Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

[Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>]

Rich, Chris, Mike John, Frank and All,

I admire Noam Chomsky too ... but that said, I want to remind everyone to review the Ontolog Charter ( at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidB ) every time you post a response to this thread, and make sure your post is pertinent to the community's charter. 

We obviously do not want to see this discussion to creep into a forum for the _expression_ of political view, because this is not the right place to do it; there are plenty of other online venues which serves that purpose.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards. =ppy

Peter Yim

Co-convener, ONTOLOG

--

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I found this excellent overview of Noam Chomsky’s viewpoints on self interest and on how that individual drive fits into modern institutions.  He describes a number of historical situations as he views them, and shows how they constrain republics, democracies and autocracies.  This may be of interest to those who seek to understand and precisely determine the scope of self interest:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU&feature=related

 

Another Chomsky video is on liberalism, and on the filters which limit our easily available information.  He concludes that people can get the information they need, but not easily, from media and political sources which have self interests that are contrary to the citizens’ individual interests:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8oHl3ooeZo&feature=related

 

Chomsky is one of my favorite thinkers, as well as an originator of well known theories about how humans possess innate capabilities for language, creativity, and related functions:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=related

 

HTH,

 

-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 Chris Menzel
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 9:24 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Estimating number of all known facts

 

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Or, to sum up: there is no fact of the matter.

Why are we having to read this thread at all? Does having an answer to this unanswerable question actually matter? If so, why, and to whom?

 

I think the thread could be useful for showing three things: (1) That including facts in an ontology could be useful for some purposes; (2) that constructing a feasible theory of facts is a difficult and complex matter that requires a great deal of research, including a survey of a very large body of literature and, hence (3) that it's fun but largely a waste of time — vis-á-vis advancing the state of the art of ontological engineering — to spend a lot of time composing list emails reporting the results of one's private introspections regarding the meaning of the word "fact".

 

-chris

 

 

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)