[FRIAM] At the limits of thought
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 19:04:52 EDT 2020
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 ☣ <gepropella at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200427/700e7021/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list