MIND & MATTER & MORALITY – A CASE STUDY – By Monteiro, Marty

MIND & MATTER: THE 2ND PERSON (PART I)
In a case study, a matter and mind model is presented from an ‘interpersonal’ perspective in the context of ‘final-ity’ and ‘causality’. The social architecture of mind-body relation occurs on basis of ‘interaction’ at physical-, mental- and social level. Interaction is generated through an imbalanced state of ‘shortage-surplus’ within a person and between persons to bring about a balanced state by en-ergy/matter transactions. At all levels, learning occurs resulting in physical-, social and mental development. The growth of matter takes place through mind-in-matter trans-formation mediated in short-term memory and mental devel-opment through matter-in-mind transformation in long-term memory. Material synergy evolution is on account of the mental autonomy of inter-individual interaction, contrary to mental synergy evolution, for which a supra-individual unifying-creating force is postulated.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
For thousands of years one has approached the mind-body issue from the perspective of a sole per-son without taking another human being into consid-eration. Trying to explain consciousness while fo-cussing on mattermind influencing, the individual is viewed either from the 3rd person physical-biological domain as a ‘passive’ being or in case of mindmatter influencing from the 1st person per-spective; the mind is an ‘active’ agent supposed to exist as a phenomenal consciousness of how reality is experienced subjectively. It is advocated that the 3rd as well as the 1st person approach fall short and it is tried to cross the border of the individ-ual perspective by way of including the social en-vironment. The claim that active consciousness to-wards the environment is not only object-oriented but above all subject-directed, throws light on the mind-matter issue. Unveiling the ‘private’ mind-matter domain occurs in the framework of interper-sonal behaviour, behavioural products, related to intersubjective mental processes serving as valida-tion criterion. Within a growth-dynamic experimen-tal setting, mind and matter are made ‘public’ in the context between the 1st person – 2nd person.
The architecture of mind-matter in a social framework provides additional information through the introduction of finality beyond causality. It concerns not only the related causal process pat-terns but also the emergence of autonomous proc-esses. Autonomous processes operate at mind-body levels for which the status of finality holds. The relative role of finality and causality is valid under specific conditions. The claim is that final-ity is valid for primary autonomous linear proc-esses and causality for related processes forming a cyclic system. It is assumed that final processes only play a role before interaction between events. After interaction feedback occurs, generating a cy-clic process system to which the status of causal-ity applies. In the framework of processes between objects and between subjects, the distinctive role of finality as well as causality refers to:
1) physical process level of sensation of a stimu-lus & motivation of a need
2) mental process level of cognition of structuring & perception of information
3) social process level of sensation of a norm & motivation of a value…

     The claim is that morality refers to the ‘mind state’ of a person and specifically that cognition is the source of morality. Testing of morality of cognition occurs, however, at an interpersonal energy and/or behavioural level by perception. Defining morality refers to an interactive interpersonal (inter-group) domain. Ethics are restricted to events outside interactions and concern the short-term or long-term consequences for a person involved or affecting (an) other person(s). If persons mutually behave morally, this does not necessarily imply that the effects of an interpersonal event can be qualified as ethical, as for instance giving a child too much candy, which will affect its teeth later on. Thus, morality is restricted to ‘interactive’ events of satisfaction in economic transaction, pleasure in cultural relation, fulfilling in natural dependency, and happiness in universal connection. Thus, the definition of ethics refers to the consequences of interaction affecting other systems in the socio-cultural and bio-natural field, generating a feedback on the person(s) in question at a later stage. On the basis of the interactive and consequential perspective of the domains of morality and of ethics, one can state a morality and ethics distinction.

     The reference frame of mind and matter serves as the starting point for founding morality and ethics. The mind-matter processes are operational in the categorical system of the relation between mind and morality. The mind is laying the basis to approach morality and morality test from the perspective of ‘interpersonal utility’. In the framework of social interaction of moral good reflected in satisfaction, pleasure, fulfilment and happiness, it defines the border of morality and the domains of ethics. The morality and ethics distinction is relevant and based on the interactive and consequence criterion resulting in direct or indirect feedback. Economic transactions can be morally satisfying but not consonant with or even contradictory to culture ethics, etc. The role of morality is more extensive than the conditional role of finality and causality. Morality keeps its general status whether cognition is final or cause. To know man’s mind and morality in the framework of another person is the essence of human existence in his moral entanglement.

