DIGITAL SLAVERY OR DIGITAL EMPOWERMENT?

eJournal: uffmm.org,
ISSN 2567-6458, 21.May 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Change: 26.May 2019 (Extending from two to three selected authors)

CONTEXT

This text is part of the larger text dealing with the Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI)  paradigm.

OBJECTIVE

In the following text the focus is on the global environment for the AAI approach, the cooperation and/ or competition between societies and the strong impact induced by the new digital technologies. Numerous articles and books are dealing with these phenomena. For the actual  focus  I like to mention especially three books: (i) from the point of view of the technology driver the book of Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen (2013)  — both from google — seems to be an impressive illustration of what will be possible in the near future;  (ii) from the point of a technology-aware historian the book of Yuval Noah Harari (2018) can help to deepen the impressions and pointing to the more and more difficult role of mankind itself; finally (iii) from the point of view of  a society-thriller author Eric Elsberg (2019) who shows within a quite realistic scenario how a global lack of understanding can turn the countries world wide into a desaster which seems to be un-necessary.

The many, many different aspects of the views of the first two mentioned authors I transform  into one confrontation only: Digital Slavery vs. Digital Empowerment.

DIGITAL SLAVERY
Digital slavery as the actual leading trend in the nations worldwide induced by a digital technology which can be used for this, but this is only one of several options.

Stepping back from the stream of events in everyday life, and looking onto the more general structure working behind and implicit in all these events then one can recognize an incredible collecting behavior of only a few services behind the scene. While the individual user is mostly separated from all the others, empowered by a limited individual knowledge, individual experiences, skills, and preferences, mostly unconscious, his/ her behavior will be stored in central cloud spaces which as such are only single, individual data with a bigger importance. People asked about their data usually do not bother too much about questions of security. An often heared argument in this context says, that they have nothing to hide. They are only normal persons.

What they do not see and which  they cannot see because this is completely hided for others is the fact that  there exists hidden algorithms which can synthesize all these individual data, extracting different kinds of patterns, reconstructing time lines, adding divers connotations, and which can compute some dynamics pointing into a possible future. The hidden owners (the ‘dark lords’) of these storage spaces and algorithms can built up  with these individual data of normal users overall pictures of many hundreds of Millions of users, companies, offices, communal institutions etc., which enable very specific plans and actions to exploit economical, political and military opportunities. With this knowledge they can destroy nearly any kind of company at will and they can introduce new companies before anybody elsewhere has the faintiest idea, that there is a new possibility. This pattern concentrates the capital more and more in a decreasing number of owners and turns more and more people into an anonymous mass of being poor.

The individual user does not know about all this. In his/ her Not-Knowing the user is mutating from a free democratic citizen to a formally perhaps still  free, but materially completely manipulated something. This is not limited to the normal citizen but it holds for Managers, mayors and most kinds of politicians too. Traditional societies are sucked out and are turned into more and more zombie-states.

Is there no chance to overcome this destructive overall scenario?

DIGITAL EMPOWERMENT
Digital empowerment as an alternative approach using digital technologies to empower people, groups, whole nations without the hidden ‘dark lords’.

There are alternatives to the actual digital slavery paradigm.  These alternatives try to help the individual user, citizen, manager, mayor etc. to bridge his/ her isolation by supporting a new kind of team-based modeling of the common reality, which is  stored on public storage spaces, reachable 24 hours every day during a year by all. Here too one can add algorithms which can support the contributing users by simulations, playing modes, oracle-computations, connecting different models into one model, and much more. Such an approach frees the individual out of his individual enclosures, sharing creative ideas, searching together for better solutions, and using modeling techniques, simulation techniques, and several kinds of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the construction of possible futures much beyond the individual capacities alone.

This alternative approach allows real open knowledge and  real informed democracies. This is not slavery by dark lords but common empowerment by free people.

Who has already read some of the texts related to the AAI paradigm will know that the AAI paradigm covers exactly this empowering  view of  a modern open democratic society.

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

At a first glance this idea of a digital empowered society may look as an empty procedure: everybody is enabled to communicate and think with others, but what is with the daily economy which organizes the stream of goods, services, and resources? The main mode of interactions in the beginning of the 21st century seems to demonstrate the inability of the actual open liberal societies to fight inequalities really. The political system appears to be too weak to enable efficient structures.

It is known since years based on mahematical models that a truly cooperative society is much, much more stable as any other kind of a system and even much, much more productive. These insights are not at work world wide. The reason is that the financial and political systems follow models in their heads which are different and which until now are opposing any kind of a change. Several cultural and emotional factors stand against different views, different practices, different procedures. Here improved communication and planning capabilites can be of help.

REFERENCES
  • Marc Elsberg. Gier. Wie weit würdest Du gehen? Blanvalet Publisher (part of  Random House), Munich, 2019
  • Yuval Noah Harari. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Spiegel & Grau,
    Penguin Random House, New York, 2018.
  • Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. The New Digital Age. Reshaping the
    Future of People, Nations and Business. John Murray, London (UK),
    1 edition, 2013. URL https://www.google.com/search?client=
    ubuntu&channel=fs&q=eric+schmidt+the+new+digital+age+pdf&
    ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 .

AAI V3 FRONTPAGE

eJournal: uffmm.org,
ISSN 2567-6458, 12.May 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Change: 20.May 2019 (Stopping Circulating Acronyms :-))

Change: 21.May 2019 (Adding the Slavery-Empowerment topic)

Change: 26.May 2019 (Improving the general introduction of this first page)

OBJECTIVE

This text describes the general procedure how engineers turn a problem into a functioning solution. Usually known under the label of Systems Engineering (SE) the focus in this text is on the first phase of this process where some experts try to analyse a given problem with a first vision of a possible solution to enable a complete solution. This analysis centers around the interaction between different kinds of executive actors (eA) which have to do the job and different kinds of assistive actors (aA) which shall support the executive actors. Historically these interactions have been analyzed under headings like Humanc-Computer Interaction (HCI) or Human-Machine Interaction (HMI). It is due to the developments during the beginning of the 21st century that the author of this text recently has introduced the wording Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI) to cope with the explosion of different kinds of actors on the side of the executive as well as assistive actors. As a consequence the nature of the interactions changed as well.These changes induced a  general re-writing of the traditional HCI/ HMI subject which is not yet finished.

HISTORY OF THIS TEXT

After a previous post of the new AAI approach I started the first  re-formulation of the general framework of  the AAI theory, which later has been replaced by a more advanced AAI version V2. But even this version became a change candidate and mutated to the   Actor-Cognition Interaction (ACI) paradigm, which still was not the endpoint. Then new arguments grew up to talk rather from the Augmented Collective Intelligence (ACI). Because even this view on the subject can  change again I stopped following the different aspects of the general Actor-Actor Interaction paradigm and decided to keep the general AAI paradigm as the main attractor capable of several more specialized readings.

STRUCTURE OF THIS TEXT

For the whole online-project the basic idea is still  to use one main post for the overview of all topics and then for every topic an individual post with possibly more detailed extensions. This will generate a tree-like structure with the root-post at level 0 and from this following the links you will reach the posts of level 1, then level 2 and so forth. The posts from level 0 and level 1 will be highly informal; the posts from level 2 and higher will increasingly become more specialized and associated with references to scientific literature. This block is inspired by many hundreds of scientific papers and books. I will start to give an explicit list of references as soon as the main structure has become fixed.

OUTLINE

The following posts present some considerations which shall illuminate the main idea of the new AAI paradigm.  This online version is not the final text of the book, but these posts are  important to support the development of the book. Two other important sources for the official book are given by two different lectures: the one lecture deals regularily with the topic Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) and the other lecture deals regularily with the new topic of empowering whole cities with a new approach of communication as part of a new approach to communal planning. This communal case represents a new  application of the AAI paradigm to communal planning.

  1. Because the new acronym ‘AAI’ is not yet well known here some explanations of what it means and how it is related to the older better known acronyms ‘HCI’ as well as ‘HMI’. Some Considerations to the AAI Variants
  2. In more traditional approaches to engineering the dimension of society is usually not mentioned. But today where technology, especially digital technology, has penetrated nearly all aspects of daily life and where engineers become more and more aware of society  as the main source of all resources as well as the main source for norms to follow, the topics of society should be an essential part of engineering thinking. In the beginning of the 21st century the main paradigm of the digitalized society has taken a format which is highly dangerous from the point of view of democraic societies. The wonderful new possibilities of the internet, of cloud computing and more are organized in a way which can turn open societies into digital prisons. It seems that the AAI paradigm is exactly that paradigm which can be of help in this situation:  Digital Slavery or Digital Empowerment?

ACI – TWO DIFFERENT READINGS

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 11.-12.May 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de
Change: May-17, 2019 (Some Corrections, ACI associations)
Change: May-20, 2019 (Reframing ACI with AAI)
CONTEXT

This text is part of the larger text dealing with the Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI)  paradigm.

HCI – HMI – AAI ==> ACI ?

Who has followed the discussion in this blog remembers several different phases in the conceptual frameworks used here.

The first paradigm called Human-Computer Interface (HCI) has been only mentioned by historical reasons.  The next phase Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) was the main paradigm in the beginning of my lecturing in 2005. Later, somewhere 2011/2012, I switched to the paradigm Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI) because I tried to generalize over  the different participating machines, robots, smart interfaces, humans as well as animals. This worked quite nice and some time I thought that this is now the final formula. But reality is often different compared to  our thinking. Many occasions showed up where the generalization beyond the human actor seemed to hide the real processes which are going on, especially I got the impression that very important factors rooted in the special human actor became invisible although they are playing decisive role in many  processes. Another punch against the AAI view came from application scenarios during the last year when I started to deal with whole cities as actors. At the end  I got the feeling that the more specialized expressions like   Actor-Cognition Interaction (ACI) or  Augmented Collective Intelligence (ACI) can indeed help  to stress certain  special properties  better than the more abstract AAI acronym, but using structures like ACI  within general theories and within complex computing environments it became clear that the more abstract acronym AAI is in the end more versatile and simplifies the general structures. ACI became a special sub-case

HISTORY

To understand this oscillation between AAI and  ACI one has to look back into the history of Human Computer/ Machine Interaction, but not only until the end of the World War II, but into the more extended evolutionary history of mankind on this planet.

