[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: FW: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-Belief
Rex: I also think we have enough fodder for our first draft. A few other comments I have however... CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS? ----- Wanted to clarify whether these are things to consider at this stage or not. Regardless, we can keep these in mind while we move forward (pulling from Len's post): Name of belief(s) Description of belief Proof of belief -- in a subjective sense (i.e. internal signs we express) -within our scope Proof of belief -- in an objective sense (i.e. external signs as validation) -Semantic Web Commitment to belief Code set for beliefs (Secondary Base Schema considerations) Cultural Sets Personal Beliefs ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ----- Assertion of fact vs. assertion of belief: As for the distinction between assertion of fact vs. assertion of belief that you mention Len -- I think that this may fall under "speech actions" (i.e. signs) rather than belief. When someone believes something with a very strong commitment, then the line blurs between an assertion of a fact vs. an assertion of a belief...for example "God commanded me to destroy America" is asserted as a fact, when in fact it is a belief...or at least I think it is a belief. To another, it may be as 100% as real as "The sun will shine through my window tomorrow". We cannot verify this, as you mention in your last post Rex, but we can verify (or at least provide validation rules) that demonstrate "the degree to which someone believes something" by evaluating the signs used (as Len I believe mentioned earlier.) Commitment to belief: Do we want to provide containers for helping people commit to sometimes flawed and dangerous beliefs? Ultimately, I think we do, because our mission is simply to best represent current communication characteristics--not change or manipulate them. It is up to software, not HumanML, to actually help resolve conflicting, unfounded beliefs. As long as we have validation criteria, in addition to commitment quantifiers, I think we will sufficiently allow for this (e.g. A HumanML application can potentially be built to challenge the belief that "America is the Great Satan", by sifting away the untruths involved in such an assertion). "Belief", more than most of the other elements, is where we would possibly interoperate with Semantic Web initiative. I know that much work is underway in the SW effort in this regard, but I don't know to what degree the SW takes into "human belief" verses simply "assertions". SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE ----- The one area I feel we should keep in mind is the subjective vs. objective reality as it may interplay with beliefs and/or fact. Not that we need to address the underlying physical model of the universe within HumanML, but we may need to account for the differences in subjective/objective models of reality, if we hope to be interoperable in the largest sense. Don't mean to open up a can of leaping grasshoppers, but I'd like to hear comments if there are any. Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga -----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:08 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 'Rex Brooks'; 'Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga'; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-Belief I think the rules will emerge from collecting together the beliefs that comprise a belief system by asking the people who adhere to the belief systems to list the beliefs or the components of the belief system, but that is another chunk of work for another time. I think we pretty much have enough for the first pass at it when we come back to it in assembling the first draft later this month. Ciao, Rex At 1:12 PM -0500 9/6/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >I'm not being exact, but yes, a belief system could >be constructed from beliefs, but that requires almost something like >rules or some way to state that the set of beliefs referred to as a >belief system have some relationships that make them into a system. > >Regardless of what the belief is based on, physical >facts, mental states, etc., a belief is what the >holder accepts as "true". If it is agreed upon, >it de facto becomes attached to some larger element >type such as culture. A belief need not be part >of a system, but it must have a person or persons >to assert it. Beliefs do not exist independent >of humans. Facts do. > >len > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:04 PM >To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 'Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga'; >humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-Belief > > >I think that this approach that Len describes is more along the lines >of Belief System than belief as an atomic element. I think we need to >be careful about that. > >One can have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, regardless of >what cultural or social belief system one adheres to or whether one >adheres to any particular belief system. The fact that the sun will not >rise tomorrow, but the earth will continue to rotate about its axis is >actually irrelevent to my belief because my belief is not necessarily >based on the science of physics as we have come to understand and >accept it. > >Why or how something actually happens is the truth to which Ranjeeth >refers and which most reasonably rational people, as I understand THAT >set of concepts, agree is independent of any belief or belief system. >The idea that the truth might NOT actually be independent of our >perceptions and beliefs could also be true, but we will probably not be >able to verify it. > >So what I think we should do is to consider that when we get back >around to the new elements we need to consider... > >I am in fact going to hold off on sending this until I have