RE: SUO: RE: Organization
John,
See my comments below.
Thanks,
Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: Chris Partridge
> Cc: Ian Niles; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Organization
>
>
> Ian, Chris A., Chris M., Chris P., and Pat C.,
>
> Some comments on recent notes:
>
> Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> > I suspect that one needs to distinguish between agent and
> person, though I
> > am not sure of the exact distinction. The telling example
> for me is computer
> > trading. The computer definitely is an agent (CYC says - An agent is
> > something which can show independent action, whether
> conscious or not.) but
> > it is not a person.
>
> In addition to the concept types Agent and Person, I suggest that
> we also throw in the purely biological notion HumanBeing. If you look
> at the difference between HumanBeing and Person, that may help to
> distinguish the other notions.
I agree. Currently in the SUMO, 'Agent' subsumes 'CognitiveAgent' (which is
roughly equivalent to person), which subsumes 'Human'. All of these
concepts and their associated axioms and documentation can be browsed at
http://ontology.teknowledge.com.
>
> As we discussed in many other notes to SUO list, etymology is often
> helpful as a guide (although it doesn't pay to push it too far).
>
> 1. The word 'agent' comes from the Latin 'ago', which means to do
> or to act. So an agent would literally be some animate entity
> that is playing the role of acting in some action. That agent
> could be a human being, another animal, or some collection of
> animals acting together.
>
> 2. The word 'person' comes from the Latin 'persona', which literally
> means a mask worn in Roman plays (since the sound of the actor's
> voice comes through 'personare' the mask). From that, the word
> 'persona' came to refer to the actor in a play and then to any
> actor who plays a role in society. The dictionary definition
> of 'persona' as an English word is "the social facade an
> individual
> assumes."
>
> In modern English, the word 'person' has become more generalized,
> but it still retains some of the meaning of a human being when
> considered in some social role (as opposed to the biological
> notion, which is much more neutral).
>
> Suggestion: Include three concepts: HumanBeing for the neutral
> biological definition as a member of species Homo Sapiens; Person as
> a HumanBeing or collection of HumanBeings when considered in some
> social role; and Agent as any animal or robot in the role of
> performing some action.
I think this is exactly what we currently have in the SUMO: Agent ->
CognitiveAgent -> Human.
>
> Ian Niles wrote:
>
> JS> To avoid such confusions, I recommend that we drop the
> word 'class'
> > > from SUMO and adopt the following conventions:
> >
> IN> I'm agreeable to this as long as no objects. I think the
> distinction
> > between Set and Class in the SUMO has created many more
> problems than it has
> > solved.
>
> I agree. Let's put this on a list of recommended changes, and see
> whether anyone objects.
>
> IN> The SUMO concepts that are relevant here are 'Collection' and
> 'member'. Are
> > you proposing that these concepts be modifed in any way?
>
> I would have to dig out the definitions and check.
>
> IN> The SUMO predicates are 'hasPurpose' and
> 'hasPurposeForAgent'. Are
> these
> > adequate for your purposes?
>
> Again, I would have to dig out the definitions. But the whole area
> of purposes and intentions is very rich (i.e., important, but
> complicated), and a lot more thinking is required. As an example,
> John Searle wrote a whole book on this topic:
>
> Searle, John R. (1995), _The Construction of Social Reality_,
> Free Press, New York.
>
> Then Barry Smith wrote a criticism of the book to which Searle
> responded. Even though nothing was settled, the exchange was
> interesting for the enormous gap between the two discussants:
>
>
> http://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/dksearle.htm
>
Thanks for the references, and I'll try to get a copy of the Searle book. I
agree that this whole area is a conceptual minefield.
>I think that Searle got the better of this argument, but they were
>mostly talking past one another without reaching a definitive agreement.
>
>
>
>Bottom line: The whole notion of 'organization' is intimately bound
>up with roles in society and interacting purposes. Just tossing in
>a couple of predicates is going to open up many more related (and
>equally thorny) questions.
>
>Chris Angus wrote:
>
>> "My new proposal is to cleanly separate the notions of agency and group.
>> Rather than make 'Organization' a subclass of 'Group', I think we should
>> make it a direct subclass of 'Agent', where it will be understood as a
>> class of legal entities with certain rights, responsibilities,
>> intentionality, etc. We should also, I think, remove the subclass link
>> between 'Group' and 'Agent', because there are groups of animals and
humans
>> that do not exhibit agency of any sort, e.g. a group of cows grazing.
>
>The cows are definitely "exhibiting agency": they are grazing.
>That is certainly an act, and anything that acts is an agent.
Well, the question wasn't whether the individual grazing cows exhibit
agency. It was whether the herd of cows as a whole can be regarded as an
agent. If each cow is going about its own business, chewing its cud, and
staring off distinterestedly into space, then I think the answer is that the
herd itself is not an agent.
>John Sowa