April 12 2007
Version 6
Ownership
by the business sector over IT
procurement
has been made a matter of law due to the recent expenditure
of 338
billions of dollars on the single federal program called e-Gov.
Many
benefits exist if the Resilience Project
finds its required first year budget of 6.8 billion dollars.
Table of Contents
(hyper linked)
Additional supporting
materials [3]
The Resilience Project:
Preamble
Personal knowledge editors and
knowledge operating systems
(new - 4/15/07)
Simplification of computer interfaces
Why usability matters in software
products
Benefits
to be expected from the Resilience Project's work
Introduction to the New Science
Request
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
Focus on Resilience after Disaster
Political Justification for Federal
Involvement
Computational Models of Resilience
Appendix A: First-school/second-school
controversy
Appendix
B: Category and Perception
Appendix
C: The Aspects Framework
Appendix D: International Standard
"U.S.
federal investments
in government IT spending increased steadily from approximately 36.4
billion
dollars in 2001 to 59.3 billion in 2004.
According to OMB estimates, eighty percent of this spending is
for
consultants. Technical expertise and
human capital in the federal government is being greatly weakened as a
result
of the "competitive outsourcing" policy and lack of human capital
with IT expertise in the federal government."
K.
E. Fountain,
"Prospects for the Virtual State" (2004)
Writen
in 2005, the Resilience Project White Paper sought to renew information
science by coordinating broad scale collaboration amongst scholars,
business
leaders, innovators, democratic institutions and international agencies. As a consequent of this renewal, we sought to
make it far easier to know oneself and to develop small sustainable
communities
that focus on good living in a harmonic balance with the Earth.
The
global climate change debate brings into the
public commons so much more that a concern about carbon emissions. Increasingly, we are expressing our concerns
that commercialism drives our private lives far too hard.
Social institutions are hard pressed. Our
educational institutions, for example,
suffer from an absence of focus on what makes the good life. Our medical systems serve only a few
well. Economic security can be sweep
away unexpectedly and in a fashion that leaves us without friends or
family. Broad based scholarly
collaboration is needed at a finer level than we find in our current
situation. Our knowledge of our own health can
be
acquired as a private property along with an increased awareness of our
individual strengths and natures.
Economic security can come from the development of
sustainability at a
personal level.
Human
collaboration establishes the foundation
for interactions that are both resilient and sustainable.
The question is then obvious. How might we as a society
establish a proper infrastructure for
this quality of collaboration?
Ultimately this is what scholarship is all about.
Scholarship must be interdisciplinary
and focused on gaining specific new capabilities related to
understanding the
natural world and bringing this world into various kinds of balances.
What
we find in American IT programs, both in the
university and in the corporate world, is a movement away from correct
information science. We observe the
firm establishment of a system of media control centered in the hands
of IT
consultants. One should reflect on whether this
observation is consistant with the political focus at the national
level. The IT business sector may be
the greatest obstacle to our collective effort to meet modern
challenges. It may be part of a large 'singular
coherence'
that taps almost all available personal energies and natural
resources. This White Paper will make this case.
The
promise of this White Paper is that by
correcting information science and eliminating a large percentage of
hidden
control from the IT sector, we are able to tip the scales and allow the
Old
World Order to rapidly collapse. As
this collapse occurs we may find relief in a new sense of economic
optimizing and
personal empowerment.
We
will examine the role of
individual human knowledge in building sustainable systems. We propose a route that will facilitate
movement towards a more balanced and just society. The
direction can be seen as a counter-trend. We
move in the opposite direction supported
by huge investments in poorly designed IT.
A central thesis of Resilience Project is that specific
corrections to
information science lead to a simplification of products and services
in
technology sectors.
As
a counter movement we see strength to be
gained by removing ownership from the best part of computer science,
and making
public knowledge how this best part functions.
We advance moral and legal justifications for this proposal. In
a paper authored in 2009, we make the argument that a special
technology is available. <*>
We
start with something that is a simple
assertion. The assertion is that the
notion of artificial intelligence is a myth that serves to confuse. This myth has been the leading edge of
computer science for over three decades. We can
characterize the situation in the following way. The
academic discipline called artificial
intelligence is not an objective and principled science.
AI is the product of the information
technology business sector working in concert with the military
industrial
complex. Artificial intelligence is
heavily invested in because the IT consulting industry and related
industries,
many of them components of the military industrial complex, own the
ability to
interact with the U.S. federal government.
This ownership over IT procurement has become a monopoly. The monopoly serves a non-sustainable
cultural reality.
Ownership
by the business sector over IT
procurement has been made a matter of law due to the recent expenditure
of 338
billions of dollars on the single federal program called e-Gov.