 TABLE 2 Mind & Morality

Mind-Morality 1st -2nd person	Morality +Test cognition-perception	Space-Timefinality-causality	Domain Ethicssocial utility
social interaction	good	3-D morality	social ethics
economic transaction	satisfaction	present	economic ethics
cultural relation	pleasure	past	cultural ethics
natural dependency	fulfilment	future	natural ethics
universal connection	happiness	past-present-future	universal ethics

 
For more details read Case study: mind & matter & morality Case Study
Bibliography

Monteiro, Marty (2009) – Model Of Man: Mind & Matter – Mind & Morality. AEG Publishing Group, New York, Lon-don, Frankfurt
——————————————————-
This case study is extracted from the author’s book Model Of Man: Mind & Matter – Mind & Morality (AEG Publishing Group, New York, London, Frankfurt, 2009)

To discuss more with Monteiro, Marty about this case study and his book, join Yahoo group at:
Rational Solution

Dark side of 21st century in Pakistan

Aisi Aankhen nahi dekhi- Jagjit Singh

a lovely ghazal from the movie aapko pahle bhi kahin dekha hai

With hero of “Tum bin”….

Bill Gates Speech at Harvard

Bill Gates about world, ideas , solutions, human life, issues, technology n …

Get to know form for Afaq Sarwar

A simplified version of Get To Know Form for one of my ex-company.

 Hi, my name is —-Afaq Sarwar———.

• People call me – Skytracer– born on the ——2-14-1977——– Day of the month of —————–makes me  AQUARIUS,——————- (Horoscope).
• Being a ——— AQUARIUS —— (Horoscope) I am proud to be —– analytical intelligent ———–, — edgy charmy– and — verbal skills — and I hate to be —–to be hated————–.

I don’t belief in Horoscope, but still it is exist and is a science.

[Refence: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/february-14-birthday-astrology.htm]

• I did my schooling from ——–7 schools including P.A.F College, Karachi———————–, college from —–DJ science College, Karachi———- and university from ————FAST, ICS, Karachi——————————————————–.
• My technical strengths are —–Technical and Non-technical, architecture discussions / trainings/speaking plus building, leading, managing and coordinating teams with vision for future ——–

 

• The best place I’ve ever worked at is —–Softcom, my personal virtual company ….means when I was unemployed, I work for this company…..
• My biggest strength is —Training/speaking, vision providing, leading/managing teams –
• My biggest weakness is —-Usage of true/direct/hard words, some people say it bad words, even I don’t think so ——– and I overcome it by ——————-Thinking 5 times before speaking but  bad habits does not goes easily……

 

• If there is one thing I could change in myself that would be ———–Truth/Bad Words——————.
• Marriage to me is ———A search for true, honest and sincere life partner who can help/assist me to move forward in life struggle—-
• An experience of lifetime which I’ll never forget –That still need to come in my lifetime-
• My all time favorite movie ———It is a very long list, anything with strong poetry…..
• My all time favorite book  All books of Stephen R. Covey, being a Great visionary leader
• One thing that I really hate about my best friend ——-No idea———
• 5 years from now, ———Sooner or later CIO/CTO/CEO of Xyz Company, where xyz is still unknown ————–.
• If I wasn’t a software engineer I would have been a —–I am happy to be in software industry———–
• Any creation that I would like to share (a thought, a poem, a phrase, a picture etc) please attach with the form——There are thousands from Allama Iqbal, Waasi Shah,Faiz Ahmad Faiz  and AHMED FARAZ  and Habib Jalib and thousands others authors, it is a very long list.
• My favorite excerpt/Quote

There is no Golden rule for success in Life, Just work hard, be sincere, get guidance/vision from leaders in all fields of life including profession, religion, social life and personal grooming.

• If I were to describe myself in one line, I would say that ———Skytracer—-.

Protected: Professional Documents

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Google And LSI – Latent Semantic Indexing

LSI means that a search engine tries to associate certain terms with concepts when indexing web pages. For example, Paris and Hilton are associated with a woman instead of a city and a hotel, Tiger and Woods are associated with golf.

Google has been using this concept to determine suitable ads for its AdSense service for some time now. It seems that Google is now also using this concept to improve the quality of its search results.

In order to attempt to understand Google’s algorithm and how LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing) is applied, you need to first understand where it all comes from.

It all may sound weird at first; but once you try putting it all together it starts to make more sense.
First and foremost Google is using artificial intelligence (AI) and linguistics within their algorithm.  The whole purpose is for the search engine to learn and adapt based on engineering and computer sciences.
Think about the evolution of video games over the past twenty years; compare the Atari system of 1983 to the X-box of 2006; this is a great example of the use of artificial intelligence.

The search engines are evolving; the only way to evolve is to communicate, adapt and learn.  Google’s algorithm is using artificial intelligence to communicate with its searchers, learn from its results and queries and adapt to become more intelligent over time.

