[humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-humanGroup

See: Base Schema - community/SEMIOTIC COMMUNITY

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - humanGroup

             From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
             Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:13:38 -0700

      Here is a first take on:

      Base Schema - humanGroup

      This is an abstract complexType element which will take the attribute
      humlIdentifierAtts since it applies to a particular characteristic
      of an human, to belong to communities. It does not use other
      elements. It may be used by other elements.

      It is described/defined as two or more humans gathered together for a
      particular purpose. This gathering or grouping is not limited to
      immediate physical or digital presence in any particular environment
      at any particular time. Thus the concept of humanGroup transcends
      many traditional limitations of inlcusion, but it does require some
      additional qualifiers to be useful. It is the unit upon which the
      concept of community depends.

      We have had fairly lengthy discussions arriving at this element as
      necessary in the Primary Base Schema, which mostly came about as a
      result of the discussion early in this sequential alphabetic process
      during our discussions on the element community and subsequently on
      the element of culture. However, it would be helpful if some of those
      discussions could be expanded upon for the purpose of documenting
      this element on its own. This is due largely to the fact that there
      may simply not be enough time to abstract those particular
      discussions from posts on other elements and notes from minutes of
      our meetings.

      Thanks, any help is gratefully appreciated.

      Ciao,
      Rex

To: cognite@zianet.com, Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>, clbullar@ingr.com
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - humanGroup
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

I'm getting worn down to a nub here, but I think that dropping any qualifier may be the best option for the Primary since, now that I'm back to thinking about it, humanGroup doesn't really require any purpose, per the accident of birth example, and it isn't related to any criteria other than two or more humans.

Further criteria come into play in communities which imply, but which I hope we make explicit, the concept of sharing, and further, consent, once the capability of giving consent or making a meaningful choice is reached.

Still, the sharing is still implicit simply by having two or more humans forming a group. And we have established that some kind of cognition is required for a sign to exist. Or is it, for this concept? Is there a group without its members recognizing it as such, or some observer recognizing it?

Why isn't this easy?

Sometimes when I get in this sort of quandary it helps if the turn the problem upside down or bottom side up. The purpose of humanGroup is to have an atomic unit with which to build the concept of communities. Communities then can become cultures, in terms of levels of abstraction and complexity, so we are looking at a chain of restricted derivations, using the minimum definitions possible.

I'm gonna sleep on it and this read this all again in the morning.

Be Well,
Rex

Hope you are doing well. I know your mind is working close to p
At 4:11 PM -0600 10/18/02, cognite@zianet.com wrote:
Second take, humanGroup
       - change of "for a particular purpose" to "so they share musing".
        - brief rationale
        - extended rationale (material on semiosis)
        - countercase (points out some advantages of SIGNAL over Message,
which is too high level, not concrete enough for analyzing actual
communicational exchanges.)

---------------- take #2

Base Schema - humanGroup

This is an abstract complexType element which will take the attribute
humlIdentifierAtts since it applies to a particular characteristic
of an human, to belong to communities. It does not use other
elements. It may be used by other elements.

! "humanGroup"
is described/defined as two or more humans gathered together
! so they share musing.

+ Musing is cognitive activity. Cognitive activity can be thought; it can
be behavior. Since + all musers can be thinking-and-doing at the same time
wherever they are, they can do it + together. In the process, they become a
group.

This gathering or grouping is not limited to immediate physical or digital
presence in any particular environment
at any particular time. Thus the concept of humanGroup transcends
many traditional limitations of inclusion, but it does require some
additional qualifiers to be useful. It is the unit upon which the
concept of community depends.

----------------

RATIONALE for change   (c. S. Candelaria de Ram, 18 Oct., 2002; copyright
begin **)

Short version

"gathered together for a particular purpose"
         -- Identifying a particular purpose may be problematical in practice.
        -- You can just end up together (birth being a primary case, as came
up in earlier discussion).

how about
"gathered together so they can commune" ?
        -- Adverse connotations of other senses of "commune".

better,
"gathered together so they share musing"

This can be integrated well with the semiosis stuff, as laid out below.

Musing is cognitive activity. Cognitive activity can be thought; it can be
behavior.
This is what underlies this definition as far as semiosis:
        OK: H muses (for all H (<=) occurs in geotemporal context
        OK:   H muses (for all H) => joint ( muse(Hi)* ),
i.e., Hi, Hj can muse jointly, where i =/= j for different individuals and
i=i in identity case ("trivial" or idempotent case, thinking to yourself)
though arguably any individual is a succession of states of itself.

We can put this into sentence form:

Since all musers can be thinking at the same time wherever they are, they
can do it together. In the process, they become a group.

EXTENDED DISCUSSION AND SUPPORT

"Musing", of course is "to muse", ponder, consider, figure out, comprehend,
think of, ... in a word, to cognize. Cognizing can entail action, as it is
part of realworld activities. Put another way, cognizing is "taking life
events to be meaningful", and musing is "working things out".