As such the entire expenditure is perhaps
one of the largest instances, in all of our history, of fraudulent
waste of
American taxpayer's dollars. Additional
expenditures at DARPA, NSF, CIA, NIST and others have clear value in
the context
of fighting wars, but less than clear value in terms of social values
other
than those directly related to war fighting.
Our
claim over simplifies the circumstances. The
causes of mistaken assertions are
complex and rooted in historical processes.
Many are related to the pursuit of warfare and some are related
simply
to the intended control over information exchanges sought by
information
technology consulting corporations and subsidiary business processes. The secrecy in both cases has created a
situation where no over sight is occurring over the expenditure nor
over the
indirect consequences in the context of the sustainability movement.
There
are well-defined alternatives. However, the
major alternatives to
artificial intelligence face an entrenchment of powers. These
powers are those that pursue a
non-sustainable consumption of the Earth's resources, the same powers
lead us
into wars of our own choosing. It is
not necessary to minimize the dangers of terrorism, but a great deal of
our
problems with others does seem to be related to imbalances created in
commodity
use. The greater social problems, often
stemming from historical conflicts between ideologies would be far
easier to
address if we have the national resources to provide our children with
knowledge
of these historical conflicts.
If
this White Paper comes into the public light,
the first major battle will be over the rights of the IT sector to
continue to
control the ownership of federal procurement processes. Our
strategy is to avoid the battle by
developing a functional alternative information infrastructure that is
simpler,
more powerful, using existing hardware and infrastructure, and
unencumbered by
ownership.
The
path of direct confrontation is not
useful. The system fully justifies itself
to itself and confrontation only places us into the category of enemy. In these times of wars and rumors of wars,
this is not a good category to be in.
However, let no one misunderstand the depth of violation of our
sense of
right and wrong by an industry that extracts for its own benefit great
wealth
under these new procurement arrangements.
The word graft” seems entirely proper.
However, and again; the path of confrontation is not
constructive as
confrontation simply feeds into this system.
We
predict that the IT sector will undergo a
rapid transformation, a downsizing that will displace over a million
employees. This is a big concern for
the founding process, and will be an issue of considerable debate. The employment transition of these
individuals is likely to be directly into the green energy economy.
The
Resilience Project is already underway in
many initiatives made in all countries around the world.
The tipping point has been reached and
passed. The individual control over
one's information space is the single most empowering element. This control is key to making a rapid
transformation from the IT sector to the green energy sector. We observe that the current information
technology does not allow a reasonable level of usability.
We observe very real, and legal, external
control over private lives enforced by our media systems.
There are; however, many dedicated groups
whose shared awareness is leading to the use of information technology
in new
ways. Wikipedia is perhaps the single
most important early sign of deep transformation in how information
will be
shared.
Why
is a simplification of current information
technology important? The answer is
simple. The current technology is not
designed to be in general useable; it is designed to control the
information
spaces and to acquire future contracts for services. We
are not being purposefully cynical, merely pointing out
obvious facts. These facts have been
hidden only due to a kind of mass blindness.
Like our additions to gambling and smoking tobacco, we have been
lead
into unusual situations by the economics of greed. We
see state sponsored gambling as a way to support a public
education system. How interesting?
A
simple claim is made. We claim that because of
hidden natures, the current computer
technology is far more complicated than necessary. We
are able to easily prove, in theory, that the computer
technology could be more powerful and more useful if a far simpler use
of
computing were made. As an implication
of our theory, simplicity and non-proprietary go together.
The
keys to the next wave of computer technology
are personal knowledge editors and knowledge operating systems. These systems will be communicated by
wireless devices, be small in storage and processing requirements, and
will be
separable from large software systems.
The individual systems will have internal monitoring
mechanims that
will measure who and how it is used.
Legal sanctions for using someone else's personal knowledge
system will
be defined in ways consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Privacy rights will be enforced. Human
knowledge will be de-centralized and sharpened.
The
decentralization of green energy production
and the development of sustainability as an operational principle will
be aided
by personal knowledge editors and knowledge operating systems. How this will occur is still beyond our
ability to describe. However, the
reality of cultural transformation seems inescapable. The
near term reality of the knowledge operating system also
seems solid to those on the founding committee.
What
usability means will shift as more
individuals learn how to develop digital knowledge representations. Representational standards include the topic
map standard and the web ontology standard, but additional standards
will soon
be revealed. Again, the primary problem
is in the poor state of computer science, and the cloud that ownership
has
placed over academic work. Digital
knowledge representations have a confused academic past, with positives
and
negatives inherited from the research communities in artificial
intelligence
and semantic web representations. So
before the new standards can be expressed and used, we have to clear
the air in
the academic environments. [5]
No
one underestimates the challenges in this
undertaking. Discussions have gone on
about what to do for over three decades.
