Academia does something like that. "You have [so many] mentions. To see your mentions come a full member" i.e. send money. I think mentions is slightly more general than citations. They might mention your name without citing a paper?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:58 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excellent! Such credit tracking is something I've always wished I were > competent at. I look at all these publications of people I respect and see > hundreds of items in the references and my imagination runs wild with how > much work they had to do to track down where any given idea came from. > Renee's fond of exclamations like "They're so talented!" when watching some > musician or somesuch (e.g. this guy https://youtu.be/4LFcNd-psRA). My > refrain consists of "Talent is an illusion. What you see is the result of a > ton of work." It's a song we sing a lot. I'll gladly cop to being lazy. >8^D > > I noticed that Jon hid (too well) his answer to Dave's comment about modes > of knowledge acquisition. Assuming I'm not imputing it, the idea is that > these modes are not necessarily isolated or disjoint, and possibly not even > countable. Each agent could comprise 1 mode or a set of modes. But the > important part comes down to the idea that the agent (and/or its modes) > derives from the world. So, it takes "context matters" to an extreme. The > very fact that Dave identifies 5 "ways of knowing" should be derivable from > the world (in particular, the slice of the world Dave's experienced). > Ontologically, if the world were something other than what it is, an agent > like Dave might identify only 1 or hundreds of modes instead of 5. > Epistemologically, a different agent might identify 4 or 6 ways of knowing > with or without overlap of Dave's 5. If Dave laments the (apparent) fact > that everyone's become a scientismist, it may be because the world is > expressing scientism through the agents it produces. > > To me, the issue boils down to the expressive power of the mode. My > favorite meta-mathematician is Raymond Smullyan, who competently wrote on > all sorts of topics, including something akin to panpsychism. Are his > explorations of circularity in logic the same or a different mode from his > rejection of traditional Christianity because Hell is unchristian? I have > no idea. But it should be clear that Smullyan is both a product of his > environment and an encapsulation of some sort of spark/twitch that differs > from most of us. Which came first? The egg, of course. > > On 4/27/20 1:43 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > >> I call Twitch, which someone (on this list) pointed out to me was > discussed in Warren's All the King's Men, arguably my favorite novel. > > > > > > It was I. My narcissism requires that I receive the recognition I > deserve. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