The best way to achieve top search engine rankings, particularly in Google, is to communicate, learn and adapt… hmmm, that sounds familiar, right?

In order to communicate, you simply need to stay informed.  In order to stay informed you need to become aware of what things are like latent semantic indexing, natural language processing, ontology and synonymy, in order to determine how to learn and to adapt.

Artificial Intelligence

LSI helps the search engine to understand the intent of the users query in order to return relevant information and results.

There are various forms of artificial intelligence being used in Google’s algorithm; to provide better, more accurate search results to their visitors.  This includes grouping and categorizing their database based on language, geography, topics, relation to other pages and more.

This is determined by an artificial intelligence called ontology.

Ontology within computer science and applied to latent semantic indexing; is when data can be used to identify relationships such as apple to computer, vs. apple to pie.  This allows Google to ensure they do not show computer related sites when someone searches apple pie; and visa versa.

Search engines use artificial intelligence to determine which synonyms and polysemes apply to your site.  When synonymy is used within your site, it helps to build the relevance of your pages for specific phrases.  The use of polysemes within your pages lowers the relevance of your page for specific phrases.

Synonymy (multiple words with the same meaning) Google has identified specific phrases they consider synonyms; these synonyms are then considered the same and are counted towards your density and frequency for a specific phrase.  An example would be if you used the word car, auto, automobile, and vehicle in your page.  Your keyword count would be 4 for the search “car” and would be more relevant than if you used car and cars as your keyword phrases.

Polysemy (single words with multiple meanings) also called homographs.  Polysemes create potential issues with relevancy; when polysemes are used, Google relies more heavily on the surrounding content and the context in which the phrase is used to determine what the synonyms are.

An example of this would be the use of the phrase “vehicle”.

If you use the phrase vehicle to describe your motorcycles for sale, you will be considered less relevant. Why?

Vehicle is a polysemy and synonyms for vehicle have been determined as auto, car, automobile and automotive.  Therefore you would need to use phrases such as Honda, Suzuki, Bike, Harley-Davidson and cycle; which are predefined synonyms for motorcycle to be more relevant.

Neural Networks is pattern recognition used in Google algorithm; it helps to identify what is considered natural patterns, verses unnatural patterns.

The pattern of what is considered a natural pattern is compiled on a per keyword basis across all trust rank websites and top ten websites showing up for that particular phrase.  A bell curve is then created of what is an acceptable and natural pattern that is applied to the neural network pattern recognition area within Google’s algorithm.

With LSI, ontology allows them to build concepts and relationships through words and phrases.
In order to use ontology and apply it to LSI, they must create and determine which words are synonymies and which are polysemes.

When determining what search results are relevant, it would run through the database of synonyms and ensure all are included; then run through the list of polysemes and ensure they are all removed.

This process is called data clustering and classification.

The end result being search results determined through information retrieval with latent Symantec indexing applied and an attempt to ensure the most relevant results being shown.

Most people think Google uses a stemming technology; however they opted to use n-gram models; which have proven more effective for word matching, sequence matching and comparisons. In September, Google made their n-gram database public; which is now powered by one trillion words that they have gathered from public web pages.  N-gram models help Google’s algorithm to identify words that are dependent of one another, or words that are often times found together to complete a phrase.

The database is available for purchase at the Linguistic Data Consortium; http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/CatalogEntry.jsp?catalogId=LDC2006T13.

Some references:

http://javelina.cet.middlebury.edu/lsa/out/lsa_definition.htm

http://lsi.research.telcordia.com/

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~lsi/

http://www-psych.nmsu.edu/~pfoltz/cois/filtering-cois.html

Latent Semantic Analysis (again Telecordia)
http://lsi.research.telcordia.com/lsi/papers/PSYCHREV96.html

 

Best Practices for MSMQ

Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) technology enables applications running at different times to communicate across heterogeneous networks and systems that may be temporarily offline. MSMQ provides guaranteed message delivery, efficient routing, security, and priority-based messaging. It can be used to implement solutions for both asynchronous and synchronous messaging scenarios.

Tips for Planning and Deployment

Here is a quick summary of the tips outlined in this section:

• Understand that MSMQ is not a database
• Consider your MSMQ deployment mode
• Avoid deploying dependent clients
• Provide the necessary client support in your Windows Server ™ 2003 domain environment
• Install Message Queuing servers in every Windows Server 2003 site
• Do not manually create Message Queuing objects in Active Directory before you install or upgrade Message Queuing
• Consider performance requirements for your MSMQ deployment

Understand that MSMQ is not a database

MSMQ is not a database, but rather a transport mechanism. It is not designed for long-term storage. It can be used together with a database for message storage.

