Dear John, (01)
I think I just did propose ontology specific
information in my last post. I stated in informal
English the design of a logical kernel which could
address the issue of how to create an ontology
from a database of empirical information. That is
essentially what the self interest ontology is all
about, IMHO. The FOL can come later, but the
system has to be formulated before we jump down
into the dirt. (02)
You once mentioned that people consistently leap
from design to implementation. I suggest that you
have exhibited that consistent leap in making this
objection. So let me explain it to you in my own
view. (03)
Doug and I found the information on brain regions
associated with emotions related to the subject.
We discussed it because it is what the thread is
about, not about jumping immediately into specific
FOL. (04)
But models are needed, as Ken pointed out, that
describe actions, objects, situations and
relationships. I suggested the IDEF0 method,
which we know will result in FOL when all the
turtles have landed. (05)
Ed then deepened my surface account of the
behaviors I had described as examples (Cromwell,
Lincoln, others I don't recall). (06)
As we discussed it, you, Ken, Doug and Ed all
added detail to the original descriptions for
models of behavior by the Charles' and other
examples like those which Isaiah Berlin had
described then. (07)
We converged on the email I sent a few moments ago
when I was able to use that information to deepen
the description of how to proceed in building an
English Logic Kernel, which is my personal mission
statement, and which motivates me to keep updating
this thread. (08)
The last time an objection came from the logic
focused ontologists, it seemed to be uncommonly
felt, and I think this time is not different. You
may remember that I offered to pull the thread to
another list then. But list members spoke up on
continuing the thread. Please reconsider your
position, and I suggest you fight the anxiety long
enough to get back to enjoying this thread. (09)
Your contributions have been very valuable.
Thanks for the contributions which have been
significant. Please consider contributing some
more patience with the list members who are more
interested in empirical issues. (010)
-Rich (011)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:30 PM
To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Offlist re: Self
Interest Ontology: Emotionsinanimals (013)
Dear Ed, (014)
Thanks for very erudite description of historic
details I could only provide surface information
about. I had forgotten that you described
yourself as from "the other side of the pond",
which I take to be Brittain. I learned Roman
history as an unintended side effect in a Latin
class in high school, the film "I, Claudius", all
a long time ago! (015)
I experienced Castro's revolution, which turned
out to be anti-American, but that wasn't known, at
least by the press, back when it happened,
somewhere in the late fifties. Being able to
organize those historically well described
scenarios in situations comprising actions and
objects would allow us to mine the actions and
objects, to assess the situations, and generally
to organize a way to "understand" the corpus. (016)
Iterate until senselessness is detected, then a
little more just in case it's not long enough to
cover a causal sequence. Winnow through reams of
such corpora and find fundamental principles that
describe the empirical evidence in an FOL model. (017)
In the patent office, the file history and details
of examinations, changes in people's positions,
and the identity of the Observer are readily
known. As the examination proceeds, the examiner
raises formal objections, the inventor (or agent)
makes the minimal change needed, in his value
system, which may not be what the examiner
actually wanted to happen. Then the examiner
makes adjustments, strikes portions of the claims,
explains in his own text what the reasoning was
behind the adjustment, and the game continues with
each party iterating in nearly all textual form. (018)
-Rich (019)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (020)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:16 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Offlist re: Self Interest
Ontology: Emotions inanimals (021)
Rich Cooper wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> Things would have been far better for the Afghan
people, Pakistan, the
> US, the Russian people, and the entire world if
Reagan and the CIA had
> done nothing.
>
>
>
> Yes, in generalized form, the conclusion I draw
is that organizations
> err on the side of doing *too much*, especially
as suggested by the
> ideas of Isaiah Berlin as documented by Curtis,
and as supported by
> the numerous examples which he shows.
>
>
>
> So more generally, the consistently human error
is in doing *too much*
> when we think we are in the right. That has
held true for so many
> examples in history that it can assumed that
every organized plurality
> of people with a common self interest will
eventually go too far if
> not stopped.
> (022)
Tell that to the missionaries, the Crusaders and
Jihadists. The
consistent human error is thinking you are in the
right. (023)
> The notion of checks and balances is sometimes
thought to limit just
> how far the organization can go. Jefferson was
the architect of the
> American system of checks and balances. In
Brittain, Cromwell hanged
> the then king for treason. There was a period
of time when England
> did without a king, but the upper classes, I am
told, wanted to cement
> their roles as ruling class, and reinstated the
royal line after
> Cromwell's death. Britain's political structure
of parliament and
> elections were intended to provide checks and
balances there, I am
> told by historians.
> (024)
Well, it took two tries, and the motives of the
nobility were largely
constant. Cromwell was raised by a newly powerful
middle class,
supported by elements of the nobility that were on
the wrong side of
Charles I, who staunchly believed in the "divine
right" of kings.
Charles used his power to create taxes on those
who could afford them
and were not his friends, mostly to pay for his
military mistakes. When
that begot an uprising, he tried to squash it in
the Syrian style and
created a revolution. But the revolution produced
a disorganized
representative government and then a dictatorship.
