Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Continuation of Doug's Colloquium (NewFrontiers in Collective Problem Solving?)
Hi John. (01)
The short answer to the "why" in your first sentence is that I am
incompetent to effectively digest, evaluate and sort the information
(all of which needs to be done before writing can begin) and do so on
top of other things I have to do. (02)
I do appreciate your contributions, but I have a bandwidth problem that
prevents me from making good use of them - at this time. I am looking
for solutions while in the meantime giving priority to Doug's Bootstrap
site and the digesting of his colloquium lectures. (03)
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 19:58, John J. Deneen wrote:
> I agree, but why was there no interest concerning the following pointer?
> * [ba-unrev-talk] Converging Technologies for Improving Human
> Performance & The Human Cognome Project
> Nevertheless, I believe we need to "improve to improve" our collective
> problem-solving capabilities (i.e., CODIAK - the COncurrent Design,
> Integration, and Applied Knowledge), since journalists
> covering crime-based news and politics are already Weblogging or
> Blogging "urgent and complex problems" online and syndicating the info
> in XML to others.
> For instance:
> 1) TalkLeft <Syndicate this site (XML)
> <http://www.talkleft.com/index.rdf>>, the on-line source for
> liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news.
> TalkLeft was developed by Denver-based criminal defense attorney
> Jeralyn Merritt <http://www.lawyers.com/merritt/> as a companion
> site to CrimeLynx® <http://www.crimelynx.com/>, the Internet's
> premier criminal law resource. TalkLeft is not a neutral site.
> Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues,
> candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to
> constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of
> crime. Talkleft is intended for the public, journalists covering
> crime-based news and politics, policy makers and of course, the
> criminal defense community. <http://www.talkleft.com/about.html>
> 2) EBlogging At Altercation Today
> 3) Posting URL's In the Comments, etc.
> More specifically, a pointer to
> <http://www.talkleft.com/archives/002001.html#002001> shows how people
> are using Internet to expose how the IRS commits fraud, but needs OHS
> technology or at least UC Berkeley's Multivalent Document technology
> (see: Robust Intra-document Locations
> <http://www9.org/w9cdrom/312/312.html>) for collaborating on the actual
> court opinion and factual evidence, including other case studies that
> are publicly available in the adobe postscript format (.pdf).
> "A federal appeals court has ruled the Internal Revenue Service
> committed fraud and acted deceptively
> <http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030119_1305.html> after
> giving secret deals to two pilots in return for their testimony
> against 1,300 other pilots who had bought into the same tax
> "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned a
> previous ruling against the pilots who were found guilty of tax
> evasion and were ordered to pay more than $2 billion in penalties.
> In order to remedy the IRS misconduct, the court ordered that
> all the pilots should receive the same deal that one of the
> pilots received."
> The case is CIR v. Dixon and you can access the opinion here.
> Posted Sunday :: January 19, 2003 | TrackBack
> In addition, are saying:
> 1) "Internet scrambles the political deck by giving capable
> people who wouldn't otherwise have access to audiences a
> viable communications medium and by giving people who have
> common interests and ideology a forum for association."
> 2) These kinds of undertakings have the potential for
> simultaneously making the political process more transparent and
> holding politicians accountable.
> 3) Internet also has the potential for making mainline media
> more accountable."
> "Beginning at the first conference, participating researchers
> have pooled authorities, working papers and the like in
> electronic format. By May 2002 we had approximately 600
> megabytes of material that was in subject, type and contributor
> folders. I concluded that for it to be usable, the material had
> to be organized in a usable form. Consequently, since October
> I've dedicated considerable time to the project.
> I began by establishing classifications: Privately produced
> memoranda, court decisions (particularly U.S. Supreme Court),
> Statutes at Large, United States Code, Code of Federal
> Regulations, etc. The key utilization instrument is an annotated
> Table of Contents that briefly explains the reason for each item
> included in the authorities. Once we get far enough along with
> that aspect of the project we will generate a comprehensive
> subject index.