Consider your MSMQ deployment mode

MSMQ can be deployed in either domain mode with access to Active Directory® or in workgroup mode for computers that are not part of a domain. Computers in a domain can also be configured in workgroup mode if you choose not to select the Active Directory component during installation. Computers may also be in offline mode, where they are part of a domain, but temporarily have no Active Directory access. To help you decide on an appropriate deployment strategy, consider the following options.

MSMQ in a domain environment

In a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 domain environment, computers running Windows Server 2003 with MSMQ 3.0 can directly access MSMQ objects in Active Directory. Domain mode with Active Directory access provides:

• Queue discoverability. Queues can be addressed and resolved using a path name or public format name using a queue GUID.
• Dynamic, cost-based routing.
• Message encryption.
• Cross-platform integration, such as MSMQ-MQSeries Bridge.
• Overhead for Active Directory communication, to check that queues exist, including their properties, permissions, and GUID where necessary.
• MSMQ must be installed in on a domain controller with Active Directory access if you want to install the Downlevel Client Support component to provide support to MSMQ 1.0 or MSMQ 2.0 “downlevel” clients. In addition, it is recommended that the domain controller be configured as a global catalog to support MSMQ 1.0 clients. 

MSMQ in workgroup mode

If you do not need the features provided by Active Directory, consider workgroup mode deployment, which has the following restrictions:

• Computers in workgroup mode require direct connectivity with a destination computer and only support direct message transmission. Messages sent by such computers cannot be routed.
• There is no access to Active Directory. You can only create and manage private queues on a local computer, although you can view the list of private queues and messages in them on another computer using the Computer Management snap-in. You cannot view or manage public queues or any other information in Active Directory.
• There is no support for dependent clients.
• Messages cannot be encrypted.
• Internal certificates cannot be used for sending authenticated messages; external certificates must be used.
• Cross-platform messaging, such as messaging using the Microsoft MSMQ-MQSeries Bridge is not supported.
• Even for computers that are not part of a domain and have no access to Active Directory, the Active Directory Integration subcomponent is still installed during default setup. If the workgroup computer later joins a domain, this subcomponent is activated. Conversely, an MSMQ computer can be part of a domain, and then leave the domain and join a workgroup. Such a computer can later rejoin the same domain. Note that if a computer leaves a domain and then rejoins a different domain in the same forest, MSMQ will continue to use the MSMQ Configuration object from the old domain. However, if MSMQ leaves a domain and then rejoins a domain in a different forest, a new MSMQ Configuration object will be created during the rejoin process to the new domain.

Avoid deploying dependent clients

Because of several limitations with using dependent clients, we recommend that you deploy independent clients rather than dependent clients wherever practical. If you must use dependent clients, the supporting MSMQ server should be located in the same site as the dependent client. This will improve messaging performance for the dependent client. Dependent client limitations include:

• New MSMQ 3.0 features, such as HTTP transport, Message Queuing Triggers, and sending messages to multiple destinations, are not available to dependent clients. Thus, distribution lists, multiple-element format names, and multicast messaging are not supported for dependent clients.
• MSMQ 3.0 configured with dependent client functionality requires synchronous access to an MSMQ server, called a supporting server, for all messaging functions, such as hosting queues, storing messages, sending messages, and receiving messages. The supporting server can be any computer running Windows® 2000 Server or Windows Server 2003 operating in domain mode with at least independent client functionality. If the supporting server goes offline, the dependent client will be unable to send and receive messages.
• Because the MSMQ service runs on the supporting server, encrypted messages sent to or received by dependent clients travel between the dependent client and supporting server as plaintext.
• Queue access time is slower for a dependent client than it is for an independent client. This is because queue access is through an RPC-based connection.
• There may be performance issues if multiple dependent clients connect to their supporting server at the same time to send or receive messages.
• Dependent client queues are located on their supporting server, and it is not obvious which queues belong to which dependent clients, complicating queue management.
• When MSMQ with dependent client functionality is uninstalled from a computer, the associated queues are not automatically deleted from the supporting server.
• Dependent clients cannot run under a local user account.
• Dependent clients cannot be installed on computers in workgroup mode or on 64-bit computers.

Note that if you are moving MSMQ 1.0 computers from a Windows NT 4.0 domain into a Windows Server 2003 domain, dependent clients running Windows NT 4.0 must have Windows NT® 4.0 Service Pack 4 or later installed. This is necessary for transactional messaging.

