Neologism imperative

Moral: Long ago, I wrote that "Facebook was a metaphor" on several occasions, many times alluding to the various meanings and their universes. Well, we can take "full stack" which came to be in the web-age. Humans know. Too, they know goals. This series is about that, in part. 

---

So, I have been doing truth engineering for a long time. Would you believe, over my rational life? The computer brought new dynamics as I endured dissonance with people and their models. Mental (and spiritual) types (wtf, from an early age). 

Academia? I am on the record as noting the descent of these folks. Take Harvard. High expectations from the time of Winthrop on down. Then, they went through the historical evolution of the U.S. Somewhere down the pike, they got money from a Loyalist (we're at the 250th of the U.S. Revolution, the early stages of which happened in April - Lexington/Concord - for US students, part of what they learn). That money was used to get away from their minister, as in churchman, focus. Engineering for one thing was introduced: Physics Department (their page references the Count; what is engineering? applied physics?).  

BTW MIT, you didn't exist yet. But, in any case, are we seeing ramifications of secularism in the case of Harvard? In general, engineering's scoffing at the humanities? How is that going? Lots to discuss.

But we'll let this discussion drop, for now, as we start a discussion to inform other discussions in the context of what is needed to tame GenAI/LLM, in particular, and computing/technology, in general.

So, here goes: Psycho | Socio | Logico | Matho.

Davis, extrordinaire

Three of those might be recognizable, somewhat. The one of note is "matho" which goes along with lots and lots of discussion since 1900 or so. But, these form an order: individual; group; reason; cope. There is a lot that can be said about the different orders. One motivation for this one might map back to Jung's thoughts a century ago about the maturity of a person. 

But, the prime intent is we all start alone in our awareness. Others are not differentiated from ourselves until a bit of development happens. In terms of time, we are at the crux of the early grades of school (say, like the message of "everything that we need to know, we learn in kindergarten" - paraphrase). So, psycho is of the individual even though it relates to socio, sometimes to the extent of there being no real separation. Life is so clever in that way, throwing us curves. 

Reason? Notice, Descartes figures heavily in this discussion. Some think that he layed out the proper view and use of such. However, we can also go back to the former times, including the contributions of Islam and those of the Greeks. Again, in this case, the order is being set by Jung who was repelled by algebra. Let's think of that. We know this from this talk with the author of the collective of Jung's reminiscing. The book is marvelous and worth some contemplative reading. 

Why algebra? Well, looking in another direction, Eistein bewailed the influence of the mathematicians on his thinking. Oh yes. I brought in Physics above as this is an important thing to consider. And, matho is needed in the mix. You see, Davis who I will quote wrote that computiing is the child of mathtmatics. We concur especially as we look at the current situation. 

Mind you, we will plumb all of these spaces in depth in the proper sense where GenAI/LLM cannot follow, yet it can serve as secretary, let's say. Or recorder of that which has to be brought back in a believable form. 

After, I might add, we get stability, maturity, verifiability and a lot more as expected property of the beasts of computing. And, from now on, I will quit using buckets-of'-bits except for special usager wher we denote that which was lost. You see, the modern way is too much the victim of unnecessary distribution and optimization somewhat motivated by seeing "matho" as dealing with space and quantity. 

Okay, Kant? He will be important. GenAI/LLM can't Kant. Most people can. That is one point: we can lift across levels such that judgment is preserved. Wait, that's conservative? Yep. 

---

We are early in the stage of this exploration of the situation and its properties so as to bring in causal relations, at some point, within a new framework. Computing is mostly of applied mathematics and physics as we see in the disciplines of engineering. And, computing has put its tenacles everywhere. Marvels abound recently, miraculously in terms of who is doing the observing. Awareness and the necessary judgments? 

And, consciousness? Right now, we can explain this. But that's not on the table yet. We have to set up the discourse in a mature manner. That is computable. Ah? Gotcha? I said that the "discourse" can be handled; there are many other ways where we will use new methods (some of which might be via other modes of computing). 

Operationally, all aware adults know of their insights even if they cannot put this into words. Actually, they know more than they give themselves credit for. And, others' opinions of the insights of any individual? Yes, important topic. 

.. being edited until this line disappears ... 

