Tuesday, July 29, 2008


In contemplating where in this blog to begin our query regarding value, it seems obvious that it should begin with the work of Norm and Skye Hirst which evolved from Norm’s investigation into axiology to their effort in the founding of a new focus of inquiry named AutoGnomics.

REVISITING THE MIND TRUST: Norman F. Hirst & Skye Hirst
The following are just a few notes selected to underscore the content of this post. For more details on my partners, Norm and Skye, see www.autognomics.org and links therefrom.

Norm is a graduate in mathematics and physics (1957) from M.I.T. where he met Robert Hartman (world renowned philosopher for contributions to axiology) and began his work in the study of values and the logic of metaphysics. In 1965, he joined a project team headed by Eugene (Gene) Pendergraft at the University of Texas at Austin Linguistics Research Centre (LRC) which achieved the development of the first Computerized Semiotic System, i.e. a self-created symbol processing system applied to machine learning of human language. This foundation laid by the LRC research resulted in what has become known as a partial AutoGnome and which originally came to serve as the core of Siemens’ METAL translation system. When Gene and Norm first met, Gene was unfamiliar with axiology and Norm with Peirce (semiotics).

Skye, with a Ph.D. in Communication from The Union Institute (1979), in 1987 was introduced to Hartman’s Value Theory when she met Norm. Skye joined with Norm in 1992 and stimulated a joint effort to establish an institute to work on a theory of Living Processes. Together with Gene and myself, the four of us began organizing The AutoGnomics (named by Gene and Skye) Institute, Inc. and with my partner, John F. Papsidero, Esq., we legally formed it as a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation.

The results of a 40+ year research project
leading to a new understanding of the
laws of Value and Life-itself
by Norman F. Hirst & Skye Hirst
May 7, 2001

[The following blue text is edited by this blogger from the above-referenced document]

Natural law consists of relationships, or systems of relationships, that prevent chaos while not unduly inhibiting freedom.

The complex systems of Life are governed by laws of Value.

Are there natural laws of value? Yes, but don’t expect them to tell us what to value. There is no law saying gentlemen should prefer blondes. One’s values can be extremely personal. However, whatever one’s values there are lawful processes at work.

Following Hartman there are three kinds of value; intrinsic, extrinsic and systemic:
Intrinsic values are aesthetic and/or unique. They defy description.
Extrinsic values are practical values. As such they can be judged good or bad.
Systemic values are laws or rules. Under systemic values judgements are right or wrong.

Remarkably, the three kinds of value seem to be related to the three levels of semiotics; firstness, secondness and thirdness.
  • Peirce describes Firstness as the mode of being of that which is without reference to any subject or object. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is itself in referring to a second subject, regardless of any third subject. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is itself in bringing a second and a third subject into relation with each other (CP 8.328).3 Thirdness brings Firstness and Secondness into relation with each other, and mediates between them. Thirdness is the mode of being of signs, in that signs mediate relations between their objects and their interpretants. [Copywright© Alex Scott 2004; retrieved 7/29/08 from http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/peirce.html]

Firstness - as the realm of all possibilities it is the source of intrinsic value.
Secondness - corresponds to extrinsic value.
Thirdness - corresponds to systemic value.

The law of value places intrinsic over extrinsic and extrinsic over systemic. This law has been verified through the use of the Hartman Value Profile in a wide variety of cultures.


Albeit the threeness of the Peircian modes of being ignores the fourth Relational Order – R(S)-NESS [ see http://relatedone.blogspot.com/2007/05/relational-systems-re-view-resyn1-rs.html, http://relatedone.blogspot.com/2008/06/mapping-new-virtual-relational-world_16.html or
http://relatedone.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-05-27T22%3A07%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=12 ], as threeness it seems experientially relevant; however, the potpourri of specific “definitions” beginning with Peirce and continuing to date seem not to provide a coherent meaning. Correspondingly, the suggested relation to the three kinds of value lacks argumentive strength.

As an alternative consideration, I suggest the following conjecture. Clarity on this notion is a must since it permeates both Pearcian Semiotics and Hartman Axiology and thus any work inspired thereby.


