Hi Godfrey, (01)
Too bad James Taylor and Carly Simon couldn't get
along (;-|) (02)
There seem to be many who agree the topic isn't
part of our focus, yet also many who want to
continue it. I am stumped about how to proceed
given the strength of these two opposing self
interests. (03)
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Godfrey Rust
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:40 AM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self
Interest (06)
>> I have always enjoyed James Taylor's music ->
>> different guy though! (07)
Hold on, didn't he say "I've seen sunny days that
I thought would never
end"? (08)
Seriously though, surely this thread doesn't
belong here now. (09)
Godfrey (010)
----- Original Message -----
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'[ontolog-forum] '"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self
Interest (011)
>
> On Wed, August 10, 2011 14:58, Rich Cooper said:
>> Dear Doug and John, et al,
>>
>> It appears that Roy Spencer is not the only one
>> who concluded that global warming isn't real.
>
> Of course not. The companies which benefit from
the production of
> CO2 disbelieve in global warming, just as
cigarette manufacturers
> disbelieve that smoking causes cancer. They
both hire studies to
> prove their points and lobbyists to argue it.
The companies do not
> wish to be regulated, since it is cheaper to
have someone else clean
> up ones messes than to do it oneself. As big
businesses have a political
> party to push their viewpoints, they encourage
such a party to oppose
> regulation and to oppose the concept of
anthropogenic climate disruption.
> Of course, the arguments against business
regulation and the science
> studying climate disruption are not presented to
the party's followers
> pay for destruction being caused by big
businesses. They are presented
> as the regulators being evil, trying to prevent
the common man from making
> money and trying to take money from the common
man in order to give it to
> someone else. Scientists are portrayed as
evilly misusing science in
> order to convince people of things that aren't
true, evidently in order
> to be paid for conducting what really isn't
research.
>
>> This is a cut and paste from NewsMax at
>>
>>
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-Warmi
>> ng-Alarmists/2011/07/28/id/405200
>>
>> In an Op-Ed in Forbes, senior
>> fellow for environment policy at The Heartland
>> Institute
>
> The Heartland Institute is a libertarian
political organization. Their
> website states, "Heartland's mission is to
discover, develop, and promote
> free-market solutions to social and economic
problems."
>
> Libertarians want as little government and
government regulation as
> possible. They have a political interest in
arguing against any
> proposition that problems exist that need
governmental regulations
> to control them. It is not a scientific
organization and one must
> take any scientific claims they make with a few
teaspoons full of
> salt.
>
> The Heartland Institute seems to find it more in
their self-interest
> to promote a libertarian society than to protect
a world from a gradually
> increasing threat that will become worse over a
span of decades and
> generations.
>
> The discussion below refers to the same article
in Remote Sensing we that
> was mentioned before. As we recall, the article
argued that various
> feedback mechanisms were not fully enough
modeled by standard climate
> models. The article did not state, even though
the author argued
> elsewhere, that anthropogenic global warming
does not exist.
>
>> James M. Taylor, said, "In short, the
>> central premise of alarmist global warming
theory
>> is that carbon dioxide emissions should be
>> directly and indirectly trapping a certain
amount
>> of heat in the earth's atmosphere and
preventing
>> it from escaping into space.
>>
>> "Real-world measurements, however,
>> show far less heat is being trapped in the
earth's
>> atmosphere than the alarmist computer models
>> predict, and far more heat is escaping into
space
>> that the alarmist computer models predict."
>>
>> The new research further shows
>> that not only is more energy released to space
>> than had been theorized, but also that the
energy
>> is released at an earlier point in a cycle of
>> warming than previously documented.
>>
>> In fact, the new data reveal,
>> energy is discharged beginning at a point about
>> three months before a cycle peaks. "At the
peak,"
>> Spencer said, "satellites show energy being
lost
>> while climate models show energy still being
>> gained."
>>
>> The research was published in the
>> journal Remote Sensing.
>
> This is a reference to the same article we
looked at before.
>
>> Does anyone have prejudicial info on the
Heartland
>> Institute, or on James Taylor, or on the Remote
>> Sensing journal, which they would like to
>> contribute?
>>
>> I don't really want to get too into this GWA
>> debate; we all seem to have our preconceptions.
>> Its those preconceptions I would like to see
>> modeled in a self interest ontology.
>>
>> Why do we accept facts we want to believe in
more
>> readily than facts we don't want to believe in
(me
>> included, you too)? Can that be modeled?
There
>> is some psychology work on how we preserve our
own
>> value consistency by tending to believe what
>> supports our preconceptions - I remember John's
>> post on the "confirmation bias" in Behavioral
>> Sciences, or some such source. I also remember
>> some of us believed it as written and others
>> denied it as baseless speculation. Can that be
>> organized into said self interest ontology?
>
> Certainly.
>
>> I have always enjoyed James Taylor's music -
>
> Me, too.
>
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
>> different guy though!
>>
>> Interestedly,
>> -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 Rich Cooper
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:27 AM
>> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self
>> Interest was: intangibles
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> So is it your suggestion that people (like
>> bacteria) like to congregate together, and that
is
>> one way in which we pursue self interest?
>>
>> How does that fit into the ontology of self
>> interest? We (and bonobos) seek out each
other's
>> company, but why do we take aggressive action
>> against each other?
