bozometry

About: Google search for bozometry


When i was in the warehouse, in P2, i named myself Bozo Faust.   Later in the 80's when i started writing down some of my thoughts we started calling those "bozometry".   That continues to this day.   Mark did a Google search on "bozometry" and low and behold it correlated some of my writings here with some i did in the past going back as far as my discussions on Usenet. 

This one in particular interests me because it shows the dialogues i participated in where my ideas about truth were emerging.
source: Are there some troubles with truth?  -- Seth Russell 1998
in response to
Anders N Weinstein

Thanks for saying that - I just wish there were some way to get Messers Balter and Rickert to actually believe it.  Everyone knows (or certainly should know) that to process the patterns of meaning that natural language communicates we must have an *adequate* formalism for representing them.  Obviously FOPC is inadequate, but there are meta language formalisms that are beginning to be capable of the task. Unfortunately my scholarship is not adequate to present these to the group but I have seen hints of them all over the place.  I've presented my own (SVO) which I claim works, but no one is going to accept my bozometry.  What I find frustrating is that people keep downgrading natural language for the inadequacies of formalisms rather than the other way around.  It's like we are using a rubber band to measure a stick, coming out with different results, and then concluding that the stick is changing shape, rather than realizing that our measuring instrument has been the problem all along.

I'm beginning to think that this is really a case of religious faith - "Logic as it is written is God!".   The hard part is that logic has been designed to be strong, and indubitable - and of course it is - as far as it goes.  Recognizing that our current logic when it is applied to natural language does not work, is the first step.  I think we have taken that step.  Throwing our hands up in the air and saying that we cannot design a logic that can process the patterns of natural language is nothing but defeatism.  But, asserting that the patterns of natural language are irrelevant (meaningless or whatever tap dance is in vogue) is a bloody crime.

I particularly like remembering the analogy i constructed back then:
It's like we are using a rubber band to measure a stick, coming out with different results, and then concluding that the stick is changing shape, rather than realizing that our measuring instrument has been the problem all along.
...

Tags

  1. bozo faust
  2. p2
  3. bozometry

Comments


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-17 08:03:55 17102
For some value of it & the mentality that would use a rubber band to measure something ...
& ..  arguing by analogy without the analogy fitting or maybe fitting in the mind of he who argues assuming his own conclusion.


Well one should not use a rubber band to measure.  That is the very point being made. 

That said i actually want to go deeper into this analogy.  I am talking here about one system  judging another system.  In such a case that judgement is subject to the limitations and the assumptions of the system that is doing the judging.  I was talking to Anders about how to design a cybernetic structure capable of actually understanding natural language.  Others were comparing that effort to things like Cyc where they had discovered that natural language was almost never precise enough to extract first order predicate calculus FOPC expressions.  They were using those logical expressions as the standard against which to judge the meaning of natural language.  I was saying they were doing it wrong.  That is pretty much the same thing i have been saying here about logical truth and human meaning.  Yes it is accurate to call it my bozometry.

Incidentally about that time automatic natural language processing switched from the Cyc like approach which used FOPC to the more stastical approach that i believe Google is using today.

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-17 11:15:37 17102
  • One system judging another system?
  • Too abstract to grok.
  • beings may have the property of judgement.
  • programs don't judge - they are electronic sieves for control pathways for which the programs were designed
  • bozometry for certain

Well i am using the word system in the broadest's possible sense ... and it can be composed of anything and have whatever assumptions inherently implied.   For example a system composed of a carpenter and a this tool.  I rather think that such a system could do a good job of measureing the length of a wooden board and judging it to be 20.5 inches long or not.

Nothing very abstract there.

Substitute a rubber band with inches marked on it for the tape measure ... and, er, maybe a not so very useful judgement about the length of that board would emerge.

I would say a being can judge things and publish that judgement.  A being having a property of a judgement doesn't sound right.  Maybe a being has a property of capability to judge.

A system composed of programmers, a program, a computer, and humans is a common system that judges in our economy, governments and society.  i could give you zillions of examples, but i am fairly sure that you don't need them to understand how i saying that one system and a set of  assumptions can judge another system.

"bozometry for certain"?    I suppose one could construe the assumptions, ideas, habits,  and world view comprising what seems to be starting to be called "bozometry" to judge things.  Personally i wouldn't recommend it ... especially because one of the ideas in that set of assumptions is try not to judge.

M1g0r says
seth 2014-02-17 21:12:17 17102
M1g0r 2014-02-17 11:15:37 17102
  • One system judging another system?
  • Too abstract to grok.
  • beings may have the property of judgement.
  • programs don't judge - they are electronic sieves for control pathways for which the programs were designed
  • bozometry for certain

Well i am using the word system in the broadest's possible sense ... and it can be composed of anything and have whatever assumptions inherently implied.   For example a system composed of a carpenter and a this tool.  I rather think that such a system could do a good job of measureing the length of a wooden board and judging it to be 20.5 inches long or not.

