Steve Smith, I am now completely tangled in my own threads here. Can you provide a translation?
Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:41 PM To: FriAM <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Re Rant Now that I've finally had a chance to read the entry Roger posted, I have an opinion. (Ha! As if I would ever *not* have an opinion....) On 9/14/19 7:56 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Frank has been unfairly accused. His was an Anti-Rant Quip. > > The material Roger cites doesn’t obviously relate (for me) to Frank’s and my > standing argument about the efficacy of inner life. But its themes, > continuity and anti-determinism, are Peirceian themes. And my respect for > Roger is such that I know that he don’t never say somethin’ for nothin’. So, > can somebody explicate? Perhaps even Roger? > On 9/13/19 9:19 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:>> Rant?? >> I am a proponent, in human affairs, of both/and rather than either/or >> propositions. In math I use the law of the excluded middle, however. First) Both Nick's and Frank's reaction to Roger's classification of Frank's post as a "rant" are "so meta" -- said in the voice of a 20-something hipster. Rants can be both good and bad, subtle and over the top. Reacting as if Roger said anything accusatory is, I think, an example of artificial discretization, over and above what's present in the original discussion. 8^) On 9/13/19 11:49 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > “dichotomania: the compulsion to replace quantities with dichotomies > (‘black-and-white thinking’), even when such dichotomization is unnecessary > and misleading for inference.” > > Floating point and multi-precision numbers are used all the time on base 2 > digital computers. Second) Yeah, but it's important to remember that these are approximations to the (ideal) numbers. If an artificial discretization is used to facilitate the resolution/granularity of the lens, then that's where I part ways with the blog entry. I'd argue such artificial discretization isn't inappropriate at all. This is the problem I have with Lee's definition of computation. Free variables can be bound with schema, themselves having free variables, not merely with primitive values. So, *sure* floating point numbers are only approximations... but it's good enough for now ... or even for anything we'd ever need, anyway. The real trick is *why* we artificial discretizers can't fluidly switch back and forth between thinking of bindings as definite or indefinite? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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
