Hi 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
6:29 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] FW: Re:
FW: Self Interest Ontology - Bacteria UseCase 1
Hi Rich,
> I don't understand the point you are making
above.
> Could you explain it in other terms I might be
more familiar with
> please?
My overarching point is really about the nature of
emergence itself. To untangle the language it might be easiest to look at this
diagram on page 162 of this
book chapter. This shows what I mean by the focal level between higher and
lower order systems.
Here is that diagram:
Some explanation is also provided on pages 161-163.
This is set within a context of exploring an "ontology of knowledge".
It might not directly be the same form of ontology as this group focuses on,
but it is sufficiently related for me to think we are still conversing in line
with the objectives of this ontology forum.
The ontology of self
interest I proposed must have multiple levels as well. For example, the
individuals Strepta, Chlamy, Bacilla and Amoebi each act in their own self
interest. The film as a whole is at least one level up, and comprises
emergence of the individual actions. Can we say that the film acts in its own
self interest? I think not because the film is not an individual. We can
subscribe to the practice of rampant anthropopathy (which I already used in
describing the individual bacteria) and say the film acts in such a way. But
using our language in such metaphorical ways should not lead us to believe in
the actuality of the film acting. Only the individuals truly act.
Knowledge (in that
example) is encoded in the genes of the individual actors, not genes of the
film, which is a ménage a trillion (or whatever the French word is for very
large). So knowledge is different, distinct, and possibly partially shared
among the individuals, but is not a property of the film at the next level up,
IMHO.
In this book chapter, we suggest emergence is
understood as occurring where
“the characteristics of the sub-systems (Individuals) and the super-systems (film) do not characterise the emergent
patterns”. Your case study seams to be a summary of the different systems
and the impact of the interaction between the higher order and lower order
systems.
Uh, ok. It would seem
that the film brings together the intervals who, in concert, created the film
by multiplying often and with energy provided by their chemical storage,
sensors and effectors. But all the energy was, and remained, in the
individuals. If the noxious chemical really was antibacterial toothpaste, then
only a tiny fraction of the individuals in the film remained (maintained
genetic knowledge) to create the next film. Amoebi was one of the lucky ones,
but she shared the vast majority of her genes (recorded knowledge) with the
likes of Strepta and Chlamy and Bacilla, who acted in an emergent way to
protect the stored knowledge.
> 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.
It is not that I prefer the word "related".
I am making the point that what emerges at the boundaries between a higher
order and lower order system when a perturbation occurs is non-causal.
This is where I get
confused. The actions taken by Strepta et all were causal (and produced by their
individual interpretations of their nuclear genes) and without those actions,
the film would not have emerged in the first place, nor would it be preserved
after the noxious toothpaste destroyed most of the film.
There is no relationship between the characteristics
of the emergent system and the higher and lower order systems. When I refer to
perturbation I am referring to the impact from the higher order system that
involves the “application of toothpaste”.
I still don’t get
it. The toothpaste was wielded by the owner of the teeth, who in his own
actions, destroyed most of the film for generations. I could see that position
when only the physics of mechanical systems is involved, but there is no
knowledge in such a system, only structure. Strepta et al could evolve to
build new knowledge as a result of selection so that some future film might be
resistant to the noxious toothpaste. But hydrogen and oxygen always make water
and other well known combinations, but never “learn” new compounds,
so don’t evolve new knowledge.
Strepta's control that you describe is a form of
knowledge. Control information is used to maintain the coherence of its own
system. This is in line with the radical constructivists position that suggests
that Strepra does not know itself to be Strepra, and can only interpret the
world from its own frame, and uses control information to manage the boundaries
of distinctions between “itself” and "non self".
Yes, I can see reason to
believe that way, since Strepta et al are repositories of knowledge that can be
advanced through evolution and reproduction to create the new knowledge in
genetic recordings.
> 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).
I am not sure if we are on the same page when we are
referring to knowledge here. When I refer to knowledge as an emergent property
of an evolutionary system, I am suggesting that this idea can potentially
extends to lower order systems like bacteria. Strepta's control information is
a form of knowledge.
That I agree with.
Having said that, I am not an evolutionary biologist
myself and my interests are more to do higher order expressions of knowledge -
not really to do with your case study. We have included as an appendix to the
above chapter a preliminary ideas about an ontology of research knowledge
support systems (pages 184-188).
Thanks
Richard
Thanks for your thoughts
on the subject, and it seems that we agree more than disagree.
-Rich
Chapter quoted:
- Vines, R., Hall, W.P., McCarthy, G. 2010. Textual representations and knowledge
support-systems in research intensive networks. (in) Cope, B.,
Kalantzis, M., Magee, L. (eds). Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting
Knowledge in Academic Research. Oxford:
Chandos Press, pp. 145-195.