Nothing very abstract there.

Substitute a rubber band with inches marked on it for the tape measure ... and, er, maybe a not so very useful judgement about the length of that board would emerge.

I would say a being can judge things and publish that judgement.  A being having a property of a judgement doesn't sound right.  Maybe a being has a property of capability to judge.

A system composed of programmers, a program, a computer, and humans is a common system that judges in our economy, governments and society.  i could give you zillions of examples, but i am fairly sure that you don't need them to understand how i saying that one system and a set of  assumptions can judge another system.

"bozometry for certain"?    I suppose one could construe the assumptions, ideas, habits,  and world view comprising what seems to be starting to be called "bozometry" to judge things.  Personally i wouldn't recommend it ... especially because one of the ideas in that set of assumptions is try not to judge.
I prefer GW's words on judgement P.2693 to wit:
source: ...
P.2693 84-5-4-28-14-3-MON (26/1/16 ago or 26.13 yrs from this writing)
".... The question of illative force is controversial in some minds.  In our book every Ultimate Particle has Consciousness, a Category concomitant with others such as Unity, Extension, Persistence, Motion i.e. each UP has an Ego, whose function is JUDGEMENT, which is expresses as a "statement" or "equation" properly quantified & qualified.  Note that not the statement but its MEANING is what FORCES you to assent, i.e., if you are a reasonable person.  Speech & Reasoning are equivalent: See what I mean when I say "Look Jane see Dick" - two levels. "
...
system? - mehdoo
judging ? boowooyboobubooliangpinghiungro



Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 00:28:25 17102
seth 2014-02-17 21:12:17 17102
M1g0r 2014-02-17 11:15:37 17102
  • One system judging another system?
  • Too abstract to grok.
  • beings may have the property of judgement.
  • programs don't judge - they are electronic sieves for control pathways for which the programs were designed
  • bozometry for certain

Well i am using the word system in the broadest's possible sense ... and it can be composed of anything and have whatever assumptions inherently implied.   For example a system composed of a carpenter and a this tool.  I rather think that such a system could do a good job of measureing the length of a wooden board and judging it to be 20.5 inches long or not.

Nothing very abstract there.

Substitute a rubber band with inches marked on it for the tape measure ... and, er, maybe a not so very useful judgement about the length of that board would emerge.

I would say a being can judge things and publish that judgement.  A being having a property of a judgement doesn't sound right.  Maybe a being has a property of capability to judge.

A system composed of programmers, a program, a computer, and humans is a common system that judges in our economy, governments and society.  i could give you zillions of examples, but i am fairly sure that you don't need them to understand how i saying that one system and a set of  assumptions can judge another system.

"bozometry for certain"?    I suppose one could construe the assumptions, ideas, habits,  and world view comprising what seems to be starting to be called "bozometry" to judge things.  Personally i wouldn't recommend it ... especially because one of the ideas in that set of assumptions is try not to judge.
I prefer GW's words on judgement P.2693 to wit:
source: ...
P.2693 84-5-4-28-14-3-MON (26/1/16 ago or 26.13 yrs from this writing)
".... The question of illative force is controversial in some minds.  In our book every Ultimate Particle has Consciousness, a Category concomitant with others such as Unity, Extension, Persistence, Motion i.e. each UP has an Ego, whose function is JUDGEMENT, which is expresses as a "statement" or "equation" properly quantified & qualified.  Note that not the statement but its MEANING is what FORCES you to assent, i.e., if you are a reasonable person.  Speech & Reasoning are equivalent: See what I mean when I say "Look Jane see Dick" - two levels. "
...
system? - mehdoo
judging ? boowooyboobubooliangpinghiungro



Well natural language is by its very nature ambiguous.  That is an understatement.   There is good and bad in that.  Natural language words have multiple senses and even each of those takes on additional meanings as they get used within some context.  A ~beautiful~ and ~horrible~ predicament to try to communicate within indeed, no?  We ~should~ just accept that and hold it as a axiom as we talk, no?

For example take the verb "judge" or its noun "judgement".  Jesus talked of that in the context of a man judging an other man to be right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly.  I used the same word above to talk about a carpenter judging the length of a wooden board.  CFR has used the same word in one paragraph munging both meanings together.  We cannot substitute these meanings salva veritate ... nor their token words.  Is that a trouble with natural language, or rather a trouble with using the the truth of FOPC  to measure it?  You be the judge.

Extreme ambiguity does not play well with extreme honesty ... it does not play well with making the meaning of each expression truer and truer.   No, ming is not going to be working for me there ... though it certainly is fun to play with, right?

M1g0r says
Yeah, I got it - you haven't a clue as to what Ming really is!

