Dear Richard,
Thanks for your post. My comments are below,
-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 Richard Vines
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:59 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
Despite the open line
towards neo conservatism Rich, I read your post as posing a really challenging
question for ontologists.
As has been indicated
Hayekian notions of self interest in the long run gave us the GFC as the
skeletons of regulation were stripped back.
Global financial crisis
(GFC)? That was based on far more complicated issues than JUST self
interest. It is also way past my pay grade to try to explain why the GFC
occurred. I am simply trying to work on the AI issue of embodied self
interested agents. How they aggregate into political structures is way
past my yawn limit. So if my economic views strike you as neo
conservative, you are welcome to apply that description for your own purposes,
but I really (truly) am not very interested in politics, only in the notion
that self interest, when finally explained, will clarify how we individually
make decisions. I want to know how to make an intelligent system that
understands its own self interest and uses that to guide its actions in a
satisficing way.
Groups are simply
pluralities of people fighting over the crumbs. I am not particularly interested
in politics per se, though others may be and that is their choice.
So even the
neo-conservatives now concede the need for regulatory
interventions. Perhaps the
secondary question now is how can regulatory interventions be enacted to
prevent the distortions and the gaming that emerge from the long run of the
broken glass scenario.
At base level, it would
seem we need to take into account the neo conservative agenda to locate the
notion of choice, freedom and the like at the heart of any such system. As
such, I agree with your conclusions - things evolve (an _expression_ of perhaps
deluded hope here about what might evolve!). However, there is an inherent
dilemma in this in that individuals will act according to their self-interest,
but their self-interest needs to be monitored (and regulated) according to the
interests of the collective. With the planet moving towards nearly 7 billion
people ....
I agree that SOME
regulation is necessary. We can’t drive on any side of the road we
want; letting the strong steal from the weak harms most of us; individuals have
rights. Regulations to manage and enforce basic rights makes sense, but
too much regulation is far more likely given the history we have
experienced.
As economics is about
secondary consequences, perhaps ontologists are about allowing economic/social
etc behaviours / narratives to be seen as they emerge and interact. Pattern
based monitoring of large complex evolutionary systems.
And, do this whilst
staying true to the neo-conservative tradition above?
Now that will be something
to watch with interest!
I don't know how the
neo-conservatives can find a way of resolving this
problem of self-interest
and the notion of a private life whilst at the same time running regulatory
interventions that enshrine the values of personal freedom and choice.
But, in the final
analysis, I suppose this is a project we all will have to
co-join somehow. That is
why I thought your post was quite interesting.
It is fascinating to watch
the workings of a yearning that European
enlightened civility might
just be able to deal with the issues of
self-interest at the
present time (i.e. Greece etc). It's a mighty
conflicted type of
civility at work at the moment and who knows what will evolve from it! But at
the end of the day a certain type of civility is
still required as we are
all part of the same evolutionary system and now we actually get to shape the
nature of these evolutionary processes.
Just out of interest -
seen any ontologists' jobs going at the International Monetary Fund? Is this
the network for self-interested global re-balancing? Or should we stick
to our knitting in our a-political backyards and then construct fences as well
to keep the politics out.
Personally, I think the US constitution,
if it were to be applied rigorously, would solve many of those problems, though
it would not help the unfortunate who can’t take care of
themselves. I see the modern political issues as descended from the urge
to help others through reasonable contributions by each individual in the
nation. I see politics as merely the actions taken by one special
interest group at the expense of the commons. Regulation SHOULD be about
preventing harm to the commons from special interests, but it seems instead to
be promulgated by the special interests and dressed in rhetoric about helping
others, while actually helping the special interests instead.
-Rich
-----Original Message-----
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, 6 November
2011 6:32 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
Dear Self Interested
Ontologists,
I discovered a book
written in 1948 that explains why the Keynesian theories
don't work - he describes
what he calls the "broken window fallacy" here:
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-
lesson/
I hope that helps
stimulate more discussion of the role of self interest in
AI and in ontology
developments. Moy conclusion is that a true AI system
will have to EVOLVE
effectiveness as an ontology of communication among a
plurality of self
interested observers.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel
DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2