Glen wrote, in relevant part, "Like mathematicians, maybe we have to ultimately
commit to the
ontological status of our parsing methods?" I wish to question the implicit
assumption that
mathematicians _do_ (or even _ought to_) "ultimately commit to the ontological
status" of
_anything_ in pa
First, by saying you and Eric(C) *attribute* so-and-so to Peirce, I'm not
suggesting you're wrong. I'm expressing my ignorance. But I don't want to
(falsely) accuse Peirce of anything, since he's not here to defend himself.
So, I can only respond to what you say about what he said. I'm very
I hate that use of the word with as much passion as I hate the (modern) use of
methodology. I cringe every time I read some simulation paper or see a talk
where they use "methodologies". Ugh. What in hell's wrong with "methods"?
Why do those blasted kids have to abuse language so badly? Get
My exposure to the term "ontology" was primarily through work on the
overhyped "semantic web" popularized a decade or so ago. As I see it, this
use of the term refers to a means for specifying a distributed schema for
data description, using logic constructs. Early work sponsored by DARPA
resulted
A really nice observation:
"Trump supporters are not individualists, they are just people trying to
recover privilege they
didn’t earn and now see slipping away"
The same phenomenon can be observed in racism, sexism and nationalism
everywhere, not just in America. It happens for instance in racis
Thanks for reminding me! When I read Marcus' original claim, I balked. But
then forgot it because I wanted to respond to the other thread. The principle
of leveling the playing field so that any given player has the chance to become
an individual is flawed, I think ... somehow, though I don't
I'm sure most of you know more about this than me. But since I'm in a kind of
pseudo-holiday state between work and doing nothing, perhaps you are too:
Amazing: Karim Adiprasito proved the g-conjecture for spheres!
https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2018/12/25/amazing-karim-adiprasito-proved-the-g-
I don't know, it could be even simpler. The demagogue promises to make the
country great again. The racist hears his "race" (whatever that is) will become
great again. The sexist hears his "sex" will become great again. The
nationalist hears his "nation" will become great again. Of course nothin
Glen writes:
< What *if* (as Steve put it in his "muffled cries"), there are peaks in the
landscape that *require* many non-individuals to form a scaffold for some (as
yet unbound) non-individual to become an individual? >
Let's say there is a great woman, and through my heavy-handed interven
OK. But let's assume we could at least agree on LaVey's complaint: "It's too
bad stupidity isn't painful." The idea being to select against some (special)
formulation of innovative/crazy/creative/lucky behavior for which we have an
accounting and that accounting shows "bad" (leads to costs we d
There will always be some system-level objectives where individuality is
compromised for the sake of the population. I'm just pointing out that if
creating many unique individuals is a goal some ideology (like supposedly that
the Trump supporters advocate), then it has to be enforced by the go
Lee,
Since your substance is way beyond me, I have to raise a matter of style.
Is, perhaps, your reference to a mouse in your pocket, a covert reference to
an old bar joke which I thought only I knew (despite my having told it a
hundred times) to which the punch line is, "And that goes for your
Lee Rodulph wrote:
As I have learned from Nick, Peirce is also committed to the defense of "the
dignity of fallible knowledge" (at least, I *think* I've learned that from
Nick; but I might be wrong...).
Well, its possible your learned the sentiment from me, but your way of
expressing it,
"Trump supporters are not individualists, they are just people trying to
recover privilege they *didn’t earn *and now see slipping away"
Three brief comments:
1- Refusal to "know your enemy" and insistence on erroneous straw man
characterizations of that enemy is exactly what will allow Trump
FWIW, I define it as the fundamental, unarticulated, inexplicit “picture” of
the world that lies the way a person thinks and argues.
Owen, if you had to define it, how would you? I have always sensed that you
computer folk have a different understanding of the word.
Nick
Nicholas
David remarks:
"2- Individualism is about responsibility - not ego, not 'privilege' - and
includes a deeply felt responsibility to aid others who's circumstances mandate
such aid. Questioning the means of providing that aid is not an argument
against providing it. (Same thing is true of climat
> I'm sure most of you know more about this than me. But since I'm in a kind
> of pseudo-holiday state between work and doing nothing, perhaps you are too:
>
> Amazing: Karim Adiprasito proved the g-conjecture for spheres!
> https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2018/12/25/amazing-karim-adiprasito-prov
Glen,
I thought the Century-Link outage was going to rescue me from my present
quandary, which is that I am still working on your email from three days ago,
while now you heap on more, each more interesting and pertinent than the one
before.
So to THIS one I say only that to a Peircean, all
Dear Prof,
There was a philosophy professor at the University of Pittsburgh named
Adolph Grunbaum whose career was partly defined by his writings on "is
psychoanalysis science?"
His papers and books generally concluded that it isn't. Pitt also had one
of the only university-affiliated psychoanal
< 1- Refusal to "know your enemy" and insistence on erroneous straw man
characterizations of that enemy is exactly what will allow Trump to be
re-elected. >
This is like going to a store with a child psychopath who screams that you are
"putting hands on them" until you consent to buy them the
20 matches
Mail list logo
