Science as description of what we see in the world

If two people observe the same event they would use different sentences to record/describe it.  If a single person saw the same event on different days they would likely use different sentences to describe it.  In science we may use equations in place of sentences but again the description of some event is likely not going to be unique.

A set of sentences is not true of the whole world or at all times.  Similarly, our equations are only a good description of the world under the right conditions. (Classical mechanics is often times a good description of motion, but not if the motion is too fast.  General Relativity is often times a good description but not of the very tiny world of the atom.  Quantum mechanics is often times a good description, but not in too strong a gravity field...... And there are various sorts of mathematics you may use in order to formulate your descriptions.)

Our equations are like a stenographer's shorthand.  Like some set of sentences our description of what we observe is always approximate and incomplete.

Should artificial intelligences have "multiple personalities?"

Multiple personalities may be a way for a mind to deal with an especially challenging environment.

Having multiple (differing) theories of a knowledge domain is better than having just one theory (R. Jones, Bulletin of the American Physical Society, March 2008, see also my website http://www.robert-w-jones.com/, philosopher, the laws of nature are not unique, also Peter Cheeseman in The Mathematics of Generalization, D. H. Wolpert, ed, 1995, pg 315).

One strategy for handling inconsistency in a knowledgebase is to devide it into consistent subsets of the knowledgebase and reason with each of these individually.

Research freedom

One of the things which is most important to me has always been the ability to decide the direction my research would take.  Working in an industrial research lab is then not a good match.  In industry the goal is financial reward and, in fact, financial reward in a very short time frame.  The free exchange of data and ideas is also limited by the desire to gain advantage over potential competitors.

Work at government ("national") labs is somewhat better but research objectives imposed "from above" are often irrational or based on poor values.  Congress seems to want to force NASA to build the SLS based on a "bigger is better" mythology (and to send contracts to congressmen's home districts). 20 ton science modules launched by Proton rockets were chosen for MIR even though the engineers wanted 7 ton modules (launched on the R-7) which could have been changed out frequently.

This leaves university laboratories as the best choice if you want to make your own decisions as to research goals and direction.  Even then you will find that many university departments want all staff to work in some one (of a few) directions that the department concentrates on.  To have anything approaching research freedom you must even choose your university employer carefully.  This reality placed many constraints on me.  The notion that "in america you are free" was simply nonsense.  These conditions drive some people out of science.

Many people have argued for the need for freedom in creative pursuits in general and science in particular.  What kinds of freedom are required and how much is needed is a matter of debate. "Various psychological studies do show that, in general, scientists .... are characterized by a need for autonomy..." DISCOVERING by Root-Bernstein, Harvard U. Press, 1989, pg 315

Bad Values

Congress wants to force NASA to build the SLS despite the existence of the Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 rockets and at the same time it wants to kill the Webb space telescope despite the great successes of Hubble.  Science is exploration.  Sending people on sightseeing trips is not.

An AI at IBM

Modha, et al, report that IBM Research-Almaden is running a modular network of simulated phenomenological spiking neurons roughly equivalent in scale to a cat's brain or 4.5% of a human brain. (Comm. of the ACM, August 2011, vol. 54, # 9, pg 62) This "C2" simulator runs on an IBM Blue Gene supercomputing system but in order to reduce the power and space requirements in the future the plan is to employ newly developed neuromorphic chips.  Modha extrapolates to a human scale brain by about the year 2019.

I am not sure IBM will have the right functional brain modules identified by then or know how to wire them together.  Their work has been at a different level of abstraction. I see no provision for a value system for example.

Tax the rich

The news last night was that the wealthiest 20% of the population have 84 % of the wealth.  What they didn't say was how the rich get that way.  The two most common ways to get rich are crime and inheritance.  Anything involving a sharp mind or hard work is, at best, in a very distant fourth place. (Marriage is in third place.) And a great deal of luck is involved as well.

The republican party was bought and is owned by the rich. 

Solving the jobs shortage

When corporate profits and executive pay are at record highs and banks aren't lending like they should be the solution is simple; nationalize them (and hire and lend).