posted my >first entry for the next element. Sigh. > >It is gonna get real busy real quick. > >Ciao, >Rex > >At 10:19 AM -0500 9/6/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >>One approach may be to treat belief in terms of >>commitment by the individual to the belief. We >>would need an element model that names the belief, >>describes the belief, and points to signs that would >>be expressed as a result of holding the belief. This >>would include a quantifier for commitment that has >>at least two components: how strongly the individual >>states that the belief is held, and the sign set the >>observer can look for as proof of commitment. This is >>not different from the ontological commitment concept. >>The belief itself has to stand alone so that we can >>have a code set for beliefs that can then be members of cultural sets >>(what one can assert and individual may hold by being a member of a >>culture) vs personal beliefs (that which the individual asserts they >>hold. For example, I share certain beliefs with Hindus but I >>am not Hindu by birth or culture.) >> >>Beliefs would need a discriminator so that holding an assertion of a >>fact (the sun will rise tomorrow) and the assertion of a belief (God >>loves children) can be differentiated. >> >>len >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@interposting.com] > > >>After reading Len and Rex's comments from yesterday, I started to >>think that we may want to add 'belief' as a Base Schema element. It >>is tempting to include this within Secondary Schema within culture >>perhaps, but I realize that belief is an aspect of ourselves that lead >>us to use the signs we communicate with fundamentally, just like >>emotion, and > >intention (which I would like to continue to explore as well). >> >>No one argues that there is something fundamentally "True" in the >>highest sense, although different means of getting there and >>perspectives: through scientific method, philosophy, meditation or >>religion. Belief is our best approximation of the fundamental Truth. >>Some people may equate their 'belief' as being 100% equal to Truth, >>and that is where all the problems we are having come from--i.e. >>fundamentalism. The big danger, as both Rex and Len alluded to, is >>this fundamentalism. By strictly defining our 'beliefs', we may >>hinder our ability to let ourselves probe further, and may discourage >>us from casting healthy doubts. >> >>Thus, in a sense, I feel we are also missing a unifer "ultimateTruth" >>within our definition, but can't think of where it might belong. >>After all, that is what a belief is ultimately for--to describe an >>'ultimateTruth' that we have yet to form a unified, verifiable, >>complete, and mutually acceptable definition of. Even though some >>persons in the history of man may have achieved this state of >>awareness through subjective experience, we as a human race have not >>reached this level through objective descriptions. >> >>I'm starting a new thread to be consistent with our naming scheme, >>although I am cutting and pasting some of the earlier content. >> >>If we can describe belief in some way, while also being able to >>exactly and specifically point out where the distinctions may lie, and >>make it clear that beliefs are not absolute within themselves, then we >>have a better shot at helping dissolve the conflicts between beliefs. >>Rigidly held beliefs can be more dangerous if strictly defined without >>such an allowance. That may be the function of Secondary Schema >>definition, but just wanted to keep that in mind. >> >>-------- >>Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga >> >> >> >>I have a female co-worker who looked at afghanistan >>and said, "The hippies had it right; free love. If >>those guys had more sex, they'd be too tired to fight." Amusing and >>maybe there is some truth to it. Whatever, I suspect Jihad fever has >>an analogue in net flame >>wars: endorphin addiction. >> >>To modify the cultural disease, the signs that induce absolutism have >>to have alternative interpretations and these alternatives must have >>cultural value that rewards members who espouse and practice the >>behaviors that >>signify them. This is a subject that requires deep >>study because simply going to relativism won't work. >> >>The way of the east that teaches compassion, tolerance, >>and self-restraint is one way. I like it because it >>easy to understand even if difficult to practice 24X7X365. >> >>len >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >> >> >>Yes, it can get better. I agree on that and on working on HumanML as >>one means. >> >>Neither am I in serious or deep despair, just a little on the gloomy >>side at the moment as I maneuver myself back to the work at hand. The >>short term manipulation of the Islamic world by al Quaeda and the >>jihad merchants, such as Sheik Mohammed was in the Taliban, is >>worrisome. But both the Islamic world and our world both need to start >>listening and hearing each other, rather than talking past each other >>or shouting "evil" at each other as we have been treated to from both >>sides. >> >>We have the right and duty to defend ourselves and right now that >>means taking measured military and diplomatic actions. When we sink to >>"demonizing" our opponents, no matter how richly we FEEL they deserve >>it, we fall into that monkey trap right alongside the Israelis and the >>Palestinians and al Quaeda. >> >>The problem is the appeal to raw, unthinking emotionalism. Yet when > >our communications fail to take the emotions into account, we also >>fall into a trap of a different kind, but that is another discussion. >> >>One wishes the Islamic women were as powerful as the southern white >>women, and in time, I am reasonably sure they will be, though they >>have a much tougher male-dominated, testosterone-driven culture to >>contend with than women from our western culture. I wish them the > >best in overcoming that