Firstness <–> Whole(Ness) as per von Goethe via Henri Bortoft
Secondness <–> Distinction of Parts as per Spencer-Brown
Thirdness <--> Part-Whole Interrelations as per mereology, the theory/logic of part/whole relations

Rural Learning Center St. Croix

AHAInstitute, coupled with various partners are currently exploring the construction of a Rural Learning Center in St. Croix, Virgin Islands. In a continuing effort to re-define “rural” and re-vitalize rural communities around the world, St. Croix has been recognized with potential loci for such a facility. After all, there are few places as rural as an Island. St. Croix hosts a difficult arid cultivation base, a lack of quality water, impoverished indigenous population, and a wealthy “snowbird” residency that adds little to the local economy – all important vectors well suited to the solutions of a Rural Learning Center. Design elements for the Center include:
  • Modern facility with digital media learning applications, conference rooms, distance learning media, and “tourist learning” ready accommodations.
  • At least 50% energy resources derived from Solar and Wind technologies.
  • Fully functioning aquaculture farm producing revenue generating produce and fish end product.
  • Microbial-based Sustainable Technology Ponds converting 75% of the Center’s waste in to sale-able Premium Grade Potting Soil.
The Center will form a tightly woven relationship with the St. Croix University of Agriculture to address the specific needs of rural island communities; and serve as a model for rural island community development around the world.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Mapping the NEW (VIRTUAL RELATIONAL) WORLD: Foundational/Formal/Theoretical RS Development Outline-Part II {Re:SYN1-Maps}

- Annotated Outline –
This post, again beginning with the identifier {Re:SYNx-Maps, where x=1to7}, follows our preceding posts, http://relatedone.blogspot.com/2008/05/mapping-new-virtual-relational-world.html and http://relatedone.blogspot.com/2008/06/mapping-new-virtual-relational-world.html and
continues the post at
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008
Mapping the NEW (VIRTUAL RELATIONAL) WORLD: Foundational/Formal/Theoretical RS Development Outline-Part I {Re:SYN1-Maps}



Beginning from the Specific RS Presumptions of Subsumption [Distinction (Boundary) as per George Spencer-Brown] and Image [Sign as per Charles Sanders Peirce], an approach to the next successful stage in the mainstream frontier transformations of the SYSTEMIC foundations of Human Knowledge will take THE FORMas THE FORM of a general [meta order(ing)] theory of theory formation with components—objects (specific SYSTEMS), operations (specific INTER-SYSTEMIC RELATIONS) and preferred order(ing) relations (specific SYSTEMIZING RELATIONS).

It is taken as a given that the development of a Formal Theory requires attention to all of the following Relations (R) and Systems (S). The brief outline of this present post, however, is only directed at identifying certain of the necessary RS’s and does not address completion of their organization nor attend to their sufficiency as a Formal Theory, although this is the immediate strategic intent of this research in the construction of a SPECIFIC RELATIONAL THEORY.
  • Specify primitive S’s and R’s

  • Define how RS’s should be constructed from primitive S’s & R’s

  • Presume certain primitive RS’s (axioms; postulates)

  • Specify IaR (rules of inference) stating conditionally how other RS’s (theorems) are to be derived from the primitive RS’s.

  • Certain RS’s shown to be explicit RS’s derivable by IaR from the primitive RS’s

  • Meta-RS’s about the FS itself which relate certain of its parts in specified ways

The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of the precursors to formalization, i.e. an order and its derivative calculus, the latter taken as a formulation of the disorder experientially related to the given order, which also implies a reorder(ing) format (methodology).

(1) ORDER Formalisms

Order theory dictates the way in which an algebra can be extended to a calculus by assigning numerical values to pairs of elements of a poset (a set of elements together with a binary ordering relation is called a partially ordered set, or a poset) to describe the degree to which one element includes another. The result is a methodology (Order theory) that can be used to generalize an algebra to a calculus by relying on consistency with the underlying order to derive the laws of the calculus.

