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