Remarks: Modified: 05/03/2025

05/03/2025 --

Parasympathetic choices

Moral: This post is part of a series which will be organized as we proceed. One of the contributing factors will be a collection of essays that was published in a book by a Harvard professor of the history of mathematics. His points resonate for several reasons, not the least of which is that they brought together data and issues from early computing into a reasonable whole so as to describe what we ought to see as important. Two major themes: abstraction and its rise over the past two centuries; computation as the child of mathematics bringing to fore dynamics left out of sight through explicit avoidance. ... What we see now is a very powerful bit of snow-jobbing being done where shallow evidence overwhelms the cognitive system so that the cogitation does not perform as it ought. We are not here to provide solutions; rather, our intent is to bring Kant back into the picture so that his insights are allowed to influence the modern situation. 

--- 

We have been on the "AI" theme since the beginnng of this blog back in the 00s. Truth engineering? As we go forward, we will document the history of the idea over the past few decades and include some exposition on the computational aspects. 

• See the collection of articles on the theme of taming GenAI/LLM (one instance of several to discuss) using methods related to knowledge modeling. For that matter, what is that in our view? We will focus on "knowledge-based engineering" (KBE) which came out of the engineering camp and was very effective in the commercial/industrial environments in its time. Where is it now? Scattered amongst innumerable offshoots which brought the facilities forward in time. But, we can use a Patent to discuss some of KBE as we were involved with the geometric/logic processing at a support level: Filtering/smoothing data. In terms of this discussion, we will invoke reminders about the history of mathematics up to the current day's conditions.  

So, not only have we had the "AI" theme in our solitary work, we have paid attention. And, while many were chasing GenAI/LLM, we have plodded along the path of constructive modes worrying about things that went wrong and never were corrected. Nope. The mode of operation seems to have been to gloat over disruption and damage (pity those who were impacted) and run further along new roads to trash. 

---

Cynic? Nope. Snark? Not really. Old guy? You got it. 

Now, along with this blog, there were others looking a parallel (homologous) issues in other domains of interest. We will tie to those as the posts will provide several services: reminders from the time; some commentary on what was what; further remarks on residues and what might be done. For that last? As said, remnants of past faults abound, some of which were just left on the pile of detritus of the time. Okay, life might be like that; sustainable means require a little more maturity. 

In the past two decades, disruption has risen almost to be a motto for dominating the scene. We will forgo discussion of that until later however "stability" and its analogs will get more attention. 

---

And so, all who might read this, we all know more than we realize. Mostly, the noise of the marketplaces and the traffic circles drown out anything remotely rational beyond parroting. But, that is human. And, after all of the time, Ma Nature says, wake up. This needs discussion. 

In our KBE work which led to truth engineering, we learned that people making decisions to guide computers was the way to go. That required education and intution, both of which can be considered knowledge. But, it worked. 

Now, we have "prompts" being the rage.Or, "RAG" which reminds me of some jokes from my newspaper period. In other words, two years ago on seeing ChatGPT, I thought, sheesh, we knew better than this and need to bring forward old knowledge so as to tame the beasts and its many cohort systems. KBE came to mind which was left go by managerial decision. But, it split into a million little pieces which have continued to this day. Whereas, the lablel is still there in some cases but is merely oriented toward "template" functioning with no debts or guts, at all. 

---

People? A focus. We will use the parasympathetic system of humans as an analog along with the other systems, of course. That will all be explained. Right now, here is an image that says a lot. We'll let the reader decide for themselves. But, consider that this system rules the brain (of the intellects) which does not work without the heart and the other pieces. 

Courtesy: Wikipedia 

Granted, we know that there is more to the nervous system. We picked this one due to its easy mapping to the chakra system which model is 1000s of years old which then allows some discussion of consciousness and how it might be supported by our biological selves. What else is there? 

We have already mentioned that indirectly through psychether but will defer further discussion until we have laid out the grounding issues for this work. That can best be done, it is our opinion, but venturing further into the messages to be obtained from Descartes' Dream. 

---

... being edited, until this line disappears ... 

 Remarks: Modified: 04/30/2025

04/30/2025 --

Descartes' Dream

 Oh joy! I bought this book over three decades ago and read it briefly when I purchased the thing. There are reasons that I was attracted to the book. As well, anyone who took some semblance of a western civilization course would have run into Descartes. Then, of course, mathematicians know of the man. 