But when we go into the domain of computer agents, we can't assume "life"
although we have symbolic processing. A semiote doesn't have to be alive to
participate in symbolic processing, but it can. We need a practical
analysis of meaning-making as a real-world activity. With just a few
process descriptions, grounded and evolving communication can be briefly
described as shown below. Using the tenets of Pragmasemantics, it shows how
cognition arises and is used in communicating so that a system of shared
language develops whose use further enhances cognition by semiotes.

Pragmasemantic --PROCESSING EVOLUTION--
        Where --> indicates a later and causal consequence relation, the
        basic form of a process is denoted with A --description--> B .
        This is broken across lines for writing down in short lines in the
email medium here, so in the process descriptions below we write
        A
        -- description
        --> B

0. ENERGY-MATTER REACTION
vibrant localized energy-matter
         -- space-time and other natural properties (e.g., "geotemporal")
including         consequences
        -->
        direct necessary response to energy-matter, localized structuring
(i.e., OBJi formation)

1. ENERGY-MATTER EXCHANGE
react (OBJi)
        event (entails energy-matter changes)
         --geotemporal consequence
        --> behavior, selective evolution,
        specialization of local structures for sensing of energies (i.e.,
SENSORS)

sense (OBJi)
        --> mediated response potential (operant conditioning)

        Secondary consequence.

2. DIFFERENTIATED ENERGY-MATTER EXCHANGE, ACTS
sense (CONGLOMERATEi)
        given mediate local structures (boundary formation, resulting in
INDIVi; basis in colloidal phenomena that determines unit sizes and properties)
        --geotemporal consequence with inside and outside,
        external events impinging from outside boundaries (on external-event
SENSOR(s) ),
         partial internal event monitoring (with internal SENSOR(s))
        --> sense self, other; life-forms as co-operative conglomerates,
symbiosis

3. COGNITION
muse( Hi )
         given specialization of internal-event SENSOR as MEMORY
        --geotemporal consequence of contact
        --> sense of self (continuing individualized responsive object)
and environment, comparisons over time, experience-based learning,
awareness; blends with next stage depending on sharing one's situation
(i.e., being cohorts)

4. SHARED MUSING
joint( muse(Hi)* )
        -- geotemporal/distanced-and-or-delayed energy exchange
        --> sense of group (continuing individualized responsive objects
with perceptibly shared situation), self relation to group (meta-awareness
or being "reflective"; self-awareness), recognizing of cohorts, recognizing
of cognitive commonalities

5. SEMIOSIS (meaningful signal exchange among cognitive agents)
signal-exchange and interpretation sequence

         signal one's cognition:
                (i.e., muse(Hi) over self's cognition, cohort-signaling act;
                formulate and emit representative signal
                (fitting into idiosyncratic and potentially-shared systems
of prior comparables))*.

                Leads to increased cognitive commonalities,
better-developed idiosyncratic                         communication skills.

        -- transmission (geotemporal/distanced-and-or-delayed signal energy
exchange)

        --> integrate received signal(s) into one's cognition
                (i.e.,   cohort receives and interprets signal:   muse(Hj)
over self's cognition,                         cohort-signaling act, and
signal form, extracting representation(s)
               (fitting into idiosyncratic and potentially-shared systems
of prior comparables
         and building them up along with extant cognition)*.

                 Builds increased cognitive commonalities; adds to
individual's cognition.
                 Use of mimicry to enable response in like wise.

       - Overall effect of building system of signal-types (re-usable,
"signs"; "sign-system").
        - Iterative.
        - Use of tools to aid semiosis is seen in body-gestures, writing,
and electronic         communication. Life-forms and non-life-forms as
co-operative conglomerates.

A more formal and precise set of diagrams of SEMIOSIS as this process can be
presented, which is equivalent.   (Appears in earlier email by S. Candelaria
de Ram in HuML communications.)   Diagrams and fuller argument presenting
other stages of this evolution also appear in prior publications by S.
Candelaria de Ram. Note that there is NO SEPARATION OF ACT AND THOUGHT IN
THIS SYSTEM. "Musing" can entail nerve activity, noise-making, and the like.

---------------
Analytically Too Messy:
"gathered together so they can commune"
         -- where "so" can be either such-that or in-order-to

        -- puts the onus onto "commune" ... perhaps that can be taken up by
the SEMIOTE cluster...I've been struggling with making its definition
foundational (sufficient as a priori). commune does not entail specific
messages; it has no object or direction like communicate implies (S1
communicate M to S2). That is, the consequence of a situation of "gathering
together" for commune can be just

commune (S1, S2*) --> shared sense of community [ + optionals]
but

(S1 communicate M to S2) --> S2 receives signal from S1 [via ...] and then
perceives and interprets it as a message (having interpretable content) and
usually goes on to interpret content ensuing from the perceived signal.
In a more specific labelled notation,
S1: agent, initiator
communicate: act SVO IO [language-dependent], entails SIGNAL transmitted

humanmarkup message