The
Resilience Project is forward looking. We seek
to establish a refinement of
economic processes based on an advanced usage of digital information.
We
provide evidence that a simplified and yet more powerful human
communication
infrastructure is possible. The objects
that are to populate this new space will include specific ontological
models
over small production systems, system that reduce the cost to maintain
a good
living and knowledge objects developed by one's self to understand
oneself
better. The Resilience Project seeks to
establish public transparency and governance for this infrastructure. At the center of our concern is the right of
privacy.
Within
this context, global management of
commodity flow can be established, the measurement of which will create
the
basis for an international cap and trade regime on carbon emitters and
consumers. [6]
The rewards
for de-centralizing knowledge representation and giving information
science to
the public commons are huge.
The
issues are complex. We conjecture that
governance will develop from academic
collaboration regarding social aspects.
A
primary challenge is related to making available
technical information about how to develop and sustain communities that
attempts to develop increased sustainability.
This information should be in the form of curriculum supporting
life
long learning and standards for the use of digital technology. Additionally, direct exchange of complex
information is needed within the context of creating and managing
sustainable
communities.
Our
key challenge is to build a free computer
technology that is based on certain principles. These
principles should reflect spiritual and moral concerns,
related to the need to know ourselves and to use this understanding
proactively
to bring harmony and balance to the cultural and physical worlds.
The
Resilience Project founding process identified
existing elements of several simplified infrastructures, and has
defined
curriculum around principles used in specifying optimal use of
computers and
computer
systems. The context is a
de-centralized social system where a significant portion of the
population
develop small independent green energy production facilities and use
the
Internet to reduce the need for travel by car.
Paradoxically, perhaps, the de-centralization creates increased
dependency on precise knowledge of things at a distance.
Commodity exchanges will be one area where
complete transparency will aid in reducing waste in commodity
production and
distribution.
Models
of resilience should be easy to find and
to study, allowing individuals a greater degree of choice. It is
almost an immediate consequence of the rights in the U.S. Constitition
that each citizen should be able to understand how to exist within our
community while also having a moral compass. Knowledge of facts is
required to construct this compass. Is this not true?
Care
was taken to establish a mission statement
that reflects well-specified social and economic principles. A core part of the work to be
completed has to do with these principles.
Once principles are established proper economic models
will
arise. Meanwhile, our focus has been on methods
for the processing, acquisition and usage of information.
The founding process has been over loaded
with intellectual, brain-oriented individuals.
However, we are very aware of the consequences that come as our
economic
system responses to various practical challenges.
The founding board has worked to extend and integrate an
existing core
of thought about the nature of information and the relationship between
information, knowledge, and data. This
nature resides in the individual and in the collective.
The
average individual may become more aware of
some basic human values. For example,
we as individuals are aware of the unique human
capability to
make sense of the world. This capability is also
uniquely exercised by the individual. Sense making
ability may be seen as tied to a kind of rugged individualism, a person
living
within oneself, making interpretations about patterns that the natural
world
presents. Sense making is also applied
to living in the many social environments, and in contributing to those
environments. How may I make a world
for me? The current historical
setting places specific challenges on each individual. The
challenges are for each person both
unique and having shared elements.
To
meet the challenges, the individual may seek
to gain increasing awareness of consequences.
Should I move to the country and develop a small farm or can I
figure
out some way to participate in the green revolution while living in the
city? How can I be a positive force while at the
same time fulfilling those things that I envision? To gain increasing
awareness, socially and economically, the human self might usefully
seek to
have recourse to a rational model of her or his experiences.
A
model about oneself can be developed using
ontological modeling. This means
individual control over information spaces.
It does not mean, necessarily, that the model will be
represented
exclusively in one's cell phone or lap top computer. It
does, perhaps, mean that to the extent that one is involved in
Internet reality, one will use knowledge from others and synthesize
this
knowledge using tools that are part of the functioning of electronic
devices.
Wouldn't
it be nice if the school curriculum give
us a clearer understanding about how we find personal and private
knowledge,
and how we as individuals might over a life time come to find clarity
in one's
own appreciation of one's own self?
Our
analysis suggests that the individual human
person's control over private and public information spaces will be
empowered
by the provision of perceptual transparency related to the consequences
of
behavior. We do not speak about others'
ability to see what we do; this right of privacy is protected by the
Constitution. We speak about an increasing
knowledge of
self and of the natural world around us.
We
argue that social value is revealed when our
information systems support individual human investigations by
increasing the
quality of awareness about ourselves and about the world we live in. A new economic model is based on individual
entrepreneurship. This model provides
control over individual experience to the individual working within
small and
perhaps distributed communities.
