| To: | <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| From: | "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:50:00 -0700 |
| Message-id: | <972CFB39A517486484D779D477D37FBE@Gateway> |
|
Doug, Azamat, Ron and John (et al), Comments below, -Rich Rich Cooper EnglishLogicKernel.com Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message----- On Mon, August 8, 2011 16:40, AzamatAbdoullaev said: > RC: "But it seems to me that self interest, widely distributed among the > population, and often at odds with the commons, that should drive the > system instead of regulatory bodies....I think what is missing is a full > and adequate accounting of self interest." > Egoism/self-interest/self-concern/self-centerness as the concern for your > own welfare and desires, be it ethical, psychological, rational or > enlightened, appears the cause of the issue you mentioned. It's widely > believed that social orders are emerging form local multiple interactions > of self-interested individuals without resorting to any planning.
DF:> An ontology of self-interest could be interesting. The weighting of immediate gratification, long-term interest, and interest in a beneficial environment (social, financial, physical, ...) could be used to describe different mind-sets, politics, and religious orientations. Empathy and limits of the groups to which varying degrees of empathy apply would need to be modeled as well.
RC:> Yes, but how would we construct a representative ontology? We could use the internet to get inputs from whoever wants to participate - those most motivated at the time - but many people can't participate: the mentally ill, the very young, the infirmed old, the uneducated and otherwise disabled or unwilling. That has always led governments to claim that a handful of elected or appointed powers are representative of the millions (nearing billions now in some countries) when they clearly aren't, as history consistently demonstrates.
If there is a way to do it, it could at least be more truly representative than our present government practices of major elections among parties followed by major elections between parties every four years, with minor elections every two years.
But ignoring those issues of true representation until we can find a better answer, we could make a start with proper instrumentation right now. Using Azamat's self organizing toolkit, which has already shown promise in other areas with large numbers, a simple list of personal values, i.e., trying to just enumerate all values that any citizen holds dear, would be a start. How those values interact, or even counteract, with each other could be studied later, but metrics of just how much value should be assigned to each one by each citizen is a straight forward design issue. Choose an alternative set of web pages - dashboards - to display them as sliders, checkboxes, radio buttons, patterns, or other displays without considering interactions would be a good next step. At that point, we would have a (big) vector of values, but they wouldn't be independently distributed. Then the weighting begins. Can it be made intuitive for novice users? Probably not too difficult a task to do, but a design challenge of moderate intensity. The problem is in how much weight should be given physical security versus cleanliness of the environment, and similar tradeoffs. The only method that appeals to me is individual choice, but that is still fraught with issues beyond my ken. Then, after we have the sensors, we will need combiners and later effectors. At present, IRS regulations, tax credits and deductions are chosen, as Azamat pointed out:
AA:> So why the free market economy is failing with its "invisible hand" of > spontaneous order. A rather simple answer, the elite also has its > self-interest, which is fully domineering over common individuals.
Why shouldn't all IRS credits and deductions for social or economic purposes be allocated by the individual citizens, each with her fair share to allocated? Perhaps the flat tax or a negative income tax - a tax credit for the needy - could fill this role as a first approximation, but how do we determine who is needy and who isn't? At present, uneducated truck drivers who manage to successfully run a trucking business are paying for Pell grants to middle aged college students with three kids who are too tired and drained to work the long hours they could when young. How should these values and charities be balanced? That is a much tougher question. How do we keep the well-off from "helping" (read "exploiting through political bodies") the less fortunate so that the less fortunate can help themselves at reasonable public expense, without supervision. Remember, there are over 300 million citizens in the US alone.
DF:> Regulatory bodies form a major position in a government which protects the population from potential harm due to ignoring safety, false advertising, pollution, and other corrupt practices.
RC:> Just how much does each of us value safety, honest advertising, cleanliness, and other honest and fair practices? I agree we will still need administrative governing bodies, but I disagree with one-size-fits-all regulation. We need both national and local supervision of these bodies, citizen controls and reviews, and other ways of managing the occasional fruitcakes that get appointed to these things, such as the present NLRB (IMHO) and the present state of education. Citizen control has been lax in the past just because each of us has so much else to do.