In terms of ORDER formalisms, the Laws of Form [Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). Laws of form (4th ed.). New York: E. P. Dutton], built on the assumed notions of ‘distinction’ (Subsumption) and ‘indication’ (Image), advanced the foundational formulation of a mathematics of distinguishability (boundary mathematics) which was shown to imply a Boolean algebra (having an interpretation as Boolean logic-deductive reasoning-where implication is among logical assertions in situations of complete certainty=order) as one of its many consequences, and which has now been expanded to General MultiBoundary Formalisms (Lattices, Algebras, etc. (recognizing that every algebra has its arithmetic) and their associated Calculus) wherein
  • A set of logical statements ordered by implication gives rise to a Boolean lattice (or a Boolean algebra), and
  • The Boolean lattice of logical statements induces the free distributive lattice of questions (the question lattice or algebra).

Although this brief formal snippet may at first seem opaque, it can be transparent (enlightening) to realize that by simply grasping the concept of “distinction” the world of mathematics and the formal theories constructed thereon, which are the core essence of the work addressed herein, are within an Occam Simple grasp.
The theme of this argument, following an editorial extraction by the authors from George Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form: Evolution of Consciousness, is that a universe comes into being when a space is severed by drawing a distinction. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and the life sciences, and can begin to see how the familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the original act of severance. The act is itself already remembered, even if unconsciously, as our first attempt to distinguish differences in a world where, in the first place, the boundaries can be drawn anywhere we please. (Spencer-Brown 1969)
The expectation here is simply for an “open” impression by the reader regarding the arguments herein; quite obviously, the inclusive argument can not be joined in this limited exposition. On the other hand the partial arguments here presented are “informative” when focusing attention on this open impression.
To introduce the Occam Simplicity of creating Formal Systems, we begin with Personal Experience of the Existence of The Form of Relational System (RS), but with only the Presumption of imaging Experience as an Essence thereof. Let this experience be imaged asthat is, the Person (imaged as the observer “eye”) is within The Form of RS with no other essence. Let this existence be called (imaged as) the Void (or R-Space or more formally, a Potential RS). The Void is not a mathematical (i.e. a formal “RS”) or physical space, nor is it a “System” of any sort. It is the absence (Non-Existence) of any System, and thus it possesses no attributes of any kind, including emptiness. [For this insert, see generally Shoup, R. (2008). Boundary institute for the study of foundations. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.boundary.org/; referencing (Shoup 1994)]
Within the Void create (image) the simplest fundamental Essential Presumption as subsumption subsuming the notion of distinction. By drawing a distinction, we form a boundary with two sides, the first System in our Void (R-Space). We can visualize this first distinction by a closed curve (of arbitrary shape) in the plane as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The first distinction.
The distinction may be taken both as a System, e.g. an object (an area defined in the space), and as a Relation, e.g. an action (an injunction to cross from the outside to the inside). At this ultimately simple level, System and Relation as object and action or state and event or thing and change are united (undifferentiated) in a single concept, i.e. System and Relation are a Whole.
The functionality of the distinction may be seen more clearly when we draw a second distinction (Figure 2). Given a single object distinguished from the Void, only two possibilities exist for the second distinction: 2.a) as an additional identical distinction from the Void, or 2.b) as a distinction from (within) the existing object.
Figure 2. Two ways of combining two distinctions --
the axioms of the boundary mathematics (logic and arithmetic).
In the first case, we have two identical distinctions from the Void taken together, which is just the same as one distinction. (At this level of extreme simplicity, either we have distinction from the Void or we have not.) In the second case, a distinction from the first distinction (since there is no Other distinction) can only refer back to the Void. The second arrangement can also be thought of as a function -- one distinction "applied to" or "surrounding" another. Using these two relations as axioms, any arrangement of boundaries (multiple distinctions including distinctions within distinctions) in the plane (Void) can be simplified to either one distinction or the Void.