It is a widespread opinion under the researchers that the development of tools to help mastering material processes was one of the outstanding events which changed the path of  the evolution a lot.  A next step was the development of tools to support human cognition like scripture, numbers, mathematics, books, libraries etc. In this last case of cognitive tools the material of the cognitive  tools was not the primary subject the processes but the cognitive contents, structures, even processes encoded by the material structures of the tools.

Only slowly mankind understood how the cognitive abilities and capabilities are rooted in the body, in the brain, and that the brain represents a rather complex biological machinery which enables a huge amount of cognitive functions, often interacting with each other;  these cognitive functions show in the light of observable behavior clear limits with regard to the amount of features which can be processed in some time interval, with regard to precision, with regard to working interconnections, and more. And therefore it has been understood that the different kinds of cognitive tools are very important to support human thinking and to enforce it in some ways.

Only in the 20th century mankind was able to built a cognitive tool called computer which could show   capabilities which resembled some human cognitive capabilities and which even surpassed human capabilities in some limited areas. Since then these machines have developed a lot (not by themselves but by the thinking and the engineering of humans!) and meanwhile the number and variety of capabilities where the computer seems to resemble a human person or surpasses human capabilities have extend in a way that it has become a common slang to talk about intelligent machines or smart devices.

While the original intention for the development of computers was to improve the cognitive tools with the intend  to support human beings one can  get today  the impression as if the computer has turned into a goal on its own: the intelligent and then — as supposed — the super-intelligent computer appears now as the primary goal and mankind appears as some old relic which has to be surpassed soon.

As will be shown later in this text this vision of the computer surpassing mankind has some assumptions which are

What seems possible and what seems to be a promising roadmap into the future is a continuous step-wise enhancement of the biological structure of mankind which absorbs the modern computing technology by new cognitive interfaces which in turn presuppose new types of physical interfaces.

To give a precise definition of these new upcoming structures and functions is not yet possible, but to identify the actual driving factors as well as the exciting combinations of factors seems possible.

COGNITION EMBEDDED IN MATTER
Actor-Cognition Interaction (ACI): A simple outline of the whole paradigm
Cognition within the Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI)  paradigm: A simple outline of the whole paradigm

The main idea is the shift of the focus away from the physical grounding of the interaction between actors looking instead more to the cognitive contents and processes, which shall be mediated  by the physical conditions. Clearly the analysis of the physical conditions as well as the optimal design of these physical conditions is still a challenge and a task, but without a clear knowledge manifested in a clear model about the intended cognitive contents and processes one has not enough knowledge for the design of the physical layout.

SOLVING A PROBLEM

Thus the starting point of an engineering process is a group of people (the stakeholders (SH)) which identify some problem (P) in their environment and which have some minimal idea of a possible solution (S) for this problem. This can be commented by some non-functional requirements (NFRs) articulating some more general properties which shall hold through the whole solution (e.g. ‘being save’, ‘being barrier-free’, ‘being real-time’ etc.). If the description of the problem with a first intended solution including the NFRs contains at least one task (T) to be solved, minimal intended users (U) (here called executive actors (eA)), minimal intended assistive actors (aA) to assist the user in doing the task, as well as a description of the environment of the task to do, then the minimal ACI-Check can be passed and the ACI analysis process can be started.

COGNITION AND AUGMENTED COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE

If we talk about cognition then we think usually about cognitive processes in an individual person.  But in the real world there is no cognition without an ongoing exchange between different individuals by communicative acts. Furthermore it has to be taken into account that the cognition of an individual person is in itself partitioned into two unequal parts: the unconscious part which covers about 99% of all the processes in the body and in the brain and about 1% which covers the conscious part. That an individual person can think somehow something this person has to trigger his own unconsciousness by stimuli to respond with some messages from his before unknown knowledge. Thus even an individual person alone has to organize a communication with his own unconsciousness to be able to have some conscious knowledge about its own unconscious knowledge. And because no individual person has at a certain point of time a clear knowledge of his unconscious knowledge  the person even does not really know what to look for — if there is no event, not perception, no question and the like which triggers the person to interact with its unconscious knowledge (and experience) to get some messages from this unconscious machinery, which — as it seems — is working all the time.

On account of this   logic of the individual internal communication with the individual cognition  an external communication with the world and the manifested cognition of other persons appears as a possible enrichment in the   interactions with the distributed knowledge in the different persons. While in the following approach it is assumed to represent the different knowledge responses in a common symbolic representation viewable (and hearable)  from all participating persons it is growing up a possible picture of something which is generally more rich, having more facets than a picture generated by an individual person alone. Furthermore can such a procedure help all participants to synchronize their different knowledge fragments in a bigger picture and use it further on as their own picture, which in turn can trigger even more aspects out of the distributed unconscious knowledge.

If one organizes this collective triggering of distributed unconscious knowledge within a communication process not only by static symbolic models but beyond this with dynamic rules for changes, which can be interactively simulated or even played with defined states of interest then the effect of expanding the explicit and shared knowledge will be boosted even more.

From this background it makes some sense to turn the wording Actor-Cognition Interaction into the wording Augmented Collective Intelligence where Intelligence is the component of dynamic cognition in a system — here a human person –, Collective means that different individual person are sharing their unconscious knowledge by communicative interactions, and Augmented can be interpreted that one enhances, extends this sharing of knowledge by using new tools of modeling, simulation and gaming, which expands and intensifies the individual learning as well as the commonly shared opinions. For nearly all problems today this appears to be  absolutely necessary.

ACI ANALYSIS PROCESS

Here it will be assumed that there exists a group of ACI experts which can supervise  other actors (stakeholders, domain experts, …) in a process to analyze the problem P with the explicit goal of finding a satisfying solution (S+).

For the whole ACI analysis process an appropriate ACI software should be available to support the ACI experts as well as all the other domain experts.

In this ACI analysis process one can distinguish two main phases: (1) Construct an actor story (AS) which describes all intended states and intended changes within the actor story. (2) Make several tests of the actor story to exploit their explanatory power.

ACTOR STORY (AS)

The actor story describes all possible states (S) of the tasks (T) to be realized to reach intended goal states (S+). A mapping from one state to a follow-up state will be described by a change rule (X). Thus having start state (S0) and appropriate change rules one can construct the follow-up states from the actual state (S*)  with the aid of the change rules. Formally this computation of the follow-up state (S’) will be computed by a simulator function (σ), written as: σ: S* x X  —> S.

SEVERAL TESTS

With the aid of an explicit actor story (AS) one can define the non-functional requirements (NFRs) in a way that it will become decidable whether  a NFR is valid with regard to an actor story or not. In this case this test of being valid can be done as an automated verification process (AVP). Part of this test paradigm is the so-called oracle function (OF) where one can pose a question to the system and the system will answer the question with regard to all theoretically possible states without the necessity to run a (passive) simulation.

If the size of the group is large and it is important that all members of the group have a sufficient similar knowledge about the problem(s) in question (as it is the usual case in a city with different kinds of citizens) then is can be very helpful to enable interactive simulations or even games, which allow a more direct experience of the possible states and changes. Furthermore, because the participants can act according to their individual reflections and goals the process becomes highly uncertain and nearly unpredictable. Especially for these highly unpredictable processes can interactive simulations (and games) help to improve a common understanding of the involved factors and their effects. The difference between a normal interactive simulation and a game is given in the fact that a game has explicit win-states whereas the interactive simulations doesn’t. Explicit win-states can improve learning a lot.

The other interesting question is whether an actor story AS with a certain idea for an assistive actor (aA) is usable for the executive actors. This requires explicit measurements of the usability which in turn requires a clear norm of reference with which the behavior of an executive actor (eA) during a process can be compared. Usually is the actor Story as such the norm of reference with which the observable behavior of the executing actors will be compared. Thus for the measurement one needs real executive actors which represent the intended executive actors and one needs a physical realization of the intended assistive actors called mock-up. A mock-up is not yet  the final implementation of the intended assistive actor but a physical entity which can show all important physical properties of the intended assistive actor in a way which allows a real test run. While in the past it has been assumed to be sufficient to test a test person only once it is here assumed that a test person has to be tested at least three times. This follows from the assumption that every executive (biological) actor is inherently a learning system. This implies that the test person will behave differently in different tests. The degree of changes can be a hint of the easiness and the learnability of the assistive actor.

COLLECTIVE MEMORY

If an appropriate ACI software is available then one can consider an actor story as a simple theory (ST) embracing a model (M) and a collection of rules (R) — ST(x) iff x = <M,R> –which can be used as a kind of a     building block which in turn can be combined with other such building blocks resulting in a complex network of simple theories. If these simple theories are stored in a  public available data base (like a library of theories) then one can built up in time a large knowledge base on their own.

 

 

ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY: The Role of Preferences

eJournal: uffmm.org,
ISSN 2567-6458, 4.May 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

FINAL HYPOTHESIS

This suggests that a symbiosis between creative humans and computing algorithms is an attractive pairing. For this we have to re-invent our official  learning processes in schools and universities to train the next generation of humans in a more inspired and creative usage of algorithms in a game-like learning processes.

CONTEXT

The overall context is given by the description of the Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI) paradigm as a whole.  In this text the special relationship between engineering and the surrounding society is in the focus. And within this very broad and rich relationship the main interest lies in the ethical dimension here understood as those preferences of a society which are more supported than others. It is assumed that such preferences manifesting themselves  in real actions within a space of many other options are pointing to hidden values which guide the decisions of the members of a society. Thus values are hypothetical constructs based on observable actions within a cognitively assumed space of possible alternatives. These cognitively represented possibilities are usually only given in a mixture of explicitly stated symbolic statements and different unconscious factors which are influencing the decisions which are causing the observable actions.

These assumptions represent  until today not a common opinion and are not condensed in some theoretical text. Nevertheless I am using these assumptions here because they help to shed some light on the rather complex process of finding a real solution to a stated problem which is rooted in the cognitive space of the participants of the engineering process. To work with these assumptions in concrete development processes can support a further clarification of all these concepts.

ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

DUAL: REAL AND COGNITIVE

The relationship between an engineering process and the preferences of a society
The relationship between an engineering process and the preferences of a society

As assumed in the AAI paradigm the engineering process is that process which connects the  event of  stating a problem combined with a first vision of a solution with a final concrete working solution.

The main characteristic of such an engineering process is the dual character of a continuous interaction between the cognitive space of all participants of the process with real world objects, actions, and processes. The real world as such is a lose collection of real things, to some extend connected by regularities inherent in natural things, but the visions of possible states, possible different connections, possible new processes is bound to the cognitive space of biological actors, especially to humans as exemplars of the homo sapiens species.

Thus it is a major factor of training, learning, and education in general to see how the real world can be mapped into some cognitive structures, how the cognitive structures can be transformed by cognitive operations into new structures and how these new cognitive structures can be re-mapped into the real world of bodies.

Within the cognitive dimension exists nearly infinite sets of possible alternatives, which all indicate possible states of a world, whose feasibility is more or less convincing. Limited by time and resources it is usually not possible to explore all these cognitively tapped spaces whether and how they work, what are possible side effects etc.

PREFERENCES

Somehow by nature, somehow by past experience biological system — like the home sapiens — have developed   cultural procedures to induce preferences how one selects possible options, which one should be selected, under which circumstances and with even more constraints. In some situations these preferences can be helpful, in others they can  hide possibilities which afterwards can be  re-detected as being very valuable.

Thus every engineering process which starts  a transformation process from some cognitively given point of view to a new cognitively point of view with a following up translation into some real thing is sharing its cognitive space with possible preferences of  the cognitive space of the surrounding society.

It is an open case whether the engineers as the experts have an experimental, creative attitude to explore without dogmatic constraints the   possible cognitive spaces to find new solutions which can improve life or not. If one assumes that there exist no absolute preferences on account of the substantially limit knowledge of mankind at every point of time and inferring from this fact the necessity to extend an actual knowledge further to enable the mastering of an open unknown future then the engineers will try to explore seriously all possibilities without constraints to extend the power of engineering deeper into the heart of the known as well as unknown universe.

EXPLORING COGNITIVE POSSIBILITIES

At the start one has only a rough description of the problem and a rough vision of a wanted solution which gives some direction for the search of an optimal solution. This direction represents also a kind of a preference what is wanted as the outcome of the process.

On account of the inherent duality of human thinking and communication embracing the cognitive space as well as the realm of real things which both are connected by complex mappings realized by the brain which operates  nearly completely unconscious a long process of concrete real and cognitive actions is necessary to materialize cognitive realities within a  communication process. Main modes of materialization are the usage of symbolic languages, paintings (diagrams), physical models, algorithms for computation and simulations, and especially gaming (in several different modes).

As everybody can know  these communication processes are not simple, can be a source of  confusions, and the coordination of different brains with different cognitive spaces as well as different layouts of unconscious factors  is a difficult and very demanding endeavor.

The communication mode gaming is of a special interest here  because it is one of the oldest and most natural modes to learn but in the official education processes in schools and  universities (and in companies) it was until recently not part of the official curricula. But it is the only mode where one can exercise the dimensions of preferences explicitly in combination with an exploring process and — if one wants — with the explicit social dimension of having more than one brain involved.

In the last about 50 – 100 years the term project has gained more and more acceptance and indeed the organization of projects resembles a game but it is usually handled as a hierarchical, constraints-driven process where creativity and concurrent developing (= gaming) is not a main topic. Even if companies allow concurrent development teams these teams are cognitively separated and the implicit cognitive structures are black boxes which can not be evaluated as such.

In the presupposed AAI paradigm here the open creative space has a high priority to increase the chance for innovation. Innovation is the most valuable property in face of an unknown future!

While the open space for a real creativity has to be executed in all the mentioned modes of communication the final gaming mode is of special importance.  To enable a gaming process one has explicitly to define explicit win-lose states. This  objectifies values/ preferences hidden   in the cognitive space before. Such an  objectification makes things transparent, enables more rationality and allows the explicit testing of these defined win-lose states as feasible or not. Only tested hypothesis represent tested empirical knowledge. And because in a gaming mode whole groups or even all members of a social network can participate in a  learning process of the functioning and possible outcome of a presented solution everybody can be included.  This implies a common sharing of experience and knowledge which simplifies the communication and therefore the coordination of the different brains with their unconsciousness a lot.

TESTING AND EVALUATION

Testing a proposed solution is another expression for measuring the solution. Measuring is understood here as a basic comparison between the target to be measured (here the proposed solution) and the before agreed norm which shall be used as point of reference for the comparison.

But what can be a before agreed norm?

Some aspects can be mentioned here:

  1. First of all there is the proposed solution as such, which is here a proposal for a possible assistive actor in an assumed environment for some intended executive actors which has to fulfill some job (task).
  2. Part of this proposed solution are given constraints and non-functional requirements.
  3. Part of this proposed solution are some preferences as win-lose states which have to be reached.
  4. Another difficult to define factor are the executive actors if they are biological systems. Biological systems with their basic built in ability to act free, to be learning systems, and this associated with a not-definable large unconscious realm.

Given the explicit preferences constrained by many assumptions one can test only, whether the invited test persons understood as possible instances of the  intended executive actors are able to fulfill the defined task(s) in some predefined amount of time within an allowed threshold of making errors with an expected percentage of solved sub-tasks together with a sufficient subjective satisfaction with the whole process.

But because biological executive actors are learning systems they  will behave in different repeated  tests differently, they can furthermore change their motivations and   their interests, they can change their emotional commitment, and because of their   built-in basic freedom to act there can be no 100% probability that they will act at time t as they have acted all the time before.

Thus for all kinds of jobs where the process is more or less fixed, where nothing new  will happen, the participation of biological executive actors in such a process is questionable. It seems (hypothesis), that biological executing actors are better placed  in jobs where there is some minimal rate of curiosity, of innovation, and of creativity combined with learning.

If this hypothesis is empirically sound (as it seems), then all jobs where human persons are involved should have more the character of games then something else.

It is an interesting side note that the actual research in robotics under the label of developmental robotics is struck by the problem how one can make robots continuously learning following interesting preferences. Given a preference an algorithm can work — under certain circumstances — often better than a human person to find an optimal solution, but lacking such a preference the algorithm is lost. And actually there exists not the faintest idea how algorithms should acquire that kind of preferences which are interesting and important for an unknown future.

On the contrary, humans are known to be creative, innovative, detecting new preferences etc. but they have only limited capacities to explore these creative findings until some telling endpoint.

This suggests that a symbiosis between creative humans and computing algorithms is an attractive pairing. For this we have to re-invent our official  learning processes in schools and universities to train the next generation of humans in a more inspired and creative usage of algorithms in a game-like learning processes.

 

 

 

 

SIMULATION AND GAMING

eJournal: uffmm.org,
ISSN 2567-6458, 3.May 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

Within the AAI paradigm the following steps will usually be distinguished:

  1. A given problem and a wanted solution.
  2. An assumed context and intended executing and assisting actors.
  3. Assumed non-functional requirements (NFRs).
  4. An actor story (AS) describing at least one task including all the functional requirements.
  5. An usability test, often enhanced with passive or interactive simulations.
  6. An evaluation of the test.
  7. Some repeated improvements.

With these elements one can analyze and design the behavior surface of an  assistive actor which can approach the requirements of the stakeholder.

SIMULATION AND GAMING

Comparing these elements with a (computer) game then one can detect immediately that  a game characteristically allows to win or to lose. The possible win-states or lose-states stop a game. Often the winning state includes additionally  some measures how ‘strong’ or how ‘big’ someone has won or lost a game.

Thus in a game one has besides the rules of the game R which determine what is allowed to do in a game some set of value lables V which indicate some property, some object, some state as associated with some value v,  optionally associated further with some numbers to quantify the value between a maximum and a minimum.

In most board games you will reach an end state where you are the winner or the loser independent of some value. In other games one plays as often as necessary to reach some accumulated value which gives a measure who is better than someone else.

Doing AAI analysis as part of engineering it is usually sufficient to develop an assistive actor with a behavior surface  which satisfies all requirements and some basic needs of the executive actors (the classical users).

But this newly developed product (the assistive actor for certain tasks) will be part of a social situation with different human actors. In these social situations there are often more requirements, demands, emotions around than only the original  design criteria for the technical product.

For some people the aesthetic properties of a technical product can be important or some other cultural code which associates the technical product with these cultural codes making it precious or not.

Furthermore there can be whole processes within which a product can be used or not, making it precious or not.

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE AND AUTOPOIETIC GAMES

In the case of simulations one has already from the beginning a special context given by the experience and the knowledge of the executive actors.  In some cases this knowledge is assumed to be stable or closed. Therefore there is no need to think of the assistive actor as a tool which has not only to support the fulfilling of a defined task but additionally to support the development of the knowledge and experience of the executive actor further. But there are social situations in a city, in an institution, in learning in general where the assumed knowledge and experience is neither complete nor stable. On the contrary in these situations there is a strong need to develop the assumed knowledge further and do this as a joined effort to improve the collective intelligence collectively.

If one sees the models and rules underlying a simulation as a kind of a representation of the assumed collective knowledge then  a simulation can help to visualize this knowledge, make it an experience, explore its different consequences.  And as far as the executive actors are writing the rules of change by themselves, they understand the simulation and they can change the rules to understand better, what can improve the process and possible goal states. This kind of collective development of models and rules as well as testing can be called autopoietic because the executing actors have two roles:(i)  following some rules (which they have defined by themselves) they explore what will happen, when one adheres to these rules; (ii) changing the rules to change the possible outcomes.

This procedure establishes some kind of collective learning within an autopoietic process.

If one enriches this setting with explicit goal states, states of assumed advantages, then one can look at this collective learning as a serious pattern of collective learning by autopoietic games.

