Good points! And this draws attention to the "third party" problem I
mentioned. Only to a third party, analyzing the events before them, would
"High_contrast_round_things" be a bird-symbol for "Seeds". To the bird it
is whatever it is, and is not a symbol of anything. Should the third party
misidentify the function of the objects in question, for example, by
neglecting to take into account that birds gain benefit from eating small
hard objects of almost any kind (because the non-food aids digestion by
performing a grinding function in the crop), then the third-party is wrong
about what is going on.
This is complicated by the ability of *homo sapiens* to adopt a reflective
third-party perspective regarding their own behavior. Thus I can speculate
about what different things symbolize to me, in the same manner I speculate
about what different things symbolize to the bird. However, contra
Descartes, and in line with Peirce and Freud, we must remember that our
diagnoses of our own symbolic actions can suffer from the same deficiency
discussed above. A claim like, "To me, this flag symbolizes strength and
resolve," is a hypothesis/assertion regarding our own symbolic interaction
with the world, and can be mistaken. A third party can challenge our
self-symbol claim in all the same ways they could challenge our bird-symbol
claim.
-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echar...@american.edu>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:49 PM, VLADIMYR BURACHYNSKY <vbur...@shaw.ca>
wrote:
> Peck_Ground_Now is "Seeds"
>
>
>
> Birds peck for gravel to aid digestion in the crop. They have to replace
> the grinding stones regularly.
>
> So without grit they starve to death even when supplied with more than
> adequate grain.
>
>
>
> Your interpretation of this particular symbol requires a modification. I
> am such a supplier of information
>
> and it requires the linkage of two minds connected by a flexible Script .
> Your Symbol may or may not be amended
>
> that is your decision not mine. However your symbol may ultimately contain
> information that originates from other minds and
>
> preserves this in your language without full attribution. I also adjust my
> symbols in such a casual manner without intentional
>
> disrespect.
>
>
>
> Check out Umberto Eco's writings on Semiotics and Good Luck.
>
>
>
> I myself am struggling with Object Oriented Programming versus Procedural
> Programming
>
> and the versions of language appear to overlap and smear out some
> distinctions. Each discipline attempts to
>
> inform users in its unique idiom of a language while the student arrives
> with a third language set never anticipated
>
> by the lecturers.
>
>
>
> At first reading I thought myself unable to contribute but the slight
> error seems opportune.
>
>
>
>
>
> You, so it appears, are now trying to reconcile more than one language
> set for the benefit of unknown minds with unknown
>
> language preferences. So it forces you to use a common predecessor
> language structure which I never considered so important before now.
>
> That implies that a general language must be a first step to building
> subsequent precise languages.
>
>
>
> This e-mail is perhaps an example of something , I thought came from
> Wittgenstein ; about the way he thought language is a type of negotiation
> procedure.
>
> I have no idea in truth how you think and expect you have no idea how I
> think but this scrap of agreed upon language may
>
> be of some use to an unknown reader.
>
> Serendipity that started a course of thought.
>
> vib
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Eric Charles" <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
> *To: *"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:38:14 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Please I need help with a technical term
>
> 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
