Another example, from the Dartmouth conference on, CompSci has been firmly based on Set Theory and the advantages, and restrictions, of Set Theory. But that's not how people operate. Thus, that's not the best paradigm for human/computer interfaces. Yet, computer language and operating system development has gone ever further into implementing Set Theory based systems ... under the impression, I suppose, if an ounce of something is harmful a pound is what is needed to really get going.
(LOL)
I can get all techy-tech here talking about stand-alone systems, networked systems, distributed systems, serial versus parallel, "cloud" systems, semantic/actional "web" systems and it all comes down to the same thing: we don't use computers like we did 30 years ago, never mind 55 years ago, and we don't need to be forced into the straitjackets springing from hardware restrictions of 30 years ago.
sigh
Button pushed. I rant react.
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
Computer software has been intimately tied to ZF Set Theory since the Dartmouth conference.
There isn't anybody working on this as their 'job.'
Nonsense. There's lots of research groups playing with this sort of stuff.
A friend worked on Semantic Webs back in the 70s. It didn't work then, either.
I know people doing interesting things with Neural Nets but there are severe problems with upscaling as soon as they run into Huble and Wiesel limitations: no such thing as the "Grandmother neuron."
The CYC Project is a joke. They've been Relationally Databasing for over 20 years now with little to show for it.
Wolfram's "Computation Knowledge Engine" is more interesting but it still requires human to tell it what to think. CAs are too limited a tool to handle n-dimensional referents and ambiguity.
I could go on.
So ... who?
