On Sat, August 27, 2011 12:07, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 6:59 AM (01)
>> I defined an interest as a type of situation in the ontology. (02)
> AA: It's hard to attribute any key meanings of situation to the interest,
> 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. (03)
An interest is seems to be a state of affairs. An individual's awareness
of an interest may be a motive force for that individual to change (or
not change) something or intend some action. It is the awareness that is
the cause/force/..., not the interest itself (imho). (04)
A situation may certainly be about something. Like a situation, an
interest has temporal extent, but is not itself a physical object. (05)
> 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..." (06)
It is the awareness of the interest that is the cause, since an interest
of which the interested party is unaware can not cause that party to take
(or forsake) any action. (07)
>> 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. (08)
> 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. (09)
>> 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. (010)
>>> How its related to need, motive, motivation, and morality. (011)
>> 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. (012)
> AA: This is what marked as "enlightened self-interest", you further the
> interest of others while serving your own self-interests. (013)
>> People often have motives and motivation to satisfy their interests. (014)
>> 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. (015)
> 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.
>>> which reality it emerges, biological reality, cognitive reality or
>>> social reality. (016)
>> There would be interests at each level. We could subcategorize
>> as BiologicalInterest, CognitiveInterest, SocialInterest, etc. (017)
>>> What the key types of self-interest are, individual, familial,
>>> tribal, corporate, group, or national. (018)
>> I did mention these. (019)
> AA: Yes. But you estranging people classify the interest-holders like:
> Agent/Organization. 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. (020)
I agree that racial classification is a social invention. However,
people categorize others based on many different social inventions.
There are people who categorize their interests on national grounds,
ethnic grounds, religious ground, and perceived "racial" grounds.
In order to model how people perceive their interests, one must model
these things. (021)
-- doug foxvog (022)
>>> All these and other things are overwhelmingly important. As we know,
>>> whole geopolitics and international relations are guided by the
>>> 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. (023)
>>> 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
>> 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. (024)
> 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
>> could be used to try to convince the public in a democratic society to
>> get their representatives to change course. (025)
> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> fundamental relationships of interest to purpose, goals, and
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (027)
"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/
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 (029)