I think I'm starting to see a pattern here. -- rec --
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com> wrote: > Dave West writes: "... An example, "the future is in front of us." > > Unless you're a member of some Andean tribe whose name I've forgotten. > Then the past is in front of use because we know what it is, we can see > it. And the future is behind us because we know not what it is. (Source: > a recent SAR lecture that isn't online yet.) > > TJ > > > ============================================ > Tom Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > 505.577.6482 <(505)%20577-6482>(c) > 505.473.9646 <(505)%20473-9646>(h) > Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org> > *Check out It's The People's Data > <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>* > http://www.jtjohnson.com t...@jtjohnson.com > ============================================ > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Jenny Quillien <jquill...@cybermesa.com> > wrote: > >> If there is a WedTech on this thread I would also certainly attend. So I >> vote that Dave gets busy and leads us toward the light. >> >> Jenny Quillien >> >> On 6/10/2017 8:24 PM, Prof David West wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, hope you are enjoying the east. >> >> The contrast class for "conceptual metaphor" is "embedded metaphor" ala >> Lakoff, et. al. An example, "the future is in front of us." Unless, of >> course you speak Aymaran in which case "the future is behind us." >> >> Steve, I do not regularly attend WedTech, but if this thread becomes a >> featured topic, I certainly would be there. >> >> davew >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017, at 07:35 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> Hi, Dave, >> >> >> >> Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I wonder what you call the >> present status of “natural selection” as a metaphor. In this case, the >> analogues between the natural situation and the pigeon coop remain strong, >> but most users of the theory have become ignorant about the salient >> features of the breeding situation. So the metaphor hasn’t died, exactly; >> it’s been sucked dry of its meaning by the ignorance of its practitioners. >> >> >> >> I balk at the idea of a “conceptual metaphor”. It’s one of those terms >> that smothers its object with love. What is the contrast class? How could >> a metaphor be other than conceptual? I think the term subtly makes a case >> for vague metaphors. In my own ‘umble view, metaphors should be as >> specific as possible. Brain/mind is a case two things that we know almost >> nothing about are used as metaphors for one another resulting in the vast >> promulgation of gibberish. Metaphors should sort knowledge into three >> categories, stuff we know that is consistent with the metaphor, stuff we >> know that is IN consistent with the metaphor, and stuff we don’t know, >> which is implied by the metaphor. This last is the heuristic “wet edge” of >> the metaphor. The vaguer a metaphor, the more difficult it is to >> distinguish between these three categories, and the less useful the >> metaphor is. Dawkins “selfish gene” metaphor, with all its phony >> reductionist panache, would not have survived thirty seconds if anybody had >> bothered to think carefully about what selfishness is and how it works. >> See, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311767990_On_the_us >> e_of_mental_terms_in_behavioral_ecology_and_sociobiologyThTh >> >> >> >> This is why it is so important to have something quite specific in mind >> when one talks of layers. Only if you are specific will you know when you >> are wrong. >> >> >> >> I once got into a wonderful tangle with some meteorologists concerning >> “Elevated Mixed Layers” Meteorologists insisted that air masses, of >> different characteristics, DO NOT MIX. It turns out that we had wildly >> different models of “mixing”. They were thinking of it as a spontaneous >> process, as when sugar dissolves into water; I was thinking of it as >> including active processes, as when one substance is stirred into another. >> They would say, “Oil and water don’t mix.” I would say, “bloody hell, they >> do, too, mix. They mix every time I make pancakes.” The argument drove me >> nuts for several years because any fool, watching hard edged thunderheads >> rise over the Jemez, can plainly see both that the atmosphere is being >> stirred AND that the most air in the thunderhead is not readily diffusing >> into the dryer descending air around it. From my point of view, convection >> is something the atmosphere does, like mixing; from their point of view, >> convection is something that is DONE TO the atmosphere, like stirring. You >> get to that distinction only by thinking of very specific examples of >> mixing as you deploy the metaphor. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com >> <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2017 11:36 AM >> *To:* friam@redfish.com >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Model, Metaphor, Analogy >> >> >> >> 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=g9780631 >> 221081_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 >> > > > ============================================================ > 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