> If we are
> ever to really implement AI, it will require a lot
> of rework, IMHO, to our view of how the robots'
> self interests are best served.
>
> -Rich
>
> > Remember that all humans share more than
> 99
> > % of our genes, even 97% with
> chimpanzees and
> > bonobos, so I think the altruistic model
> as common
> > self interest works. That is why I
> incorporated
> > it into Use Case 1. At the bacterial
> level, there
> > is minimal conversation, but messages
> (Peircean
> > signs, as JFS points out) are simplest
> at that
> > level, and we can build on top of that
> once we
> > have an ontological vocabulary for doing
> so.
> >
> > "What are the various trade-offs
> that
> > cause some people to be libertarians,
> > others to be socialists, others to
> be
> > progressives, others to be various
> > flavors
> > of conservatives or liberals."
> > Your Worldview, Philosophy,
> Belief,
> > Values, and Religion. Ultimately, the
> > scope and level of your knowledge.
> Since
> > there are universal truths of
> > society to be recognized by any
> social
> > movements. One of them: the lack of
> > social cohesion (material needs
> and
> > conditions; order, safety and freedom;
> > social networks and interactions;
> social
> > inclusion and integration;
> > equality, equity and life chances)
> is a
> > principal reason of social
> > instability.
> > Azamat Abdoullaev
> >
> > Agreed, but we have to start somewhere
> small to
> > enable growth to these larger scale
> topics. We
> > can't start with the high level because
> it is too
> > complex, and we will be debating again
> instead of
> > modeling. Lets start here, as JFS
> suggested, at
> > the bacterial level and move upward from
> there so
> > we can make some progress.
> >
> > -Rich
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "doug foxvog"
> <
doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "[ontolog-forum]"
> > <
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:08
> AM
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
> Interest
> > Ontology going offline
> >
> >
> > > An ontology of self-interest
> should
> > include all needs, at the base and
> > > apex
> > > of Maslow's hierarchy. I would
> also
> > include Manfred Max-Neef's set of
> > > "fundamental human needs", which
> > overlaps Maslow's hierarchy. Max-Neef
> > > includes qualities, things to
> have,
> > actions, interactions, and settings
> > > in his "Human Scale
> Development".
> > >
> > > On Thu, August 11, 2011 3:58,
> matthew
> > lange said:
> > >> I follow the conversation of a
> > self-interest ontology, with great self
> > >> interest. I would be happy to
> be
> > included in its continued discourse,
> > >> but
> > >> would be even more delighted if
> the
> > ontology focused on lower levels of
> > >> Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in
> terms
> > of survival--with special attention
> > >> aimed at characterizing fitness
> as
> > composed by a person's trajectory
> > >> toward
> > >> desired metabolic, physical,
> emotional,
> > cognitive and ??? phenotypes.
> > >
> > > Merely dealing with survival
> needs will
> > not provide the terminology
> > > necessary to explain (or
> rationalize)
> > human action. What are the
> > > various trade-offs that cause
> some
> > people to be libertarians, others to
> > > be socialists, others to be
> > progressives, others to be various
> flavors
> > > of conservatives or liberals.
> The right
> > would label the left (and itself)
> > > differently than the left would.
> It
> > would be interesting to explain this
> > > using formal ontologies.
> > >
> > > -- doug f
> > >
> > >> Does this sound doable?
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> matthew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:33
> PM, Rich
> > Cooper
> > >>
> <
rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Dear John,
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree; ontology of self
> interest
> > should be part
> > >>> of the list topic catalog,
> however,
> > examples,
> > >>> including political ones, are
> needed
> > to illustrate
> > >>> points in self interest. For
> example,
> > we four
> > >>> have divergent viewpoints on
> nearly
> > every
> > >>> political issue we raised in
> the
> > forum, and I
> > >>> don't see how we can avoid
> such
> > examples in the
> > >>> future. So the problem
> remains; many
> > people
> > >>> simply can't discuss political
> issues
> > (or other
> > >>> self interest issues) that
> impinge on
> > their self
> > >>> worth. That is what I regard
> as the
> > problem we
> > >>> had on the list.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you have suggestions about
> how to
> > do that
> > >>> without upsetting people like
> Chris
> > Menzel, I
> > >>> would be happy to entertain
> it. But
> > it wasn't
> > >>> ONLY Chris, at least a couple
> of
> > others preferred
> > >>> to avoid it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Or maybe we can convince Peter
> to
> > split off a
> > >>> second list that relates to
> self
> > interest
> > >>> specifically - that would be
> easier
> > anyway than
> > >>> having political (or other
> > self-interest) issues
> > >>> discussed in an open forum
> where
> > people get upset.
> > >>> I have no desire to be
> involved in
> > flames or name
> > >>> calling, and would prefer that
> we
> > discuss it in a
> > >>> way that doesn't create the
> > opportunity for such.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> But if you believe we can
> discuss it
> > without
> > >>> getting into politics (I
> remain
> > unconvinced still)
> > >>> I am game to try it a bit
> more.
> > >>>
> > >>> How do the other two of us
> feel about
> > this?
> > >>> Should we go back to the list,
> or is
> > it too
> > >>> problematic to do so.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Rich
> > >>>
> > >>> Sincerely,
> > >>> Rich Cooper
> > >>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> > >>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
> com
> > >>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: John F. Sowa
> > [mailto:
sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10,
> 2011 5:14
> > PM
> > >>> To: Rich Cooper
> > >>> Cc: '[ontolog-forum] ';
> > AzamatAbdoullaev; doug
> > >>> foxvog
> > >>> Subject: Re: Self Interest
> Ontology
> > going offline
> > >>>
> > >>> Rich,
> > >>>
> > >>> There is nothing wrong about
> an
> > ontology that
> > >>> includes concepts
> > >>> such as SelfInterest. That
> would be
> > an important
> > >>> part of any
> > >>> ontology that includes
> purposive
> > action of any
> > >>> kind.
> > >>>
> > >>> The complaints were about
> political
> > issues, which
> > >>> don't belong
> > >>> on this forum.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I said, the issues about
> self
> > interest for
> > >>> humans belong
> > >>> to the issue of self interest
> for any
> > living
> > >>> things, and it
> > >>> should be part of the same
> ontology.
> > That is
> > >>> certainly
> > >>> a topic for Ontolog Forum.
> > >>>
> > >>> John
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
>