ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Partial interest ontology

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:29:05 -0700
Message-id: <3E6807201CE742D0BDE0E116E73A8996@Gateway>

Dear Azamat, Doug, John and Self,

 

Just the first round of conceptual weighing going on below leads me to think that further elaboration of the concept of "interest" may be premature in our infant ontology of self interest.  The number of stillborn dimensions so far discussed is too large to make much progress immediately.  I think we need a simpler, more fundamental approach. 

 

Perhaps the way to start is to consider a simple class of problems, and define only the subtypes of interest that make useful distinctions among that class.  Lets use the scientific discovery process as a model, and try to limit the number of distinctions to no more than three. 

 

Here is a diagram I found on the web years ago (I have no idea where I got it) and which is the barest minimum of discovery:

 

 

It seems to me that Doug’s initial ontology is at the Theory level, and we are continuing to theorize about the various ways in which interest can be conflated with our individual conceptualizations.  Perhaps instead we should consider that limited class I suggested, and try to make progress elaborating Doug’s formulation by experiment, observation or classification, but in a more focused manner. 

 

I suggest (because I am familiar with it) that we consider US patent specifications as the narrow class of concise situation descriptions, problem statements within that situation, and claimed embodiments of solutions.  If anyone has a better class of situations to propose, I am open to that as well, but my familiarity with the patent database at the USPTO leads me to suggest this approach first.  I can help anyone who wants to know more about the legalities and technicalities of the patent system as part of this discovery, but remember that I am not an attorney, but an engineer. 

 

There is always a description in the specification text of what problem the invention is intended to alleviate, another more elaborate description of how the invention is constructed, and claims that purport to address the product or method to be protected, in the interest of the assignee.  I have attached my patent 7,209,923 in case anyone is interested in an example, but there are some two million documents like it in the USPTO database at

 

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html

 

which is a little bit arcane as search engines go, but fully functional. 

 

In the problem statement of any patent, we should be able to tease out the interest being served, which is the subject of our present discussions.  We can worry about the other parts of Doug’s ontology once we can classify and observe examples of interests from several example patents.  At that point, we might be more able to make inroads on the ontology details. 

 

Later, we can get more into politics, and how some interests (e.g. the assignee) might be at the expense of other interests (e.g., the infringer) and possibly identify the beneficiary or malficiary, as Doug called them, whose oxen get gored in the process. 

 

But if someone has a different class of examples that might be more appropriate for elaborating this ontology of self interest, I am interested.  Being familiar with the patent system, I simply prefer it, but I understand others may not find it so familiar. 

 

HTH,

-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 AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:07 AM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Partial interest ontology

 

 

----- 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

 

 

> On Fri, August 26, 2011 14:00, AzamatAbdoullaev said:

>> 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."

> 

>> 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.

> 

> 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

interest".

> 

> 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

self-interests.

> 

>> At

>> which reality it emerges, biological reality, cognitive reality or social

>> reality.

> 

> 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:

Agent/IndividualAgent/Sentient

Animal/Human/AdultPerson/Child/MaleHuman/FemaleHuman/Computational

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.

 

>> 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

>> 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.

> 

> 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

> 

>> Azamat

>> 

>> ----- 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

>>>> haphazard.

>>> 

>>> 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:

>>> 

>>>    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf

>>>    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.

>>> 

>>> John

>>> 

>>> 

>>> _________________________________________________________________

>>> 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/ 

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

 

 

Attachment: Patent-7-209-923-B1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>