Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Resilience Project White Paper
(Response to note from The
Speaker’s Office [376] )
(Response ŕ to [376] )
Starting the Discussion with the National Science Foundation
About the proposed Resilience Project
Dr. Haym,
In a discussion between scholars, I would assume that each program manager in the Division of Information and Intelligent Systems would have independent viewpoints. I would also assume that NSF is not the only authority on what is good science.
There is at least the impression that research on information science and on intelligent systems has become opaque and divested from natural science.
I look forward to identifying each program manager’s viewpoint at NSF on the assertions implicit in the proposed Resilience Project.
A White Paper is available for their consideration:
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/ResilienceProjectWhitePaper.htm
They are free, from my perspective, to communicate independently to the Resilience Project.
Please note that no one in my group has considered making a future proposal to NSF. Part of the assertions made is that NSF funding does not go to those who do not buy into a strongly positioned point of view. The corollary is that NSF does not fund solutions to the current dysfunction seen in semantic web standards based systems, including systems that use AI and distributed agents research, or at least funds this research.
Our position is that
A) “Intelligent Systems” research (of the type long funded by Jim Albus and Alex Meystel at NIST) fundamentally misrepresents natural intelligence.
B) That AI, Knowledge Engineering and Intelligence Systems research has no theoretical foundation that addresses the concerns of scholars like Sir Roger Penrose or Robert Rosen.
C) That NSF, NIST, DARPA etc funding in these disciplines have long ago shifted focus from scientific inquiry to profession building.
Note sent January 29th ŕ [382]
January 30th reply from NSF ŕ [383]