Thanks Richard,
The problem of clearly and appropriately
identifying the self interests of children is an enormous problem, so I
sympathize with the need to do so. The children can’t, due to lack
of knowledge, lack of experience at effective controls, and many other
factors. There was something similar in raising American Indian children
a century ago, where the kids were take from their tribes and “educated”
in ways that were deemed (by the regulators, who were mostly Christian
missionaries) in their best interests.
At that time, it would have been very
difficult to know that the kids, when grown, would have emotional losses due to
lack of traditional tribal knowledge, but that is what happened. When
dealing with incompetent citizens (kids, severely mentally ill, Alzheimer’s
patients, etc) it is enormously difficult to do it right. My outlined
approach of self interest specification and balance only works for people who have
the capacity to understand their self interest, to know what remedies to their
situation actually have potential for improving it, and otherwise are competent
judges or executors. Most of us educated adults would also err to some
level in specifying our own self interest, and we are usually very wide of the
mark in specifying others’ self interest for them.
So I give up on how to deal with those who
can’t even know what needs to be done to help them, or what actions are
available, or whether the choices include ones which can be effective. I
am far out of my knowledge base on that one. Even specifying my own self
interest is difficult.
I would really like to see more detail on
what Doug Foxvog called an ontology of self interest. More precise
formulations of what that might entail would be very useful to read, but I myself
am stumped in trying to take it much further than the posts I have already made
here. Surely someone reading this can add substance to the skeleton we
have cobbled together in this discussion?
I have been thinking of evolutionary
models, such as genetic programming, to discover self interest, but have
nothing of substance to report at this time.
Thanks,
-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: Tuesday, August 09, 2011
1:50 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
intangibles (was RE: Whymostclassificationsare fuzzy)
Hi Rich et al.,
Speaking of ontologies
of self-interest – as well as re-balancing / reframing the voices of
political influence - I thought I would provide you a case study from Australia.
At the
national level here, we have had a bipartisan approach to the Forgotten
Australians. “Forgotten Australians” are the half a million or so
children who were raised in institutions, orphanages and foster care throughout
the last century. The number also includes about 7,000 child migrants. An
apology was made in the Commonwealth Parliament in 2009. This occurred
because of the years of advocacy around the “self-interests” of the
Forgotten Australians.
Back in
2007, I played some role to help catalyse a modest knowledge exchange project
to address some of the problems of fragmented approach to the management of
records (and related social welfare practice) for former wards of the state
– records held by multiple community organisations in the state of Victoria. This small
project helped catalysed a much larger Australian research Council project now
with 14 community organisations, 5 consumer groups and 2 Universities and one
government department now part of the consortium.
Amongst
other things, the consortium has had oversight of publishing this website based on
some of these
emergent principles.
Interestingly,
this same model and these same principles are being amplified and expanded to
the extent that the same informatics are being used to develop diverse
knowledge hubs in each state and territory in Australia, with one overarching
national site as well. These same informatics underpin the approach to
regulatory intervention I posted on previously. They are based on principles
include amongst other things commitments to EAC –CFP standard and also
link to protocols for metadata harvesting by the Australian National Library
etc.
These
notions of mediating public knowledge and public knowledge interests across
different groups are quite interesting. My guess is that over time, these types
of approaches will unlock a great deal of reform in relation to
interoperability practices where data and information exchanges will
necessarily cross multiple levels of hierarchy and jurisdiction. The
other thing I am going to watch with interest on his how the social media
elements will co-evolve in relation to these more authoritative approaches to
recording disputed and highly charged accounts of history and for many –
painful experiences of the past.
I am
currently very interested in these sorts of models for application in
wider sectors. If anyone knows of any other types of case studies involving
manifestations of these mediated public knowledge self –interests and
what makes these work (or dysfunctional) in one way or another, I would be
really interested in any links.
Thanks
Richard
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2011
1:50 AM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx;
'[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
Doug, Azamat, Ron and John (et al),
Comments below,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:31 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare
fuzzy)
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