- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:18:34 -0500
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On May 28, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >>> Hi Pat, >>> >>> I don't see how switching from intent to artifact helps anything, >>> rather the opposite in my experience. First, "agency" seems to me to >>> be something equally of the mind, and second all practical efforts >>> that I've made in conjunction with OBI (Ontology of Biomedical >>> Investigation) haven't panned out. >>> >>> I think in the end we are going to have a mind involved >> >> What about websites created by autonomous software? > > Someone built the software, or gave input to the software that > resulted in the creation of the web site. They are the one with the > intent. Im sure you know how much oil was burned over debates like this in recent philosophy of mind. Its still being burned. In my experience, this is a rat-hole from which there is no escape. > If the autonomous software approaches being an AI we can > discuss whether it has crossed the threshold of having intent. > > It's exactly the question with agency. Sorry I mentioned agency: it was only mean to be an indicator, not definitional. Artifact can stand on its own. > >> >>> and if we are >>> we might as well deal with the source then trying to track down the >>> effects without reference to the locus. Seems like in practice that >>> there are going to be fewer things that are difficult to define in >>> the >>> the end if we bite the bullet on "intent" being difficult to define, >>> accept it as a primitive for now, and work forward. >> >> Oh, I agree we shouldnt be trying to DEFINE any of these concepts. >> I'd be >> happy to just treat 'artifact' as a primitive and say that its >> obvious that >> numbers, abstract categories, etc. are clearly not artifacts, but >> that any >> website (howsoever it got created, even if it was by a cat walking >> on a >> keyboard somewhere) clearly is. There are always going to be >> possible-but-silly examples which break any proposed strict if&onlyif >> definition. > > They aren't so silly in current biological engineering. I mean things like: if a light bulb is defined by its intended purpose of giving light, what about a light bulb that gets smashed before it gets lit, or one that is never bought and stays in the store for ever? Those kind of silly examples. > From my point of view it's a number thing. The number of cases where > we're going to have to come with a decision about whether there is > intent or not, and will be easier than the number of cases where we > have to decide whether something is an artifact, and they will be > harder to decide. Based on my experience with OBI. Well, OK, YMMV. My experience is that anything involving the insides of a head is going to immediately become unresolvable and endless, which I why I suggested trying to avoid intent(ions) being on a critical path. But it was only intended to be helpful, so ignore it if not. Pat > > -Alan > >> >> Pat >> >> >>> >>> However, I will admit to not being a trained philosopher, and if you >>> think that there is a good document that makes it clear what >>> artifact >>> and agency are, then I'm game for a read. >>> >>> That said, I will respond to the substance of Jonathan's message >>> in a >>> separate email. >>> >>> Best, >>> Alan >>> >>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> Reading this, seems to me (provisionally) that "having intent" >>>> might be >>>> rephrased as "being an artifact"; that is, existing as the result >>>> of >>>> agency >>>> of some kind rather than a natural process. (?) If so, that might >>>> be a >>>> nice >>>> connection with some traditional philosophical distinctions that >>>> have >>>> stood >>>> the test of time; and it avoids having to say what intent "is". >>>> And it >>>> has >>>> the advantage, I'd suggest, of focusing on the thing rather than >>>> the >>>> innards >>>> of the mind of its creator, which is always going to be a black >>>> box/hole. >>>> >>>> Pat >>>> >>>> On May 28, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've been puzzling over the question of how two generic- >>>>> resources can >>>>> have the same trace by virtue of a difference in meaning, e.g. >>>>> the use >>>>> case Tim gives where he and I both work at Burger King for a >>>>> week and >>>>> end up with identical-looking time sheets (same trace), that are >>>>> really distinct generic-resources simply because of properties not >>>>> reflected in the traces. >>>>> >>>>> Allow me to call this difference "intent" - I won't define this >>>>> but >>>>> Alan, don't jump all over me, build on what I say. It is the >>>>> missing >>>>> dimension, the resource's "essential characteristic" that is not >>>>> conveyed in any wa-representation. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know what "intent" is ontologically; I use the word as a >>>>> placeholder. It has to be quite broad, so that it allows me to say >>>>> that the GR named by >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://random.org/integers/?num=100&min=1&max=100&col=5&base=10&format=html&rnd=new >>>>> has "intent" - namely the web site author's intent to satisfy the >>>>> world's hunger for white noise. Generally, we have grandfathered >>>>> all >>>>> "web pages" just by saying that none of them are accidental >>>>> (unintentional) - someone went to the trouble of registering a >>>>> domain >>>>> name, setting up a server, and deploying content. We also get Moby >>>>> Dick, since someone went to the trouble of writing it - it >>>>> didn't fall >>>>> from the sky. And we get Finnegan's Wake and Beethoven's 7th for >>>>> the >>>>> same reason even though know one knows what message they convey. >>>>> >>>>> But I think "intent" can explain another use case Tim has given. >>>>> He is >>>>> adamant that numbers, such as the 46th Mersenne prime, are not >>>>> information resources. I was puzzled by his refusal because it >>>>> seems >>>>> very clear to me that all of its essential characteristics *can* >>>>> be >>>>> conveyed in a message; I just did so. But if we set aside the AWWW >>>>> definition of IR, and instead talk about the Tim-derived GR >>>>> model, we >>>>> can say that something that has a wa-representation that is a >>>>> numeral >>>>> designating the 46th Mersenne prime is a perfectly fine GR, >>>>> since the >>>>> *intent* is to communicate the digits of the 46th Mersenne prime; >>>>> while the number itself does not carry any intent and is >>>>> therefore not >>>>> a GR. >>>>> >>>>> More generally, "intent" explains why GRs are contingent on the >>>>> real >>>>> world, as opposed to being purely mathematical constructions, >>>>> while >>>>> still being able to withstand any Xiaoshu-like attempts at >>>>> giving them >>>>> mass and phsyical location. >>>>> >>>>> If we can determine that >>>>> (a) "intent" is not vacuous, and >>>>> (b) "intent" is the *only* way that generic-resources can differ, >>>>> other than in their traces >>>>> then we will have a complete characterization of generic >>>>> resources: GR >>>>> = trace + intent. >>>>> >>>>> I read this and find "intent" to be very similar to >>>>> "phlogiston", but >>>>> remember that chemistry had its origins in alchemy. >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>>> Appendix: Use cases >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> http://random.org/integers/?num=100&min=1&max=100&col=5&base=10&format=html&rnd=new >>>>> - yes >>>>> 2. Moby Dick -yes >>>>> 3. Beethoven's 7th - yes >>>>> 4. 46 Mersenne Prime - no >>>>> 5. A 19th-century publication that has no URI yet (possibly >>>>> ever) - yes >>>>> 6. data:text/plain,intent_depends_on_context - no? (doesn't imply >>>>> intent; only names a trace) >>>>> 7. function from time and request to representation - no (doesn't >>>>> imply intent; only names a trace) >>>>> 8. "network data object" a la RFC 2616 - some of them, yes, if you >>>>> take this to mean "generic resource deployed on a network" >>>>> 9. "network service" a la RFC 2616 - ? >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or >>>> (650)494 3973 >>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 >> 3973 >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 21:19:14 UTC