Notes: Many examples of quality entrepreneurship
exist. Sustainable entrepreneurship is
often expressed in the effort of a single person or a small team. The core challenge is to have in place good
models for capitalization of small sustainable activities.
Discussions on these proposals are on
going.
The
Resilience Project suggests that a
simplification of computer technology is possible. This
simplification arises from a small number of provably
optimal algorithms and data encoding structures. A
key issue related to ownership of sub-optimal algorithms and
data-encoding structures is addressed by identifying optimal algorithms
and
data-encoding structures as elements of discrete mathematics. This strategy creates public property rather
than private property, thus making public the proper foundation for
information
science. [7] Compensation is paid to human individuals
who create new property, of course.
However, the issue before us now is in selecting a covering [8]
for foundations in a way that empowers a de-facto standard.
Let
us pause and consider some general systems
theory. We hold, as a matter of
objective science, that sustainability depends on knowledge of systems. The principle of transparency is
simple. To acquire knowledge one must
find transparency. To find transparency
there must be an open modeling process that depends on action into a
complex
world and the perception of the consequences of that action. We assert that the science of systems and of
action-perception cycles is well established and can be applied
methodologically to support individual initiative. We
assert that this methodology can be facilitated in
non-proprietary algorithms and data encoding processes.
From
theory one might suppose that clear
knowledge is the single most essential element required for
sustainability. For example, if a
specific sustainability effort is based on manufacturing and
distribution then
clear and specific knowledge is required of the input and output flow
that connects
that system to other systems. Sustainability
and localization of production and consumption leads to the types of
economic
and social systems that are widely discussed in the sustainable
communities
movement. Paradoxically, localization
may lead to increased lines of interactions between physically distinct
locations. These issues arise out of
opportunities produced by increasing local sustainability and in
connecting
physically remote locations using the Internet and knowledge based
models. [9]
So
what is missing? Knowledge of consequences
arises naturally. Proprietary interests heavily
burden
transparency. Creative control conforms
to a social order. We often can as individuals
see what might be done to make things better, to increase social value,
but
have decreasing actual capability to effect that change.
Can we turn the current situation around?
The
answer is yes. Control over computer processing
may shift from the software
community to the larger community of everyone.
This is not really a big deal.
Third party control over the design of computer processes can be
minimized over several years.
The
most difficult subtask we face is a required
shift in job skills for IT professionals.
If the first year budget is as we have requested, a new
generation of
devices will appear in the marketplace.
These devices will have a program that presents measured
quantities. Individuals, the generic human
individual”, may soon be empowered to gain transparency and knowledge
about systems and systems of systems.
A
single set of examples is most
illustrative. Why cannot any individual
human configure sensors and control elements so that one's own home can
be
securely viewed over the Internet or wireless cell phone?
Why cannot any individual develop a control
system that allows the viewing and control over a home gardening system?
What
follows from the Resilience Project is
public transparency into what is possible and what has been actualized
by
sustainability innovations. At the core
of our objectives; economically and culturally, a social movement may
soon well
specify capitalization processes of a new type. The
entrepreneurial work will develop sustainable manufacturing
systems connected by a knowledge system.
Think
of it in this way. A computer system is like a
machine with
energy inputs and outputs. If third
party software designers take some of the energy outputs as a charge on
the
system, there is less energy output available for use in creating
sustainable
work directed by the user of the software.
If the user of the software constantly must attend to software
maintenance issues such as firewall security, passwords and spam; there
is less
energy that can be applied by the user, and taken by the user to
sustain his or
her intentionality. If the user is
constantly having his or her attention re-directed by advertising then
the
intentionality of the user is tapped.
Again, there is less energy available to the purpose of the user.
Before
we go into examples of users creating sustainable
processes we would like to review some scholarship on the nature of
human
awareness. We mean to review the
psychological dimension to intentionality and spirituality. We mean to open access to literatures or to
lines of social discussion that have been peripheral to entrepreneurial
computer science. We mean to access
knowledge of the social world, as well as to increase an ability to
reach out
and find others with like minds. The purpose” of
sustainability entrepreneurship will be defined by principles
discovered within this review.
The
goals of the Resilience Project are to be
achieved using competitive strategies consistent with market forces,
but using
a public trust to own this foundation.
The nature of the public trust is still to be determined.
Perhaps
the reader will have some thoughts about
this and make some contributions to our web log. [10]
The
benefits from public trust ownership over
computer sciences include a lowering of the overall cost of information
infrastructure, world wide, as well as in allowing new and profound
capabilities such as mediated by collective intelligence.
Even in the case of an individual, the
knowledge sharing core design capabilities promise means to evolve
context
landscapes. Such viewable structures
measure and provide control influence over complex environments.