> While it will be impossible to generally distribute the compiled
> research, we can post the table of contents and index plus a
> considerable amount of privately generated memoranda. Those
> doing work in any given area can then download most authorities
> listed in the table of contents from Internet sources that don't
> copyright material. For example, recent editions of the Statutes
> at Large, the United States Code, the Code of Federal
> Regulations and the Federal Register are available on the
> Government Printing Office web page. The Internal Revenue
> Manual, IRS publications and the like are available from the IRS
> web page; the Treasury Financial Manual is available on the
> Financial Management Services web page; the Department of
> Justice web page has the United States Attorney's Manual and
> sundry other important manuals and publications; the General
> Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the
> Office of Personnel Management and others make other important
> resources available. There are several free and/or inexpensive
> sources for court decisions.
> The index will be constructed to address what is important to
> the constitutional restoration & tax honesty movements. What is
> important to us? ...Enduring loss, humiliation and injustice is
> a trial that tests character; surviving and having to put life
> back together after traumatic loss is yet another test. But we
> need survivors rather than casualties as survivors will
> eventually stem the tide."
> Similarly, in context with ba-unrev-talk, I was hoping someone would
> make comments about the following assertions and conclusion by Prof. Horn:
> How knowledge maps can improve public policy discussions
> "Very preliminary evaluations show that knowledge maps can
> contribute significantly to better knowledge management in
> complex policy discussion and decisions. They:
> . show the logical and visual structure of the emerging
> arguments, viewpoints, empirical data, scenarios, trends, policy
> options (making communication more effective) and help keep the
> big picture from being obscured by the details.
> . enable presuppositions to surface and be carried along with
> the debate or made a subject of the debate (enabling a richer
> discourse to take place without getting off track).
> . allow more rapid analysis of the subject matter by committees
> and policy makers
> . help structure the flow of complex discussions (so that
> meetings are more productive and less time consuming), enabling
> rapid integration of diverse points of view.
> . increase an appreciation for the complexity of the issues the
> group is addressing, permitting faster learning by experts and
> the general public.
> . are visually appealing, colorful, and incorporate useful
> metaphors and images that encapsulate values and attitudes.
> . enable participants who have missed meetings to catch up quickly.
> . increase the chance of participants talking to each other, not
> past each other, bringing faster consensus in meetings.
> . help participants to keep working on the problems using the
> Web while separated by geographical distance."
> "I am convinced that the knowledge maps I've described can make
> a substantial contribution to a worrying condition of present
> day America -- the fact that more and more people feel left out
> of democratic public debate to the point of giving up on it. Too
> many people lack the ability to follow what are often highly
> arcane and complex discussions.
> The life of our republic would be very different if, for the
> next generation, some foundations use the knowledge map
> methodology to make informed deliberation available to all
> If you missed the pointer, then please review some of these interesting
> (CODIAK) topics at the following URLs:
> Knowledge Mapping for Complex Social Messes ( A presentation to
> the "Foundations in the Knowledge Economy" at the David and
> Lucile Packard Foundation, July 16, 2001)
> Social Messes
> "They've been called "wicked problems." (by Horst Rittle)
> They've been called "ill-structured problems." (by Ian Mitroff)
> I call them "social messes." (after Russell Ackoff, who simply
> refers to them as "messes") What they are not is merely
> problems. Problems have solutions. Messes do not have
> straightforward solutions. Social messes
> . are more than complicated and complex. They are ambiguous.
> . contain considerable uncertainty - even as to what the
> conditions are, let alone what the appropriate actions might be
> . are bounded by great constraints and are tightly
> interconnected, economically, socially, politically,
> . are seen differently from different points of view, and quite
> different worldviews
> . contain many value conflicts
> . are often a-logical or illogical
> They are the messes of drugs and gangs and ethnic conflict and
> international crime syndicates, messes that have strong links to
> civil wars in Columbia and the international small arms trade
> and globalization and the rapid advance of technology. They are
> also the more local messes, such as a couple I have been working
> They will be visual. Here are some examples.
> < http://www.macrovu.com/CCTHowItWork1.html >
> Think Link, Invent, Implement, and Collaborate! Think Open!
> Think Change! Think Big! (Keynote Speech Honoring Douglas
> Engelbart on Doug Engelbart Day in the state of Oregon, at
> Oregon State University, January 24, 2002)
> Beginning to Conceptualize the Human Cognome Project
> TRAPS OF TRADITIONAL LOGIC & DIALECTICS: WHAT THEY ARE AND HOW
> TO AVOID THEM
> < http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/artclTrapsOfFormalLogic.html
> <http://www.stanford.edu/%7Erhorn/artclTrapsOfFormalLogic.html> >
> Using Argumentation Analysis to Examine History and Status of a
> Major Debate in Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy
> (Downloadable Figure 1 .
