John,
Your items are good for me !
> My suggestion would be to drop the word "mind", which leads to too
> many distracting issues. Instead, I would suggest the idea of
> viewing computer networks of any kind and the Internet in particular
> as a political system.
Suppose a political system itself must be a "viable system" following
the Stafford Beer's VSM - see my presentation at the Metaphorum-2006
in Liverpool - http://www.ototsky.mgn.ru/it/abroad_menu.html (01)
Leonid Ototsky - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it (02)
> Arun and Chris, (03)
> The issues that Arun raised are very broad, but I think that
> all of them can be reduced to three fundamental points: (04)
> 1. Purpose is central to everything that people (and computer
> systems designed by people) do. More generally, purpose
> is central to everything that any living organism does.
> Without a clear notion of purpose, reasoning systems
> (human or computer) churn endlessly on irrelevant details. (05)
> 2. In the 1930s, Charles Morris modified and renamed one of
> Peirce's triads with the labels Syntax, Semantics, and
> Pragmatics. (06)
> 3. With the attitude that "two out of three ain't bad", logicians,
> linguists, and philosophers focused on the first two, and
> relegated everything that might be purposeful to pragmatics,
> which promptly became the trash heap of hard problems that
> people ignore. (07)
> As I said in my previous notes, I agree with Chris that model theory
> is good, logic is good, axioms are good, precise definitions are good,
> and lots of other things that philosophers, logicians, and computer
> scientists have been doing for the past century are good. (08)
> But without a clear focus on purpose, all that good stuff is, to put
> it bluntly, *purposeless* . It can't give us any help in determining
> what we should be doing or why. (09)
AM>> My conjecture is to see if the notion of "mind as political system"
>> is perhaps a more useful fundamental starting point from which to
>> design a process model. (010)
> I think that would be a much better starting point than the currently
> popular "mind as a theorem prover" model of Cyc and most of the
> formal ontology proposals. (011)
> My suggestion would be to drop the word "mind", which leads to too
> many distracting issues. Instead, I would suggest the idea of
> viewing computer networks of any kind and the Internet in particular
> as a political system. Each module in the network, which may be
> of any size, always communicates with other modules for a purpose.
> The focus of network design should be on the purpose of each
> communication. Any attempt to design systems of any kind, including
> ontologies, without focusing on purpose is a total waste of time
> and money. (012)
> John (013)
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (014)
--
С уважением,
Leonid mailto:leo@xxxxxx (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (016)
|