For many context like cities, educational institutions, and even companies  this kind of collective learning by autopoietic games can be a very productive way to develop the collective intelligence of many people at the same time gaining knowledge by having some exciting fun.

Autopoietic gaming as support for collective learning processes
Autopoietic gaming as support for collective learning processes

 

 

AAI THEORY V2 –A Philosophical Framework

eJournal: uffmm.org,
ISSN 2567-6458, 22.February 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Last change: 23.February 2019 (continued the text)

Last change: 24.February 2019 (extended the text)

CONTEXT

In the overview of the AAI paradigm version 2 you can find this section  dealing with the philosophical perspective of the AAI paradigm. Enjoy reading (or not, then send a comment :-)).

THE DAILY LIFE PERSPECTIVE

The perspective of Philosophy is rooted in the everyday life perspective. With our body we occur in a space with other bodies and objects; different features, properties  are associated with the objects, different kinds of relations an changes from one state to another.

From the empirical sciences we have learned to see more details of the everyday life with regard to detailed structures of matter and biological life, with regard to the long history of the actual world, with regard to many interesting dynamics within the objects, within biological systems, as part of earth, the solar system and much more.

A certain aspect of the empirical view of the world is the fact, that some biological systems called ‘homo sapiens’, which emerged only some 300.000 years ago in Africa, show a special property usually called ‘consciousness’ combined with the ability to ‘communicate by symbolic languages’.

General setting of the homo sapiens species (simplified)
Figure 1: General setting of the homo sapiens species (simplified)

As we know today the consciousness is associated with the brain, which in turn is embedded in the body, which  is further embedded in an environment.

Thus those ‘things’ about which we are ‘conscious’ are not ‘directly’ the objects and events of the surrounding real world but the ‘constructions of the brain’ based on actual external and internal sensor inputs as well as already collected ‘knowledge’. To qualify the ‘conscious things’ as ‘different’ from the assumed ‘real things’ ‘outside there’ it is common to speak of these brain-generated virtual things either as ‘qualia’ or — more often — as ‘phenomena’ which are  different to the assumed possible real things somewhere ‘out there’.

PHILOSOPHY AS FIRST PERSON VIEW

‘Philosophy’ has many facets.  One enters the scene if we are taking the insight into the general virtual character of our primary knowledge to be the primary and irreducible perspective of knowledge.  Every other more special kind of knowledge is necessarily a subspace of this primary phenomenological knowledge.

There is already from the beginning a fundamental distinction possible in the realm of conscious phenomena (PH): there are phenomena which can be ‘generated’ by the consciousness ‘itself’  — mostly called ‘by will’ — and those which are occurring and disappearing without a direct influence of the consciousness, which are in a certain basic sense ‘given’ and ‘independent’,  which are appearing  and disappearing according to ‘their own’. It is common to call these independent phenomena ’empirical phenomena’ which represent a true subset of all phenomena: PH_emp  PH. Attention: These empirical phenomena’ are still ‘phenomena’, virtual entities generated by the brain inside the brain, not directly controllable ‘by will’.

There is a further basic distinction which differentiates the empirical phenomena into those PH_emp_bdy which are controlled by some processes in the body (being tired, being hungry, having pain, …) and those PH_emp_ext which are controlled by objects and events in the environment beyond the body (light, sounds, temperature, surfaces of objects, …). Both subsets of empirical phenomena are different: PH_emp_bdy PH_emp_ext = 0. Because phenomena usually are occurring  associated with typical other phenomena there are ‘clusters’/ ‘pattern’ of phenomena which ‘represent’ possible events or states.

Modern empirical science has ‘refined’ the concept of an empirical phenomenon by introducing  ‘standard objects’ which can be used to ‘compare’ some empirical phenomenon with such an empirical standard object. Thus even when the perception of two different observers possibly differs somehow with regard to a certain empirical phenomenon, the additional comparison with an ’empirical standard object’ which is the ‘same’ for both observers, enhances the quality, improves the precision of the perception of the empirical phenomena.

From these considerations we can derive the following informal definitions:

  1. Something is ‘empirical‘ if it is the ‘real counterpart’ of a phenomenon which can be observed by other persons in my environment too.
  2. Something is ‘standardized empirical‘ if it is empirical and can additionally be associated with a before introduced empirical standard object.
  3. Something is ‘weak empirical‘ if it is the ‘real counterpart’ of a phenomenon which can potentially be observed by other persons in my body as causally correlated with the phenomenon.
  4. Something is ‘cognitive‘ if it is the counterpart of a phenomenon which is not empirical in one of the meanings (1) – (3).

It is a common task within philosophy to analyze the space of the phenomena with regard to its structure as well as to its dynamics.  Until today there exists not yet a complete accepted theory for this subject. This indicates that this seems to be some ‘hard’ task to do.

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN BRAINS

As one can see in figure 1 a brain in a body is completely disconnected from the brain in another body. There is a real, deep ‘gap’ which has to be overcome if the two brains want to ‘coordinate’ their ‘planned actions’.

Luckily the emergence of homo sapiens with the new extended property of ‘consciousness’ was accompanied by another exciting property, the ability to ‘talk’. This ability enabled the creation of symbolic languages which can help two disconnected brains to have some exchange.

But ‘language’ does not consist of sounds or a ‘sequence of sounds’ only; the special power of a language is the further property that sequences of sounds can be associated with ‘something else’ which serves as the ‘meaning’ of these sounds. Thus we can use sounds to ‘talk about’ other things like objects, events, properties etc.

The single brain ‘knows’ about the relationship between some sounds and ‘something else’ because the brain is able to ‘generate relations’ between brain-structures for sounds and brain-structures for something else. These relations are some real connections in the brain. Therefore sounds can be related to ‘something  else’ or certain objects, and events, objects etc.  can become related to certain sounds. But these ‘meaning relations’ can only ‘bridge the gap’ to another brain if both brains are using the same ‘mapping’, the same ‘encoding’. This is only possible if the two brains with their bodies share a real world situation RW_S where the perceptions of the both brains are associated with the same parts of the real world between both bodies. If this is the case the perceptions P(RW_S) can become somehow ‘synchronized’ by the shared part of the real world which in turn is transformed in the brain structures P(RW_S) —> B_S which represent in the brain the stimulating aspects of the real world.  These brain structures B_S can then be associated with some sound structures B_A written as a relation  MEANING(B_S, B_A). Such a relation  realizes an encoding which can be used for communication. Communication is using sound sequences exchanged between brains via the body and the air of an environment as ‘expressions’ which can be recognized as part of a learned encoding which enables the receiving brain to identify a possible meaning candidate.

DIFFERENT MODES TO EXPRESS MEANING

Following the evolution of communication one can distinguish four important modes of expressing meaning, which will be used in this AAI paradigm.

VISUAL ENCODING

A direct way to express the internal meaning structures of a brain is to use a ‘visual code’ which represents by some kinds of drawing the visual shapes of objects in the space, some attributes of  shapes, which are common for all people who can ‘see’. Thus a picture and then a sequence of pictures like a comic or a story board can communicate simple ideas of situations, participating objects, persons and animals, showing changes in the arrangement of the shapes in the space.

Pictorial expressions representing aspects of the visual and the auditory sens modes
Figure 2: Pictorial expressions representing aspects of the visual and the auditory sens modes

Even with a simple visual code one can generate many sequences of situations which all together can ‘tell a story’. The basic elements are a presupposed ‘space’ with possible ‘objects’ in this space with different positions, sizes, relations and properties. One can even enhance these visual shapes with written expressions of  a spoken language. The sequence of the pictures represents additionally some ‘timely order’. ‘Changes’ can be encoded by ‘differences’ between consecutive pictures.

FROM SPOKEN TO WRITTEN LANGUAGE EXPRESSIONS

Later in the evolution of language, much later, the homo sapiens has learned to translate the spoken language L_s in a written format L_w using signs for parts of words or even whole words.  The possible meaning of these written expressions were no longer directly ‘visible’. The meaning was now only available for those people who had learned how these written expressions are associated with intended meanings encoded in the head of all language participants. Thus only hearing or reading a language expression would tell the reader either ‘nothing’ or some ‘possible meanings’ or a ‘definite meaning’.

A written textual version in parallel to a pictorial version
Figure 3: A written textual version in parallel to a pictorial version

If one has only the written expressions then one has to ‘know’ with which ‘meaning in the brain’ the expressions have to be associated. And what is very special with the written expressions compared to the pictorial expressions is the fact that the elements of the pictorial expressions are always very ‘concrete’ visual objects while the written expressions are ‘general’ expressions allowing many different concrete interpretations. Thus the expression ‘person’ can be used to be associated with many thousands different concrete objects; the same holds for the expression ‘road’, ‘moving’, ‘before’ and so on. Thus the written expressions are like ‘manufacturing instructions’ to search for possible meanings and configure these meanings to a ‘reasonable’ complex matter. And because written expressions are in general rather ‘abstract’/ ‘general’ which allow numerous possible concrete realizations they are very ‘economic’ because they use minimal expressions to built many complex meanings. Nevertheless the daily experience with spoken and written expressions shows that they are continuously candidates for false interpretations.

FORMAL MATHEMATICAL WRITTEN EXPRESSIONS

Besides the written expressions of everyday languages one can observe later in the history of written languages the steady development of a specialized version called ‘formal languages’ L_f with many different domains of application. Here I am  focusing   on the formal written languages which are used in mathematics as well as some pictorial elements to ‘visualize’  the intended ‘meaning’ of these formal mathematical expressions.

Properties of an acyclic directed graph with nodes (vertices) and edges (directed edges = arrows)
Fig. 4: Properties of an acyclic directed graph with nodes (vertices) and edges (directed edges = arrows)

One prominent concept in mathematics is the concept of a ‘graph’. In  the basic version there are only some ‘nodes’ (also called vertices) and some ‘edges’ connecting the nodes.  Formally one can represent these edges as ‘pairs of nodes’. If N represents the set of nodes then N x N represents the set of all pairs of these nodes.

In a more specialized version the edges are ‘directed’ (like a ‘one way road’) and also can be ‘looped back’ to a node   occurring ‘earlier’ in the graph. If such back-looping arrows occur a graph is called a ‘cyclic graph’.

