Version 23
In Part I, we introduced our first layer of
abstraction, a complex abstract framework called the substructural
ontology. The substructural framework
operator q generates the 8x4 matrix Q whose elements are each a
substructural frame. Adi derived q by induction from notions associated
with the contextual usage of the elements of the 8x4 matrix A of Arabic vowels and consonants. We conjecture that Q is an abstract representation of all elementary processes in the
real world.
In Part II, we derived our second layer of
abstraction from notions associated with the contextual usage of Arabic word
stems. These notions indicate that
stems represent function frames, a higher order framework which we conjecture
to be the ontology of real-world functions that consist of elementary
processes.
We will now define ontological frames called
cognitive frames that reflect the implementation of function frames in
real-world environments. This is our third layer of abstraction, the cognitive
ontology.
1. Third Layer
of Abstraction--Cognitive Ontology
We conjecture that when we think, speak, act, read,
research or develop, we always use words or notions that correspond to some
word stems, that in turn correspond to some function frames.
Our conjecture is that cognition is about implementing function frames in real-world
environments. Our third layer of abstraction is then the cognitive ontology.
Adi chose 2,750 function frames for the Readware
technology. We will refer to them as
the elements m1, m2,..., m2750 of the
functional ontology M.
Define a simple
cognitive frame g as a frame that consists of a user u who implements a function frame mi in an environment v
g = frame(u, mi, v)
where u is a user
mi is a function
frame out of M, i = 1 to 2750
v is an environment
We will explore how cognitive frames inherit
properties such as precedence rules, polarities and control structures from the
substructural ontology and the functional ontology, and then go beyond such
inheritance and develop higher order precedence rules, abstract structures and
properties.
We will start by constructing
and examining cognitive frames. Unlike the substructural ontology and the
functional ontology where the structures were "found" or
"discovered" by induction over notions observed in contextual usage
of language, the structures of this layer are created by Adi, and can be created by others.
The origins of the ontological frames of the
substructural and the functional layers were not discussed. But the frames were deemed stable and
naturally occurring.
But cognitive frames are created here and now. We are modeling
cognition. Cognitive frames are
experimental, empirical frames.
Still, Adi believes that these cognitive experiments
are not arbitrary. To begin with, a
crucial component of the artificial cognitive frame is a rigid abstract
structure, a naturally occurring structure: the function frame.
Therefore, our cognitive ontological experiments can
be studied with the prospect of finding "natural laws" like the
precedence rules, polarity effects and control mechanisms which we found in the
two lower ontological layers.
Let us simplify and visualize function frames for an
easier discussion.
We will only mention elements of Q by their verbal designations in Q,
e.g. "engaged assignment of containment" instead of q(6, 3).
We will use a self-explanatory arrow notation. For example, one of several function frames
for the function of construction, m1 out of M (indicated by the stem "ssad lam hha"), is stated as
m1 = a construction function =
engaged assignment of containment
=(assignment of
manifestation)=>
inward assignment of manifestation and containment
This means that the single controller (outward
assignment of manifestation) runs a thematic interaction between the other two
substructural frames in the outward direction indicated by the arrow
"=>".
This simplified, visualized notation facilitates the
discussion of how a certain user u
may implement a certain function frame
mi out of M in a certain environment
v.
To explore the structures
of the cognitive ontology, it makes sense to bootstrap by starting with
cognitive frames that implement function frames that deal with construction and destruction.
Let us return to m1 and practice some cognitive interpretation. We say that the controller "outward
assignment of manifestation" designates
a function.
Define the interpret
operator from the verbal designations of the substructural ontology Q and the verbal designations of the
functional ontology M to the verbal
designations of the cognitive ontology
"designate
function" = interpret (
"=(assignment of manifestation)=>" )
Similarly
"a construct" = interpret ( "engaged assignment of
containment" )
"complex function"
= interpret ( "inward
assignment of manifestation and containment" )
The whole construction function m1 can thus be interpreted
interpret (m1) = designate a construct to
a complex function
The cognitive frame g1 models how the
user "cook" implements m1 by designating to a construct of
"cuts" and "bread" the complex function
"sandwich."
g1 = frame ( cook, m1, {bread, cuts} ) =
"sandwich"
The expression "sandwich" also serves as a
verbal designation, a name, for the cognitive frame g1 itself or for
one of its instantiations.
The user "analyst" implements m1 to
find the "subject sandwich" in a text by looking for the
co-occurrence of the words "bread" and "cuts."
g2 = frame ( analyst, m1, {"bread", "cuts"} ) =
"subject sandwich"
The user "carpenter" implements m1
to make a box by nailing some wood together.
g3 = frame ( carpenter, m1, {wood, nails} ) = "box"
The user "doctor" implements m1
to sew a wounded person together with needle and thread.
g4 = frame ( doctor, m1, {wounded, needle, thread} ) = "stitching up a
cut"
Let us now consider the implementation of a destruction function (indicated by the
stem "fa seen dal").
m2 = destruction function =
outward manifestation
<=(assignment of containment)=
engaged manifestation
This means that the single controller (assignment of
containment) runs a thematic interaction between the other two substructural
frames in the inward or backward direction indicated by the arrow
"<=".
If we interpret "outward manifestation" as
"malfunction," interpret "inward assignment of containment"
as "structural reduction" and interpret "engaged
manifestation" as "coherent function," then we have
interpret ( m2
) =
destruction function
=
structurally reduce coherent function to malfunction
In the cognitive frame g5, the user
"kid" structurally reduces a glass by hand to malfunction (to
pieces).
g5 = frame ( kid, m2,
{hand, glass} )
Next we consider the implementation of other
function frames that have to do with destruction.
