Jon,
I wrote this immediately but forgot to send it. I have to say, the idea of a squandered metaphor really grabbed me. I may have squandered some metaphors, in my own time. A metaphor is definitely something that can be used prematurely or other than for its highest and best use. I am not sure what monads and monism have to do with each other, other than that they share a linguistic root. Honest. I have trouble seeing the connection. As I understand it, “monism” is a philosophical position that asserts that there is only one kind of stuff. There are materialist monists, idealist monists, and neutral monists. My “experience monism” (which I attribute to Peirce) is meant to be a form of neutral monism. It makes no claim, takes no interest in, any claim that “experience” is either “in the mind” or “of the world”. Experience just is. Experiences represent only other experiences. I don’t have much of a grip on MonADism. As I understand monads, they are irreduceable “atoms” of existence. They have no innards. Now I suppose [he said, thinking aloud] that I might believe that everything that is consists of irreduceable particles of unchanging properties … and that would be a monist monadism. I am still tantalized by the thought that “you-guys” know something that arises from the depth of your practice that could be put into words for a person like me. I have written a little on metaphors in science, published less. But what I have learned suggests that the more specific and the less handwavey a metaphor is, the more “juice” it has. In that connection, I was sorry we didn’t pursue further John Balwit’s example of Goedel, Escher, and Bach, as a book that points into the heart of computation by describing three different practices that are peripheral to it and inviting the reader to get a feel for what they have in common. I hope some folks follow up on your suggestion. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Jon Zingale [mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:49 AM To: Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Motives - Was Abduction Marcus, There is almost something ironic about mentioning monads in a discussion which continues to skirt relationships between monist and dualist perspectives. Unlike Leibniz's notion of monad (classic monism), the 'functional programming' notion of monad is necessarily steeped in dualism (thanks category theory). While it is amusing that these categorical structures have found a home in the tool sets of functional programmers (thanks Moggi), it is the case that they are often misrepresented in the poetry of armchair philosophers across the internet: Q: How is a monad like Vegas? A: What happens in a monad stays in a monad. In an effort to avoid a continuous stream of squandered metaphors and endless meandering I wish to see this metaphor spelled out further. In your example, what would the multiplication for the monad be? If it is fair to say that this is a monad, in what sense are the units and multiplication natural? Lastly, what are the categories (objects and morphisms)? As far as characterizing subjectivity and degrees of failure, would it perhaps be more fair to suggest a comonadic model? Jonathan Zingale
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