Directed cyclic graph extended to represent 'states of affairs'
Fig.5: Directed cyclic graph extended to represent ‘states of affairs’

If one wants to use such a graph to describe some ‘states of affairs’ with their possible ‘changes’ one can ‘interpret’ a ‘node’ as  a state of affairs and an arrow as a change which turns one state of affairs S in a new one S’ which is minimally different to the old one.

As a state of affairs I  understand here a ‘situation’ embedded in some ‘context’ presupposing some common ‘space’. The possible ‘changes’ represented by arrows presuppose some dimension of ‘time’. Thus if a node n’  is following a node n indicated by an arrow then the state of affairs represented by the node n’ is to interpret as following the state of affairs represented in the node n with regard to the presupposed time T ‘later’, or n < n’ with ‘<‘ as a symbol for a timely ordering relation.

Example of a state of affairs with a 2-dimensional space configured as a grid with a black and a white token
Fig.6: Example of a state of affairs with a 2-dimensional space configured as a grid with a black and a white token

The space can be any kind of a space. If one assumes as an example a 2-dimensional space configured as a grid –as shown in figure 6 — with two tokens at certain positions one can introduce a language to describe the ‘facts’ which constitute the state of affairs. In this example one needs ‘names for objects’, ‘properties of objects’ as well as ‘relations between objects’. A possible finite set of facts for situation 1 could be the following:

  1. TOKEN(T1), BLACK(T1), POSITION(T1,1,1)
  2. TOKEN(T2), WHITE(T2), POSITION(T2,2,1)
  3. NEIGHBOR(T1,T2)
  4. CELL(C1), POSITION(1,2), FREE(C1)

‘T1’, ‘T2’, as well as ‘C1’ are names of objects, ‘TOKEN’, ‘BACK’ etc. are names of properties, and ‘NEIGHBOR’ is a relation between objects. This results in the equation:

S1 = {TOKEN(T1), BLACK(T1), POSITION(T1,1,1), TOKEN(T2), WHITE(T2), POSITION(T2,2,1), NEIGHBOR(T1,T2), CELL(C1), POSITION(1,2), FREE(C1)}

These facts describe the situation S1. If it is important to describe possible objects ‘external to the situation’ as important factors which can cause some changes then one can describe these objects as a set of facts  in a separated ‘context’. In this example this could be two players which can move the black and white tokens and thereby causing a change of the situation. What is the situation and what belongs to a context is somewhat arbitrary. If one describes the agriculture of some region one usually would not count the planets and the atmosphere as part of this region but one knows that e.g. the sun can severely influence the situation   in combination with the atmosphere.

Change of a state of affairs given as a state which will be enhanced by a new object
Fig.7: Change of a state of affairs given as a state which will be enhanced by a new object

Let us stay with a state of affairs with only a situation without a context. The state of affairs is     a ‘state’. In the example shown in figure 6 I assume a ‘change’ caused by the insertion of a new black token at position (2,2). Written in the language of facts L_fact we get:

  1. TOKEN(T3), BLACK(T3), POSITION(2,2), NEIGHBOR(T3,T2)

Thus the new state S2 is generated out of the old state S1 by unifying S1 with the set of new facts: S2 = S1 {TOKEN(T3), BLACK(T3), POSITION(2,2), NEIGHBOR(T3,T2)}. All the other facts of S1 are still ‘valid’. In a more general manner one can introduce a change-expression with the following format:

<S1, S2, add(S1,{TOKEN(T3), BLACK(T3), POSITION(2,2), NEIGHBOR(T3,T2)})>

This can be read as follows: The follow-up state S2 is generated out of the state S1 by adding to the state S1 the set of facts { … }.

This layout of a change expression can also be used if some facts have to be modified or removed from a state. If for instance  by some reason the white token should be removed from the situation one could write:

<S1, S2, subtract(S1,{TOKEN(T2), WHITE(T2), POSITION(2,1)})>

Another notation for this is S2 = S1 – {TOKEN(T2), WHITE(T2), POSITION(2,1)}.

The resulting state S2 would then look like:

S2 = {TOKEN(T1), BLACK(T1), POSITION(T1,1,1), CELL(C1), POSITION(1,2), FREE(C1)}

And a combination of subtraction of facts and addition of facts would read as follows:

<S1, S2, subtract(S1,{TOKEN(T2), WHITE(T2), POSITION(2,1)}, add(S1,{TOKEN(T3), BLACK(T3), POSITION(2,2)})>

This would result in the final state S2:

S2 = {TOKEN(T1), BLACK(T1), POSITION(T1,1,1), CELL(C1), POSITION(1,2), FREE(C1),TOKEN(T3), BLACK(T3), POSITION(2,2)}

These simple examples demonstrate another fact: while facts about objects and their properties are independent from each other do relational facts depend from the state of their object facts. The relation of neighborhood e.g. depends from the participating neighbors. If — as in the example above — the object token T2 disappears then the relation ‘NEIGHBOR(T1,T2)’ no longer holds. This points to a hierarchy of dependencies with the ‘basic facts’ at the ‘root’ of a situation and all the other facts ‘above’ basic facts or ‘higher’ depending from the basic facts. Thus ‘higher order’ facts should be added only for the actual state and have to be ‘re-computed’ for every follow-up state anew.

If one would specify a context for state S1 saying that there are two players and one allows for each player actions like ‘move’, ‘insert’ or ‘delete’ then one could make the change from state S1 to state S2 more precise. Assuming the following facts for the context:

  1. PLAYER(PB1), PLAYER(PW1), HAS-THE-TURN(PB1)

In that case one could enhance the change statement in the following way:

<S1, S2, PB1,insert(TOKEN(T3,2,2)),add(S1,{TOKEN(T3), BLACK(T3), POSITION(2,2)})>

This would read as follows: given state S1 the player PB1 inserts a  black token at position (2,2); this yields a new state S2.

With or without a specified context but with regard to a set of possible change statements it can be — which is the usual case — that there is more than one option what can be changed. Some of the main types of changes are the following ones:

  1. RANDOM
  2. NOT RANDOM, which can be specified as follows:
    1. With PROBABILITIES (classical, quantum probability, …)
    2. DETERMINISTIC

Furthermore, if the causing object is an actor which can adapt structurally or even learn locally then this actor can appear in some time period like a deterministic system, in different collected time periods as an ‘oscillating system’ with different behavior, or even as a random system with changing probabilities. This make the forecast of systems with adaptive and/ or learning systems rather difficult.

Another aspect results from the fact that there can be states either with one actor which can cause more than one action in parallel or a state with multiple actors which can act simultaneously. In both cases the resulting total change has eventually to be ‘filtered’ through some additional rules telling what  is ‘possible’ in a state and what not. Thus if in the example of figure 6 both player want to insert a token at position (2,2) simultaneously then either  the rules of the game would forbid such a simultaneous action or — like in a computer game — simultaneous actions are allowed but the ‘geometry of a 2-dimensional space’ would not allow that two different tokens are at the same position.

Another aspect of change is the dimension of time. If the time dimension is not explicitly specified then a change from some state S_i to a state S_j does only mark the follow up state S_j as later. There is no specific ‘metric’ of time. If instead a certain ‘clock’ is specified then all changes have to be aligned with this ‘overall clock’. Then one can specify at what ‘point of time t’ the change will begin and at what point of time t*’ the change will be ended. If there is more than one change specified then these different changes can have different timings.

THIRD PERSON VIEW

Up until now the point of view describing a state and the possible changes of states is done in the so-called 3rd-person view: what can a person perceive if it is part of a situation and is looking into the situation.  It is explicitly assumed that such a person can perceive only the ‘surface’ of objects, including all kinds of actors. Thus if a driver of a car stears his car in a certain direction than the ‘observing person’ can see what happens, but can not ‘look into’ the driver ‘why’ he is steering in this way or ‘what he is planning next’.

A 3rd-person view is assumed to be the ‘normal mode of observation’ and it is the normal mode of empirical science.

Nevertheless there are situations where one wants to ‘understand’ a bit more ‘what is going on in a system’. Thus a biologist can be  interested to understand what mechanisms ‘inside a plant’ are responsible for the growth of a plant or for some kinds of plant-disfunctions. There are similar cases for to understand the behavior of animals and men. For instance it is an interesting question what kinds of ‘processes’ are in an animal available to ‘navigate’ in the environment across distances. Even if the biologist can look ‘into the body’, even ‘into the brain’, the cells as such do not tell a sufficient story. One has to understand the ‘functions’ which are enabled by the billions of cells, these functions are complex relations associated with certain ‘structures’ and certain ‘signals’. For this it is necessary to construct an explicit formal (mathematical) model/ theory representing all the necessary signals and relations which can be used to ‘explain’ the obsrvable behavior and which ‘explains’ the behavior of the billions of cells enabling such a behavior.

In a simpler, ‘relaxed’ kind of modeling  one would not take into account the properties and behavior of the ‘real cells’ but one would limit the scope to build a formal model which suffices to explain the oservable behavior.

This kind of approach to set up models of possible ‘internal’ (as such hidden) processes of an actor can extend the 3rd-person view substantially. These models are called in this text ‘actor models (AM)’.

HIDDEN WORLD PROCESSES

In this text all reported 3rd-person observations are called ‘actor story’, independent whether they are done in a pictorial or a textual mode.

As has been pointed out such actor stories are somewhat ‘limited’ in what they can describe.

It is possible to extend such an actor story (AS)  by several actor models (AM).

An actor story defines the situations in which an actor can occur. This  includes all kinds of stimuli which can trigger the possible senses of the actor as well as all kinds of actions an actor can apply to a situation.

The actor model of such an actor has to enable the actor to handle all these assumed stimuli as well as all these actions in the expected way.

While the actor story can be checked whether it is describing a process in an empirical ‘sound’ way,  the actor models are either ‘purely theoretical’ but ‘behavioral sound’ or they are also empirically sound with regard to the body of a biological or a technological system.