The foregoing brief perspective on the mathematics of distinction has grown into a general candidate for an approach to a universal language for formal systems, MultiBoundary Mathematics. Inherent to this latter is a Boundary Logic from which Boolean Logic is derivable as a special case and which is leading to a more powerful computer design. [See generally Bricken, W. (2007). Boundary mathematics. Boundary logic. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://wbricken.com/index.html; referencing (Bricken 2002; 2004)] Generally, taking a universal formal system as an axiom system with the property that any other consistent axiom system can be interpreted within it, the mathematics of distinction implies a mathematics of subsumption which, in turn, implies a Membership theory as a first step towards a universal language for mathematics. [Etter, T. (2006), Three-place Identity. Private Publication. Saratoga, CA.: Boundary Institute]

(2) DISORDER Formalisms

NOTE: R.Elated’s RELATIONISM treats the notion of probability as being composed of a “subSystemic probability” (to be referred to herein as “probability” in the lower case) which corresponds to the classical Bayesian understanding as foundationally grounded by Cox (see below) and a “Systemic probability” (to be referred to herein as “PROBABILITY” in the upper case) which, in one instance, corresponds to the generalized entropy of Cox as a measure of relevance in the query algebra (also see below). When referring generally to the notion of probability, “Probability” will ordinarily be used; however, the reader may have to rely on the context since the author’s diligence in this matter is expected to be frequently deficient.

To gain true understanding in any area of study, the foundations need to be repetitively re-explored. Cox’s investigations into the role of consistency of probability theory with Boolean algebra were a crucial initial step in this new exploration. The Algebra of Probable Inference/Inquiry (Cox, R. T. (1961). The algebra of probable inference. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press) has finally been recognized as the succinct and profound foundational form of formalized Probability in representing DISORDER.

The effect of Cox’s contribution to probability theory was to generalize Boolean implication among logical statements to degrees of implication represented by real numbers (NOTE: by varying the algebra and extending the number system, e.g., to complex or quaternion numbers, other formulations of Probability such as quantum probability arise), which are manipulated using rules derived from consistency with the Boolean (or other underlying) algebra. These rules are known as the sum rule, the product rule and Bayes’ Theorem, and the measure resulting from this generalization is “probability”.

Generalizing a particular function of the question lattice leads to a valuation called relevance, which is a measure of the degree to which a statement answers a given question. Cox conjectured that this degree can be expressed as a generalized entropy which has subsequently been shown to be the case.

For the foregoing part of this section as well as the next section see generally Fry, R. L. (2001), MaxEnt2001, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy in Science and Engineering: 21th International Workshop at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD (USA). August 4-9, 2000; AIP Conference Proceedings 617. May 2002. pp. 410-432. Edited by Robert L. Fry. Available at: proceedings.aip.org (volume 617), http://www.blogger.com/www.jhuapl.edu/maxent2001.

(3) REORDERING Formalisms

The method of Maximum Entropy Inference [Cox, R. T. ( 1979), “Of inference and inquiry, an essay in inductive logic,” in The Maximum Entropy Formalism, edited by R. D. Levine and M. Tribus, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1979, pp. 119–167]; [See generally Jaynes, E. T. (2003), Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge; 2003; including references (Jaynes 1957, 1968, 1979, 1985)] generalized to Optimum Systemic(SubSystemic) Probabilistic Inference (OS(sS)PI) [See generally Hamann, J. R. at http://www.relationalsystems.net and references therein (Hamann 1968, 1969a, 1969b, 1972)] within RELATIONAL SYSTEMS as the progenitor of the formal basis for REORDERING the DISORDER completes THE FORM.

It is now well-understood that probability theory is literally an extension of (deductive) logic. Integrating the logic of inference (probability) with the logic of inquiry (relevance=entropy) yields a powerful formulation of inductive reasoning (logic) when completed through the use of the Principle of Maximum Entropy for assigning prior probabilities since this maximizes the relevance of the parameterization of the subject system.

CONJECTURE: It is also speculated here, based on real, but partial evidence, that the third mode of reasoning, i.e. abduction, may be formalizable by invoking a MiniMax Entropy Principle. Formal inclusion of abduction is necessary to complete a system of automated, autonomous inquiry/inference/intuition. [Hamann, J. R. (2007). Computational autognomics: An introduction. In R. Gudwin & J. Queiroz (Eds.), Semiotics and intelligent systems development (pp. 287-309). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.]