> (Downloadable Figure 2.
> THE NEW MAPS FOR PUBLIC POLICY PROJECT
> "Our project has been designing and developing highly visual
> "cognitive maps" that facilitate the management and navigation
> through major public policy issues. These maps have benefits for
> policy analysts and decision makers similar to those of
> geographic maps. They provide patterned abstractions of policy
> landscapes that permit the decision makers and their advisors to
> consider which roads to take within the wider policy context.
> Like the hundreds of different projections of maps (e.g. polar
> or Mercator), they provide different ways of viewing issues and
> their backgrounds. They enable policy makers to drill down to
> the appropriate level of detail. In short they provide an
> invaluable information management tool. These maps can be
> displayed both on paper and on web browsers."
> Smart Sensors, Collaborative Sensemaking
> So, instead of calling our effort the "Continuation of Doug's
> Colloquium", let's just simply call it "New Frontiers in Collective
> Problem Solving (i.e., CODIAK - the COncurrent Design, Integration, and
> Applied Knowledge [of Shaping Code])."
> Other examples:
> * Shaping Code
> "This article addresses how society shapes code. The term
> "code," as we use it, consists of the hardware and software
> components of information technologies. Code is increasingly
> being sought as a regulatory mechanism in conjunction with or as
> an alternative to law for addressing societal concerns such as
> crime, privacy, intellectual property protection, and
> revitalizing democratic discourse. This article analyzes how
> various societal institutions, that create code differentially,
> influence the technical and social characteristics of the code
> that is developed by them. The article also provides
> recommendations on how society can intervene and proactively
> shape the development of code to vindicate societal concerns and
> preferences." ...
> * ``Imagistic Reasoning."
> "Imagistic reasoning is a new paradigm for understanding sensory
> data and controlling environment based on the construction,
> interpretation, and manipulation of image-like, analog
> representations of physical systems. The reasoning is primarily
> perceptual and only secondarily symbolic. In the past decade, we
> have built several imagistic reasoners that perform at an expert
> level on scientific problems that defy current analytical
> methods, including helping us solve open problems. We
> hypothesize that much of scientific reasoning is imagistic and
> that this reasoning is best automated by imagistic algorithms.
> The classical artificial intelligence architecture---a central
> deductive reasoner operating on symbolic predicates delivered by
> low-level perceptual preprocessors---is unsuitable for these
> tasks. Imagistic reasoners are faster and more efficient because
> they trade many inferences for sensing and action. Their
> behavior is easier to understand and debug because they deal
> directly with geometric structures and their interactions."
> * Spatial Aggregation: ontologies, algorithms, and programming
> tools to support reasoning
> F. Zhao and C. Bailey-Kellogg, ``Intelligent Simulation.'' AAAI
> Tutorial Forum, 1998. Slides handout (2 per page)
> "I have been developing ontologies, algorithms, and programming
> tools to support reasoning about distributed data arising from
> many data mining and control applications. Together with Chris
> Bailey-Kellogg, Ken Yip, Xingang Huang, and Ivan Ordonez, I have
> developed the Spatial Aggregation Language
> <http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/insight/sa.html> (SAL) and have
> applied it to applications such as distributed control
> optimization, weather data analysis, and spatio-temporal
> diffusion-reaction pattern analysis. SAL 1.2
> <http://www2.parc.com/spl/members/zhao/sal-code.html>, a
> MATLAB-like rapid prototyping tool (C++ libs, interpretive
> environment) for scientific data mining and control
> applications, is available to the research community and has
> been used by a group of Stanford students for class projects in
> that I taught in Fall 1998."
> * SAL: papers
> <http://www2.parc.com/spl/members/zhao/sal-code.html>, and
> * Automated phase-space analysis and control synthesis
> * A maglev nonlinear control prototype
> * Intelligent simulation
> <http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/insight> (Project INSIGHT
> at Ohio State)
> UC Berkeley's CITRIS project, including some info on another
> related wireless SensIT project at UCSD/UCLA, etc.
