Dear Rich (01)
As I strongly suspected, and as you email here makes abundantly clear, this is
a political effort rather than a technical one. I rather thought I could smell
Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand and other far-right (and somewhat discredited)
thinkers in your ideas. (02)
So this is just to let you know I am adding you to my auto-trash filter, which
is why you wont get any further emails from me. Good luck. (03)
Pat (04)
------ (05)
On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Rich Cooper wrote: (06)
> Dear Azamat,
>
> I like your version of this, but I would use the word “interaction” instead
>of “conversation”; interactions between individuals should be the primary
>focus of the ontology, with less emphasis on the aggregation of people into
>various kinds of groups. Grouping can come later, as can charitable
>functions. First lets construct the simplest model possible for representing
>self interest of interactions.
>
> As Milton Friedman showed fifty years ago, no one person can make even
>something as simple as a pencil, which has wood from a forest log, said wood
>shaped by a factory into the hexagonal or cylindrical shape needed, and then
>filled with lead, topped with a rubber eraser, and held in place by a metal
>clasp.
>
> The social reality of that pencil depends on many individuals, each doing a
>small part of the tasks needed to create the pencils, then distribute them to
>geographically convenient locations, ensure that they are sold, paid for, and
>the investments of each party returned to fund development of more pencils
>plus created wealth. If no wealth is created in an activity, and if this
>continues for a long enough period, then that activity eventually ceases to
>function because it runs out of invested wealth from prior activities,
>invested by individuals. At least, it should, but government groups are able
>to take funding from the public commons and continue the activity by bleeding
>wealth from the creators of the pencils.
>
> Friedman pointed out that there is no central planner, no government
>regulation, no outsiders needed to construct and socially realize that pencil
>in the hands of consumers. The flow of wealth and labor is what makes the
>pencil available to consumers. Those involved in the flow of wealth and labor
>enjoy profits of their own in performing the various activities.
>
> Central planning and government controls are only useful in preventing
>harmful side effects, such as destruction of forests that belong to others
>(the public for example), noxious chemicals that may be used in the process
>and then disposed of into the public commons with damaging effects, financial
>crimes related to the individuals involved in production and distribution,
>robbery and theft related to production distribution and sale methods, or
>other ways in which the pencils are not smoothly made available to individuals
>in the public in the linear models of activities by individuals.
>
> Note that each individual involved in the pencil related activities has his
>own self interest motivating him to perform his activity requiring labor and
>invested wealth. The signal (a la biosemiotics) that ties the process
>together is price. Individuals in each activity react to the price they can
>get for their activity, the cost they experience in performing their activity,
>and the created wealth they enjoy as a result of those activities, are what
>keep the whole process synchronized and working.
>
> Use Case 1 – the biosemiotics case – has the structure to model this kind of
>activity. Expanding Use Case 1 through instances of Use Case 2 (the
>nonterminal aggregation of terminal Use Case 1 instances and other nonterminal
>Use Case 2 instances) can construct the ontology, IMHO.
>
> How can these factors be represented in an ontology? Activities can be
>represented in the usual industrial engineering IDEF0 model. Cost, price,
>investment, labor and margin can be represented as heuristics describing these
>meta level measures, and the agents involved can be represented as controls or
>mechanisms, as the IDEF0 terminology names these classes.
>
> Complications arise when individuals bind together into groups. They form
>pluralities of companies to log, machine, fill, cap, package, distribute,
>market and sell the pencils. Each of these activities requires some
>cooperation among the individuals in each of the various groups.
>Transportation of ICOMs to activity sites, movement of ICOMs among the
>activities, design and interpretation of controls, allocation, scheduling and
>depreciation of mechanisms, all require coordination among individuals. Adam
>Smith addressed the individual models as self organizing.
>
> Groups can scale the efforts of individuals, but there is an inherent loss of
>efficiency in such scaling. Sometimes that loss is taken out of the least
>powerful indiviudals’ opportunities for compensation, and sometimes it is
>taken as financial loss from the investors who risk their stored wealth. Any
>individual who feels that her expenditures are not justified by her wealth
>creation results should be freely able to move to another group, or to
>practice on her own.