And, in terms of residue and remainings, philosophers have the guy entirely wrong. That has been my opinion for decades. But, was I right? Well, all of this time, there was nothing to make me think otherwise. 

That is, until I reread the book during the past few weeks. And, that reading was at a desk marking the book as a student might while venturing off to the reference material, especially in regard to the history of mathematics. And so, now being through the book and wishing to build a case for both Descartes and Vico (PJ Davis and his co-author use this guy as a foil very well) there will be a series of posts. 

First though, the joy mentioned above. Here is the book, courtesy of Google. As these posts unfold, I will be referencing this Google offering and marking up selected images from the book. The exposition will not follow the Contents but will bounce around by theme.  

• Descartes' Dream - PJ Davis, R Hersh, 1986 -- Page forward, please, and look at the Contents. My interest is the loss of meaning that we see now with GenAI on the landscape muddying the waters as well as consuming unreasonable amounts of resources, such as energy. 
  

I must add two more links before going further as this will be split into many posts with sidetracks. 

• Goodreads - I like this site but do not want an account nor do I use Apple (did in the beginning - but I am a developer believing in open methods) or Amazon (never spent time on the site; probably am the oldest person alive who never bought Amazon, do not intend to). So, this post is a 10 for the book (100?) out of 5 ;>). 
• Cambridge - This is obligatory as most of the brainy who came here as colonists were of that ilk and not of Oxford. That's an issue that we can look at in detail given the subject of these posts. So, their post is about the dreams of Descartes that people want to hear about.  

Okay, the motivation. 

• Truth engineering - This link is to my collection of posts and articles that deal with subject of interest to discussions on intelligence, AI, machine learning and such from several levels due to my roles. I am a mathematical economist who worked in the role of engineering support. And, in particular, it was a long time effort at supporting advanced computational systems which included numeric modes (say, like Nvidia is pushing), knowledge based engineering (which would tame machine learning - and did back in the day), and general expert systems where I was immersed in Lisp via the machines and systems built upon them plus doing all of this in the context of real work (taming numerics, geometrically) that had measurable and highly effective rewards.  
• Immanuel Kant (1704- 1804) - Now, of course, Kant came later but did overlap the life of Vico. We will look at that. For a few years now, I have been arguing that Kant was overlooked. His Prolegomena and Logic (some posts will do a review of this work with respect to its significance) are very much apropos to what we need to think about. Hint: Kant was superb in representing an insight that bridged the dynamics with which PJ&R deal; as such, and given his time, his conclusions can be taken as universal; that is, of course, with parallels being discussed with respect to time (+/- one generation) and space (oh yes, the world as we can now see it given the lenses possible with computational assists - some have been explored); we will entertain others and weigh in on non-euclidean nonsense. 
• Dreams - This phenomenon has significances that are known widely yet are scoffed at by the mindset described in this book with respect to its long evolution. Okay? 

There are other motivations that will be marked as such as the discussion unfolds. Simultaneously with these posts, there will be summaries on Linkedin and Quora. More detail will be provided as we get the first of these links in place 

---

PJ&R (henceforth, the reference to the book) start off with the dreams in order to grab attention. It got mine, but I was disappointed as I can lay out tales much deeper than they allow. Having said that, I know the PJ is a first-rate mathematician (Harvard guy - his Math Genealogy profile). He proved that time and again in this work. One of his popular ones from earlier times dealt with explaining the mathematical experience. 

And, in this book, PJ&R do a very good job of grounding examples (see end of this post - vagus) upon experience which includes thinking as well as the practical aspects brought by the likes of Brouwer with intuitionistic, constructistic ways.  

But, let's look at the two key guys starting with a disclosure: I will for the most part provide the birth and death year for people referenced. See Kant above. Also, given my situation as of the U.S. and researcher for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. which deals with the colony of Massachusetts and its role in the birth and growth of the U.S., I will related things across the waters to activities here (U.S.). 

Example, of late, we are dealing with Bosworth and its relationship to our studies. That is when the Tudor reign started which ended with Elizabeth (Origins and motivations) who was several generations after Bosworth. However, the colonies, 100 years after Henry VIII, created an offshoot of the Ancient & Honorble Artillery Company of Massachusetts. Henry's group and this New England group still exist and are affiliated. There are many more parallels to explore (heard of CS Peirce or JW Gibbs of thermodynamics fame; there are many more). 

