Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self Interest

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

On Fri, August 12, 2011 13:30, Rich Cooper said:

> Dear John and Doug,

>

> If we use bacteria to get started, should the

> first partition of nil be into Self (the acting

> bacterium Doug called A) and Others, (the acted > upon bacteria, or the environment acted upon, > which Doug called B)?

Rich, i think you are partitioning T, not nil.

When I look at John's example ontology graphs, which he publishes in his web site papers from time to time, the bottom is T and the top is an upside down T, which isn't in my keyboard fonts, so I call it nil.  It fits nicely with the big bang theory, which says everything came from nothing (nil, zip, nada) so I have taken the top down design approach of starting with nil and working my way down to T. 

Although one can always partition T into any specific class and its OTHER, the partitioning you suggest seems problematic to me.

The Self would have many properties that some subclasses of Other would have while other subclasses of Other would not have such

properties.

I would suggest that your proposed Self would be a subclass of Agent, and for bacteria (and other lifeforms) would be a subclass of PhysicalObject.

Can you correct my graph to show how you think it should descend?  Again, I am taking the top down design road, and I don't have a set of prior commitments to any particular existing facts.  I am thinking of the problem as starting with only the concepts we want to discuss directly.  Having other philosophically more typical concepts above them might be useful, but so far we don't know what those other objects and properties will be until we encounter them in use cases.  I would prefer an approach that practices traceability, i.e., every concept we chat is to be associated with some use case so we can maintain a database of requirements statements (FOL) and design objects (concepts in the lattice between nil and T). 

> If so, then Others can be further subdivided into > these two: potentially ActiveOthers (i.e., other > bacteria, other life forms, the bacterial film), > or environmentally InactiveOthers, for example > chemical objects or impeding objects, such as > teeth, saliva, etc.

What you are discussing now is properties of objects relative to another object.  We would either need specific binary relations for each "type" you are referring to, or ternary relations with one of the arguments being the type of assistance or hindering.

-- doug f

-Rich

> So far, we have:

>

>

>

> This provides a structure to organize actions by A

> on either neutral objects or objects with

> feelings.  For example, we can consider other

> people to be descendants of ActiveOthers and the

> (possibly polluted) environment to represent

> InactiveOthers.

>

> I have chosen a circle to render ANDs and not a

> circle to render ORs.  I have chosen bold italic

> font to represent concept names.

>

> Can we agree on this top level trichotomy, or do

> we need to discuss other options to reach

> agreement at the top level?

>

> How would you represent the toothbrush - active or

> inactive?  How about the toothpaste?

>

> Taking the first baby steps,

> -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: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:55 AM

> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Self

> Interest

>

> Doug and Rich,

>

> The issues about governments, which led to

> complaints about discussing

> political issues, have exact counterparts in

> social interactions of

> any kind.  To make this discussion less

> controversial, I suggested

> that we start with the simpler issues about

> bacterial colonies.

>

> But I recognize that many people find it hard to

> see the connections

> between tooth plaque and international politics.

> So I suggest that

> we look at human interactions at several levels:

> nuclear families

> (mom, pop, & kids); small tribes (dozens of

> related people, such as

> primitive societies, villages, small businesses,

> schools, etc.);

> larger tribes (towns, universities, and medium

> businesses); and

> nation states (countries and multinational

> corporations).

>

> DF

>> Socialists show empathy to the non-powerful in

> society,

>> while libertarians oppose a "nanny state" and

> feel that

>> everyone should fend for themselves.

>

> Generalizations at that level will never lead to

> an ontology.

> It's more instructive to analyze specific

> examples.  For a

> small socialist example (tribe level), look at a

> specific

> kind of community, such as the Amish.  They're

> socialist,

> but they have minimal government.

>

> If you want a larger example, you can look at the

> old Soviet Union

> (which could be more accurately described as a

> Tsarist bureaucracy

> with the role of Tsar relabeled as 'Party

> Chairman').

>

> DF

>> 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.

>

> That's a better issue to address.  But before you

> can discuss

> it, you need an ontology for 'trade-off', 'right',

> and 'body'

> as well as all the subsidiary terms needed to

> define them.

>

> RC

>> Is the top node in the lattice partitioned into

> value systems or

>> into behaviors, or are both involved in the top

> partition, the

>> reduction of the nil top node to the next level

> down?

>

> That is getting closer to the level needed.  But

> before you can

> talk about value systems, you need to define

> 'value' and how values

> are related to modality (may, can, must, should,

> would, could).

>

> And before you can talk about 'behavior', you need

> an ontology

> for actions, purposes, purposive actions, and

> various kinds of

> patterns of actions and responses.

>

> RC

>> How do the values and behaviors interact to

> support or contradict

>> each other?  What facts are sufficient to make

> an unambiguous

>> constructive proof for any of our opposing

> assertions posted so far?

>

> Those are important questions, but they begin to

> cross the line

> between an ontology of the terms to a theory about

> behavior.

>

> Every ontology is a theory about the terms, but I

> would not claim

> that every theory is an ontology.  Some theories

> use the terms

> without changing their basic meanings.

>

> To relate these issues to bacteria, I would

> propose something

> like Aristotle's hierarchy of psyches.  Unlike

> Descartes, who

> had a very sharp two-level distinction between

> humans and other

> animals, Aristotle started with a vegetative

> psyche for plants;

> a sensitive psyche for sponges and barnacles; a

> locomotive psyche

> for animals that move around; a psyche for animals

> with higher

> senses, especially vision; and a rational psyche

> for humans.

>

> When I talk about biosemiotics, I mean a

> refinement of that

> hierarchy to covers all life forms on earth -- and

> the option

> of generalizing it to cover extraterrestrial

> aliens, artificial

> life-like forms, and robots.

>

> Generalizing the problem can actually *simplify*

> the ontology

> because it allows each level of the hierarchy to

> be analyzed

> separately and show how each feature interacts

> with the others.

>

> 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-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)