>
> Given a public value hypothesized by one individual, and given the cost of
>scale factors for the related ICOMs and activities, and given the cost of
>implementing the scaling, it seems to me that the ideal form of group is one
>which acts in exactly the same manner as the other groups; the hypothesized
>public value is only realized at some profit to the group which performs the
>scaling, whether that group be a company organized for commercial purposes or
>a government organized to realize that hypothesized public value.
>
> With this line of reasoning, it seems to me that all such activities should
>be self funding. Hypothesized value should be agreed to by any individual who
>is involved the activity on a self interest basis.
>
> That is, the hypothesized public value should be realized at a profit to the
>public. The said profit should be measured and made available to those who
>police all activities, not just the companies; government entities should also
>be policed to ensure that there is no cheating, that there is financial value
>to the public as agreed to by the public, and that the use of the cost price
>and profit metrics are related to the government entities just as they are to
>the companies organized for commercial activities. The only difference should
>be in the way hypothesized value and allocated funding is agreed to by
>individual of the public who specifically benefit, or who cause the public
>wealth to be depreciated by their own activities.
>
> For this reason, I believe the ontology should model the costs of governing
>activities, the public price of not governing, the profits accruing to the
>public, as agreed by individuals of the public due to the governing
>activities, and the funding of the governing activities in the same way that
>individuals and their activities should be modeled in producing pencils. Not
>everyone uses pencils and therefore not everyone should be forced at gunpoint
>to fund them, consume their products and services, or otherwise participate in
>the governing activities in any way different from the pencil activities.
>Friedman pointed out how choice, denied by governing activities but provided
>by commercial activities, leaves out the checks and balances that make the
>wealth creation system work.
>
> Complications arise when the governing activities are funded from the public
>at large through taxes, fees, losses, borrowing, or money supply extensions.
>There are only individuals who benefit from the activities; there is no
>individual public at large – benefits are not evenly distributed nor evenly
>costed. So that leaves the beneficiaries, using Doug’s term, as special
>interest groups (SIGs).
>
> The SIGs that benefit from each activity are not the same as the SIGs that
>benefit from the products and services resulting from those activities. The
>individuals in those SIGs should be treated in the same way, with the same
>regulations, as individuals are. That is, there should be no bribery (whether
>funded from lobbyists or campaign contributors), no conflicts of interest (by
>individuals engaged in the activities or benefitting from the products and
>services), no cheating or other adverse tactics and strategies on the part of
>those who benefit at the expense of those who don’t.
>
> One problem with that approach is that it leaves out those who simply cannot
>take care of themselves without help. While aware of that issue, I would
>prefer to hold off addressing it until we can solve the simpler problem of
>modeling self interest of those who can take care of themselves. Perhaps when
>that model is well developed, we can begin refining it help those who can’t
>help themselves, but are not cheating in any real sense of that word. That
>part should be addressed in the second phase so that we can focus on the
>direct beneficiaries of the various activities.
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful suggestion.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:56 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology: Ontology of SocialReality
>
> I inclined to view the "self-interest" as a piece of the Ontology of Social
>Reality, which encompasses such social interactions as conversation, speech
>and communication.
> As far as conversation is about exchange of ideas, views, emotions, and
>information between people, the conversants can lead conversation for its own
>sake, for religious, commercial or political ends.
> Conversation is not always involves negative emotions or topic, as it's
>pressed in the reference below. There are chats, nothings, gossips, table
>talks, banters, talkings, small talks, crossfires, or exchanges. Most
>conversation is spontaneous, without subjects and goals.
> But an ordered meaningful conversation, as institutional or functional
>conservation, has its art, topic, objectives and strategy, as well as the
>self-interest of the speakers.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Cooper
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
>
> Dear SIO-interested posters,
>
> I found this posting on the ISRE list, which describes how certain emotions
>are tied to self interest in a conversation. I think this could shed some
>light on Doug's view of "interest" in a way that fits the SIO:
>
> If there is a topic, it means there is a conversation. The conversation is
>with another person, with whom one is in some kind of relationship. One or the
>other party in the conversation will feel anger if the tenor of the
>conversation implies that there is something defective or unworthy or wrong or
>culpable or immoral or stupid or the like about that person.
