----- Original Message -----
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Partial interest ontology (01)
> On Fri, August 26, 2011 14:00, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
>>> "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."
>> That's really significant. It's necessary to define if an interest is a
>> of reason, a final cause, the sake, goal, end, result or objective to
>> pursue and obtain.
> I defined an interest as a type of situation in the ontology.
AA: It's hard to attribute any key meanings of situation to the interest, a
state of affairs; position (unfortunate or fortunate); or difficulty.
Instead of belonging to state, or condition, the interest is rather about a
cause, change, force, motive, or intention generating behavior. And its not
a relation (binary predicate), but a final cause, we say: "for the sake of
nation, for your own sake, inn the interest of future, in the public
> The problem with defining it as a form of reason is the common idea
> that certain people don't know what their interests really are.
AA: Indeed. The scope of human and national interest are formed by politics,
ideology, or commercial propaganda. That's critical, the self-interest is
controled and regulated...the consumption behavior is artificially induced
as far as its in line with the commercial or political interests.
> One can certainly reason about one's own (or someone else's) perceived
> interests. One can make it a goal/objective to pursue the interest and
> satisfy it. One can do something for the sake of the interest.
>> How its related to need, motive, motivation, and morality.
> Satisfying a physiological need would be in a person's interest. A
> person can have other needs -- ones to achieve various goals. A person
> could set a goal which is not actually in his/her own interest. The
> needs of such goals are not necessarily in the person's interest.
AA: This is what marked as "enlightened self-interest", you further the
interest of others while serving your own self-interests.
> People often have motives and motivation to satisfy their interests.
> One's non-physiological interests may be moral or not. That seems to
> be an orthogonal concept. However, many people deem/find it in their
> interest to act in a moral manner.
AA: Morality, ethical motives, ethics, the ideas of good and evil, right and
wrong, mucy be "categorical imperatives" while a human or group pursue their
>> which reality it emerges, biological reality, cognitive reality or social
> There would be interests at each level. We could subcategorize interests
> as BiologicalInterest, CognitiveInterest, SocialInterest, etc.
>> What the key types of self-interest are, individual, familial,
>> tribal, corporate, group, or national.
> I did mention these.
AA: Yes. But you estranging people classify the interest-holders like:
AgentOrganization. Also, i doubt any genetic differences between human
beings. Hence the racial classification is just a social invention, like as
White race, Black race, Yellow race, Red race, Slavic Race, or master race. (02)
>> 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.
> I defined some relations for ranking one's different interests. Different
> theories would have different rules for comparing them.
>> The Libyian tragedy you mentioned before is looked by many stakeholders
>> 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
> One could try to model the many competing interests of the various players
> and model the relative ranking of interests of each player. In that
> players might revise their relative rankings of interests, it would
> be hard to keep such a model current.
AA: Indeed. Seemingly, any life game is about competing/satisfying human
interests of different quality and levels.
>> It appears a real ontology of self-interest is of global social
>> importance as well.
> It could be used to argue that an opponents "true" interests would be
> better served if they took another course or to argue for the immorality
> of an opponent's relative ranking of different interests. Such arguments
> could be used to try to convince the public in a democratic society to
> get their representatives to change course.
AA: Morality has long been the only criterion for good or evil intentions,
right or wrong actions. The issue is, it is subject to many different,
again, self-interest interpretations, cultural, political, and religious. As
a result, we see widely spread immorality or amorality, indifference to any
set of moral codes. The solution is to formulate an ideology-neutral moral
principles and standards as part of Standard Ontology.
> Whether people would actually be persuaded by logic, is another matter.
They could... but by Standard Ontology.
> -- doug
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 7:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Partial interest ontology
>>> 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
>>>> 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/
>> 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
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> 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 (04)