Yeah. What a guy. I had the impression there wasn’t anything he could master.
Currently: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dabacon/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dabacon/> Eric > On Sep 24, 2021, at 6:09 AM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > > I once had an office by Dave Bacon. Years later, and for many years, he held > the title of software engineer at Google. By the definitions of people > here, he's a scholar and a scientist. But in the weird (?) world of > Silicon Valley, he probably was able to make more money and be more > influential keeping that title. The important thing was that he was Dave > Bacon. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:51 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Advertents and Inadvertents > > My comment about being a hack is *not* disparaging. It's a blunt fact and, to > the extent one can take pride in things, I take pride in it. > > By "ontological", I mean attributed to the real/extant/actual world (avoiding > Peirce's distinction between real and extant) out there. I don't like the > plural "ontologies" at all. Instead of your language of "one's ontology", I > would prefer "one's model(s) of the world". Then epistemology would be the > study of those models and their fidelity to the world. The computer > technology sense of "ontology" is fairly close to "model of the world". So, I > don't like using the word in that context. But I must when I talk to those > people. > > When I caution you against ontological commitment, I intend to talk about > commitment to things like monism, triadic sign-object-interpretant > thingamajiggies, and the ontological soundness of [in]advertents. When I > objected that inadvertents do not exist, I intended to pressure you into > distinguishing your model of the world from the world. If we can restrict > ourselves to never having *any* access to the real world out there, and only > talk about models of the world, then that will satisfy me. But to make it > clear that's what's happening, we might want to strip our language of those > words. Words like "world", "reality", "exists", etc. All we need discuss is > the plurality of models and how they compare. > > If we do that, then we can say, let there be 2 models, M1 and M2. If M1⊂M2, > then the components, c∈M2 such that c∉M1 can be called "inadvertent" w.r.t. > M1. Or if, more generally, for any M1≠M2 such that c2∈M2, c2∉M1, c1∈M1, > c1∉M2, c1 is "inadvertent" w.r.t. M2 and c2 is inadvertent w.r.t. M1. We > could go further and talk about whether or not M1∪M2 is also a model? And if > it's not guaranteed that the arbitrary composition of 2 models yields a > model, then perhaps there are situations where 2 models might share a more > primitive (smaller, more compressed, more expressive) model. And we might be > able to ask, then, is there a "largest model", a model that expresses > everything all other models express. > > > On 9/23/21 1:17 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> I despair when people whom I respect disparage themselves. "If Glen is a >> hack," I think, "what kind of a worm am I?" I look at it this way. We are >> all good at somethings, bad at others. To the extent our strengths and >> weaknesses can compensate for one another, then that is a good thing. Each >> offers what he has to offer; each takes from the pile of offerings what he >> needs. It's a kind of intellectual communism. >> >> I do what to open a short side bar with you concerning "ontology." I don't >> think the distinction between phenomenon and epiphenomenon was ever >> "ontological" with me. Nor is the distinction between advertents and >> inadvertents. So that makes me worry that we are using the term in >> different senses. My understanding is that one's ontology is everything >> that one assumes to be. Ontologies can be explicit or inexplicit. So, I >> can have an ontology and not know it. You, therefore, have some >> considerable power to convince me of what my ontology actual is. To the >> extent my ontology is explicit, it is a monist experience monism that >> insists that we live in a world of signs ... experiences that signify other >> experiences, but I don't think that ontology commits me to a world of >> advertents and inadvertents. >> >> Now I have heard you software wizards speak from time to time of >> "ontologies", and I am guessing that the word has some added spin for you >> that it does not for me. So, I would like to straighten that out, if we >> could. When you say that you fear the distinction is ontological with me, >> what exactly is it that you fear? >> >> By the way, as a behaviorist, I am inclined to more to make the error that >> human most enterprizes are inadvertent, then to make the error that >> biological ones are advertent. > > -- > "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,45MkI-YR3TJ9NHKcGjltxuKUwGzemDCY784nm0rKFn0Paq2nhjYRKx2Mt6u9iA2EtLaXwNBp0I6nfWWN8TmcNnw1FUtwSirSJ2cVALEkhrQb2A,,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,vjfQSPYkh9e-rTuZlIyWg_RZft72UT-wkCfWttYqvCU4XgvjFynnA-n-h7cBy7z9bBeOB0q8doUipJ8ym_vqSq9Kn_0VqlehUc-geEjI90UuRAADEr3QgBiLxQ,,&typo=1 > archives: > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,C3xSnlEeOSDutMeto2Xt_xERS0AOUNTIvKw7Xuqq7uMKUEEmpspxMXI8DeB1RP-PcdpYGmMFEw87GBGBcT4wAtIIKfl5uEZxoDr0RUGyBGk6qjRDK1QX&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,ZqSdvgZzynlXjPuQYGVUINjXBTkM0-nil7QUzZUAKCcH8cyF9elhvSX2olhwe0F3n_7Gz6YFxSxsUcwMfdhAgmM9_i327iRshGBVhXTJiDqPYWuWHesgYg,,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,2canSxJapEzBnxCSHHR5LAfKhkgltHZAppvNmqIwfC0u0o8hTf0W47O67HuPcgKQRpJY3S5Yf3LcvqKOA4KZz1iult4abCOevyrJpPd8XklHmz1eB-Db&typo=1 > archives: > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,krKotYgNTG8PbCYX6hke8qx5RACNoUCGgicw-5gJkk_5Zfrr1e9QJT_OEphSojtxgHJ46zxfvdF1K9V45KJtyB_tiDlaGV1ES8HxCmkW1Qo,&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