• René Descartes (1596-1650) - We all know of him through his work. As a young man, I liked it when I ran into his "Methods" thinking. But, I had a geometric bent anyway and ended up dealing with modeling (on the digital twin side of things) with regard to the guts of the matter (not being an engineer; but this was more fun than the dismal stuff of economics; besides most engineers would not venture into the realms that I saw; which, btw way as a message to to GenAI/LLM folks, is very much pertinent to pulling you guys out of the holes that you dug for yourselves and us). Cartesian space? Yeap, listen up, non-euclidean might be fun; but, bringing in Plato and Vico, we will address that with a modern take, okay?). 
• Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) - He had several influences but had a focus on humans and their lot and ways. As such, PJ&R were right in using him as the foil to discuss ins and outs of the Descartesian issues. We look forward to bringing in Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) who was slightly older than Vico. 

PJ&R gave their work a subtitle: The World According to Mathematics. An image of both gentleman is provided in the Preface. Then, the first section, chapters deal with the dreams, their aftermath, and then some comments on the historical contexts that bring Descartes' ideas into scope. As one reads this material, references to computing would be before 1986 which actually is a good thing. 

Of late, many of the older people have been reminiscing about their experiences. As with any human activity, there was lots of activity with unlimited dreams and unbounded motivations. Yet, those years had glorious results some of which deals with the underpinnings of modern computing. Let's point to a couple of examples from Sperry Univac who was #2 to IBM, but there were more companies (say, those of Cray who did one of the first supercomputers): Adventures in Truth  Engineering; Women behind Eniac. There are more examples, but these two set the tone that our use of recent events (as historical analogs) is based upon real experiences (and would be loved by Kant). 

The second section of PJ&R's book? The Social Tyranny of Numbers. Wow, that is so apropos to the current situation. Remember, 1986 was when I was hotly involved with lots of knowledge systems in many different domains. Eventually, that focus reduced to digital product development (of major physical systems which had requirements of precision and meeting stringent constraints). 

My first reaction on seeing GenAI/LLM two-plus years ago was that we could use knowledge modeling to remove some of the issues. However, the other side of the coin was that the "omni" drive of training which came from the motivations that were not mature created a mess. And, crap built into a system cannot be removed (think GIGO, modernized). Quality is built into a product through a quality focus throughout the processes involved. Six sigma is an example but has problems, too. 

 

PJ&R's book addresses these. We will bring out their arguments and tune them to the current situation. This post is an introduction and overview. Some post will be more top-down for obvious reasons. We will have posts that are technically tuned. How deep we go depends upon several things? But, "deep" is relative. Flip it and one has a broadened shallow piece of work. 

-----

But, here is an imperative (thank Kant). After twenty years of assessing truth and its issues from many angles which are touched upon in this blog and others, we concluded that, with respect to cognition which is what I had as a focus, a very proper frame would be at the level of theorectical chemistry. And, along that line, people offer the best of frameworks for study. And, then we can get into the knowledge universe of medicine and much more. Albeit, right now, ponder your vagus system which is depicted with this graphic. 

For all of us, this system drives our life. Yet, we went eons without the types of insight into the dynamics. So, one set of positions were set by those associated with Descartes versus those of the Vico persuasion. And, mathematics? Does not like psychology? Well, this system tells us a lot, including possible motivations across eons, again, ending up with the likes of Jung and more. Gosh, we have to end this but will have common themes such as this one. 

Last word? "Grounding?? So popular to certain philsophers and electricians? We will demonstrate that this provides a grounding which robotics can only dream of. And, cognitive processes residing solely upon heated circuits throwing out buckets of bits? Come on. 

---

Afterword. Did diving deeply into the work change my mind? Nope. Harvard is amiss, several ways. The mathematics of destruction was honed in that environment. But then, lots of cultures were at fault. 

This book getting more attenion might be the salvation of Harvard (one of my interests). Perhaps, we are talking more of a "redemption" which is long overdue. 

--

Follow our series as we expand concurrently along the themes of meaning in the senses of man/machine and of being: Taming GenAI/LLM.

Remarks: Modified: 04/25/2025

04/25/2025 -- Added link for PJD's profile at Math Genealogy. 