One function frame for attack is
m3 = attack function =
engaged manifestation (inward containment)
read "engaged manifestation on inward
containment." Interpret
"engaged manifestion" as "interact" and interpret
"inward containment" as "closed space," then we have
interpret ( m3 ) = attack function =
interact with closed space
The user "hacker" implements the cognitive
frame g6 to interact with the closed space "private
computer" (attack it) using a virus
g6 = frame ( hacker, m3, {private computer, virus} ) = cyber attack
There are several other function frames in M that deal with attacks. Each one will give us a cognitive model of a
different type of attack.
The functional ontology M is like a library of cognitive tools that can be used to build a
cognitive ontology for any system one can think of.
We conjecture that human cognition is based on a set
of conscious or unconscious implementations of functional frames out of M or a similar set underlying a human
language.
We conjecture that the three layers of the Adi
ontology form a complete theory of cognition.
2. A
Socio-Cognitive Ontology
The Readware software is not limited to social
applications. But Readware has
implemented social cognitive frames based on the universal theory of law. These frames were developed based on the
work of scholars of the theory of law such as Shatibi, a judge from Spain of
the Golden Age. The US Constitution and
the Bill of Rights are based on the same theory of law.
Adi advanced the state of the art of legal theory in
order to create the socio-cognitive frames of Readware.
The Aesop Orb/Readware demonstration uses some
socio-cognitive frames.
Socio-cognitive frames usually contain the user
"lawmaker."
The user "lawmaker" wants to preserve three types of human interests: those of mind, body and business in descending
order of precedence. The user
"lawmaker" also wants to secure the realization of human interests at
three levels of fulfilment: essential fulfilment, smooth fulfilment, and aesthetic fulfilment in descending order of precedence.
The preservation of the essential fulfilment of
human interests means to build and maintain them, to protect them if they are
threatened, to defend them if they are attacked, and to rebuild them if they
are damaged.
The preservation of the smooth fulfilment of human
interests is achieved by securing moderation and balance and by removing
hardship.
The preservation of human interests is realized at
the level of excellence by aesthetic fulfilment, such as by the promotion of
good manners, nice clothing and landscaping.
The cross product of the above two aspect sets with
precedence is called the social precedence set D. We enumerate D in simple expression notation
D =
{d(i) | i = 1 to 9} =
|
essential fulfilment of mind interests |
|
essential fulfilment of body interests |
|
essential fulfilment of business interests |
|
smooth fulfilment of mind interests |
|
smooth fulfilment of body interests |
|
smooth fulfilment of business interests |
|
aesthetic fulfilment of mind interests |
|
aesthetic fulfilment of body interests |
|
aesthetic fulfilment of business interests |
and d(j) has precedence over
d(k) if j < k
All laws and social principles are based on D.
Liberty has precedence over everything because it is at the core of the
essential fulfilment of the interests of minds, d(1). Clashes of interests and
trade-offs are resolved or mediated using D. Appropriate responses to threats or attacks
are constructed and assessed using D.
Spending priorities are determined by D.
Readware uses cognitive frame types that may contain
the user "lawmaker" or other users such as constructive or
destructive persons.
An interest
frame is a cognitive frame that contains function frames depicting human
interests.
A fulfilment
frame is a cognitive frame
containing function frames that depict the level of fulfilment of a human
interest.
A clash frame
is a cognitive frame containing function frames that depict a clash of human
interests or a clash of levels of fulfilment.
Here are rules developed by Adi (based on known
legal and social principles) that deal with social clashes of interests.
Justified
defensive action. You may repel an attack on
someone’s interest even if the attacking interest has higher legal precedence
than the victimized interest
1) by advice, appeal or
admonition (remedy using the aesthetic level of fulfilment),
and if this fails, and the
victimized level of fulfilment is smooth or essential, then
2) by pressure (remedy using
the smooth level of fulfilment),
and if this fails, and the
victimized level of fulfilment is essential, then
3) by force (remedy using
essential level of fulfilment).
otherwise, the defensive
action is unjustified and constitutes a crime as violent as the level of
fulfilment it is at.
For example, you
may not take away someone's dessert because you are hungry and you need it
more. You cannot shoot a thief who is
not threatening lives. You cannot have
a life-threatening duel because of an insult (an aesthetic violation). If you are arresting a murder suspect, you
cannot start by shooting at the suspect (forget "wanted dead or
alive"). First, appeal to him to
surrender for trial, then block his way if he tries to escape, and you can only
shoot at him if he aims his gun at you.
Otherwise, it is murder.
If two human interests
happen to compete by no fault of
either side, then we may need to repress the one that has the lesser legal
precedence in order to preserve the one with higher legal precedence, unless
the two sides can work out a compromise.
If the two competing interests have equal priority, then the stand-off must be resolved by pressure
to compromise or by sharing.
When two interests of different priority happen to
compete and there is no compromise, no good law would allow us to repress or
destroy the higher interest in order to preserve the lower interest. Sometimes the competition is illusory (false
choice), but we can still decide which interest deserves to be preserved. Here are some illegal resolutions (false
choices are in italics):
to sacrifice minds or lives
to preserve a competing business interest
to use lethal force to preserve a family or a community
to twist minds to preserve lives, the family or hold a country together
Justified
intervention to resolve disputes. If a human interest causes unintentional jeopardy or
damage to an interest with higher precedence in a given situation, and no
compromise can be reached, then the interest with lower precedence may be
stopped by intervention
1) by advice, appeal or
admonition (remedy using aesthetic level of fulfilment),
and if this fails, and the
victimized level of fulfilment is smooth or essential, then
2) by pressure (remedy using
smooth level of fulfilment),
and if this fails, and the
victimized level of fulfilment is essential, then
3) by force (remedy using
essential level of fulfilment).
otherwise, the intervention
is unjustified and constitutes a crime as violent as the level of fulfilment.