"(1) has to do with higher order operations. A variable takes on meaning when (partially) convolved into an anticipatory agent ... some process that expects/anticipates the future. (2) A variable takes on meaning when it interacts with the milieu (probably bound by a light cone). And (3) a variable takes on meaning when/if it perfectly integrates with every sentence (again probably bound by some inferential proximity) in the system.
These are types of binding that are distinct from, say, plugging in a constant or yet another schema." I don't see how this is unexpected or suggests anything that can't be computed. The agent takes a higher order function as an argument and then uses it. That is exactly like plugging in a constant. In fact, any decent compiler that inlines using interprocedural optimization will actually treat it that way. The generated object code will be the caller function with the argument incorporated into it, e.g. g(f,m,s) turns into just h(m,s). And users of languages like Haskell do this sort of partial application all the time [without particular concern for how it works]. If g is the anticipatory agent that is responding to other stimuli, s, then f may take on a different meaning than if it were incorporated into some other function like g'. Likewise if there are m and m' for different milieu environments different behaviors could occur for h(m,s) or h(m',s). That being realized, it doesn't mean that f has any magical meaning. It can still be understood completely without th at coupling. Marcus ============================================================ 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
