather specific model. Because people learn (at best) one step at
a time,
I use a classical Einstein kind of field model. What's new is
just the understanding of the model as truly Lorentz invariant, in
effect,
with time as just another dimension."
<end quote>
Here is where I think we can make some headway. The language might be about the creation of validated patterns of aggregated substructural invariances as found in the expression of the natural world. This new knowledge about patterns of expression must evolve soon from the analysis of bioinformatics data.
There is a new realization of new sub-structural/functional analysis – where wholes are always not the same as the sum of the aggregated substrate – from gene and cellular science. The metaphor that I am making is that sub-structural/functional analysis also works in the markets, specifically in business to business transactions and in person to person transactions.
BCNGroup RoadMap for Semantic Technology Adoption
Short PowerPoint on Semantic Interpretation Environments