domination. >> >>Ciao, >>Rex >> >>P.S. Thanks for the chance to continue relieving myself of these >>burdensome thoughts. Soon I will have no excuses left but to get back >>to work, eh? >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>-- >>-------- >> >>My guess is that by the time they embrace terrorism, >>it is a little late to modify their behaviors. At >>that point, they live is a self-organizing and >>possibly closed world. That is one reason they >>are deuce difficult to penetrate. Yet I believe >>it necessary to distinguish the urban terrorist >>from the jungle guerilla, and to distinguish between >>the religious activists such as the Saudis who >>formed Al Quaeda from the Palestinian suicide >>bomber and both from the Viet Cong. I do believe >>that different personal and cultural forces are >>at work even if there are overlapping and similar >>behaviors expressed. >> >>The problems of the Vietnamese and the US were >>on our side of the equation; our fears of communism, >>our arrogance about the rightness of our own systems, >>etc. The VC were fighting for their own homes. We >>lost there because we had nothing to win and they >>had everything to lose. 30 years later, we are >>trading partnets. It can get better. >> >>The Palestinians and Israelis are in a classic >>monkey trap where until each side lets go of the prize, >>they are held fast by what the prize in their hands. >>They will eventually find a way out. Last weekend >>at the concert we held here in Alabama, in the final >>jam, a dreadlocked black, a jewish princess, a rock >>longhair, three bluegrass rednecks, and so on were >>all playing together under an American flag. It >>may not seem like much and it doesn't happen as >>often as it should, but my friend, it was proof that >>this is 2002 and not 1950 in Alabama. Take that from >>one who lived through the civil rights movement up >>front and personal. It can get better but because >>people work on it and have time. No, this is not as >>severe as the Middle East, but ask why it didn't get >>that way. One reason is that when the firehoses and >>the dogs came out, the blacks stood there and took it >>while the world watched. On their side was a shared >>set of beliefs, a common religion, and frankly, the >>white women of the American South would not put up >>with what they saw on those screens and in the streets >>of our neighborhoods. Eventually,we took the hands >>of our neighbors and walked together away from the precipice of hell, >>for the sake of their beliefs and the future >>of their children. It can get better. >> >>The al Quaeda are a different problem. They have >>jihad fever. That has to be changed from within their >>own culture; that is, the adherents to Islamic tenets >>have to modify this because this is the dark side >>of religion: a belief in absolutes. The only recourse >>the west has to deal with them is to identify them, >>hunt them, and kill them. I wish it were otherwise >>but unless the Islamic community comes to grips with >>its culpability and modifies its support behaviors, >>that is, raising and providing funds, shelter, arms, >>etc, that is how it is. What we can do >>is work out how our relationships with these cultures >>are enabling them to perceive us as enemies, and that >>I am afraid, will force us to confront what in our >>own systems produces behaviors which they perceive >>as antithetical to their interests. They say very >>loudly what they think these are. We don't like >>what we hear and because we have our own share >>of religious fundamentalism, we don't hear it. >>We also have let our economic interests collude >>with these religious interests to justify who and > >what we support. For example, do you think we >>could modify our unilateral support for Israel and >>pull our forces off the Saudi peninsula? >> >>Again, a monkey trap. What is the prize in our >>hand that we hold so tightly that keeps us in the trap? >> >>Question: do you believe that a confrontation of these forces is the >>beginning of Armageddon, the end of the world? If so, then a myth has >>you by the mental tail. > > >>BTW: your sculpting is probably your sign competency >>to express some of what you are feeling just as music >>is for me. As Gudwin posits, competence over multiple >>sign sets is a measure of intelligence. You are doing >>the right thing. To feel more positively, you can find >>or create more contexts for that expression. Everyone >>has a job to discover, a way to express their feelings >>about these events. Some only raise flags; others >>do their art and work on HumanML. Lots of simple signs >>can amount to something much larger, but to go there, we >>have to start. It can get better. >> >>len >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] [humanmarkup-comment] >>Thoughts on Cultural Blinders and 9/11 >> >> >>I am glad you were able to endure long enough to see these larger >>issues. They didn't get there quickly enough for my own personal human >>limits. I appreciate you taking the time to respond this thoroughly. >>My own sense of despair and anger in the face of seeing faith >>portrayed even briefly (and through my own lack of patience) as >>one-dimensional is lessened. I'm less concerned with the terrorists as >>much as I am with our own ability to understand their expressions, >>their signs, and respond to them appropriately. I don't have much clue >>what that response ought to be to successfully reach into their >>cultural context and persuade them to a different course. >> >>--- >>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002 >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > >-- >Rex Brooks >Starbourne Communications Design >1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309 >http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> -- Rex Brooks Starbourne Communications Design 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309 http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC