I had never heard the word ouroboros <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros> before Dave used it. Thanks for the term. But even though I had never heard the term, the ouroboros was the image that came to mind when I first learned recursion!
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:22 PM Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Dave - > > Thanks for weighing in here, my own studies have not been so formal nor > probably as deep. I have to admit to not knowing that cognitive > anthropology was a subject, just as Nick introduced me to evolutionary > psychology as it's own field! > > I appreciate your introduction of *epiphor*, *paraphor* and *dead > metaphor*. I began a discursion here (which I fortunately deleted) which > lead me to read some MacCormac and more to the point Philip Wheelwright on > the modern, technical usage of *epiphor* and *diaphor*, from the > Greek/Aristotelian *epiphoria* and *diaphoria. *I particularly find > your coining of *paraphor*, as I think this is as common in our modern > discourse/thinking as "confirmation bias". > > I also like your point that the "Scientific Method" is more metaphor than > reality, or more to the point, a narrative device to show how a discovery > "might have been made" when more often than not, it was backed into while > bumping around looking for something entirely different, and often > involving a "flash of insight" before then being laboriously wrung out and > demonstrated using the somewhat more "engineering" oriented methods of the > "Scientific Method" to move from motivated hypothesis to strongly validated > theory. > > I don't know if you regularly attend WedTech, but this depth/topic of > discussion might motivate me to make the long trek into town... > > - Steve > On 6/10/17 9:36 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > long long ago, my master's thesis in computer science and my phd > dissertation in cognitive anthropology dealt extensively with the issue of > metaphor and model, specifically in the area of artificial intelligence and > cognitive models of "mind." the very first academic papers I published > dealt with this issue (They were in AI MAgazine, the 'journal of record' in > the field at the time. > > My own musings were deeply informed by the work of Earl R. MacCormac: *A > Cognitive Theory of Metaphor* and *Metaphor and Myth in Science and > Religion.* > > MacCormac argues that metaphor 'evolves' from "epiphor" the first > suggestion that something is like something else to either "dead metaphor" > or "lexical term" depending on the extent to which referents suggested by > the first 'something' are confirmed to correlate to similar referents in > the second "something." E.G. an atom is like a solar system suggests that a > nucleus is like the sun and electrons are like planets plus orbits are at > specific intervals and electrons can be moved from one orbit to another by > adding energy (acceleration) just like any other satellite. As referents > like this were confirmed the epiphor became a productive metaphor and a > model, i.e. the Bohr model. Eventually, our increasing knowledge of atoms > and particle/waves made it clear that the model/metaphor was 'wrong' in > nearly every respect and the metaphor died. Its use in beginning chemistry > suggests that it is still a useful tool for metaphorical thinking; modified > to "what might you infer/reason, if you looked at an atom *as if* it were > a tiny solar system." > > In the case of AI, the joint epiphors — the computer is like a mind, the > mind is like a computer — should have rapidly become dead metaphors. > Instead they became models "physical symbol system" and most in the > community insisted that they were lexical terms (notably Pylyshyn, Newell, > and Simon). To explain this, I added the idea of a "paraphor" to > MacCormac's evolutionary sequence — a metaphor so ingrained in a paradigm > that those thinking with that paradigm cannot perceive the obvious failures > of the metaphor. > > MacCormac's second book argues for the pervasiveness of the use and misuse > of metaphor and its relationship to models (mathematical and iillustrative) > in both science and religion. The "Scientific Method," the process of doing > science, is itself a metaphor (at best) that should have become a dead > metaphor as there is abundant evidence that 'science' is not done 'that > way' but only after the fact as if it had been done that way. In an > Ouroborosian twist, even MacCormac;s theory of metaphor is itself a > metaphor. > > If this thread attracts interest, I think the work of MacCormac would > provide a rich mine of potential ideas and a framework for the discussion. > Unfortunately, it mostly seems to be behind pay walls — the books and JSTOR > or its ilk. > > dave west > > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017, at 03:11 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > I meant to spawn a fresh proto-thread here, sorry. > > Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at > least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the > distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy. > > I specifically mean > > > 1. Mathematical Model > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model> > 2. Conceptual Metaphor > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor> > 3. Formal Analogy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy> > > I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think these > three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough lately to > deserve a little more explication? > > I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions but > trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to start, if > start it can. > > A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, but as > usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a colleague/institution > for access (I know LANL's reference library will probably get this for me > if I go in there!). > > > http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g97806312210818 > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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