> A self-organization, or spontaneous order appears without a central > authority/coordinator imposing it's central planning. Certainly. However, greater order appears when groups of people set up governments to secure rights and protect people from anti-social entities (those who have no concern for rights and well being of others). Regulatory bodies form a major position in a government which protects the population from potential harm due to ignoring safety, false advertising, pollution, and other corrupt practices. > The real > self-organizing emerges from bottom-up interactions, as happens with the > self-organizing networks, small-world networks, or scale-free networks, > limitless in size. What we see in the big politics is not about > self-organizing, but about the top-down hierarchical interactions or > interferences, reminding severely limited top-down hierarchical networks, > which are not self-organizing.
DF:> Is a group of people getting together to choose policies an example of self-organizing or not? What about if there are so many people that they select representatives to debate among themselves and choose those policies?
RC:> It was an effective idea in the 1780s at the speed of horses and carriages, but things happen at the speed of light now. Look at the US congress as an example of "debate". Reid tabled the only motions that passed the House and would have trimmed the 4 trillion S&P opined as necessary for financial stability. The internet is the obvious immediate choice, given some software infrastructure to enable and enforce it. But is that enough? Probably not, but that is past my knowledge base.
> So why the free market economy is failing with its "invisible hand" of > spontaneous order. A rather simple answer, the elite also has its > self-interest, which is fully domineering over common individuals. Its perceived self-interest is a maximization of wealth and power. In general, the concern is not about domineering common individuals -- they probably rarely consider the effects of their policies on common individuals. > As a > result, the "invisible hand" disregards the general interests of the > nation and society at large while at the same time enriching the rich. As > we know from the statistics, the crisis makes the rich much more richer > and the poor much more poor. Agreed. -- doug f > I have to agree with N. Chomsky that this "hand" is not as benevolent as > advertised; for: " It destroys community, the environment, and human > values generally-and even the masters themselves, which is why the > business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect > them from market forces": http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199303--.htm. > > Azamat Abdoullaev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rich Cooper > To: '[ontolog-forum] ' > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 9:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why > mostclassificationsare fuzzy) > > > Dear Richard, > > > > Having read your paper, I like the way you formulated the problem to be > solved in terms of various groups. In particular your quote: > > > > We use the term 'ontological' quite deliberately in that expanded > information and > > meaning frameworks are generated by people. Thus, people use their > innate intelligence > > and sense of being to create relationships, to create meaning, and to > solve problems. Such > > meaning frameworks are not generated by machines but through the use of > human > > interpretative intelligence (Vines and Firestone, forthcoming). > > > > This is an interesting formulation, though I am not familiar with the > examples from Australian politics you use to illustrate the principles. > But it seems to me that self interest, widely distributed among the > population, and often at odds with the commons, that should drive the > system instead of regulatory bodies. > > > > Here in the US, if you have been watching our silly struggle over the > fiscal state of the country, you can see demonstrated the two or three > major viewpoints to which all parties subscribe. Republican, Democrat > and Tea Party actors hew to only three major value systems. That is > like mapping a fourteen dimensional physics onto a two dimensional paper > substrate. > > > > I think what is missing is a full and adequate accounting of self > interest. Specifically, every American (Australian, Syrian, Brit, > Frenchman, .) has a unique evaluation of the process. Jefferson > anticipated compromise and balance, and did not anticipate the > conglomeration of self-interests into a few major threads. > > > > In an And/Or graph (e.g., IDEF0: > http://www.englishlogickernel.com/Patent-7-209-923-B1.pdf figures 5 and > 11A) if I use different heuristic valuation methods, I get distinctly > different preferred solution subtrees. Each person in any group has > unique values, and therefore the emergent set of heuristics is plural in > value systems. With present systems, the projection of millions of > value systems onto a two dimensional regulatory body loses the knowledge > needed to solve everybody's problem. I think a valuation of each > individual's needs - the three hundred million US citizens, for example > - is the missing ingredient of subjectivity, and without accounting for > that massive divergence, we are doomed to average out the noise of > individuals in seeking a single, choiceless, and history shows > incompetent, solution to the single individual's problems. > > > > We need to look at multiple value structures, not just logic, in how > knowledge is represented, formulated, selected, interpreted and conveyed > into social structures. Economists