Dear Richard,
Comments below,
-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 13, 2011
2:54 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] FW: Self
Interest Ontology - Bacteria Use Case 1
Hi Rich
My two cents worth is
that what you are describing is a hierarchically complex system, i.e. where
individual parts that interact to form a designated system at one level of
focus can be seen to be composed of many interacting components at a more
detailed lower level of focus. And that these higher and lower order systems
can interact at varying levels of focus.
Agreed.
The problem with your
analogy, is that whilst processes may emerge to form an intermediate level of
organisation between the higher and lower level systems (which it would seem
you are describing), at these focal levels, where emergence occurs, the effect
of the perturbation (spreading of toothpaste) results in spontaneous and
unpredictable patterns. That is, as far as I understand this, the properties of
the intermediate system that emerges are fundamentally different from those of
the higher and lower order systems.
I don’t understand
the point you are making above. Could you explain it in other terms I
might be more familiar with please?
Whilst I am not in a
position to really justify this claim, it is not clear to me that statistical
decision theory is relevant to such matters of emergence and complexity. Thus, I do not think the word
“related” here holds up. Wouldn’t the sensors and effectors
used by Strepta evolve to be quantitatively related
to the survival benefits enjoyed by her sacrificed materials?
So you prefer the word “related”
here, which is ok with me. It really is just a relationship between
Strepta’s world (as well as a bacterium can perceive it) and Strepta’s
controls over that world.
This perhaps reflects
a deeper type of divergence in views and utility. I do not necessarily think an
“ontology of self-interest” is what has the most utility. I find it
more useful to think about an “ontology of knowledge” itself, where
knowledge is an emergent property of an evolutionary system. But perhaps that
reflects a different focal level (of interest) and the different (cultural)
systems we are a part of.
Cheers
Richard
But pure knowledge is
so sterile; I can get knowledge of things and relationships from a paper, but I
have to understand a PERSON to really understand that person’s self
interest. I still prefer to focus on self interest as the source of a
certain kind of knowledge (such as how-to knowledge, not as well covered in the
AI world as declarative what-is knowledge).
-Rich
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2011
11:31 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology - Bacteria Use Case 1
Self Interested Ontologists,
Let’s consider a use case for the
bacterial film example. I will propose one, and if there are comments,
please feel free to add your $0.02 or to correct mine as appropriate.
USE CASE 1.
A bacterial film covers teeth. One
bacterium, Strepta, senses a chemical gradient she associates with problems to
come. So Strepta sends a chemical message M to the film at large.
Further away in the film, Chlamy
identifies the message, which she interprets as “Watch it; there is
dangerous antibacterial toothpaste in the vicinity.”
Chlamy senses the direction of the
message, and quickly forms a waist in the plane of the message direction, then
splits at right angles in the cross product, splitting into two daughter cells
Bacilla and Amoebi, while Chlamy ceases to exist as a unit, having split.
Bacilla is on top, and her weight plus her
flailing cilia push Amoebi one micron down into the cavity. When the
noxious chemical (was it really toothpaste?) touches Bacilla, she pops,
spreading proteins, fats and carbohydrates which coat Amoebi in her cavity,
effectively protecting Amoebi from the noxious chemical gradient.
Strepta may share very few genes (self
interest objects) with Chlamy, but Chlamy’s offspring have very accurate
copies of Bacilla’s genes, so both have mutually high self
interest. By splitting, Chlamy preserves her genes. Bacilla
preserves her genes, which are faithful copies of Chlamy’s, by protecting
her twin sister Amoebi with her (Bacilla’s) own life.
What is in it for Strepta? She may
be millions of generations distal from Amoebi, the ultimate beneficiary of
Strepta’s message. So the gradient of the film should somehow
represent the contribution of Strepta’s gene pool to Amoebi, which is
what gives Strepta (through their shared ancestral forebears) genetic reasons
to send her message to distal parts of the film.
Should there be a limit to the distality
with which Strepta uses her cellular resources to send the message far and
wide? It should be related to the likelihood of Strepta’s genes
being preserved as compared to the likelihood that her resources consumed to
send the message are wasted, if the chemical turns out not to be toothpaste but
simple custard.
Wouldn’t statistical decision theory
hold in this use case 1; wouldn’t the likelihood of resource loss be
approximately equal to the likelihood that Amoebi, with genes that are equal to
Strepta’s, is saved from annihilation to continue propagating those genes
into a future film? Wouldn’t the sensors and effectors used by
Strepta evolve to be quantitatively related to the survival benefits enjoyed by
her sacrificed materials?
Comments welcome,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2