November 3, 2004
Center of Excellence Proposal
à
White Paper on Incident Information Orb
Architecture (IIOA) à
Adi Structural Ontology Part I
à
ARDA rejection notice
(Friday, October 29, 2004) à
Possibility from
Stratified Ontology Knowledge Processors
BCNGroup Founding Committee October 27, 2004
See for previous element in this bead tread:[71]
Julio,
We hope that you will engage, rather than stand off asking for more details as to the structure of our theories.
The background for understanding stratified theory is extensive, but some young students already understand why there needs to be a formalization of a physical theory of stratification. Yes, this means “science’, hard science.
The world must have a science of knowledge systems, and this is simply impossible in an environment where funding for AI tromps any theory that requires a real understanding of the nature of complexity in natural systems. (And we do not mean the work at the Santa Fe Institute, since this work does not distinguish the difference between the abstraction that creates computer science and the real natural processes that have non-algorithmic aspects.)
Frankly, the BCNGroup founders need the collaboration from humanities scholars such as your self. We plead with you to engage and spread the word about this discussion, and about the digital glass bead games.
When you talk about, in your abstract, about the nature of cultural expression, the language of post-modern scholars simply gets in the way of an expression of the science that the founding committee reads in between the lines. Your language and the BCNGroup core team’s language have commonality.
We do appreciation your thoughts. We would like for you to help us express this commonality without using the term “chaos”, “post-modern” or “nihilism”. We feel that these terms are meaningful only to those scholars who continue to talk about who else is talking about this and creating a need to spend one’s life playing an interesting, but ultimately marginal, game.
The foundations of the knowledge sciences are as complex and demanding as is the post-modern philosophy literature. Almost every hard science has to be accounted for, and the histories of the soft sciences have to be placed into very specific, and often not complementary, frameworks. (Why would we think that the cognitive and behavioral sciences would have gotten all of the essential aspects of reality correct when they had to work within a cultural context, as discussed by Paul Churchland in his book: “A neurocomputational perspective, the nature of mind and the structure of science 1989, MIT Press)
The BCNGroup is attempting, with its Charter, to create real solutions and real science. In doing so, we demand that the language we use be clearly defined and un-ambiguous. The core team must communicate clearly into a common digital repository for the knowledge sciences. We cannot defeat the ignorance and absence of an acceptance of responsibility for the bizarre funding decisions at DARPA, NSF, NIST, etc; unless our work is perfect and correct in every way.
We cannot make one single error! If there are no errors in the mathematics and the science, then we are allowed to stand up the history of the past four years in the 2005 BCNGroup Report to the Congress. We are able to ask the Senators and the Representatives the following questions
How can the DARPA for the US Intelligence Community not even want to
allow the core team to make an no cost to the government presentation of the
advanced form of anticipatory technology we have already developed?
This situation in the funding agencies is well understood using general
systems theory, as illustrated by Dr Ballard’s communication
yesterday.
How can the Congress ignore the level of blatant exclusion and demand
for political obedience, in exchange for employment and funding, seen and
documented by the story of the BCNGroup over the past seven years (since 1997)?
How can the Congress ignore the long term distortion of natural science that has allowed NSF, NIST, DARPA and ARDA to re-fund again the illusion, and snake oil, of the discipline of artificial intelligence?
Nathan and I are working on a Greenstone digital library that will house the past BCNGroup digital Glass Beads Games (d-GBG), and the future ones: For a social theory aspect to the d-GBG one can look into some preliminary papers. However it is your responsibility, if you are to be part of the core team, to help the core team frame social science and political science in the context of stratification theory and the foundations of the science of knowledge systems. Our hope is that other scholars from other disciplines will join this effort to create a digital GBG.
We try to make the beads talk to you, and often think about your work as I write.
What does the re-election of President Bush tell us about the American electorate?
It tells us first that the gay rights and other objectionable social issues need to be separated from the democratic party so that there can be an real political opposition to the
Culture of exclusion and
obedience.
Many people who oppose the Bush phenomenon do not care at all about these stupid issues, other than I can sick and tired of seeing advertising for The Queer Guy’s straight Eye (or whatever the TV people are pushing as entertainment)! What I care about is the fact that if these issues does not polarize the media and American social discourse, we might actually come to understand the great threat that fundamentalism, in the form of the extreme far right in America, has on the Nation and on the World.
We need a political party that is anti war, anti social deviance, and pro knowledge age. Yea, right… in my life time?
The memetic expression of a memetic fundamentalism expressed as exclusion and obedience is the true post-modern crisis, not the emergence of nihilism and chaos, as you express in your PhD thesis Vortex to virus, Myth and Meme. This is almost the right language, but the post-modern language has a memetic immunology that makes post-modern philosophy marginal.
It is the confusion that we create from the support of social deviance – like our TV prime time programming – that creates this war on illusions.
We need a real science to bring the nature of social discourse into an objective (not chaotic and not nihilism) framework. Adi and Prueitt are doing this.
Please join us, and please consider a PayPal contribution to the BCNGroup.
BCNGroup Founding Committee
See related: