[p2p-research] Thermoeconomics + Re: Ontologies

[paola.dimaio at gmail.com]

Thanks a lot Marc

for the interesting comments
the way natural organisms are adaptive is very intresting and we can
certainly learn a lot , but from my observations so far, social
systems have to deal with additional complexities

people are very different from ants and bacteria, cause they have
egos, emotions, personality, opinions, fears, egoes (again) and lots
of other characteristics that are unique to humans


I think the paper can be freely cited, and reasonable quotes excerpted
with due credits

the slides are also referenceable

www.slideshare.net/PaolaDIM/digital-ecosystems-ontology-entropy-by-paola-di-maio
-




On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:03 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paola,
>
> Your paper definitely shines a light on an important area in engineering of
> complex open systems, i.e.: the need for continuous maintenance.
>
> While there is a need for continuous maintenance of ontologies, language
> itself seems to be self-maintaining, and that's evident by the fact that we
> are able to use it with the same degree of success after many hundreds of
> years, which implies that we're continuously maintaining our internal model
> of it.
>
> I believe that the mechanisms underlying our biological immune system are
> the same mechanisms, algorithmically speaking, as the mechanisms that
> maintain our internal model of language. This means that language has shared
> biological basis, which explains how it's able to maintain itself without a
> central authority.
>
> In the case of the immune system, we (humans) have adapted to foreign
> proteins like the sugar protein in dairy and red meat. Primates have not.
> Their immune system attacks those proteins which get absorbed into their
> tissue, thus causing inflammation etc, which is why they avoid dairy and red
> meat.
>
> So the design of an 'adaptive immune system' is, IMO, a key piece in the
> puzzle for self-maintaining complex [open] systems, including ontologies.
>
> So instead of listening to people like Clay Shirky who've suggested that
> ontologies are a dead end we should be looking at how our biological immune
> system works (and why it fails when it does), how it learns to resist viral
> infection, and how it adapts to distinguish between pathogens and food, so
> we may gain clues as to how we may design self-healing, dynamic ontologies
> that are open to new concepts, modified versions of existing concepts,
> disturbance, etc.
>
> That's all I can think of for now as far as ontologies go. I plan to blog
> about it in the not too distant future.
>
> The way your paper relates to thermoeconomics, IMHO, is that it highlights
> the need for constant maintenance of our information processing capability,
> not just our communication channels, so I'd re-phrase the four types of
> costs I'm aware of as follows:
>
> When it comes to bits and bytes some of the the physical constraints that
> follow from the first and second laws of thermodynamics are:
>
> 1. The continuous cost of energy used for powering the hardware at every
> point, from desktop to network core, mesh infrastructure or the hardware
> landscape, including the communication channels (including the cost of
> maintaining the energy generation capacity and adapting it into the future)
>
> 2. The continuous cost of energy for the maintenance and adapting of the
> hardware at every point, from desktop to network core, mesh infrastructure
> or the hardware landscape, including the communication channels. This
> includes energy used in the development and manufacturing of new hardware or
> the production of replacement parts.
>
> 3. The continuous cost of energy for powering our human hardware (or
> bioware), including our information processing capability (our brain) and
> our communication channels (our senses)
>
> 4. The continuous cost of energy for the maintenance and adapting of our
> human hardware (or bioware), including our information processing
> capability (our brain) and our communication channels (our senses)
>
> --
>
> I plan to get started on the new Thermoeconomics section of the P2P
> Foundation wiki later (after the holidays) and I am wondering if your paper
> is available under CC license?  What is the copying policy?
>
> I had used copy&pasted physics definitions from a NASA website in my
> previous email (in quotations) and I'm not sure what the general copyright
> policy is for excerpts, i.e. what is 'fair use' ?
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:18 PM, <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marc
>>> thanks for your interest
>>> this is the last working draft, it should be the final version
>>> let me know what you think
>>> p
>>
>
>