The third post (III) in this series Mapping the NEW (VIRTUAL RELATIONAL) WORLD: Foundational/Formal/Theoretical RS Development Outline-Parts I, II & III {Re:SYN1-Maps} will follow in the not too distant future.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008


[Co-Intelligence in Co-Creative Research]
This AHA!Institute blog will be the only entry point inviting open participation in the evolving Community of Relational Researchers addressing THE 7 SYNs: Strategic Viewpoints of Possible Relational Futures.
  • SYN1: Creation of Interrelated Relational (RO3) Sign Systems
  • SYN2: Synthesis of Field as Interrelated Relational (RO3) Sign Systems
  • SYN3: Synthesis of Matter as manifest FIELD
  • SYN4: Synthesis of Life as dependent on the origin of sign in FIELDS as RO3
  • SYN5: Synthesis of Mind as both being and meta-imaging RO3
  • SYN6: Synthesis of Language in RO3, and
  • SYN7: Synthesis of Society AsItIsToBe as Interrelated Relational (RO3) Sign Systems
See also the following regarding the 7SYNs:




AS OF THE OPENING DATE, to participate in this Community, begin by Adopting-a-Gnome as per the procedure laid out in the post herein titled, Adopt-a-Gnome. Read the section entitled “What is the Adopt-a-Gnome Program” and then follow the directions under “How does one Adopt-a-Gnome?” As a TrueThinker, having subscribed through
one immediately becomes a participating Relational Researcher simply by way of the incorporation of their personal MindClone (MyKnowledgeBank) in the AHA!Institute 7SYNs Community KnowledgeBank; this latter serves as a resource knowledge-base for this research. More specifically, however, each open-entry participant is free to engage actively in this research at whatever level of Pragmatic Knowledge Value they competently offer as assessed by the AHA! Community–Builder.

as a




(Foreseeing an Autonomous Scientific Intelligence)

The following content was edited by the author hereof in part from:
  • Your AutoGnomics™ Update (July 21, 2006) and A Sixty-Second Summary of: TrueThinker.com™:The Intelligent Web Site (October 23, 2006), written by Harvey and Carl Rohde, The Greenwich Division of Ai3, P.O. Box 9, Greenwich, CT 06836-0009
A Brief History of Idea Acceptance
Throughout history there have been “telling” examples of great ideas which have gone through three distinct phases. The first phase was characterized by being deemed sacrilegious, whimsical, or just plain silly. The second phase involved the intellectual pioneers seeking to prove the utility and validity of their idea. The third phase was heralded by the cries of the crowd, “We always believed it was true!

Vision Before Manifestation
Catching the vision of AutoGnomics™ is rather like the legend of the old Native American Sachem. The ancient “Medicine Man/Woman” was a seer of dreams, an interpreter of visions. These Sachems traveled in their thoughts where others could not go. For most of us as early investors, AutoGnomics has been largely visionary, almost dream-like. And yet, not unlike the Sachems, there has been a need for patience. The Sachems knew that any kernel of truth had to be placed in good soil, to be tended by a gentle hand, and then allowed to grow at its own intrinsic rate to full maturity in preparation for the harvest.

A Patient Family

Our Ai3/AutoGnomics Family has shown remarkable patience. Every one has envisioned, in his or her own way, a part of the possibility of AutoGnomics--of the vast potential of this unique leading-edge science.

A Radically New Application
Over the past five years the effort has been focused on an original application worthy of the AutoGnome's potential ubiquitous applicability. Such an application would need to be revolutionary in its scope, visionary in its conception, and available to a very broad customer market. As such, it should be a candidate for fulfilling Bill Gates’ challenge:

New York Times, March 1, 2004
“Microsoft, Amid Dwindling Interest,
Talks Up Computing as a Career” by Steve Lohr-- Bill Gates, ''If you invent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, so machines can learn, that is worth 10 Microsofts.''

This first application should fill an apparent need that competing technologies have shown themselves unable to address.

