Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: Self Interest Ontology - Bacteria Use Case 1

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avril,

Comments below,

-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 Avril Styrman
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:31 AM
To: [ontolog-forum] ; Richard Vines
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: Self Interest Ontology - Bacteria Use Case 1

Richard and all,

just a short note. The hierarchy of levels is central to e.g. David 

Bohm's ontology and a good intro to that can be found e.g. from Paavo 

Pylkkänen's Mind, Matter and the Implicate Order.

Do you have a preferred URL reference?  I am not familiar with that work. 

I've been developing a collection theory for a while that formalizes 

the level hierarchy of relationally structural properties (the term is 

from Armstrong), like colours. The central tool in that collection 

theory is the membership relation epsilon, inherited from set theory. 

For instance, a level n property P_n is composed of level n-1 

constituents, where the constituents are members of P_n. The 

constituents of a property are lower-level properties and relations. 

P_n = the constituent properties of P_n + the relations between the 

properties. Emergence is a tag for complexity that is not understood 

or explained.

The word "emergence" has been treated quite casually in the literature, ranging from inert matter to the behavior of crowds.  So it would be nice, as you point out, to formalize how each layer of that emergence is brought to effect on the layer below.  But history shows that generalizing from one level to the next is fraught with inaccuracies. 

If anyone is aware of citations of systems alike, please let me know, thanx!

-Avril

Same here; I think the whole Self Interested community will be interested,

-Rich

Lainaus "Richard Vines" <plessons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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.

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> 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?

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________
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)