An
example of a context landscape might be an
information structure that indicates the growth potential from a
vineyard. [11]
We
believe that formal theorems establish a
foundation for demonstrating optimality and that optimality in itself
deserves
to be revealed as public property, available to all. We
argue that a small set of optimal algorithms and data encoding
processes will soon form a foundation for all computer technology. The arguments we make are similar to
arguments that one hears in the various end of natural science [12]
arguments. Our argument is that
computer science, unlike natural reality, has a lowest level of
organization,
the bits that are either in an up state or a down state.
A computer science is defined as a specific
realization of an abstract construction called finite state machines. [13]
Finite state machines have a specific structure that is optimized to do
what
it does”. We argue that a system of
computer science optimizes functions that are designed into that system
of
computer science even if the design features are not known explicitly.
We
argue that there are in fact many possible
computer sciences. The existing
computer science systems are evolving under a design constraint
collectively
imposed by those who build these systems.
Other systems of computer science are possible, CoreTalk [14]
being one of these. In any of these
systems, or possible systems, Groupthink, social expression and
collective
intelligence is the system designer”.
It takes some time but it seems clear after a while. The designer may be a collective
intelligence, such as the community of all software programmers. The Resilience Project would shift the
origin of design from programmer specialists to the everyday use of
learning
devices.
We
have developed a language to talk about
distinctions between computer sciences. First
school” computer science expects the user to accept designed
features as products. Information
technology is a business sector and will always be a business sector. The second school” computer science makes
available devices that exercise human intentional control by providing
transparency on how computers function, and reduces that
complicatedness of
that computer science. First school is
one group think”. Second school is a
very different other group think”.
The
proposals are bold and are precisely what
humanity needs at this time.
We
propose well-specified standards for public
transparency over peer-to-peer services within a new sub domain of the
Internet. The new sub-domain does not
in any way change the function of what currently exists as Internet
infrastructure except by offering a more rational system for the
individual-to-individual communication required of sustainability
entrepreneurship. [15]
The new system uses the same infrastructure as the old system, and yet
does not
directly compete with existing processes.
The new sub-domain will be well specified so as to allow the
development
and streaming of ontological models supporting individual efforts in
designing
and building sustainable systems.
Nothing is lost, and a great deal is gained. One
controversial aspect of the new sub-domain is that all
activity undergoes reification from particular instances to ontological
universals. This is a public common
and as such the communication is measured and represented in the form
of topic
maps. More will be discussed about the
concept of ontological modeling, reification and transparency later.
This
new part of the Internet will simply use a
now un-used part of the Internet namespaces.
The dedicated use of the .vir” high level domain name will allow
to be
created a system of computer science.
This system does not interact with any other part of the
Internet except
through well defined service interfaces'. [16]
Due to an increased simplification and due to well-developed school and
college
curriculum on how computers work, the new system will allow increased
levels of
quality information exchanges. These
results build on our society's experience with the first school of
information
science.
The
concept of a safe part of the Internet
requires an instrumentation of the processes and objects that are
passed in
this sub-domain. This instrumentation
and the resulting measurement is for public security as well as for the
development of cap and trade regimes over commodities that created risk
to the
environment. Instrumentation provides
transparency
and transparency allows the various types of security required. Other specialized sub domains will arise to
support emergency response systems and other special needs. The design of an ontology services
architecture for tracking all commodity exchanges across all national
borders
was but one of several architectural designs that we have worked on. [17] Part of the questions we pose is about why
this system and systems similar to this system were not funded and were
not
implemented. The inquiry into these
questions look backwards, and this is not our primary interest.
Many
benefits exist if the Resilience Project
finds its required first year budget of 6.8 billion dollars. [18]
The proposed national project will extend economic and social
infrastructure,
worldwide. A cap and trade regime will
be developed that depends on the measurement of commodity transport. Existing infrastructure, business and
practices are left intact, but in the presence of a substantial
alternative. [19]
Even
if federal involvement is minimal, there are
many signs that resilience is on the minds of an increase percentage of
the
American people.
As
pointed out in the previous section, there may
be several alternative implementations of systems of computer science. The arguments about fundamental theories of
aspects of reality are too board and too controversial to introduce
into this
white paper. How may one properly
discuss theories of reality? Any theory
about reality is in fact a cognitive system and these can be shared
between
individual humans. We can make examples
and develop evidence based on other systems.
For example, there are several systems for commodity transport
measurement. Each of these several
systems will be appreciated for what is provided by that system. Likewise, we will have several separated
systems for the exchange of human information.
Constitutional provisions will be understood and honored.
In
our designs, we model how these implementations
will be tied together with a service architecture mediated by web
ontology.
Findings
suggest that the data –
non-interoperability problem is manufactured from a rejection of
multi-culturalism. Systems of computer
science develop as proprietary systems designed to increase and manage
wealth. Each of these systems resists
transparency since transparency reduces the competitive advantage of
the kinds
of systems now being procured by GSA and by the e-Gov program.
