John: "I admit that I have never been happy with Cyc's upper level. To say
that Interest is a kind of TemporalStuffType is much too weak. It omits
fundamental relationships of interest to purpose, goals, and intentions." (01)
That's really significant. It's necessary to define if an interest is a form
of reason, a final cause, the sake, goal, end, result or objective to pursue
and obtain. How its related to need, motive, motivation, and morality. At
which reality it emerges, biological reality, cognitive reality or social
reality. What the key types of self-interest are, individual, familial,
tribal, corporate, group, or national.
All these and other things are overwhelmingly important. As we know, the
whole geopolitics and international relations are guided by the national
self-interests (mercantilism), balancing the national self-interests of
several big powers.
The Libian tragedy you mentioned before is looked by many stakeholders more
as a mercantile enterprise pursuing all sorts of self-interests and
ambitions: individual, tribal,..., or "reason of the state". Its also
critical to see why the real issues as the rule of law, public good,
morality and collective security appear less valuable then self-interests.
It appears a real ontology of self-interest is of global social importance
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Partial interest ontology (03)
> On 8/26/2011 11:34 AM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>> With my respect to Doug's effort, giving usually very interesting
>> contribution, the least that we need is to "cyc" things here, like
>> "interest - temporalstufftype; self-interest-temporalstufftype;
>> agent-exisitng agenttype, etc.". Besides, its top ontology is too weak
> I admit that I have never been happy with Cyc's upper level. To say
> that Interest is a kind of TemporalStuffType is much too weak. It omits
> fundamental relationships of interest to purpose, goals, and intentions.
> But I also agree with Doug Lenat that the most useful inferences come
> from the mid levels and lower levels. We should have an upper level
> that provides more guidance to anyone who is defining lower levels.
> But it's also important to avoid putting so many axioms into the
> upper level that they create inconsistencies with axioms needed
> at the lower levels.
> What Doug F. has done is to show how a given upper level (namely Cyc's)
> can be used as a basis for specifying and relating mid-level concepts.
> That analysis is useful, and it can be adapted to other upper levels,
> but it's important to develop such a level.
> As we have seen, it is very hard to get any consensus on the upper
> levels. And I believe that there are multiple reasons why. But that
> is an issue that requires a lot more analysis.
>> Briefly, we need just a sensible ontology of self-interest open to a wide
>> public as well as machines.
> I would agree, but I don't believe that you can specify self interest
> without a general treatment of many other interrelated concepts.
> Following is an article in which I analyze those issues:
> The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning
> On the other hand, I also believe that it's useful to analyze the
> relationships among the mid-level concepts, as Doug F. has done.
> 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/
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 (05)