On Cromwell's
fortunately timely demise, the middle class and
the nobility restored
the monarchy, after getting Charles II to promise
to get Parliament's
support for any actions he might take. He walked
on eggs for 10 years
and then died. His son, James II, was just as
much a divine right
monarch as Charles I, and he actively ripped off
properties (and heads)
from nobles and merchants who crossed him. That
begot a second
revolution, in which it quickly became clear that
the king had few
friends. The revolution put his cousin William
III (whom James had
exiled) on the throne and resulted in formalizing
the deal they made
with Charles as a new constitution -- the
constitutional monarchy. It
made the king the executive of Parliament's will. (025)
The other problem was that the two James and the
two Charles were
Scottish Catholics ruling a land dominated by
English wealth and the
Church of England. The divine right "papists"
were starting with a
negative rating. Elizabeth I might have gotten
away with the stuff they
did -- she was just as much a divine right monarch
50 years earlier --
but she didn't have to contend with a wealthy
middle class or the
"Scottish papist" label. So the definition of
"gone too far" depends on
a lot of factors. (026)
You also have to realize that the English Civil
War and the divine right
subjugations of wealthy Englishmen led to the
creation of Maryland, New
Hampshire, Connecticut, and the Carolinas, and the
interests of the
merchant class led to wars that bankrupted
Cromwell's treasury but added
New York, New Jersey and Delaware to the British
colonies, along with
assorted islands in the Caribbean. So, the "13
colonies" benefitted
from the mess in England. Charles' problem was
trying to conquer
Ireland and fight France and Sweden, and he lost
across the board, while
Cromwell took on the Netherlands and won, although
at similar cost. The
political result of winning is usually better than
losing -- what you
did is "too much" if you lost. (027)
> Dictatorships of all persuasions seem to appeal
to the self interest
> of the dictator and those few forces that keep
him in power. The word
> "dictate" from Latin simply means to state, much
like dictation
> machines in the old technologies of the fifties.
The connotation is
> that the dictator has the power to make his
statements become real.
> The rest of the citizens can dictate until the
llamas and camels come
> home, but there won't be a reality that
corresponds to their
> dictations. Syria is the most contemporary
example I can think of.
> (028)
The Roman idea of a dictator was the consolidation
of executive
authority in the hands of a single individual for
one year in a time of
national crisis. Unlike the consuls, who ruled
jointly, and proposed
actions to the Senate for approval, the word of
the dictator was law
when it was spoken. Consuls consulted the Senate;
the dictator simply
stated his decisions. So you are right about the
term "dictator". Rome
had a dozen dictators between 411 B.C. and 49 B.C.
Several of them held
power for more than one year, but all but one
voluntarily relinquished
the dictatorship when the threat had vanished.
Julius Caesar was the
first to simply hold power, and even he thought he
was just finally
putting the state in order when he was
assassinated. But he was using
the office to his personal ends and for his
personal aggrandizement --
so he was the paradigm for modern dictators, most
notably Mussolini. (029)
>
> Democracies spread the base of power somewhat by
letting citizens
> express their choice through voting within a
limited set of options.
> That means the self interest of the electorate
has a greater voice.
> But it doesn't mean democracies are any less
subject to Isaiah
> Berlin's warning. Athens warred on other city
states, forcing their
> own self interest to be realized. The North
invaded the South in the
> American civil war to enforce their economic
interests.
> (030)
And for many other reasons. The looms of New
England cared about the
availability of southern cotton. But the shipping
industry didn't
really care what flag flew over the harbors as
long as they were welcome
and could make a buck. And the rest of the North
had little economic
interest in the South at all. There was a strong
anti-slavery push from
the Northern populace, and an equally strong
belief in "the sacred
union" -- that America was destined to be a united
land, and a divided
U.S. would be economically and militarily overrun
by European powers.
But you are right -- it was the Southern oligarchy
that caused the
secessions, and the Northern populace, not the
leadership, that drove
the North to war. (But Lincoln was a staunch
unionist, so he was willing.) (031)
> So the only concept of which I am aware that can
limit the power of
> any organization is some kind of well
constructed set of checks and
> balances, but even that is not sufficient. It
is only a step in the
> right direction until we can come up with a
better way to limit
> organizations more effectively.
>
>
>
> But there will always be zealous advocates who
persuade organizations
> to do too much. Sad, but true. I don't see a
way to stop said
> organizations from doing too much. But by
modeling self interest, we
> may be able to learn how to detect, perhaps even
automate the
> detection, of when the organizations are going
too far.
> (032)
As I said above, the problem is: too much for
whom? "Too much" is a
judgement made by the other side. And it follows
Churchill's
observation that history is written by the
winners. (033)
-Ed (034)
>
>
> JMHO,
>
> -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: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:38 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest
Ontology: Emotions in animals
>
>
>
> On 1/3/2012 1:58 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>
> > But the very righteousness that drove the
revolutionaries,
>
> > they felt, justified taking inhumane steps to
force people
>
> > to be in line with their plans, since they
felt their plans
>
> > would bring good. Instead, their convictions
turned out
>
> > to be the cause of their downfall.
>
>
>
> Fundamental principle: never trust anybody who
claims
>
> to know the will of God or anything else that is
too
>
> complex for anybody else to understand.
>
>
>
> > The Sandinistas, for example, which even
Reagan supported.
>
>
>
> Reagan also funneled money through the CIA to
support
>
> Osama bin Laden in the fight against the Soviet
Union
>
> in Afghanistan. He even sent money to the
Taliban to
>
> recruit and train more fighters against the
USSR.
>
>
>
> That was another example of people who thought
that they
>
> were doing what was right. Things would have
been far
>
> better for the Afghan people, Pakistan, the US,
the
>
> Russian people, and the entire world if Reagan
and the
>
> CIA had done nothing.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> (035)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email:
edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1
301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1
240-672-5800 (036)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government
authority." (037)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (038)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (039)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (040)
|