Mike and Doug, (01)
This is another discussion with broad implications. I'm moving it
to Ontolog Forum. (02)
MB
>> That raises some deep philosophical questions for emergent,
>> natural systems. Do these have a "Purpose"? If you believe in a
>> Creator as described in most Feudal-era belief systems, that
>> Creator created natural things with a purpose, but if you don't,
>> you don't. Clearly there are people on both sides of that divide. (03)
DF
> If we distinguish "Purpose" from "Function", then the question of
> "Purpose" need not be asked. I distinguish "Purpose" with an intent,
> while restricting "Function" to capabilities. (04)
To analyze this distinction, it helps to analyze the early and later
stages from two points of view: looking forward from the past and
looking backward from the present. (05)
From an analysis of their bones and DNA, biologists believe that
whales, pigs, and hippopotamus are related. But there are fine
points that have to be resolved. See, for example, (06)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318153803.htm
Is The Hippopotamus The Closest Living Relative To The Whale? (07)
Suppose you were an ancient hippo family that was trying to decide
which way to evolve: spend more time in the river, which requires
frequent forays onto the land, or move out to sea, which requires
methods of swimming and breathing better adapted to water. (08)
Some kids in the family might be more adventurous. They would
venture out into the open water. They would choose a blowhole on
top of the head and flippers instead of legs. That is the view
looking forward from the past, which seems to require purpose. (09)
But other kids would prefer to stay in the family river, and they
would choose dual-purpose legs that could be used in or out of the
water. For protection from crocodiles in the water and lions on
the land, they would also choose to grow bigger so that they could
overpower anything that might want to eat them. (010)
From the view backwards from the present, a biologist would realize
that changes in the anatomy require many generations and long periods
of time. They cannot be caused by a conscious decision of a single
animal. But they can be caused by small decisions of many generations
of individuals to seek food close to shore or venture out into open
water. The individual choices are rewarded or punished by being fed
or by dying of starvation or being eaten. (011)
MB
> Given that Cyc has the capability of asserting functions with
> or without intent, how does one ensure that modelers of new
> material do not bring their inbuilt (and perhaps unquestioned /
> unstated) philosophical issues along for the ride? (012)
Look at evolution: choices can be guided by an engineer (i.e.,
an "intelligent designer" such as a human or a god) who makes
the selection of which individuals to consign to the scrap heap
and which ones to save and reproduce. As we know from domesticated
animals, purposeful selection can speed up evolution by many orders
of magnitude. (013)
But the best way to decide which ones to save is to test them
in the environment (i.e., nature or the marketplace). Most
engineers are not omniscient, and they can't anticipate every
kind of design failure. So they need to send their babies
out into the cruel world to see which ones can survive. (014)
Summary: Purpose guides individuals to make decisions, the
environment (nature or the marketplace) rewards or punishes
the choices, and the result of evolution is a function that is
successfully adapted to the environment (natural or artificial). (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (017)
|