As an alternative to dependent clients, consider installing MSMQ 3.0 with independent client functionality. Where this is not appropriate, consider deploying MSMQ 3.0 with DCOM as a viable alternative. For more information, see the Web-based article on Deploying MSMQ 3.0 with DCOM

Reference: msdn

ABC of MSMQ

What is MSMQ?MSMQ stands for Microsoft Message Queuing. It’s a message queuing framework used for applications that use messaging infrastructure. MSMQ is a tool for sending and receiving messages. MSMQ is powerful enough to provide near real-time message exchange throughput, depending on the machines and transports involved in the exchange, and flexible enough to provide many features required in assembling a communications infrastructure for your application system. You can send MSMQ messages across machine boundaries—including across the Internet—to queues where a receiving application can retrieve them in a prioritized first-in first-out manner. MSMQ also integrates with Active Directory to provide domain-wide queue management features.

It can be used to implement solutions to both asynchronous and synchronous scenarios requiring high performance. The following list shows several places where Message Queuing can be used.

• Mission-critical financial services: for example, electronic commerce.
• Embedded and hand-held applications: for example, underlying communications to and from embedded devices that route baggage through airports by means of an automatic baggage system.
• Outside sales: for example, sales automation applications for traveling sales representatives.
• Workflow: Message Queuing makes it easy to create a workflow that updates each system. A typical design pattern is to implement an agent to interact with each system. Using a workflow-agent architecture also minimizes the impact of changes in one system on the other systems. With Message Queuing, the loose coupling between systems makes upgrading individual systems simpler.

Run-Time Requirements

MSMQ 1.0 can be deployed on computers running Microsoft® Windows NT® 4.0, Windows® 95, and Windows 98.

MSMQ 2.0 can be deployed on computers running Microsoft Windows 2000.

MSMQ 3.0 can be deployed on computers running Microsoft Windows XP Professional and members of the Windows Server 2003 family.

System.Messaging NamespaceThe System.Messaging namespace provides a set of classes which can be used to work with MSMQ.

 

The MessageQueue class provides all the necessary functionality to work with and manipulate MSMQ queues. It is like a wrapper around message queuing.The Message class provides everything required to define and use an MSMQ message.

Workgroup Mode and Active Directory Integration

MSMQ was designed to integrate with Active Directory (AD) by publishing information about its queues in the AD directory structure, which facilitates searching for queues and testing for the presence of queues across the entire domain. However, I have found MSMQ to be much more reliable when you install it in Workgroup Mode, because that mode explicitly instructs MSMQ to disable AD integration. The main functionality that you lose in Workgroup Mode is queue search capabilities, and the ability to use public queues. Neither tradeoff is significant enough to warrant the integration with AD.

Public and Private Queues: MSMQ has two basic types of message queues: public and private. There is little functional difference between the two types, except that MSMQ publishes information about public queues in AD. AD provides many useful ways of searching for queues throughout the domain. Unfortunately, the ability to search for public queues comes at a great cost—reliance on AD considerably reduces the robustness of MSMQ . Private queues require a more absolute naming convention, and you can’t search for them as easily as public queues.

Message Queue Path:A message queue path string must be properly constructed. The syntax of the path can vary widely, depending on the type of queue you are talking to, and where it is located. In the above example, the MSMQ resides on the same machine as the Web server. However, in realistic situations, the MSMQ will reside on another machine. Examples of queue paths:

Queue Type	Location message is sent from	Example
Public Queue (must belong to ActiveDirectory)	Anywhere	ServerName\QueueName
Private Queue	Same server MSMQ resides on	.\private$\QueueName
Private Queue	Anyremote location	FormatName:DIRECT =OS:machinename \private$\queuename

 Other Considerations: The message queue Receive method waits indefinitely until a message is received on the queue. Depending on the type of processing you are doing, you may want to queue up some worker threads so that multiple messages can be received and processed at once. Consequently, this type of processing can be very robust and scalable. There are a variety of other methods on the message queue object certainly worth investigating. The following are a few that are noteworthy:

Method Name	Description
Peek	Performs a non-destructive read a message, meaning the message is not deleted after “peeking”. (Read purges the message)
BeginRead / EndRead, BeginPeak/ End Peak	Allows for asynchronous handling of the message. Code will continue running while a message is being received; an event handler will execute when the message has been fully received.
Delete	Deletes a message out of the queue.

Scrutinizing a snapshot of a Brazilian girl and two presidents at the G8

President Obama is in the middle of the G8 conference, where he and other world leaders are trying to fix the climate, the global economy, and about a million other terrifying problems. And yet, all anyone can talk about is a photo that supposedly shows the U.S. president and French leader Nicolas Sarkozy checking out a young woman’s posterior.