The
Resilience Project will make the foundations
of a new information technology public domain.
This levels the playing field and moves the competition into new
economic sectors. What types of new
sectors might replace the information technology sector?
Multi-culturalism
becomes important early on in
the Resilience Project's work.
Another
key benefit is in the area of biological
systems control and management. The
corrections to current information technology open the door to new uses
for
computer technology to control micro-processes, including micro-farming
processes such as the production of inulin from commercially viable
crops. More is said about this subject in other
Resilience Project foundational papers.
We
suggest that objections to a founding process
are misplaced if those objections are based on the notion that large
corporations and unreachable government institutions will be in control. This will not be the case. The
founding process makes clear that
human-to-human economic exchanges are preferred over the current
singular
coherence.
The
current extreme forms of data
non-interoperability have to be resolved so that human-to-human
economic
transactions can be mediated. Data
non-interoperability is related systemically to non-translatability of
terms or
concepts. [20]
The
Resilience Project proposes a mediation mechanism via web based
information
services and ontological models of processes intended by individuals. Laws and standards related to sustainability
and resilience will produce economic realties that individuals may use,
and
whose use insures the legal rights of individual humans.
This is tricky, and may require amendment to
the U. S. federal constitution; or the modification of the
interpretations to
the fourteenth amendment. Non-human
legal entities may be brought into compliance with our reading of the
Constitution. This status has to be
placed within the context of laws that makes distinctions between the
rights of
individual humans and corporate constructions.
In
the current case, the status of individuals is
systematically ignored or regulated to a higher authority”. What does higher authority” means in the
early twenty first century? The answer
is clear to most individual humans.
There is an appearance that corporate control over most aspects
of
social reality. This control is in
particular from the media, advertising and entertainment aspects of
business. Resilience must be based on
free will and choice. The choice is
however not well informed about consequences when advertising too
strongly
controls what is purchased and what is done.
Adverting is a powerful force in driving the carbon consumption
cycles. As a result we collectively as
a society have come to support a singular way of expression. The corporations make and manage fads, for
example. The Resilience Project
founders are not completely focused on the past social science. So we do not continue to develop the case that
is implied in this discussion of a higher authority”. Clearly
we wish to state that for us this is
not a religious discussion. We leave
such discussions to other works.
So
how can a more human centric system of
agreements arise? Within the proposed
extensions to the Internet, alternative service architectures are web
centric
systems evolving from context computing and service oriented
architectures. Multiple separated
evolutions can occur and can be accommodated for if there are
reconciliation
processes and one system is not attempting to impose a single solution
on all
other systems. [21]
How
might reconciliation and the merge of
viewpoint be accommodated? Certainly
not by an artificial intelligence!
Human awareness is necessary to create the routes to the
induction of
new symbols and new meanings. Web
ontology is a descriptive model of these service architectures.
The
optimality arguments have a heuristic
reflected in some simple concepts. One
may consider computer science to be a specific set of mechanisms
defined on
finite state machines. Thus there are
"many" computer sciences. We
suggest that the actual nature of a specific computer science mirrors
the
designer. Of course, the designer of
"information technology" is not a single individual. The
designer of the current system of
computer science is an historical process involving the dedicated work
of many
hundreds of thousands of computer scientists and programmers over five
decades. If most individuals in this
community are not representative of the larger class of all humans then
the
technology is less than optimal.
This
over simplifies the situation. What we are
pointing out is that computer
technology is primarily designed to meet the needs of the information
technology sector. With the
partitioning of academic disciplines, the expertise in the information
technology sector is not very broad.
Business processes have also played a strong role in shaping
information
technology to serve existing business processes.
Let
us take one good illustrative example. The
physics of perception has been studied for
many decades, and yet the foundation of the current paradigm misses the
mark on
almost all measures related to transparency.
Part of the reason has to do with how computer scientists are
trained,
the curriculum that is used (or not used) and the assertions that are
made by
the standard IT and computer science curriculums.
Transparency
requires looking, developing a
representation of some type, and then checking to see if this
representation is
what is needed to have a clear perception.
The current development of software has not provided this clear
perception over either the nature of computing or over the nature of
processes.
This
"first" school of thought about
the role of information technology as a line of business is essentially
the
same as Max Weber's viewpoint. [22]
"Rules
are central
to the Weberian bureaucracy as a source of order, as the chief means to
reduce
complexity, and as an instrument to produce equity through
standardization. Weber argued that
"The reduction of modern office management to rules is deeply embedded
in
its very nature." There is really
nothing new about the ubiquity of rule-based systems in complex
organizations. Indeed, bureaucracy -
which is what Weber means by "modern office management" - is
essentially about rules. So any
analysis or theory of information and communication technology and the
organization of government must include an account of the role of
rules.