A serious challenge is the occurrence of adaptiv or/ and locally learning systems. While the actor story is a finite  description of possible states and changes, adaptiv or/ and locally learning systeme can change their behavior while ‘living’ in the actor story. These changes in the behavior can not completely be ‘foreseen’!

COGNITIVE EXPERT PROCESSES

According to the preceding considerations a homo sapiens as a biological system has besides many properties at least a consciousness and the ability to talk and by this to communicate with symbolic languages.

Looking to basic modes of an actor story (AS) one can infer some basic concepts inherently present in the communication.

Without having an explicit model of the internal processes in a homo sapiens system one can infer some basic properties from the communicative acts:

  1. Speaker and hearer presuppose a space within which objects with properties can occur.
  2. Changes can happen which presuppose some timely ordering.
  3. There is a disctinction between concrete things and abstract concepts which correspond to many concrete things.
  4. There is an implicit hierarchy of concepts starting with concrete objects at the ‘root level’ given as occurence in a concrete situation. Other concepts of ‘higher levels’ refer to concepts of lower levels.
  5. There are different kinds of relations between objects on different conceptual levels.
  6. The usage of language expressions presupposes structures which can be associated with the expressions as their ‘meanings’. The mapping between expressions and their meaning has to be learned by each actor separately, but in cooperation with all the other actors, with which the actor wants to share his meanings.
  7. It is assume that all the processes which enable the generation of concepts, concept hierarchies, relations, meaning relations etc. are unconscious! In the consciousness one can  use parts of the unconscious structures and processes under strictly limited conditions.
  8. To ‘learn’ dedicated matters and to be ‘critical’ about the quality of what one is learnig requires some disciplin, some learning methods, and a ‘learning-friendly’ environment. There is no guaranteed method of success.
  9. There are lots of unconscious processes which can influence understanding, learning, planning, decisions etc. and which until today are not yet sufficiently cleared up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADVANCED AAI-THEORY – V2 – COLLECTED REFERENCES

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 6.February 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

An overview of the enhanced AAI theory version 2 you can find here. In this post you can find the unified references from the different posts.

REFERENCES

  • ISO/IEC 25062:2006(E)
  • Joseph S. Dumas and Jean E. Fox. Usability testing: Current practice
    and future directions. chapter 57, pp.1129 – 1149,  in J.A. Jacko and A. Sears, editors, The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. 2nd edition, 2008
  • S. Lauesen. User Interface Design. A software Engineering Perspective.
    Pearson – Addison Wesley, London et al., 2005

LIBRARIES AS ACTORS. WHAT ABOUT THE CITIZENS?

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458, 19.Januar 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

In this blog a new approach to the old topic of ‘Human-Machine Interaction (HMI)’ is developed turning the old Human-Machine dyad into the many-to-many relation of ‘Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI)’. And, moreover, in this new AAI approach the classical ‘top-down’ approach of engineering is expanded with a truly ‘bottom-up’ approach locating the center of development in the distributed knowledge of a population of users assisted by the AAI experts.

PROBLEM

From this perspective it is interesting to see how on an international level the citizens of a community/ city are not at the center of research, but again the city and its substructures – here public libraries – are called ‘actors’ while the citizens as such are only an anonymous matter of driving these structures to serve the international ‘buzz word’ of a ‘smart city’ empowered by the ‘Internet of Things (IoT)’.

This perspective is published in a paper from Shannon Mersand et al. (2019) which reviews all the main papers available focusing on the role of public libraries in cities. It seems – I could not check by myself the search space — that the paper gives a good overview of this topic in 48 cited papers.

The main idea underlined by the authors is that public libraries are already so-called ‘anchor institutions’ in a community which either already include or could be extended as “spaces for innovation, collaboration and hands on learning that are open to adults and younger children as well”. (p.3312) Or, another formulation “that libraries are consciously working to become a third space; a place for learning in multiple domains and that provides resources in the form of both materials and active learning opportunities”. (p.3312)

The paper is rich on details but for the context of the AAI paradigm I am interested only on the general perspective how the roles of the actors are described which are identified as responsible for the process of problem solving.

The in-official problem of cities is how to organize the city to respond to the needs of its citizens. There are some ‘official institutions’ which ‘officially’ have to fulfill this job. In democratic societies these institutions are ‘elected’. Ideally these official institutions are the experts which try to solve the problem for the citizens, which are the main stakeholder! To help in this job of organizing the ‘best fitting city-layout’ there exists usually at any point of time a bunch of infrastructures. The modern ‘Internet of Things (IoT)’ is only one of many possible infrastructures.

To proceed in doing the job of organizing the ‘best fitting city-layout’ there are generally two main strategies: ‘top-down’ as usual in most cities or ‘bottom-‘ in nearly no cities.

In the top-down approach the experts organize the processes of the cities more or less on their own. They do not really include the expertise of their citizens, not their knowledge, not their desires and visions. The infrastructures are provided from a birds perspective and an abstract systems thinking.

The case of the public libraries is matching this top-down paradigm. At the end of their paper the authors classify public libraries not only as some ‘infrastructure’ but “… recognize the potential of public libraries … and to consider them as a key actor in the governance of the smart community”. (p.3312) The term ‘actor’ is very strong. This turns an institution into an actor with some autonomy of deciding what to do. The users of the library, the citizens, the primary stakeholder of the city, are not seen as actors, they are – here – the material to ‘feed’ – to use a picture — the actor library which in turn has to serve the governance of the ‘smart community’.

DISCUSSION

Yes, this comment can be understood as a bit ‘harsh’ because one can read the text of the authors a bit different in the sense that the citizens are not only some matter to ‘feed’ the actor library but to see the public library as an ‘environment’ for the citizens which find in the libraries many possibilities to learn and empower themselves. In this different reading the citizens are clearly seen as actors too.

This different reading is possible, but within an overall ‘top-down’ approach the citizens as actors are not really included as actors but only as passive receivers of infrastructure offers; in a top-down approach the main focus are the infrastructures, and from all the infrastructures the ‘smart’ structures are most prominent, the internet of things.

If one remembers two previous papers of Mila Gascó (2016) and Mila Gascó-Hernandez (2018) then this is a bit astonishing because in these earlier papers she has analyzed that the ‘failure’ of the smart technology strategy in Barcelona was due to the fact that the city government (the experts in our framework) did not include sufficiently enough the citizens as actors!

From the point of view of the AAI paradigm this ‘hiding of the citizens as main actors’ is only due to the inadequate methodology of a top-down approach where a truly bottom-up approach is needed.

In the Oct-2, 2018 version of the AAI theory the bottom-up approach is not yet included. It has been worked out in the context of the new research project about ‘City Planning and eGaming‘  which in turn has been inspired by Mila Gascó-Hernandez!

REFERENCES

  • S.Mersand, M. Gasco-Hernandez, H. Udoh, and J.R. Gil-Garcia. “Public libraries as anchor institutions in smart communities: Current practices and future development”, Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 3305 – 3314, 2019. URL https: //hdl.handle.net/10125/59766 .

  • Mila Gascó, “What makes a city smart? lessons from Barcelona”. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pages 2983–2989, Jan 2016. D O I : 10.1109/HICSS.2016.373.

  • Mila Gascó-Hernandez, “Building a smart city: Lessons from Barcelona.”, Commun. ACM, 61(4):50–57, March 2018. ISSN 0001-0782. D O I : 10.1145/3117800. URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3117800 .

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 27.Dec.2018: The AAI-paradigm and Quantum Logic. The Limits of Classic Probability

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Last Corrections: 30.Dec.2018

CONTEXT

This is a continuation from the post about QL Basics Concepts Part 1. The general topic here is the analysis of properties of human behavior, actually narrowed down to the statistical properties. From the different possible theories applicable to statistical properties of behavior here the one called CPT (classical probability theory) is selected for a short examination.

SUMMARY

An analysis of the classical probability theory shows that the empirical application of this theory is limited to static sets of events and probabilities. In the case of biological systems which are adaptive with regard to structure and cognition this does not work. This yields the question whether a quantum probability theory approach does work or not.