>
> RC:> Note how this addresses the PERSON not the topic of conversation, and it
>addresses the manner of communication instead of the underlying concepts.
>
> Religion and politics are topics that frequently instigate anger since
>opposing opinion often implies defect, unworthiness, wrong-headedness,
>culpability, immorality, stupidity, etc. Such imputations of unworthiness lead
>to a sense of deprivation of one’s right to attention, respect, consideration
>and the like from the other party. The basic premise here is that all there is
>the relationship between the parties and that the relationship between the
>parties is usefully and importantly understood to be based in large part on
>the degree of attention, respect, consideration, etc. that the parties provide
>each other.
>
> Conversation about any topic that leads to a sense of loss of these benefits
>from the other party can thus engender anger. Anger is an evolutionarily
>programmed response to this kind of loss. The emotion creates an
>action-readiness to engage in acts that punish the other party so that he/she
>does not again act to deprive the angered person of relational benefits
>(attention, respect, etc.).
>
> For elaboration of these ideas, see:
>
> Theodore D. Kemper, “Power and Status and the Power-Status Theory of
>Emotions,” in Turner and Stets, Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions (2006).
>
> Theodore D. Kemper, Status, Power and Ritual Interaction. Ashgate (2011).
>
> RC:>These ideas should be reflected somehow in Doug's initial ontology,
>though so far we have no concept about distinguishing among the selves
>involved in the conversation.
>
> 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 Rich Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:42 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural Languages
>
> Let me propose that it is SUBJECTIVITY i.e. a
>
> proper understanding of self interest, that I
>
> think is missing.
>
> We have been seduced by the 'unreasonable success
>
> of mathematics' in solving problems in a
>
> supposedly objective world, as Somebody said. We
>
> need to overcome our self satisfaction at how well
>
> math has worked and look in a different direction.
>
>
> -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 Rich Cooper
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:30 PM
>
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural
>
> Languages
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the links, but that isn't what I am
>
> interested in; I'm more focused on WHY Cyc (and
>
> other approaches to developing massive knowledge
>
> bases) is thought by so many to have failed, e.g.,
>
> Genesereth for example.
>
> Before the Cyc project started, the common view
>
> given full imprimaturitan status in the research
>
> community was that it was KNOWLEDGE that was
>
> lacking for full AI, and only THAT was keeping AI
>
> from universal suffrage.
>
> I am looking for opinions by people who might know
>
> as to WHY that assumption was clearly so wrong.
>
> Knowledge is NOT enough, and that has been clearly
>
> demonstrated by Cyc's lack of demonstrated value
>
> in universality of intelligence.
>
> Small, highly focused projects, such as the blocks
>
> world and its successful linguistic manipulation
>
> as per Terry Winograd's (admitted) kluge, and the
>
> surprisingly good results from very simple (also
>
> kludged) chatbots such as Parry, and the
>
> Somebody's Prize demonstrating lack of scalability
>
> of said chatbots, shows SOMETHING. But what KIND
>
> of something?
>
> More study of Cyc seems to belong to the same
>
> viewpoint as theocratic studies of angel densities
>
> and pinheads, the viscosity of ether, and mappings
>
> of magnetic fields in thousands of points.
>
> Instead, the Einsteinian approach of novel - dare
>
> I say subjective -interpretations (in his case, of
>
> the Michelson-Morley results) seems to be what is
>
> most clearly lacking at this point in time.
>
> Why DON'T huge hunks of deduced, induced, abduced
>
> and reduced knowledge suffice? What is still
>
> lacking? Why don't gobs of special purpose
>
> functionality, coupled with gobs of knowledge, do
>
> the trick?
>
> Why DO simple approaches work so well at small
>
> scales?
>
> Why DON't simple approaches scale well?
>
> Why DOESN't a simple chatbot with Cyc on its back
>
> suffice to convince observers in a Turing test?
>
> In the fifties or so, game theory was developing.
>
> Turing came up with a biological explanation of
>
> what would be called the hox genes to form complex
>
> biological strata. Lately, we have learned that
>
> there are only some 20,000 genes which are
>
> adequate for making a human bean, but that leaves
>
> out a LOT of so called JUNK DNA, meaning genetic
>
> structures we still don't have a clue about.