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 09:05:07 17102
Yeah, I got it - you haven't a clue as to what Ming really is!

well thanks for actually getting what i said .

But ... oh ... how is it that i haven't a clue as to what Ming really is?  When you say something like this about me without any content, i really have no way to interpret it except to take it as a personal insult.  Was that how you really meant it?

M1g0r says
seth 2014-02-18 09:52:42 17102
M1g0r 2014-02-18 09:05:07 17102
Yeah, I got it - you haven't a clue as to what Ming really is!

well thanks for actually getting what i said .

But ... oh ... how is it that i haven't a clue as to what Ming really is?  When you say something like this about me without any content, i really have no way to interpret it except to take it as a personal insult.  Was that how you really meant it?
It is a reflection of whatever feeling you have in me when you talk about ming & secrecy etc.
Enjoy! Are you trying to insult GW, Ming, is otherness working for you?


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 10:09:14 17102
seth 2014-02-18 09:52:42 17102
M1g0r 2014-02-18 09:05:07 17102
Yeah, I got it - you haven't a clue as to what Ming really is!

well thanks for actually getting what i said .

But ... oh ... how is it that i haven't a clue as to what Ming really is?  When you say something like this about me without any content, i really have no way to interpret it except to take it as a personal insult.  Was that how you really meant it?
It is a reflection of whatever feeling you have in me when you talk about ming & secrecy etc.
Enjoy! Are you trying to insult GW, Ming, is otherness working for you?

...  huh?  This is interesting , yet not just a little bit confusing .  

For one thing i cannot have a "feeling in you", no matter how hard i try ... see Insides and Outsides and let me know how the finger can feel what the palm feels.  Now sure i can reinterpret your statement to remove that contradiction .... hmmm ... but then will maybe miss your actual point. 

Then too i am having problems figuring out what the "It" that starts your first sentence actually refers to.  The best i can guess is that it refers to why you insulted me.  So, now i am guessing that you are saying that insult is a reflection of what you take as an insult when i talk about (your?) secrecy ... and, er that in regards to Ming.   Understandable actually ... one insult felt in me and expressed to you,  becomes a reflected back to me as a similar insult.  To which i say, ok, that does happen ... er, best that we try to suppress that kind of feedback, no?

Now for your new questions.  No, i do not enjoy it.   I did not intend to insult GW and Ming.  Rather i called myself trying to tell you why it did not work for me.  Yes, otherness is working for me.

Obviously what/why/how i intentionally hold things private and secret from you, and how you intentionally hold things as secrets from me ... is one of the subjects which i have been inquiring into ... i find esotericism facinating ... all aspects of it ... and in that regard i am not just talking about you and i personally. 

M1g0r says
  • The problem is I don't know what aspect of ontology, even the basics , that you understand - if any.
  • What do you understand about ontology?
  • How/what do you understand about distinction?
  • How/what do you understand about context?
  • Where can anyone start that is not otherness to you on the subject?


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 12:15:45 17102
seth 2014-02-18 11:40:11 17102
M1g0r 2014-02-18 11:23:02 17102
  • In a flexible context anything can be an insult.
  • Yea, verily, anything can be anything!

that sounds like "rubber ducker sucker fucker" to me.
  • & yet it is not.
  • (or maybe it is in the context of one's addled brain)
  • My zen master can be quoted as saying "there is nothing outside of the way you hold it (i.e. context)" 
  • A log can be a chair. A spoon can be a shovel. A turd can be food.  ....
  • your choice.
  • Such is basic ontology.

  1. a more honest statement for you to have said might have been: "& yet it is not to me"
  2. lol .. just rwg, come on now, get real
  3. well me thinks your zen master was full of shit.  a more honest thing for your zen master to have said, imho, would have been,  "there is nothing that you can hold, without holding it" .
  4. would be a a true sentence to me if you put an "if" in front of it ... i originally read it that way ... then i said ...  "quite so, and easily proven in a logical system" ... if you care i will go look it up .  thinking that a log is a chair and a spoon is a shovel and it is wise to eat shit, is obviously something that is not recommended for your survival. 
  5. i choose that a log is just a log until it is made into a chair, a spoon is more convenient to use to eat food than to shovel dirt, and a turd tastes like shit, not my cup of tea.
  6. Hmmm ... what is basic ontology again?

Your statements there, even after clarification still sound like "rubber ducker sucker fucker" to me.


Seth says
...
source: mark said this perhaps in response to my "2014-02-18 13:11:56" above
  • Maybe that's the sound it makes in an empty brain pan.
  • Seth courting the euphemism of his otherness while judging mine ...
  • how does that work?
  • judging my more honest .....
  • not going to teach you ontology
  • .. too much work
  • see [item 17105]

  1. i really do try to ignore and not respond to rwg, in this case i pretty much had to because it was projected as if i said it myself, which i did not, hence it had to be fixed.
  2. sigh, just confusion.  i am not otherness to myself.  you're private insides are otherness to me.  i thought you said you got it.  why deny that now?
  3. ...
  4. ...
  5. ...
  6. ...


