[ba-ohs-talk] Anticipation driven by intelligence
Mark, (01)
Why not help Pablo and his followers who worry that computers are
useless because they can only give answers, by explaining that
technology does not provide answers to anything except "What is in the
computer." However, properly rigged computers augment personal and
organizational memory.... (02)
http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/01/02/00030.HTM#6221 (03)
...noted by Eric Armstrong on 010916.... (04)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/09/16/190429.HTM#0001 (05)
...and subsequently by Jeff Conklin.... (06)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/09/26/101008.HTM#9V8G (07)
Moreover, computers provide questions for advancing tasks like
OHS/DKR... (08)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/09/22/225009.HTM (09)
...and eventually transition from IT to a culture of knowledge? The
core issue Pablo and others overlook is the difference between
information and knowledge, which is somewhat addressed in your letter
today in the sense that anticipation is driven by the cognitive
process of intelligence suggested for review on 000120 to aid the
OHS/DKR effort which you support.... (010)
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/01/20/080146.HTM#0K42 (011)
If Pablo had a computer he would discover this question is still
pending, that the answer is in very few computers, and further, until
the answer is put in more computers Pablo's frustration will remain. (012)
Rod (013)
************** (014)
Mark Szpakowski wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 12:33 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that the significance of this talk on anticipation goes
> > back to important aspects of holistic thinking
> >> From: Mary Keeler <mkeeler@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>
> >> To: PORT-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> >> "Anticipation: Why is it a subject of research? Anticipation occurs in
> >> all
> >> spheres of life. It complements the physics of reaction with the
> >> pro-active quality of the living. [...] Before the archer draws his
> >> bow, his mind has already hit the target.
> >> Motivation mechanisms in learning, the arts, and all types of research
> >> are
> >> dominated by the underlying principle that a future state--the
> >> result--controls present action, aimed at success. The entire subject
> >> of
> >> prevention entails anticipatory mechanisms."
>
> This is certainly provocative, and seems *necessary* to consider as part
> of Augment systems. Let me go further with some related Beads:
>
> - "Call-by-future": I first came across this in some MIT AI Lab papers
> ("The Incremental Garbage Collection of Processes", et al) by Carl
> Hewitt on Open Systems and parallel asynchronous agents (wait to
> evaluate arguments as long as possible and only when you really need
> them)
> - "call-by-future" is an argument evaluation/existentialization pattern
> supported by some programming languages, related to lazy evaluation
> (complementing call-by-value, call-by-reference, etc);
> - a creative misunderstanding/evolution of Hewitt's paper led to my
> seeing call-by-future in the context of the binding problem (ie,
> call-by-future is the binding intentionality within which previously
> disparate perceptions are made to make "sense") (likewise, the
> "hypothesis" provides the framework within which questions are raised,
> experiments defined, and results evaluated);
> - our own behavior provides existence proof that this works (how do I
> know what I'm going to say before I've said it?);
> - this is the ultimate cashing in of the promissory note that
> call-by-future in a sense is (I promise I'll provide you a value when
> needed), and that it *could* be symbiotically sedimented into software
> (*we* provide the call-by-future for our software).
>
> Other related beads:
> - Husserl's question: wherein lies the unity of the intentionality of
> time consciousness (neither the noetic (subject-side) nor the noematic
> (object-side) alone is sufficient; the two are co-relative);
> - provocative notion of quantum state vector collapse providing the
> existential binding in which variables find values (in a sense
> "previous" to the calling-by-future collapse);
> - "dialogue" (dialogos - David Bohm's open organization process) as a
> process of staying in the open-ended question (what is the human process
> of generating call-by-future, especially when groups (let along
> societies and peoples) are involved)?
>
> OHS bead:
> - educating call-by-future (how do we decide what to decide; in
> particular, what augments and what doesn't augment), and locating it at
> the heart of human-driven OHS/Augment systems (as both personal and
> group *practice*), could provide exponential augmentation... Without
> that.... quis custodiet custodies (who will guard the guardians)?
>
> Summary:
> - a personal practice of resting in call-by-future/dialogos/"state of
> mind" is necessary for leaders (and any human);
> - humans can provide call-by-future for OHS/Augment software (this is
> the UI / design challenge: how to make my agency (interrleated agents)
> fluidly responsive to my intentions).
>
> This is the heart of my interest in OHS and Augment.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
> ________________________________________________________
> "Computers are useless: they can only give answers". - Pablo Picasso (015)