[Inquiry] Re: Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

PRO.  Note 3

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

1.  Background

In my aim to connect the enterprises of artificial intelligence
and systems theory I recognize the following facts.  Although the
control systems approach was a prevailing one in the early years
of cybernetics and important tributaries of AI have sprung from
its sources, e.g. (Ashby, 1956), (Arbib, 1964, '72, '87, '89),
(Albus, 1981), the two disciplines have been pursuing their
separate evolutions for many years now.  The intended scope
of AI, overly ambitious or otherwise, forced it to break
free of its early bonds, shifting for itself beyond the
orbit of its initial paradigms and the cases that
conditioned its origin.

A sample of materials from the transitional phases of AI's early
developmental crises may be found in (Shannon & McCarthy, 1956),
(Wiener, 1961, 1964), (Sayre & Crosson, 1963), (Young, 1964, 1978),
(McCulloch, 1965), (Cherry, 1966), (MacKay, 1969).  Any project to
resolder the spun-off domains of AI and systems theory will probably
resort to a similar flux.  In the course of this investigation it was
surprising at first to see these old issues rise again, but the shock
has turned to recognition.  Any motion to reinstate thought with action,
to amalgamate intelligence with dynamics in the medium of computational
simulations, will naturally revert to the neighborhoods of former insights
and ride the transits of formative ideas.  It is only to be expected that
this project will run across many of the most intersected rights-of-way,
if not traveling down and tripping over the very same ruts, then very
likely switching onto a number of closely parallel tracks.

Informed observers may see good reasons for maintaining the current separation
of perspectives between AI and systems theory.  Nevertheless, the proposition
that these two realms share a common fund of theory and practice, not only in
historical terms but also in terms that demand and deserve a future development,
is one of the leading ideas that motivates my efforts in this work.  Consequently,
I thought that a justification of these objectives might be warranted.  In light
of these facts I have written up this extended rationale and informal review of
the literature, in hopes of making a plausible case for attempting this work.

Rudiments and Horizons

There are harvests of complexity which sprout from the earliest
elements and the simplest levels of the discussion that follows.
I will try to clarify a few of these issues in the process of
fixing basic terminology.  This may create the impression of
making much ado about not very much, but it is a good idea
in computational modeling to forge connections between the
complex, the simple, and the subtle -- even to the point of
forcing the issues a bit.  Further, I will use this space to
profile the character and the consistency of the grounds that
are currently being tended by AI and systems theory.  Finally,
I will take the liberty of mentioning features of this work that
connect with the broader horizons of human cultivation.  Although
these concerns are properly outside the range of my next few steps
of work, I believe that it is important to be aware of our bearings:
to know what our practice depends upon, and to think what our action
impacts upon.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o