THE CPT IDEA

  1. Before we are looking  to the case of quantum probability theory (QLPT) let us examine the case of a classical probability theory (CPT) a little bit more.
  2. Generally one has to distinguish the symbolic formal representation of a theory T and some domain of application D distinct from the symbolic representation.
  3. In principle the domain of application D can be nearly anything, very often again another symbolic representation. But in the case of empirical applications we assume usually some subset of ’empirical events’ E of the ’empirical (real) world’ W.
  4. For the following let us assume (for a while) that this is the case, that D is a subset of the empirical world W.
  5. Talking about ‘events in an empirical real world’ presupposes that there there exists a ‘procedure of measurement‘ using a ‘previously defined standard object‘ and a ‘symbolic representation of the measurement results‘.
  6. Furthermore one has to assume a community of ‘observers‘ which have minimal capabilities to ‘observe’, which implies ‘distinctions between different results’, some ‘ordering of successions (before – after)’, to ‘attach symbols according to some rules’ to measurement results, to ‘translate measurement results’ into more abstract concepts and relations.
  7. Thus to speak about empirical results assumes a set of symbolic representations of those events as a finite set of symbolic representations which represent a ‘state in the real world’ which can have a ‘predecessor state before’ and – possibly — a ‘successor state after’ the ‘actual’ state. The ‘quality’ of these measurement representations depends from the quality of the measurement procedure as well as from the quality of the cognitive capabilities of the participating observers.
  8. In the classical probability theory T_cpt as described by Kolmogorov (1932) it is assumed that there is a set E of ‘elementary events’. The set E is assumed to be ‘complete’ with regard to all possible events. The probability P is coming into play with a mapping from E into the set of positive real numbers R+ written as P: E —> R+ or P(E) = 1 with the assumption that all the individual elements e_i of E have an individual probability P(e_i) which obey the rule P(e_1) + P(e_2) + … + P(e_n) = 1.
  9. In the formal theory T_cpt it is not explained ‘how’ the probabilities are realized in the concrete case. In the ‘real world’ we have to identify some ‘generators of events’ G, otherwise we do not know whether an event e belongs to a ‘set of probability events’.
  10. Kolmogorov (1932) speaks about a necessary generator as a ‘set of conditions’ which ‘allows of any number of repetitions’, and ‘a set of events can take place as a result of the establishment of the condition’. (cf. p.3) And he mentions explicitly the case that different variants of the a priori assumed possible events can take place as a set A. And then he speaks of this set A also of an event which has taken place! (cf. p.4)
  11. If one looks to the case of the ‘set A’ then one has to clarify that this ‘set A’ is not an ordinary set of set theory, because in a set every member occurs only once. Instead ‘A’ represents a ‘sequence of events out of the basic set E’. A sequence is in set theory an ‘ordered set’, where some set (e.g. E) is mapped into an initial segment  of the natural numbers Nat and in this case  the set A contains ‘pairs from E x Nat|\n’  with a restriction of the set Nat to some n. The ‘range’ of the set A has then ‘distinguished elements’ whereby the ‘domain’ can have ‘same elements’. Kolmogorov addresses this problem with the remark, that the set A can be ‘defined in any way’. (cf. p.4) Thus to assume the set A as a set of pairs from the Cartesian product E x Nat|\n with the natural numbers taken from the initial segment of the natural numbers is compatible with the remark of Kolmogorov and the empirical situation.
  12. For a possible observer it follows that he must be able to distinguish different states <s1, s2, …, sm> following each other in the real world, and in every state there is an event e_i from the set of a priori possible events E. The observer can ‘count’ the occurrences of a certain event e_i and thus will get after n repetitions for every event e_i a number of occurrences m_i with m_i/n giving the measured empirical probability of the event e_i.
  13. Example 1: Tossing a coin with ‘head (H)’ or ‘tail (T)’ we have theoretically the probabilities ‘1/2’ for each event. A possible outcome could be (with ‘H’ := 0, ‘T’ := 1): <((0,1), (0,2), (0,3), (1,4), (0,5)> . Thus we have m_H = 4, m_T = 1, giving us m_H/n = 4/5 and m_T/n = 1/5. The sum yields m_H/n + m_T/n = 1, but as one can see the individual empirical probabilities are not in accordance with the theory requiring 1/2 for each. Kolmogorov remarks in his text  that if the number of repetitions n is large enough then will the values of the empirically measured probability approach the theoretically defined values. In a simple experiment with a random number generator simulating the tossing of the coin I got the numbers m_Head = 4978, m_Tail = 5022, which gives the empirical probabilities m_Head/1000 = 0.4977 and m_Teil/ 1000 = 0.5021.
  14. This example demonstrates while the theoretical term ‘probability’ is a simple number, the empirical counterpart of the theoretical term is either a simple occurrence of a certain event without any meaning as such or an empirically observed sequence of events which can reveal by counting and division a property which can be used as empirical probability of this event generated by a ‘set of conditions’ which allow the observed number of repetitions. Thus we have (i) a ‘generator‘ enabling the events out of E, we have (ii) a ‘measurement‘ giving us a measurement result as part of an observation, (iii) the symbolic encoding of the measurement result, (iv) the ‘counting‘ of the symbolic encoding as ‘occurrence‘ and (v) the counting of the overall repetitions, and (vi) a ‘mathematical division operation‘ to get the empirical probability.
  15. Example 1 demonstrates the case of having one generator (‘tossing a coin’). We know from other examples where people using two or more coins ‘at the same time’! In this case the set of a priori possible events E is occurring ‘n-times in parallel’: E x … x E = E^n. While for every coin only one of the many possible basic events can occur in one state, there can be n-many such events in parallel, giving an assembly of n-many events each out of E. If we keeping the values of E = {‘H’, ‘T’} then we have four different basic configurations each with probability 1/4. If we define more ‘abstract’ events like ‘both the same’ (like ‘0,0’, ‘1,1’) or ‘both different’ (like ‘0,1’. ‘1,0’), then we have new types of complex events with different probabilities, each 1/2. Thus the case of n-many generators in parallel allows new types of complex events.
  16. Following this line of thinking one could consider cases like (E^n)^n or even with repeated applications of the Cartesian product operation. Thus, in the case of (E^n)^n, one can think of different gamblers each having n-many dices in a cup and tossing these n-many dices simultaneously.
  17. Thus we have something like the following structure for an empirical theory of classical probability: CPT(T) iff T=<G,E,X,n,S,P*>, with ‘G’ as the set of generators producing out of E events according to the layout of the set X in a static (deterministic) manner. Here the  set E is the set of basic events. The set X is a ‘typified set’ constructed out of the set E with t-many applications of the Cartesian operation starting with E, then E^n1, then (E^n1)^n2, …. . ‘n’ denotes the number of repetitions, which determines the length of a sequence ‘S’. ‘P*’ represents the ’empirical probability’ which approaches the theoretical probability P while n is becoming ‘big’. P* is realized as a tuple of tuples according to the layout of the set X  where each element in the range of a tuple  represents the ‘number of occurrences’ of a certain event out of X.
  18. Example: If there is a set E = {0,1} with the layout X=(E^2)^2 then we have two groups with two generators each: <<G1, G2>,<G3,G4>>. Every generator G_i produces events out of E. In one state i this could look like  <<0, 0>,<1,0>>. As part of a sequence S this would look like S = <….,(<<0, 0>,<1,0>>,i), … > telling that in the i-th state of S there is an occurrence of events like shown. The empirical probability function P* has a corresponding layout P* = <<m1, m2>,<m3,m4>> with the m_j as ‘counter’ which are counting the occurrences of the different types of events as m_j =<c_e1, …, c_er>. In the example there are two different types of events occurring {0,1} which requires two counters c_0 and c_1, thus we would have m_j =<c_0, c_1>, which would induce for this example the global counter structure:  P* = <<<c_0, c_1>, <c_0, c_1>>,<<c_0,  c_1>,<c_0, c_1>>>. If the generators are all the same then the set of basic events E is the same and in theory   the theoretical probability function P: E —> R+ would induce the same global values for all generators. But in the empirical case, if the theoretical probability function P is not known, then one has to count and below the ‘magic big n’ the values of the counter of the empirical probability function can be different.
  19. This format of the empirical classical  probability theory CPT can handle the case of ‘different generators‘ which produce events out of the same basic set E but with different probabilities, which can be counted by the empirical probability function P*. A prominent case of different probabilities with the same set of events is the case of manipulations of generators (a coin, a dice, a roulette wheel, …) to deceive other people.
  20. In the examples mentioned so far the probabilities of the basic events as well as the complex events can be different in different generators, but are nevertheless  ‘static’, not changing. Looking to generators like ‘tossing a coin’, ‘tossing a dice’ this seams to be sound. But what if we look to other types of generators like ‘biological systems’ which have to ‘decide’ which possible options of acting they ‘choose’? If the set of possible actions A is static, then the probability of selecting one action a out of A will usually depend from some ‘inner states’ IS of the biological system. These inner states IS need at least the following two components:(i) an internal ‘representation of the possible actions’ IS_A as well (ii) a finite set of ‘preferences’ IS_Pref. Depending from the preferences the biological system will select an action IS_a out of IS_A and then it can generate an action a out of A.
  21. If biological systems as generators have a ‘static’ (‘deterministic’) set of preferences IS_Pref, then they will act like fixed generators for ‘tossing a coin’, ‘tossing a dice’. In this case nothing will change.  But, as we know from the empirical world, biological systems are in general ‘adaptive’ systems which enables two kinds of adaptation: (i) ‘structural‘ adaptation like in biological evolution and (ii) ‘cognitive‘ adaptation as with higher organisms having a neural system with a brain. In these systems (example: homo sapiens) the set of preferences IS_Pref can change in time as well as the internal ‘representation of the possible actions’ IS_A. These changes cause a shift in the probabilities of the events manifested in the realized actions!
  22. If we allow possible changes in the terms ‘G’ and ‘E’ to ‘G+’ and ‘E+’ then we have no longer a ‘classical’ probability theory CPT. This new type of probability theory we can call ‘non-classic’ probability theory NCPT. A short notation could be: NCPT(T) iff T=<G+,E+,X,n,S,P*> where ‘G+’ represents an adaptive biological system with changing representations for possible Actions A* as well as changing preferences IS_Pref+. The interesting question is, whether a quantum logic approach QLPT is a possible realization of such a non-classical probability theory. While it is known that the QLPT works for physical matters, it is an open question whether it works for biological systems too.
  23. REMARK: switching from static generators to adaptive generators induces the need for the inclusion of the environment of the adaptive generators. ‘Adaptation’ is generally a capacity to deal better with non-static environments.

See continuation here.

AASE – Actor-Actor Systems Engineering. Theory & Applications. Micro-Edition (Vers.9)

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458
13.June  2018
Email: info@uffmm.org
Authors: Gerd Doeben-Henisch, Zeynep Tuncer,  Louwrence Erasmus
Email: doeben@fb2.fra-uas.de
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

PDF

CONTENTS

1 History: From HCI to AAI …
2 Different Views …
3 Philosophy of the AAI-Expert …
4 Problem (Document) …
5 Check for Analysis …
6 AAI-Analysis …
6.1 Actor Story (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Textual Actor Story (TAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Pictorial Actor Story (PAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 Mathematical Actor Story (MAS) . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.4 Simulated Actor Story (SAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.5 Task Induced Actor Requirements (TAR) . . . . . . .
6.1.6 Actor Induced Actor Requirements (UAR) . . . . . .
6.1.7 Interface-Requirements and Interface-Design . . . .
6.2 Actor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1 Actor and Actor Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Actor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.3 Actor as Input-Output System . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.4 Learning Input-Output Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.5 General AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.6 Sound Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.7 Special AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.8 Hypothetical Model of a User – The GOMS Paradigm
6.2.9 Example: An Electronically Locked Door . . . . . . .
6.2.10 A GOMS Model Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.11 Further Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.12 Design Principles; Interface Design . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Simulation of Actor Models (AMs) within an Actor Story (AS) .
6.4 Assistive Actor-Demonstrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 Approaching an Optimum Result . . . . .
7 What Comes Next: The Real System
7.1 Logical Design, Implementation, Validation . . . .
7.2 Conceptual Gap In Systems Engineering? . . .
8 The AASE-Paradigm …
References

Abstract

This text is based on the the paper “AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. A Philosophy of Science View” from 3.Oct.2017 and version 11 of the paper “AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. An Example Template” and it   transforms these views in the new paradigm ‘Actor- Actor Systems Engineering’ understood as a theory as well as a paradigm for and infinite set of applications. In analogy to the slogan ’Object-Oriented Software Engineering (OO SWE)’ one can understand the new acronym AASE as a systems engineering approach where the actor-actor interactions are the base concepts for the whole engineering process. Furthermore it is a clear intention to view the topic AASE explicitly from the point of view of a theory (as understood in Philosophy of Science) as well as from the point of view of possible applications (as understood in systems engineering). Thus the classical term of Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) or even the older Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is now embedded within the new AASE approach. The same holds for the fuzzy discipline of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or the subset of AI called Machine Learning (ML). Although the AASE-approach is completely in its beginning one can already see how powerful this new conceptual framework  is.