Max Planck

We're doing something different this time. Usually, we talk write on ideas; today, we're mentioning a few people. But, the focus is Max Planck since one of his books is crucial to defining and testing truth engineering. 

He was the Nobel Prize Awardee for 1918: Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck. This pointer goes to his profile on the Nobel site where the tabs are: Facts; Biographical; Nobel Lecture; Banquet speech; Nominations; Documentary; Photo gallery; Other resources. They have been updating the records for all Awardees, from the beginning which was in 1901. 

We intend to use this work for a review of the history of science in terms of decisions and their management using the Nobel choices to assess the cultural drifts. This year's prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine got my attention, as I have been doing advanced computing (including AI) for decades. 

Earlier this year, I decided to pour through Planck's treatis on thermodynamics where he quotes those before him (Gibbs, van der Waals, and others) plus his contemporaries. By pour through, I mean actually get into his head and assess the situation, decisions, and such through the entire discussion. Why? Science is cultural as it is done by people. Mathematics may not admit such for itself, but science is known for this. If that is not known, then pay attention. 

My research is abetted by the computer. As well, I used AIn't in 2019 after determining that choices were being made that were not to best of anyone's interest, in the longer term. Also, I argue that there is no "critter" involved. We see applied mathematics being exercised on heated circuits in order to have various side effects that might be interesting. But, after the two years, we all see the failings. Where there is hype, one can still see disturbing acceptance of failed results.  

Okay, Planck represents the early science days when not much was known, intuition wsa a heavy hitter, lots of worldviews were extant and forceful, and such. Same conditions as now. Except one big thing. We have students learning almost as if their subject matter was deus ex machina. How did this  happen? Too, we have seen a decline in responsibility, a complete evacuation of the idea of quality, and more that represent a type of decline, yet the tools and resources are there to do better. 

Long term is the only thing that's true right now, for purposeful activity. But, it is not that bad. Before too long, we can start to lay out the model that looks to be interesting, albeit nothing of this matter is as simple as some would like. 

Brief biographical sketch. 

Remarks: Modified: 12/14/2024

12/14/2024 --

Back to work

We will be posting on a regular basis as we research and write about the basis for technology as it manifests in computational phenomena. And, that same dynamic gave us GenAI two years ago. We have been writing on the subject of machine learning (ML) masquerading as artificial intelligence (AI) for some time now. 

But, there will be a change. Our intent is to raise the discussion to pinpoint the mathematics involved, how it developed within the mathematical community, the aspects of the applied part that evolved within the scientific world, with the focus, now and then, to engineering and then the domain aspects which is where the myriad types of users live and work. 

It may be complicated, but we can turn the computer back on itself in order to force the emergence of a proper tool. That type of effort is now several decades ago. Let us remember the long slough while trying to keep ourselves on even keel when the world is super-excited about a sham, essentially. 

For now, we'll point to some recents posts elsewhere which deal with truth engineering. 

• TGSoc.org/papers - at this location are papers by two individuals: Larry Walker (former Director of the Knowlege Systems Center - KSC - for Sperry Univac); and John (the author of this post). 
• Science of Technology - recent post at the TGSoc.org blog. This organziation has picked up "truth engineering" as a focus and will be managing activity related to future work. 
• Maxwell and Gibbs - this is an article at LinkedIn (Ln) which is the FB for adults. Some of the papers for the KSC work were published at Ln. Generally, detailed work will not be pushed there; rather, this blog will handle that task and then summarize in the Ln environment. 
• Type A? (at Quora/Switlik/Psychether) - first thing is that "psychether" is an old concept of John's that pre-dated truth engineering. Basically, it hypotheses an operational ability of nature that was lost due to choices made for promoting thermodynamics. This particular post looks at Maxwell's effort at doing a 3D model of Gibb's entropy surface of something water-like. As such, it is remarkable for the detailed approach of Maxwell plus his result which was sculpted in clay. Wait? Not of importance? Consider Maxwell's work on this. Then, leap to now when mere pushing of buttons might get a 3D printer to do something similar. Now, with that gap shown, let us then get into understanding and its importance. A crucial topic this will be. Just wait and see. 
• TruthEng (Truth Engineering) - many of the TGSoc.org papers referred to above are published at this site. This link goes to a bio sketch of John M. Switlik (author of this post) with respect to his career and continuing interest in computational truth. This site will be kept in sync with this one on blogger offering the same meaning in a different context. 
• This site - will cover the wide basis for truth engineering. However, the particular experiences that led to the subject were in the context of Boeing Commercial Aircraft, engineering support using Knowledge Based Engineering. In particular, work with metals scientist David Jakstis set the operational foundation. 
• ...