> < http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/sensit/index.htm >
> < http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/sensit%2Easp >
> [ ...]. "Networked micro sensors technology is a key technology
> for the future. Cheap, smart devices with multiple on-board
> sensors, networked through wireless links and the Internet,
> deployable in large numbers, provide unprecedented opportunities
> for instrumenting and controlling to our advantage homes,
> cities, the environment, and indeed, the battlefield.
> For the military, DoD, and national security, networked
> micro-sensors are a technology opportunity for a broad spectrum
> of applications and generating new capabilities, for
> reconnaissance, for surveillance, and for tactical applications.
> Smart disposable micro sensors can be deployed across the board,
> on ground and in the air, on bodies and buildings, on vehicles
> and under water, all networked to detect and track threats,
> winged and wheeled vehicles, personnel, and chem-bio agents, and
> for weapons targeting and area denial.
> The emphasis of the SensIT program is on "Information
> Technology" that enables these capabilities. That is to develop
> software that embodies algorithms and information processing for
> distributed micro-sensor networks. Each sensor node will have
> embedded processing capability, and will potentially have
> multiple on board sensors such as acoustic, seismic, IR,
> magnetic, imaging, micro-radars, etc. There will also be
> storage, wireless links to neighboring nodes, location and
> positioning knowledge through GPS or other local positioning
> TinyOS <http://webs.cs.berkeley.edu/tos/> :: Operating System
> support for sensor tiny networked sensors
> TOSSIM <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Epal/research/tossim.html>
> :: TinyOS mote simulator
> Mate <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Epal/research/mate.html> :: A
> virtual machine for TinyOS motes
> TinyDB <http://telegraph.cs.berkeley.edu/tinydb/> :: A query
> processing system designed to extract info from a network of
> TinyOS sensors
> NesC <http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/nescc/> :: Custom
> compiler support for TinyOS
> Great Duck Island <http://www.greatduckisland.net/> :: Employing
> motes for habitat monitoring in sensitive wildlife habitats
> CITRIS: Closing in on Smart Dust (fine-grain distributed
> "Since the inception of the Smart Dust project roughly four
> years ago, some progress has been made toward the realization of
> a fully autonomous cubic millimeter sensor node. The smallest
> mote currently displaces roughly ten cubic millimeters, and
> contains an oscillator, digital controller, light sensor, analog
> to digital converter, optical transmitter, optical receiver, and
> multiple solar power supplies. Details of this sensor node will
> be presented, as well as the current plans to shrink its size
> while increasing its capabilities."
> New conference suggestion: " The PARC Smart Matter Diagnostics and
> Collaborative Sensemaking Project"
> * The 2nd International Workshop on Information Processing in
> Sensor Networks (IPSN '03)
> April 22-23, 2003
> Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
> Palo Alto, California, USA
> "Imagine a world in which we live where smart roads would be
> able to tell us when they need repair and which is the best
> direction to get to the Giants game, smart factories would stock
> up just enough inventory, ... The rapid advances in
> micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) and lower-power wireless
> networking have enabled a new generation of tiny, cheap,
> networked sensors that can be "sprayed" on roads, across
> machines, and on walls. However, these massively distributed
> sensor networks must overcome a set of technological hurdles
> before they become widely deployable. Keeping up with the
> constant onslaught of sensory data from say 100,000 sensors is
> akin to drinking from a fire hose.
> The PARC Smart Matter Diagnostics and Collaborative Sensemaking
> Project studies the fundamental problems of distilling
> high-level, human-interpretable knowledge from distributed
> heterogeneous sensor signals in a rapid and scalable manner. We
> are developing powerful algorithms and software systems to
> enable a wide range of applications, from sensor-rich health
> monitoring of electro-mechanical equipment to human-aware
> environments that leverage sensors to support synergistic
> interactions with the physical world."
> - John
> Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> >Thanks. Besides, as you mentioned, when we talk about extending the
> >colloquium we talk about an activity that is organizationally, legally
> >unrelated to the Bootstrap/Stanford effort.
> >Maybe we can get back to brass tacks.
> >One urgent, complex problem is what stance to take with respect to Iraq.
> >And w.r.t. Mugabe. And w.r.t. Kim Jong II. And w.r.t. methods used in
> >interrogating Al Quaeda prisoners. Etc., etc.
> >I believe that, if we wish to maintain a democratic society, the road
> >toward solving this problem is through a better informed public and
> >that, moreover, this public needs standards and means for better
> >evaluating and formulating a stance for action on that information.
