In summary, Nick: the problem appears to be two-fold: 1. The real day job is taking up every spare minute of my time, and 2. you guys clearly love to discuss abstraction for the seemingly sole sake of discussion way, *way* more than I do. I don't get that, in all truth, but you all seem to be enjoying it so much, the very last thing I'd ever want to do would be to dampen all that pleasure.
Seriously, please carry on. --Doug On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Steve, **** > > ** ** > > I am, I confess, rankled to be called abstrooos, because I try hard to be > clear. Bad as I am at it, it is a central passion of my life. The > temptation is always just to mouth the words that make one feel like an > expert, rather than try out words that might actually communicate one’s > understanding to a person who does not yet share it. In this conversation, > I see that a lot of people, yourself included, have been working very hard > to be clear to one another, although it is very hard work. Doug has > little standing to criticize others for being abstrooos, because he has > usually ducked any request that he explain something difficult to somebody > who does not share his training. He may hold the view …. And has, in fact, > in at least one conversation defended the view … that talking to > non-experts about matters in a field in which he holds expertise is simply > not a useful exercise. But that, I think, quickly leads to the idea that > we should be governed by scientist-kings in all important matters to which > scientific expertise is relevant. That prospect is pretty scary to me. > Unless one favors such a government, one really has no choice but to jump > in the sty with the rest of us pigs and wallow around with us. **** > > ** ** > > Come on in, Doug. The mud’s just fine! What is the halting problem? *** > * > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve > Smith > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:25 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Isomorphism between computation and philosophy**** > > ** ** > > Owen -**** > > Its starting to get lonely here!**** > > It is kind of a "dogpile" here... with Doug now perched on top! <grin> > > I am *sympathetic* with your desire to have the (mostly formal) language > you are most familiar/comfortable with to apply more *directly* to one you > may merely have romantic ideas about. But romance does not an isomorphism > make? > > Maybe we can reframe the discussion in a way that lets you out from under > the crush... Is it possible that you are asking something more like?**** > > *Why isn't the language of philosophical logic (ala Bertrand Russell)* > sufficient for all philosophical discourse? And if it is, can it not > therefore be mapped completely (and obviously) into a specification > suitable for automated processing by a computer program? And who wouldn't > want that kind of automated verifiability?**** > > Nick cornered you (with his breathy Marilyn Monroe voice and Groucho > eyebrows) in the cocktail conversation. I *think* his point was at least > partly that even *IF* you could reduce all philosophical discourse to being > equivalent to computer science, it wouldn't help make the conversation > accessible to anyone without significant experience/training/exposure to > the specialized language involved? > > Maybe the rest of us are just jealous if we imagine that you could > "glibly" get away with such cocktail conversations (and by get away with, I > mean successfully make the point to someone with limited domain-specific > knowledge, not just get them to pretend to understand as they sidle off > toward the exit or the group playing Twister in the corner)? But that > image (embellished by me of course) was Nick's, not yours so it isn't > really fair to beat you with that one. > > In a nod to Doug (perched smugly on top of the pile), I have to > acknowledge the precision of his choice of the term "abstruse"... I had to > look it up (not because I didn't have a working knowledge, but because I > wanted to see if he and I likely use it the same way):**** > ab·struse **** > > /abˈstro͞os/**** > > Adjective**** > > Difficult to understand; obscure.**** > > Synonyms**** > > obscure - recondite - deep - profound**** > > I have to admit to having always treated it as a portmanteau word formed > roughly from "abstract" and "obtuse". Not *quite* as generous as the > definition given above: "Annoyingly Insensitive" compounded with > "dissociated from any specific instance". Wait... maybe that *is* his > use?**** > ob·tuse **** > > /əbˈt(y)o͞os/**** > > Adjective**** > > 1. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.**** > 2. Difficult to understand.**** > > Synonyms**** > > dull - blunt - dense - slow-witted**** > 1ab·stract**** > > *adjective* \ab-ˈstrakt, ˈab-ˌ\**** > > 1 **** > > *a* *:* > disassociated<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disassociate>from any > specific instance <an > *abstract* entity> **** > > *b* *:* difficult to understand *:* > abstruse<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstruse> > <*abstract* problems> **** > > *c* *:* insufficiently factual *:* > formal<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formal> <possessed > only an *abstract* right> **** > > 2**** > > *:* expressing a quality apart from an object <the word *poem* is > concrete, *poetry* is *abstract*> **** > > 3**** > > *a* *:* dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects *:* > theoretical<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical> > <*abstract* science> **** > > *b* *:* impersonal <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impersonal>, > detached <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detached> <the * > abstract* compassion of a surgeon — *Time*> **** > > 4**** > > *:* having only > intrinsic<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic>form with > little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative > content <*abstract* painting> **** > > — *ab·stract·ly* *adverb* **** > > — *ab·stract·ness* *noun* **** > > > > - Steve > > > **** > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> * <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
============================================================ 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
