From: Rosaria Conte <[log in to unmask]>
> Keith wrote
>
> >MABS practice is based on (usually unstated) ontological assumptions,
that
> >only individuals exist, and that macrosocial entities do not exist.
> >(...) MABS goes further ...: MABS explicitly models AGENTS, but does
> >not explicitly model social entities (groups, institutions,
> >norms/conventions/rules conceptualized as collective entities, not
> >simply shared psychological entities). These collective entities
> >are not considered to be "real" and are not considered to be capable
> >of causal power: "epiphenomenal." MABS methodology is
> >epiphenomenalist about the social.
> >
>
> I am not sure that MABS can really be imputed this strong
> individualist stance. In Multiagent Systems (MAS) and in MABS, social
> structures are modelled as emerging from aggregates of agents that
> share a common world. But this is not equal to stating that emerging
> social structures do not exist! Analogously, to state that
^^^^
> cooperation evolves from a variety of interactional strategies is not
> equal to say that it does not exist.
^^^^
It is not clear what "exist" means. Suppose that an agent A in a society
wants to carry out a joint activity with a group Gr of agents in that
society. If the group is only an emergent structure but does not exist as
an explicit structure, how will this agent A for example talk to the
group Gr? Who in the group will answer to any query from the
agent A? While from an obsever's view point it may not matter
whether a social structure such a 'group' is explicit or an
emergent phenomenon, to a participating agent it does.
Rosaria, can you please comment on this?
> Rosaria Conte
Cheers,
N Paramesh
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