> >While improving public education (through improving instruction and
> >journalism) is an obvious path to follow, mere "meatware" is not enough.
> >We urgently need digital augmentation for individuals and groups. We
> >also need a communal acceptance of standards for conduct, i.e. a great
> >deal of commonality in moral stance. The Iraq situation demonstrates
> >that as does the not unrelated Israel-Palestinian conflict. Moral
> >stance, therefore, is something that bears on digital augmentation.
> >For a period of time, I was looking at programs for conferences, mostly
> >those listed on the site of the ACM. While I found quite a bit about
> >(morally blind, people excluding) artificial intelligence, I can't
> >remember seeing anything about digital augmentation of the human
> >intellect, which from an academic point of view and by its very nature
> >need be a multidisciplinary subject; and from a societal point of view
> >calls for informed citizens fully aware about what may or may not be
> >decided in the digital domain; and what direction science and technology
> >will permit digital augmentation to take.
> >I said, "from an academic point of view." Academe cannot stand apart
> >from the world it functions in; it is merely its servant even when its
> >role is to lead. I see Fleabyte (intended as a continuation of the
> >colloquium) as the public counterpart of academe as well as of
> >governance in the domain of digital augmentation. As a means to
> >stimulate and maintain control. A checking of its contents page will
> >show this is the range we have been working in.
> >I had hoped that a forum of intellectuals originally dedicated to
> >extending Doug's vision would be responsive to the above issue. The
> >question now is whether this is still the case. And, if so, shouldn't
> >thought be given to how to make digital augmentation a useful instrument
> >for enhancing (saving??) a democratic mode for living together on a
> >small planet?
> >On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 03:18, Peter P. Yim wrote:
> >>Ref. Paul's cautionary message of 22-Jan-03
> >> http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0301/msg00048.html
> >>1. It might be worth revisiting (i) the scope of the colloquium, and (ii)
> >>the intent of the "permission to use" statement.
> >>(i) The colloquium was offered as a Stanford University professional
> >>education course. The course description says,
> >> See http://scpd.stanford.edu/SOL/courses/proEd/EC/
> >>Course Name:
> >> Engelbart Colloquium at Stanford
> >> An In-Depth Look at "The Unfinished Revolution"
> >>Faculty: Douglas C. Engelbart, Ph.D.
> >>This colloquium will offer professionals and executives a rare opportunity
> >>to listen to and learn from visionary Doug Engelbart as he talks about his
> >>life's work, creative process, and his concerns and vision for the future.
> >>To help refresh everyone's memory, I have brought up, from the archives, the
> >>original colloquium page from the Bootstrap website (dated around early
> >>March 2000) where the public information on the colloquium is posted. That
> >>and the course pages on the Stanford would have been the main source of
> >>public information about the colloquium. I have it, now, at
> >>A lots of the links don't work any more, but it clearly explains what the
> >>colloquium was about. I'm going to leave that page there for the next couple
> >>of weeks in case people want to look at it.
> >>Based on the above descriptions, developing the OHS or any other system,
> >>obviously does not fall within the scope of this Stanford course. I,
> >>therefore, suggest that we stop talking about system development as if it
> >>were a colloquium activity, and even less so, an extended activity (because
> >>it is out of scope.)
> >>(ii) The intent of putting a "permission to use" statement in place was to
> >>facilitate the boradcast, webcast, taping and the subsequent publication of
> >>the colloquium content into courseware, a book or something in that vein.
> >>The indemnification clause (which, actually is fairly standard) is there to
> >>make sure that participants are responsible for their own acts.
> >>If someone had spoken during the colloquium (since dialog was a feature)
> >>and, either intentionally or unintentionally, divulged his/her employer's
> >>trade secrets, and the employer sues -- neither Bootstrap Institute nor
> >>Stanford University would want to be (nor should they be) involved. This is
> >>the type of situation the indemnity clause was there for. It does take a
> >>long stretch to get from this to interpreting it as being akin to "asking
> >>volunteers to absorb liability."
> >>2. All this discussion is interesting, but the real issue is -- is there a
> >>real and appreciable risk and threat, to the extent that we should stop
> >>certain pursuits because of it. I guess each of us will have to answer that
> >>for himself or herself. I don't believe a legal professional, that we pay
> >>some money to, could do it for us.