>>
>> And how does this consideration fit into an
>> ontology?
>>
>> Curiously,
>> -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 John F. Sowa
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:32 AM
>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self
>> Interest was: intangibles
>>
>> On 8/10/2011 9:41 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>>> I personally think the ontology of self
interest
>> is more important,
>>> more scientifically relevant to the issue of
>> ontology in general...
>>
>> That's a good topic. It gets into the broader
>> field of biosemiotics,
>> which includes zoosemiotics and phytosemiotics.
>>
>> If you recall, there was a novelist named Ayn
Rand
>> who blathered
>> a lot about "self interest", but she was
>> hopelessly out of her
>> depth when it came to biology. She was a "one
>> factor" theorist
>> who claimed self-interest was the single most
>> important driving
>> force in evolution. But that hypothesis fails
at
>> every level
>> from bacteria on up.
>>
>> You can start with just an individual
bacterium.
>> It has sensors
>> and activators that enable it to swim upstream
in
>> response to
>> a greater concentration of sugar on one side or
an
>> irritating
>> chemical the other. But survival for lone
>> bacteria is not easy.
>>
>> Bacteria can also generate signals that enable
>> them to cooperate
>> with other bacteria. The simplest method is to
>> form a film-like
>> colony, such as plaque on the teeth. That is
>> their most important
>> defense. The easiest way to kill bacteria is
to
>> prevent them
>> from forming colonies.
>>
>> The bacteria on the outside of the film benefit
>> from direct
>> access to food, but they succumb to attack from
>> chemicals,
>> other organisms, and extremes of heat and cold.
>> But they have
>> chemical signals that enable the colony to
survive
>> and thrive:
>>
>> 1. When the outer bacteria detect danger,
they
>> signal the
>> inner bacteria to transform themselves to
>> almost inert
>> spores. The outer bacteria die, but inner
>> ones survive.
>>
>> 2. For attacking large food sources (e.g.,
the
>> human body),
>> they need to wait until they have a
>> sufficiently large
>> "army" to survive counterattacks by the
>> immune system.
>>
>> 3. Many bacteria have a "voting" system:
they
>> send out chemical
>> signals and use the strength of the
responses
>> to estimate the
>> number of "soldiers". When the response
is
>> strong, they switch
>> to attack mode. (Some drugs interfere
with
>> those signals.)
>>
>> 4. Many species cooperate with other species
in
>> "symbiosis".
>> Examples are lichens, which consist of
algae
>> and fungi
>> cooperating to benefit both. Symbiosis
>> occurs between plants
>> and animals at all levels. Dogs and cats,
>> for example, became
>> human companions because they found
mutually
>> beneficial ways
>> of cooperating with people.
>>
>> 5. The eukaryotic cells are an extreme
example,
>> where early
>> bacteria (prokaryotic cells) were
swallowed
>> by other bacteria
>> and found a comfortable, well protected
niche
>> inside.
>>
>> 6. The metazoa (multi-celled animals) evolved
>> from colonies of
>> eukaryotic cells that formed "a more
perfect
>> union" than just
>> a colony of independent units. But that
>> union required a
>> strong central "government" (called a
brain),
>> which eventually
>> dominated the other cells completely -- to
>> their mutual benefit.
>>
>> Most species of plants and animals are unable
to
>> survive without
>> a large colony of the same species and
symbiotic
>> species. Just
>> look at what happened to the Yellowstone
ecology
>> when they brought
>> back wolves. The overall health increased
>> enormously:
>>
>>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/03102
>> 9064909.htm
>>
>> The Primates, our closest relatives, all live
in
>> colonies, and
>> individuals outside a colony die off quickly.
Our
>> two closest
>> cousins, the chimpanzees and bonobos illustrate
>> two extremes:
>>
>> 1. Chimps and bonobos interbreed easily, but
>> they have been
>> separated by the Congo River for a few
>> million years.
>>
>> 2. Chimps have a highly aggressive
patriarchal
>> society, with
>> fierce fighting among the males for the
top
>> spot. The birth
>> rate of males to females is approximately
>> 50-50, but the
>> percentage of adult males to females is
about
>> 30-70, and
>> most males don't die of natural causes.
>>
>> 3. Bonobos have a matriarchal society, with a
>> laid-back,
>> make-love-not-war attitude. The birth
rate
>> of males to
>> females is 50-50, and so is the adult
rate.
>>
>> Biologists have studied the chemical and
>> physiological differences
>> between chimps and bonobos. And significantly,
>> the bonobos differ
>> from the chimps in the same way that dogs and
>> pussycats differ from
>> wolves and wildcats. In effect, the bonobos
>> "tamed" themselves.
>>
>> Interesting point: Human physiology is more
>> closely related to
>> the bonobos than the chimpanzees. Humans also
>> tamed themselves.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
__________________________________________________
>> _______________
>> Message Archives:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr:
>>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>> orum/
>> 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?WikiHomePa
>> ge#nid1J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
__________________________________________________
>> _______________
>> Message Archives:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr:
>>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>> orum/
>> 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?WikiHomePa
>> ge#nid1J
>>
>>
>>
>>
__________________________________________________
_______________
>> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
>> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#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-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
____________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs
Email Security System.
> For more information please visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>
__________________________________________________
____________________
> (012)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|