On Thu, August 11, 2011 13:46, Rich Cooper said:
> Dear Doug, (01)
> Thanks for a thoughtful response. (02)
> I agree that
> Libertarians believe that government should be
> minimal, while socialists believe government
> should be comprehensive and fully in charge, (03)
Not at all. Socialists believe that governments should
protect people from being exploited by those more powerful
than them. They don't believe that governments should have
the power to tell people where to work or live. They believe
that people should have the right to do anything that does
not interfere with other people's rights. (04)
Socialists show empathy to the non-powerful in society,
while libertarians oppose a "nanny state" and feel that
everyone should fend for themselves. Many libertarians believe
that governments should protect people from violence and should
enforce contracts. Socialists believe that some contracts are
exploitative (e.g., those restricting the race/religion/etc.
of the purchaser of a house and requiring that the purchaser
be obligated to sell under the same terms) and such portions
of contracts should be null and void. (05)
> and
> that, like the cigarette companies and polluters,
> people acting in self interest tend to ignore the
> issues that work against them, just as you and I
> and the rest of us do. The same is true with
> global warming deniers and affirmers, Keynesians
> and Friedmanian-Hyekians, Republicans Democrats
> and Tea Partiers, and every other array of
> opposing self interest viewpoints, again including
> you and me. So those and other multipolar
> groupings of common interests should be part of a
> self interest ontology. (06)
> But how? (07)
The way different classes of people rank trade-offs needs to be
modeled. One person may say, "my right to swing my fist ends where
your nose begins", while another might restrict that right within
one meter of his body. (08)
Different levels of empathy should be able to be modeled, and
trade-offs between rights of different people/organizations need
to be expressed based on the empathy levels assigned to the two
parties. (09)
> What kind of opposing views should be considered, (010)
Why should any be excluded? (011)
> which weights should be applied in linear models, (012)
I do not think that we will end up finding linear models to be appropriate. (013)
However we should expect conflicting models of such things. The basic
ontological expression of classes of object and action, relations among
them, and properties they might have should be expressed at a level above
the theories of how the conflicting models work. This would allow the
multiple theories to all use the same vocabulary of self-interest, but
to express their different viewpoints as necessary. (014)
> which facts and rules should be part of the ontology. (015)
We would have a DAG of ontologies. Sorting facts and rules into the
various ontologies should obviate arguing over which facts and rules
to include. (016)
> Should there be only a
> linear model of value vectors and behaviors, or is
> there an underpinning of facts and rules that
> should be considered at a higher meta level? (017)
I would suggest multiple meta levels. I think that you would find
a linear model not consistent with "the real world". (018)
-- doug f (019)
> 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 doug foxvog
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:09 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '
> 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
>
>
> (020)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (021)
"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.
============================================================= (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|