>
> Those are the kinds of new ideas that need to be
>
> reduced to practice. And that is why the patent
>
> form, with one advance teaching AGAINST prior art,
>
> seems interesting to me as a model of how to take
>
> the next steps.
>
> -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 John F. Sowa
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:41 AM
>
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural
>
> Languages
>
> Rich,
>
> Some comments:
>
> JFS
>
> >> About a dozen years ago, I was talking with
>
> Mike Genesereth,
>
> >> who said "Lenat is probably the only one who
>
> doesn't know that
>
> >> Cyc has failed."
>
> RC
>
> > That is the kind of thinking that all of us show
>
> in one form or
>
> > another. We seem stuck in our structured ways
>
> after the first four
>
> > decades or six, unable to overthrow the past
>
> beliefs and institute
>
> > new untried ones.
>
> Genesereth has been one of the strongest
>
> proponents of classical
>
> logic-based AI. He has been teaching at Stanford
>
> for years in
>
> close collaboration with the same people
>
> (McCarthy, Feigenbaum,
>
> Fikes, etc.) as Lenat. Any success stories from
>
> Cyc would have
>
> provided more attention (and funding) for all
>
> kinds of projects
>
> that used logic-based AI. But Mike G. was being
>
> realistic. I
>
> would qualify his comment, but I certainly
>
> couldn't refute it.
>
> In my 1984 book, I tried to take a balanced view
>
> of the strengths
>
> and limitations of logic-based systems. My view
>
> then (and with
>
> more input since then) has been that logic-based
>
> systems are
>
> important, especially for applications to comp.
>
> sci., but that
>
> NLP systems must include logic-based approaches as
>
> a proper subset:
>
> 1. Large numbers of applications in computer
>
> systems, database
>
> systems, programming systems, and
>
> hardware/software design,
>
> require a foundation in formal logic.
>
> 2. Natural languages can be used in very precise
>
> ways (for
>
> example, along the lines of controlled NLs),
>
> but they
>
> can also be used in very scruffy, very
>
> informal ways.
>
> 3. The overwhelming volume of NL speech and
>
> documents use
>
> highly informal, often ungrammatical, and
>
> "innovative"
>
> language. (I'm using "innovative" as a
>
> neutral term
>
> for what many people would call "incorrect".)
>
> 3. I also agree with the comment by Alan Perlis
>
> that you
>
> can't translate informal language to formal
>
> language by
>
> any formal algorithm.
>
> 4. I believe that you can interpret highly
>
> informal language
>
> by computer, but that you need to use huge
>
> amounts of
>
> background knowledge (i.e., extralinguistic
>
> information)
>
> to do so.
>
> 5. Point #4 is acknowledged by classical
>
> logic-based AI projects
>
> such as Cyc. But they assume that you need a
>
> long gestation
>
> period that depends on hand-coded logical
>
> representations
>
> (e.g., formal ontologies and knowledge bases).
>
> 6. The scruffies, such as Roger Schank, disputed
>
> that claim
>
> from the early days (1960s). But they didn't
>
> have the
>
> facilities for acquiring, storing, and using
>
> such large
>
> volumes of information.
>
> 7. The hardware today is more than adequate to
>
> store and
>
> process the huge volumes of information
>
> needed to support
>
> point #6. One example is the IBM Watson
>
> project, but
>
> there are other projects that have achieved
>
> comparable
>
> success with more modest hardware resources.
>
> The
>
> VivoMind applications I summarized are among
>
> them.
>
> > I don't see much of anything discussed about Cyc
>
> past the
>
> > precursors I mentioned anywhere in the public
>
> literature;
>
> > I'm not referring to tutorials about Cyc, but
>
> about analyses.
>
> For the research publications, see
>
> http://cyc.com/cyc/technology/pubs
>
> For free downloads of the ontology and supporting
>
> software:
>
> http://opencyc.org/
>
> I believe that there are many useful applications
>
> of Cyc and OpenCyc,
>
> but I also believe that a different architecture
>
> is necessary to
>
> achieve something that could be called natural
>
> language understanding.
>
> That is what I have been discussing in talks,
>
> publications, and emails.
>
> John
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
>
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
>
> ge#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
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (07)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|