" [23]
The
specified propose of the Resilience Project is
to create a non-proprietary foundation for using computational systems
as human
knowledge repositories and real time communication infrastructure. Given the common availability of such an
infrastructure, collaboration between scholars will bring into
alignment
collective insight about human capacity and computational science. More
importantly, the collaboration between individual human beings could
bring a
renewed capability for sustainability and resilience.
We
seek a
better life, a more complete, balanced and engaged mankind in a far
more
transparent, respected and trusted world.
The
SafeNet will compete with but not replace the
existing Internet. Under the proposed
architecture the practical, and Constitutionally defined, limitations
of
transparency are re-enforced by a specific set of underlying algorithms
and
data structures. A first level of
transparency is to be achieved on "how" a computer system works, and
on the actual transactions that are occurring in computer networks.
This
transparency will be extended into the natural sciences, philosophy,
literature
and mathematics. Transparency can also be established over commodity
movements
and economic transactions.
The
underlying transparency of the SafeNet frames
a service architecture that allows individual contributions to emerging
ontological modeling of optimal and minimal definition of data object
exchanges. Emerging ontological modeling
comes from a measurement in real time of the context landscapes created
by the
data mining processes underlying the public transparency layer of the
SafeNet.
What
is called the aspects framework” is
proposed as a first draft of a standardized framework enabling (1) the
production of real time mapping of contextual landscapes, (2) the
production of
process models over allowable transactions within the SafeNet, (3) the
production of highly stable lines of business supporting economic
models [24],
and 4) the production of emergent systems of computer science based on
software
development frameworks. [25]
An
agile, self directed, information sector may
soon provide proper transparency over most economic processes around
the
world. The issues are subject of
scholarship. Such scholarship is complex
in nature. Part of this scholarship is
about global commodity transactions occurring across national borders. Currently commodity movement worldwide is
not transparent to anyone, not even national governments.
Hedge markets are required to manage risks
associated with commodity production and distribution.
Specific
knowledge about specific processes is
actually often hidden so that large scale processes may extract
economic value
from what is in fact the social value of commodity knowledge. However, our social system as a whole may
need this kind of information to create social awareness over the
critical
issues facing us such as carbon emissions.
These critical issues are related to global warming and the
imbalance in
economic distribution.
We
must be very clear. Much of what our current
social system re-enforces is
positive. However, there must be
recognition that worldwide imbalances in consumption and in
distribution of
wealth is an increasing problem. The
consumption and distribution problem is larger than the problems with
current
information technology sector behavior.
We
point out that advertising, narrow market
manipulations and short-term business and political vision disassociate
perception from the consequences of actions.
All
too often, perceptional transparency is lost,
while at the same time the advertising industry claims that advertising
is in
fact the only instrument for producing transparency about products.
Saying
truth to this power might be the only way to begin the process moving
us
towards sustainability and resilience.
Ideally,
one looks to the educational process as
a means to create an informed and moral society. However,
the success of our education system is brought into
question as we face issues such as global warming and economic
imbalances for
which we seem ill prepared as a society.
A correction must arise out of grass roots appreciation of the
problem,
and must be accepted both politically and be structured by the laws
governing
economic transactions. So again, we
find that transparency over at least most parts of the economic
transaction
system is an essential step.
To
achieve higher degrees of information
transparency, the Resilience Project implements a unique and
well-specified
framework revealing a new round of technical advances. The
key functional element is an asserted
living relationship between transparency and perception.
[26]
From
our earliest school days we all are taught that
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
There are other essential concepts from
classical science that every adult is aware of. These
concepts are shared in common as part of what the
philosopher of science, Paul Churchland, refers to a "folk
psychology". [27]
Churchland points out that our folk psychology influences the nature of
science
as well as the direction of public funding.
Linguist Benjamin Whorf [28]
points out that there is more than one folk psychology. We
interpret the foundational work in string
theory by Ed Whitten [29]
and the foundational work in quantum theory by Sir Roger Penrose [30]
to both have the commonality that agrees that no single system of
thought can
be all-inclusive. We see an argument in
principle with Ben Whorph's assertion that between any two cultural
systems
there exist non-translatable terms and expressions. [31]
The
proposed National Project is founded on the
proposition that our funded science, in particular our foundations in
the
academy related to computational science, should shift in a specific
direction. This shift may reveal how
formalism such as ontological modeling may positively reflect high
quality
human knowledge. Clearly Newtonian
physics reflects a great deal of the engineering sciences, but is not
sufficient to completely reflect the nature of living systems. Much of the political debate is about the
nature of us. We also spend a great
deal of personal energy and time just thinking about who we are. Might human knowledge be represented in
computational forms in a way that can be shaped by any individual human
and
then made to manage information transactions?