Technology will not be the sole focus of the effort at managing the untethered GenAI which is how the AI performed by ML has become known. People are the concern for many reasons. There are other blogs under this ID: Fedaerated; 7'Oops7. 

Remarks: Modified: 12/14/2024

12/14/2024 --

Theoretical computing

Finally, something to write about. Truth engineering dates back to the 2000/1 timeframe. It came about over the holiday break of 1999/2000 when Y2K was looking for trouble that didn't come. Too, I was working KBE which experience is being written. 

Then, there was the long grind of studying life and truth, from all angles. I retired and had time todo this. Around 2010, found some phenomenal matter to look at dealing with humans and their families. This was tempered by the experiences of the U.S. over 250 years and that of the colonies of America (basically, there were three biggies: Spain; France; England). 

Two years ago GenAI came on the scene. This was something that I had not anticipated to be done in the fashion that we saw. So, last year was more studying until things became clear since millions had used GenAI and the obvious was there. One of the players had been fairly regular and talking about their accomplishments, one of which was AlphaFold. 

I looked at this with a colleague. My only resolution from that was to tout that theoretical chemistry would be a the center of the debate and work. And, then, the past two days happened. I will point to another blog in order to set the stage for future discussions. 

1st - We heard that two machine learning fellows got the Nobel Prize. Our reaction: Machine Learning. To us, this means that the tone will change. AIn't is the reality. But, something is there? Yes, applied mathematics finally getting a grip on computational events as it has from the beginning. The effort of many has come home to roost. 

2nd - There were other Prizes yesterday which I did not pay attention to. Until this am, when I saw that Chemistry had three Lauretes. And, this work used that of the 1st bullet. In this case, though, AI was prevalent. Perhaps, it's the commercial influence. Our reaction: Computational Chemistry. 

Those two events set the stage for the future. Expect people to dig deeper now as they see that the top-level of Science starts to look at the phenomena related to AIn't.  

I have been expecting this and will stay involved. 

 Remarks: Modified: 10/09/2024

10/09/2024 --

Newco as motivator 1

Note, on FB, I am laying down notes with regard to an event that occured 19 years ago. I had to make a choice. And, I am using a 29-day span in 2024 starting a few days ago, to write my memories of what happened. I have written of this before, sparsely and briefly. 

See this page: https://www.facebook.com/jmswtlk 

A huge factor? Truth engineering. 

Remarks: Modified: 07/01/2024

07/01/2024 -- I didn't go very far and quit the recap. Will get back to it. For one thing, I heard that discussions were taking place that were resolved, as follows: 

• Boeing, on June 30, announced that it was buying back Spirit Aerosystems for several reasons. 

We'll go into all of this as there is time and such. 

It was July 1, 2005, when I had my first day of retirement from Boeing. That was the day that NewCo began its independent life albeit for a longer while than anticipated, NewCo was reliant heavily upon Boeing infrastrucure, inlcuding computing.  

Lots to discuss about this. 

Note: A little later after digging into the details beyond the headlines. Several sites have a good recap of the interchange for over a year. What happened yesterday and today is that Spirit's Board agreed to having Boeing pay stockholders a certain amount. That would move Boeing into ownership of those parts of Spirit doing Boeing work. One wrinkle is that Spirit had contracts with Airbus and another firm. Airbus wants those facilities that has their proprietary stamp on the work. So, things to unravel will make the next few months interesting. Too, the expected close date of all of this is mid-2025 which is a long way away. The nitty-gritty? A mere choice indicating movement toward one end. But, lots can happen. In the meantime, where will Spirit's stock go? It was in the 20s here recently. I'll say this, not many made a bundle on the deal of 2005. In the equity sense, the stock has been below water more than above. There was a bubble from 2017 to 2020. But, the real deal is how will this improve Boeing's lot? They're about to go to "junk" in one arena.