[FRIAM] Advertents and Inadvertents

[David Eric Smith]

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 <marcus at 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-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 1:51 PM
> To: friam at 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, thompnickson2 at 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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210927/4a2e839b/attachment.html>