like Milton Friedman, Somebody Hyek, > Adam Smith and others taught that self interest and individual choice is > what makes the free market work. Governments are the least free of > markets, presently structured, like ontologies, to represent only a > single value structured solution to problems formulated by a few special > interests, not by widespread representations of all citizens' interests. > > > > It may be stretching an analogy to say that political graphs are like > the current state of ontologies, but I do so anyway. If anyone still > reading this has a solution to that multiply valued, multiply choiced > fantasy of mine, I would love to hear more. But logic alone is simply > misleading, and IMHO inappropriate, as a solution to problems of groups > of people. > > > > Negotiation of individual transactions by individual choices and values > is what makes the free market work, as well as it does or doesn't, and I > have not seen another system level method that even approaches the > flexibility and evolving progress that so consistently follows free > market expressions of self interest. > > > > Thanks for an interesting paper, > > -Rich > > > > Sincerely, > > Rich Cooper > > EnglishLogicKernel.com > > Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com > > 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard > Vines > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 4:25 PM > To: '[ontolog-forum] ' > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most > classificationsare fuzzy) > > > > Hi > > > > Because I have followed a small number of the threads of this group over > a period and learned a number of things from doing this, I thought I > might make a small contribution back even though I am sure I am way out > of my depth .. > > > > RC: ...., I doubt if I can contribute much more, since I have a very > strong conviction that subjective construction is the missing ingredient > in ontology. > > > > JS: There are three important issues that are worth discussing, but they > should be kept distinct when we're trying to analyze them: (1.) The > technical question about how modal logic is related to possible worlds > and/or possible models of the world. (2). The philosophy of science > about the nature of physical laws, and the criteria for accepting a > hypothesis as a law. (3) The psychological and sociological issues about > how scientists and engineers do their work and reach their conclusions. > > > > In this discussion crossing over ontology and epistemic logic (and > modalities), I am not sure why there is no reference to the nature of > "evolutionary possibility". > > > > For me, there is a need to explicitly take into account a temporal > component to this analysis .. that different types of knowledge emerge > through time. > > > > I have puzzled over these matters for some time and made a first attempt > to link them in section 1.3 of first part of this paper (the overarching > topic being about regulatory systems not epistemology or ontology). In > thinking about this notion of "evolutionary possibility", I was > interested in exploring whether there might be merit in exploring a > synthesis between Pierce, Popper (and his idea of "evolutionary > epistemology") Wittgenstein and Peter Munz. Munz was the only student > ever to study under both Popper and Wittgenstein. It is clear from his > book "Beyond Wittgenstein's Poker", Munz carried this as an unresolved > burden for a good part of his life and his book has been an attempt to > make sense of this early experience in the 1940's. I was very interested > in some of his discussion about meaning making within this context. > > > > Subjective construction as "a missing ingredient in ontology" (in the > broad sense of the word ontology) is very much alive and well in the > discourse of knowledge management and to some extent, the KM world has > recently been keen to draw upon Pierce's notion of abductive reasoning > to support the trend towards the uptake of a theory of social > constructivism. Whilst I am sure this is a good thing, I think there is > a long way to go before prevailing views about KM stabilise - it is > still very much an emergent domain. > > > > To this extent, I have been very much influenced by John's advocacy for > an "epistemic cycle". I think this has a lot to offer for those with > interests in KM theory and practice - and thus I referenced this in the > piece referred to above. > > > > This earlier piece on knowledge support systems in research intensive > enterprises also made an attempt to integrate the impact of > hierarchically complex systems and public knowledge spaces into this > mix. These two aspects have some relevance to this discussion. - > particularly, this: > > i.e. RC multiple viewers of the same sign, each seeing it in distinct > ways, and reaching distinct conclusions, > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ > To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J > > _________________________________________________________________ > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ > To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J > ============================================================= doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. =============================================================
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy), doug foxvog |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), AzamatAbdoullaev |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy), doug foxvog |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy), John F. Sowa |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |