Steve, ‘n all,
Just to be cranky, I want to remind everybody that ALL language use, except perhaps tautological expressions, is metaphorical. So then, the question is not, “Is this a metaphor”, but what kind of a metaphor is it and is it pernicious. My own view is that in any “tense” conversation – one in which the parties feel the words really matter – it behooves a metaphor-user to define the limits of the metaphor. So, for instance, much mischief has arisen in evolutionary biology from a failure of theorists to define the limits of their use of such metaphors as “natural selection” and “ adaptation”. When limits are defined, the surplus meaning of a metaphor is separated into two parts, initially, that which the metaphor-user embraces and that which s/he disclaims. The embraced part goes on to become the positive heuristic of the metaphor, the “wet edge” along which science develops. The disclaimed part, must be further divided into that which was legitimately [logically] disclaimed and that which was disclaimed fraudulently. For instance, when sociobiologists use the notion of selfish gene, they may legitimately disclaim the idea that genes consciously choose between self-regarding and other-regarding options, but they cannot legitimately disclaim the idea that a gene has the power to make any choice but the self-regarding one And that idea is patently false. Genes do not make choices, they ARE choices and the choice is made at the level of the phenotype or at the level of the population, depending on how one thinks about the matter. So the metaphor ‘selfish gene’ is pernicious in evolutionary biology, because it creates confusion on the very point that it purports to clarify – the level at which differential replication operates to generate long term phenotypic change in a population. Dave West, I expect you to support me in this. Nick PS – Is anybody on this list (among the handful that have gotten this far in this post) familiar with the work of Douglas Walton? He seems perhaps to have written a lot about misunderstandings in AI systems … i.e., how does Siri know what we mean? I came to this work through my interest in abduction, which may be described as the process by which we identify (ascribe meaning to?) experiences. Walton seems to suggest that you-guys are way ahead of the rest of us on the process of meaning ascription, and we all should go to school with you. Please tell me where and when you offer the class. -N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 10:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we behave?) Lee - Steve writes in relevant part: My position is that I favor each and every one of us taking whatever responsibility for understanding our own "convex hull" of capability/knowledge/intuition as we are capable of and "managing" it to the best of our ability. The quotation marks around the phrase 'convex hull' and the word 'managing' presumably signal that they are being used non-literally, and (I guess) metaphorically. Thanks for asking (I think). I was responding to Roger's use of the term which I took to mean specifically the geometric "surface" known as a Pareto Frontier <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Pareto_frontier> which is essentially a (hyper)surface (line in 2D) which describes (geometrically a containing space of) the collection of optimal solutions in a high-dimensional trade space. It *is* equivalent to the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_hull#Convex_hull_of_a_finite_point_set> Convex Hull problem in geometry, but carries an implication for multi-objective optimization. I would particularly like Steve, if he is willing, to delve into the intended metaphor in the first case. On the one hand, lots of my work uses more or less geometry; on the other, in lots of my other work I use metaphor; and I even think and write about metaphor. So it's likely that I'm taking the metaphor more seriously than intended. I do believe that studying the Wikipedia articles linked above will lead to a detailed explication of what I was referring to. I will also accept responsibility for my irresponsible use of ' " ' marks. For me, it is often a shorthand for indicating that the term within the quotes is a "reserved term" (Reserved Term) from some Specialized Lexicon which I trust the reader is either familiar with or (with my hint) recognizes as being a term with specific, intentional and likely obscure (to the casual reader) but non-trivial meaning. In other words, I'm trying to indicate that it is a very specifically Loaded Word (or phrase). With that disclaimer: in the technical contexts I'm familiar with, to pass from something X to the convex hull of X has the effect of (1) 'filling in holes in X', in a well-defined manner that is (2) as economical as possible and (3) (therefore) unique. Which (if any) of those properties are reflected, and how, in the case that X is our "capability/knowledge/intuition"? ... I could ramble on a lot more but will start with that. And I believe this does align with Convex Hull as used above... the specific relevance to multi-objective optimization would require reference to Pareto Frontier"or Pareto Surface which (as Wikipedia elaborates well) originated in economic theory but is relevant to any multi-objective optimization problem. It could be noted that I had to go back and edit out yet more egregious uses of ' " ' in this text, using Capitalized Italics in it's place. I don't know if that is ideal, but generally that would be my preferred typographical indication of a Reserved Term from a Specialized Lexicon. I will try to be more consistent in the future, and am open to being schooled on a more proper typographical (within the realm of text consisting of the basic roman alphabet and italics/bold formatting) indication. Orthogonal to my orthographic transgressions, I admit also to playing fast and loose WITH metaphor, sometimes being whimsical about it, other times using it in a very intentional and specific way as rigid (in some cases) as a (complex) formal analogy. I would claim (following Lakoff and Nunez in _Where Mathematics Comes From_ ) that all metaphors ultimately ground in human sensations provided by our embodiment. I also work on the operational assumption the our primary mode of understanding is via (conceptual) metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson _Metaphors we Live by_)... metaphor stacked on top of metaphor which is grounded in our embodied sensuality. Near the bottom of that stack we often find metaphorical Source Domains (or our Image Donor) from geometry. In closing, to try to tie these two points together, my Reserved Terms, formerly (sloppily) indicated by "scare quotes" (Scare Quotes?) may be from a Specialized Lexicon derived from a specific (common or obscure) Metaphorical Source Domain. I believe that it is *more common* in Internet Culture to reserve Scare Quotes for sarcasm or derision, but I may not have that quite right? - Steve PS. I am given to bracketing words I intend to be read as *emboldened* with '*'s which seem to often be rendered exactly that way. I use preceding/following '_' underscore marks to indicate _Underlined Text_ which does NOT seem to be rendered that way often. And I am erratic in my use of *bold* and CAPS for simple emphasis. Also open to some improved/alternative conventions and promise to *TRY* to be more consistent.
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