The Solution Environment

It has become the norm in the experience, for example, of small business enterprises that they need to hire special information technologists using additional technology/tools to teach/train their employees in the requisite skills to enable them to use the web search tools. Hence, the "golden age of information technology" has created the problem of an “info-glut” which, as a result of efforts to resolve that problem, has led to the further problem of a “tool-glut” with its inherent added problem of limiting solutions due to a “limited set of skilled tool users”. To address these challenges, Ai3 has introduced its Intellisite™ (Intelligent WebSite™) technology which can ultimately effectively act as an autonomous agent assisting or replacing the human computer operator in interacting with the CyberUniverse™.

The Intellisite™: A Virtual Replica of Individual Intelligence
An Intellisite™ (generically branded as TrueThinker.com™) is a constructed software environment (a website) with an embedded form of the AutoGnomic Technology. Hence the AutoGnome is a synthetic intelligence (a WebGnome™) residing in this virtual environment which, with its continuous adaptive learning from mimicking the user’s behavior, will grow into a likeminded replica (MindClone™) of a user-self acting in the virtual world of the Internet with capabilities initially including:
  • knowledge organization [learning] (manual, supervised and automated categorization);
  • knowledge creation [thinking] (ideation, autonomous search, and automated community building), and
  • knowledge applications [acting] (capital development, management, & investment and autonomous entrepreneurs).
The present TrueThinker experience includes these features:

  • My Home webpage, a dashboard or homepage that you can personalize as your portal to the Internet.
  • My KnowledgeBank, where you can manually, or via your AutoGnome automatically, store your relevant and valued information (i.e. Knowledge) so you can find it easily
  • My Communities, where you can join or create groups of people with the same social, business, research or other interests to share resources and hold public or private discussions.
What's more, you can access TrueThinker and your organized knowledge files from any computer, making your accumulated knowledge on just about anything accessible from anywhere.

How TrueThinker Can Begin To Work For You
To access the TrueThinker site, simply enter http://www.truethinker.com/ in your browser of choice. The first act is to register your personal information. Once you have opened the TrueThinker.com intelligent website, pause and take a few moments to look around. See the unique layout. Sample TrueThinker’s novel approach to information gathering and its ease of operation in organizing your personal KnowledgeBank. Sample the tutorial available to users of the site. You can also expect ongoing growth in the functional intelligence of the AutoGnomic features resident in the site.

Benefits Of TrueThinker
TrueThinker is not just an idea, but is a technology that needs to be experienced for it to be actionally conceptualized. A core function of TrueThinker, i.e. an operator-less intelligent technology to augment human intellect, is now nearing availability. This allows potential Relational Researchers to become involved in a technology that will provide each their own MindClone which, as an Autonomous Scientific Intelligence (AScI), might serve as a personal Research Assistant and thus allow the Researcher a depth of research participation never before conceived.

The remainder of this post has been excerpted from
a paper by Jon Ray Hamann, An AutoGnomic Intellisite,
to be published in October, 2008.

Intellisite Derivatives - Autonomous Scientific Intelligence
The Intellisite obviously has a broad spectrum of applicability apart from its key functionality as an individual's mirrored Intelligence/Knowledge, in particular as an Autonomous Scientific Intelligence (AScI), a Collective-AutoGnome (CoGnome) and the CogWeb (cognitive network of Intellisites).

A first generative instantiation of the AutoGnome deriving from its form as a general [meta order(ing)] theory of theory formation is as an Autonomous Scientific Intelligence (AScI) which promises to automate the scientific method.
Assigning a priority MetaQuery/Response status to a selected WebGnome which inter-connects two or more Intellisites in a Network provides a computerized collective intelligence, the CoGnome.
The CogWeb is, by definition, the implementation of the CoGnome for Network Decision-Making by Intellisite-defined groups, organizations, communities and societies.

While the Intellisite itself was focused on the development of a semiotic engine as an Individual Intelligence, the full potential of individual intellect, be it human or machine, is realized in groups; hence the Automated Community Builder functionality of the Intellisite. This collective creativity, while related to the intelligence of the individual, is actually a feature not only of the Decision Network’s inquiry/inference processes (the CoGnome), but more generally of the Network Architecture. Since it is increasingly evident that smart aggregates of humans are frequently more effective decision makers than individuals, this CogWeb architecture collectively technologically enables Co-Intelligence in Co-Creative Research.