Might these transactions lead to better political debate, higher
levels
of education and finer control over sustainable systems?
The answer may depend on understanding the
nature of viewpoint, universals and non-locality.
Are
the foundational elements to a new science
available in quality literatures? The
answer is yes. The quality of this
science is far beyond what would have been imagined in 1950, at the
beginning
of the computational age. For reasons
that should be known historically, computer science advanced as a
technology
but not in other ways. The impact of
modern advances in biological sciences in particular has not been
accommodated
by the existing computer science. Much
has been said about this and much of what has been said is not as
deeply
informed as it might be. We all know
about the fears that many have about computer technology and we all
know how we
as individuals feel about the usability of this technology. Many feel that the technology deserves no
criticism, but have the proponents of current software development
business
practices fallen into a type of reinforced self-denial?
The
Resilience Project is predicated on the
assertion that a shift in information science is long over due.
The
issue of viewpoint discussed above is related
to the issue of non-locality in a natural way.
Human thought, the contents of mental awareness, is possible due
to the
normal functioning of a brain system and that brain system has a
holonomic
nature due to the underlying interactions between quantum, neural and
metabolic
levels of interaction. [32]
An electro-magnetic coherence can be supported at one location and a
different electro-magnetic
coherence supported at a different location.
As these locations are made more and more distant the
interaction
between the two fields is reduced. [33]
Interesting issues arise both in how far two systems need to be apart
so that
there is no interaction, and how multiple sources of resonance may be
orchestrated. [34]
Modern
natural science has dealt with non-locality in several ways. Since the
early
part of the 1900s there have been specific developments in physics,
foundations
of mathematics, biomathematics, and theories of interacting systems. These developments are paradoxical. On
the one hand twentieth century science
and engineering reaffirms Newtonian law and the universals of Hilbert
mathematics. On the other we have the statements by Witten, Penrose and
Whorph
that single systems of thought, neither abstract formalism or natural
language,
have not been found that explain the completeness of a physical,
economic or
social reality.
We
are however, on the verge of a new
science. It is known that
electromagnetic and quantum field coherence is part of the mechanisms
supporting the formation of human knowledge.
Cell and gene expression involves the generation of function at
one
level of organization, from a substrate, where thousands or tens of
thousands
of events orchestrate together to "cause" a single cell function to
be fulfilled.
Perhaps
non-locality is precisely what
information science has missed, and perhaps the human conversation may
not be
fully understood without understanding the natural science related to
non-locality phenomenon. Clearly, not
treating non-locality is often the basis for making mistakes. In many real instances there
isn't an intentional imposition of dysfunction during
localized exchanges. However, the effects
are as if there is intentional dysfunction.
Why is this? For example,
particular reasons and/or interests may have already determined prior
choices. In some case, the agent involved (the
system
or the individual) will not want these prior choices to be reviewed
completely
by all parties in a discussion. Future
choices also will come to depend on localized exchanges.
A hidden agenda is preserved. With
information available only locality a
machine intelligence will not always account for integration needs and
or the
significance of new information.
The
presence of computed context landscapes allows one to see over the
localized
knowledge horizon and introduce pragmatic constraints.
We
ask the reader to reflect on the nature of the
thing we now commonly call computer science” and to ask the question:
Is this
a ‘real thing' ”? Of course the reality
of abstractions leads us into a difficult discussion, which many have
learned
to distrust.
The
alternative can be appreciated from different
historical angles. Our history brings
us to the point where we may recognize that psychology and social
science needs
a non-Newtonian formalism. Natural
science easily demonstrates that electromagnetic and quantum field
expression
creates substrate/function effects that are non-Newtonian in nature.
Why
does government funded science resist this
notion so persistently?
The
action reaction systems of Newton and Hilbert
are not capable of modeling natural complexity. [35]
One can turn merely to biology to find the evidence that locality is
not
sufficient to model the process that living system depend on. In the early 1960's, a school of
biomathematics at University of Chicago was formed. Isolated
work on formal models of field mechanics suggested
models of reality that are both locally focused and non-locally
focused, at the
same time. John Nash has also talked
about non-locality. [36]
The
need for a series of conferences sponsored by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives arises from the profound
obstacles
placed on innovations related to sustainability and resilience
activities. Technical and scientific consensus
is needed
to address the issues of social complexity, the possibilities of over
the
social horizon transparency, and the power of the status quo. These issues need deep framing. [37]
The founders of the project propose to the Speaker that she is the
proper
sponsor of a process that creates this deep framing.
When
a way forward is found, the development of
technical and public consensus will be represented in new standards.
For reasons that