 

 

ACTOR-ACTOR INTERACTION. Philosophy of the Actor

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458
16.March 2018
Email: info@uffmm.org
Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de
Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences (FRA-UAS)
Institut for New Media (INM, Frankfurt)

PDF

CONTENTS

I   A Vision as a Problem to be Solved … 1
II   Language, Meaning & Ontology …  2
     II-A   Language Levels . . . . . . . . .  . . 2
     II-B  Common Empirical Matter .  . . . . . 2
     II-C   Perceptual Levels . . . . . . .  . . . . 3
     II-D   Space & Time . . . . . . . .  . . . . . 4
     II-E    Different Language Modes . . . 4
     II-F    Meaning of Expressions & Ontology … 4
     II-G   True Expressions . . . . . . .  . . . .  5
     II-H   The Congruence of Meaning  . . . .  5
III   Actor Algebra … 6
IV   World Algebra  … 7
V    How to continue … 8
VI References … 8

Abstract

As preparation for this text one should read the chapter about the basic layout of an Actor-Actor Analysis (AAA) as part of an systems engineering process (SEP). In this text it will be described which internal conditions one has to assume for an actor who uses a language to talk about his observations oft he world to someone else in a verifiable way. Topics which are explained in this text are e.g. ’language’,’meaning’, ’ontology’, ’consciousness’, ’true utterance’, ’synonymous expression.

Actor-Actor Systems Engineering (AASE) – Formal Appendix

AAI-ANALYSIS. USED FORMALISMS
Version V2 (still not complete)
eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458
2.May 2018
Email: info@uffmm.org

AUTHOR: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
EMAIL: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Contents

1 Introduction
2 Domain of Reference D_R
3 Formal Representation
4 Example
5 Self-Incrementing Name-Spaces
6 Makros
7 A Graph
8 A Fact-Graph
9 The Simulation of a Graph
10 A Pictorial Story

Abstract

This is a short introduction into those formalisms, which will be used during the AAI-analysis as described in the AAI-Theory-Micro-Edition. This version differs strongly from preceding versions.

See PDF

AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. A Philosophy of Science View

AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction.
A Philosophy of Science View
eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458

Gerd Doeben-Henisch
info@uffmm.org
gerd@doeben-henisch.de

PDF

ABSTRACT

On the cover page of this blog you find a first general view on the subject matter of an integrated engineering approach for the future. Here we give a short description of the main idea of the analysis phase of systems engineering how this will be realized within the actor-actor interaction paradigm as described in this text.

INTRODUCTION

Overview of the analysis phase of systems engineering as realized within an actor-actor interaction paradigm
Overview of the analysis phase of systems engineering as realized within an actor-actor interaction paradigm

As you can see in figure Nr.1 there are the following main topics within the Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI) paradigm as used in this text (Comment: The more traditional formula is known as Human-Machine Interaction (HMI)):

Triggered by a problem document D_p from the problem phase (P) of the engineering process the AAI-experts have to analyze, what are the potential requirements following from this document, all the time also communicating with the stakeholder to keep in touch with the hidden intentions of the stakeholder.

The idea is to identify at least one task (T) with at least one goal state (G) which shall be arrived after running a task.

A task is assumed to represent a sequence of states (at least a start state and a goal state) which can have more than one option in every state, not excluding repetitions.

Every task presupposes some context (C) which gives the environment for the task.

The number of tasks and their length is in principle not limited, but their can be certain constraints (CS) given which have to be fulfilled required by the stakeholder or by some other important rules/ laws. Such constraints will probably limit the number of tasks as well as their length.

Actor Story

Every task as a sequence of states can be viewed as a story which describes a process. A story is a text (TXT) which is static and hides the implicit meaning in the brains of the participating actors. Only if an actor has some (learned) understanding of the used language then the actor is able to translate the perceptions of the process in an appropriate text and vice versa the text into corresponding perceptions or equivalently ‘thoughts’ representing the perceptions.

In this text it is assumed that a story is describing only the observable behavior of the participating actors, not their possible internal states (IS). For to describe the internal states (IS) it is further assumed that one describes the internal states in a new text called actor model (AM). The usual story is called an actor story (AS). Thus the actor story (AS) is the environment for the actor models (AM).

In this text three main modes of actor stories are distinguished:

  1. An actor story written in some everyday language L_0 called AS_L0 .
  2. A translation of the everyday language L_0 into a mathematical language L_math which can represent graphs, called AS_Lmath.
  3. A translation of the hidden meaning which resides in the brains of the AAI-experts into a pictorial language L_pict (like a comic strip), called AS_Lpict.

To make the relationship between the graph-version AS_Lmath and the pictorial version AS_Lpict visible one needs an explicit mapping Int from one version into the other one, like: Int : AS_Lmath <—> AS_Lpict. This mapping Int works like a lexicon from one language into another one.

From a philosophy of science point of view one has to consider that the different kinds of actor stories have a meaning which is rooted in the intended processes assumed to be necessary for the realization of the different tasks. The processes as such are dynamic, but the stories as such are static. Thus a stakeholder (SH) or an AAI-expert who wants to get some understanding of the intended processes has to rely on his internal brain simulations associated with the meaning of these stories. Because every actor has its own internal simulation which can not be perceived from the other actors there is some probability that the simulations of the different actors can be different. This can cause misunderstandings, errors, and frustrations.(Comment: This problem has been discussed in [DHW07])

One remedy to minimize such errors is the construction of automata (AT) derived from the math mode AS_Lmath of the actor stories. Because the math mode represents a graph one can derive Der from this version directly (and automatically) the description of an automaton which can completely simulate the actor story, thus one can assume Der(AS_Lmath) = AT_AS_Lmath.

But, from the point of view of Philosophy of science this derived automaton AT_AS_Lmath is still only a static text. This text describes the potential behavior of an automaton AT. Taking a real computer (COMP) one can feed this real computer with the description of the automaton AT AT_AS_Lmath and make the real computer behave like the described automaton. If we did this then we have a real simulation (SIM) of the theoretical behavior of the theoretical automaton AT realized by the real computer COMP. Thus we have SIM = COMP(AT_AS_Lmath). (Comment: These ideas have been discussed in [EDH11].)

Such a real simulation is dynamic and visible for everybody. All participating actors can see the same simulation and if there is some deviation from the intention of the stakeholder then this can become perceivable for everybody immediately.

Actor Model

As mentioned above the actor story (AS) describes only the observable behavior of some actor, but not possible internal states (IS) which could be responsible for the observable behavior.

If necessary it is possible to define for every actor an individual actor model; indeed one can define more than one model to explore the possibilities of different internal structures to enable a certain behavior.

The general pattern of actor models follows in this text the concept of input-output systems (IOSYS), which are in principle able to learn. What the term ‘learning’ designates concretely will be explained in later sections. The same holds of the term ‘intelligent’ and ‘intelligence’.

The basic assumptions about input-output systems used here reads a follows:

Def: Input-Output System (IOSYS)

IOSYS(x) iff x=< I, O, IS, phi>
phi : I x IS —> IS x O
I := Input
O := Output
IS := Internal

As in the case of the actor story (AS) the primary descriptions of actor models (AM) are static texts. To make the hidden meanings of these descriptions ‘explicit’, ‘visible’ one has again to convert the static texts into descriptions of automata, which can be feed into real computers which in turn then simulate the behavior of these theoretical automata as a real process.

Combining the real simulation of an actor story with the real simulations of all the participating actors described in the actor models can show a dynamic, impressive process which is full visible to all collaborating stakeholders and AAI-experts.

Testing

Having all actor stories and actor models at hand, ideally implemented as real simulations, one has to test the interaction of the elaborated actors with real actors, which are intended to work within these explorative stories and models. This is done by actor tests (former: usability tests) where (i) real actors are confronted with real tasks and have to perform in the intended way; (ii) real actors are interviewed with questionnaires about their subjective feelings during their task completion.

Every such test will yield some new insights how to change the settings a bit to gain eventually some improvements. Repeating these cycles of designing, testing, and modifying can generate a finite set of test-results T where possibly one subset is the ‘best’ compared to all the others. This can give some security that this design is probably the ‘relative best design’ with regards to T.

Further Readings:

  1. Analysis
  2. Simulation
  3. Testing
  4. User Modeling
  5. User Modeling and AI

For a newer version of the AAi-text see HERE..

REFERENCES

[DHW07] G. Doeben-Henisch and M. Wagner. Validation within safety critical systems engineering from a computation semiotics point of view.
Proceedings of the IEEE Africon2007 Conference, pages Pages: 1 – 7, 2007.
[EDH11] Louwrence Erasmus and Gerd Doeben-Henisch. A theory of the
system engineering process. In ISEM 2011 International Conference. IEEE, 2011.

EXAMPLE

For a toy-example to these concepts please see the post AAI – Actor-Actor Interaction. A Toy-Example, No.1

SOME OLD LECTURES

There are some older lectures from the past, which are given here with their links. No one is complete, because there was never time enough to work them out in more detail. Attention: some of them are in German.