Rich (01)
> Too bad James Taylor and Carly Simon couldn't get
> along (;-|) (02)
He's so vain and I guess couldn't live with the fact that nobody did it
better than her. (03)
>
> 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.
> (04)
Since I posted I've looked at some of the other posts and withdraw my
objection (I'm not sure if that's acting in a disinterested way out of
self-interest or not). The list has been quiet otherwise, and provided
people don't preach their own pet political or social positions too much its
a thread with inherent (self-)interest to many. Perhaps it's also a
methodological challenge to see if the forum can come up with a very basic
ontology on a subject which accommodates diverse and conflicting views -
I've no professional interest in the semantics of the subject matter here,
but most of us have an interest in the management of conflicting ontological
axioms. (05)
Godfrey (06)
> -Rich (07)
---- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Godfrey Rust'" <godfrey.rust@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'[ontolog-forum] '"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self Interest (08)
>
> Hi Godfrey,
>
> Too bad James Taylor and Carly Simon couldn't get
> along (;-|)
>
> 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.
>
> -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 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
>
>>> I have always enjoyed James Taylor's music ->
>>> different guy though!
>
> Hold on, didn't he say "I've seen sunny days that
> I thought would never
> end"?
>
> Seriously though, surely this thread doesn't
> belong here now.
>
> Godfrey
>
> ----- 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
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
> __________________________________________________
> ____________________
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________________
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|