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
g rain.
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 s ome
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
----- Original Message -----
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
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:
<blockquote>
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
</blockquote>
============================================================
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
