Case study:
We put several (non-toxic) items on the ground around a bird, and find that
high-contrast mini-Styrofoam balls, high-contrast glitter, and several
similar items result in pecking. From that we learn
----
When Object [Bird] performs Function [Peck_Ground?] with the Cue/Argument
[High-contrast_round_things_on_ground], the result is that Bird sets
variable "Peck_Ground_Now" = "True"
----
That's all fine and good, I think. But, If you want to get to "signs", I
suspect, we need to go up a level of analysis. We need to add into our
system a third party capable of taking all of those elements as arguments
for something akin to a Function [Evaluate_Evolutionary_Utility].
That is, we must have outside knowledge (perhaps derived from prior study,
perhaps from deep study of religious texts), that the "proper" context of
Peck_Ground_Now is "Seeds".
Building off of several of the messages above, an Object [Human] could run
the three-argument-function Evaluate_Evolutionary_Utility(Bird,
Peck_Ground, High-Contrast_Round_Things) . As a result, the human would set
variable "Evolutionary_Function" = "Seeds".
You would then have Human run *another* Funciton [Is_Sign?], which takes
two arguments ---- 1) the third argument in the
Evaluate_Evolutionary_Utility function, and 2) the result of the
Evaluate_Evolutionary_Utility function ---- to determine if they match. In
this case, because they do not match (i.e., "High-contrast_round_things"
=/= "Seeds" ), Human sets the variable "Sign" = "True".
If you want to make a more sophisticated (Peircian) function, then in this
case the Function [Is_Sign?] might lead you to set the variable "Sign" =
"Icon" (because it is the type of "sign" that physically resembles what it
"stands for").
----
Note that (and this should appeal to Nick), the "arguments" for the Human
include things that were not "arguments" for the bird, demonstrating that
one cannot determine whether any particular "thing" is an example of "an
argument" without knowing it's role in the program/discussion.
At least, that would be my take.
-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echar...@american.edu>
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you are talking about “S. is a sign to I. of O.” I would call that a
> ternary relation: isASignOfTo (S, O, I). (Notice I switched the O and the
> I.) So the triple ("hello", greeting, Nick) is a triple in the isASignOfTo
> relation. I don't know that there are standard terms for the individual
> elements. They might be called field values, tuple elements, components, or
> something similar. I don't like "argument" because I tend to use
> "argument" when calling a function. But we are talking about relations,
> not functions. If the fields have names (like sign, meaning, person), you
> might call the elements use "the sign", "the meaning", and "the person."
> More generally, if you like to think in terms of roles, you might call the
> elements in the tuples, role-fillers, where sign, meaning, and person are
> roles.
>
> -- Russ
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:53 AM glen ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems we're conflating relations with operators. The sense of
>> "argument" is that of operand, which can be just an input to an operator or
>> just an output, or both an input and an output. The operand is a possibly
>> dynamic thing operated on by the operator. I don't think you want that
>> sense. So, for that reason, you may not want to use "argument".
>>
>> Naively, relations are simpler statements of how extant/static things
>> relate. And if you really just want relations, then you're talking about a
>> triad, not a dyad. So, there would be 1 relation term and 3 "parameter"
>> (or "variable") terms.
>>
>> But operators _also_ define context, which is relevant to your "O". So,
>> perhaps S and I are merely related in the context set by the O operator?
>>
>> So, the reason I waited till lunch time to answer is because I think the
>> language you choose to say this depends quite a bit on what it is you're
>> trying to say.
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/2016 11:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > In the language I proposed, this expression would be rendered as
>> [Relation1([Relation2][Argument1][Relation3][Argument2]) or something
>> like that. In other words, I see you as using “argument” exactly as I
>> meant it.
>> >
>> > While still confused, tho, I like your solution to my problem. However
>> my FRIAM colleagues my react to my usage, Philosophers are going to HATE it.
>>
>> dave> "Arguments in this sense have nothing to do with the structure of
>> the expression itself.
>> dave>
>> dave> It might sound redundant, but I think you should simply use 'Term',
>> e.g. [Term1][relation][Term2][Relation2]Term3] and replace the word
>> 'term' in the prose with 'part' or 'element', i.e. segment or piece.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> nick> [Argument1][relation1][Argument2][Relation2]Argument3]; or,
>> for short
>> nick>
>> nick> A1R1A2R2A3
>>
>>
>> --
>> ☣ glen
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