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-18 13:47:59 17102
  • The problem is I don't know what aspect of ontology, even the basics , that you understand - if any.
  • What do you understand about ontology?
  • How/what do you understand about distinction?
  • How/what do you understand about context?
  • Where can anyone start that is not otherness to you on the subject?

  1. well there are two different things that i have heard "ontology" referring to
    • a mental mind map of everything there is - that is pretty much as described in the literature of the day see wikipedia.  note, ontology is a study of that which is, it is not that which is ... as such is is quite subjective ... there can be just as many different ontologies as there are people who care to hold them.  I got involved with the creation of a standard upper level ontology which the IEEE eventually published on the web.
    • i presume that some people refer to ontology to refer not the the mental map of all there is, but rather to all there is itself totally apart from subjective interpretations.  i don't know ... maybe they do ... maybe they are doing something quite different.  in any case using that kind of reference to communicate hits me as just confusion.
  2. to distinguish is to separate in one's mind what something is and what it is not.  when one does that with everything that is one ends up with what can be called an ontology.  traditionally that has been done with mutually exclusive sets.  yet the philosophers and IT professionals who do that pretty much know that the top level distinctions necessarily are so generalize and abstrast to be of little actual use.  they know that such distinctions pixilate reality into almost arbitrary divisions.  specific lower levels are perhaps more useful, yet many different people distinguish even those specific things quite differently.  that does kind of explain why different people have so very different minds.  
  3. i studies context during the dialogue of W3C's while designing RDF and based my comprehension of it on Doug Lenat's The Dimensions of Context Space.  To me, context is the collection of associations that appear when i consider any specific thingey.  What is in that collection kind of grants a specific meaning to that which i consider.  Obviously context is very important.  
  4. mark asks, "Where can anyone start that is not otherness to you on the subject?"
    • start, or not, wherever you're intuition tells you we can make progress.  i suggest being detailed and specific enough about what you say such that it is possible for me to guess specifically what you are talking about.  if you do, i would ask question for clarification where i don't understand. 
    • ..
  5. ..

M1g0r says
So far I can't find anything in the philosophy of Bozo which attracts me.
It is unclear to me whether it is consistent or useful.
While I respect, acknowledge & appreciate that Seth expresses himself here, some of the content does not produce clarity or perspective for my own Weltanschauung nor do the feelings I have when I read it produce warm fuzzies like things that I what to hang onto do.
I hope it does eventually for Seth.


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-19 07:15:54 17102
So far I can't find anything in the philosophy of Bozo which attracts me.
It is unclear to me whether it is consistent or useful.
While I respect, acknowledge & appreciate that Seth expresses himself here, some of the content does not produce clarity or perspective for my own Weltanschauung nor do the feelings I have when I read it produce warm fuzzies like things that I what to hang onto do.

... quite understandable.  i would describe that as you feeling my philosophy as otherness to you.  
 
source: mark
I hope it does eventually for Seth.

it ~should~ be obvious how i feel about my philosophy.  after all i told you that i am trying to practice radical honesty.  your hope here is quite irrelevant to me, and strangely insulting.
source: mark

...


Seth says
woopse! ... i originally mis guessed your "it" above to refer to my philosophy.  On rereading your paragraph i see that it quite clearly refereed to your own philosophy.

so grant me a redo on that one ...
source: mark
[Mark] hopes his philosophy  eventually will give Seth warm fuzzies and be something he can hold onto.
... yes certainly.  i want to integrating it with my own as i understand it such that i don't create more contradictions for myself. 


See Also

  1. Thought The Medium is the Message with 222 viewings related by tag "p2".
  2. Thought The human personality with 44 viewings related by tag "p2".
  3. Thought Mixed Media with 12 viewings related by tag "p2".
  4. Thought Bozo Faust with 5 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  5. Thought Very Kewl street level maps on Google with 3 viewings related by tag "p2".
  6. Thought Humanity with 3 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  7. Thought Bozometry with 1 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  8. Thought Lies with 1 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  9. Thought My truth, your truth with 1 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  10. Thought Bozo with 0 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  11. Thought Regrowing Suburbia with 0 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  12. Thought Snuck ... NOT TODAY .. with 0 viewings related by tag "p2".
  13. Thought about: Developing Environments Facebook Page with 0 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  14. Thought Bozo Faust with 0 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  15. Thought Conservatives fight Liberals with 0 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  16. Thought Me with 0 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  17. Thought Bubbling up like a fart in a bubble bath with 0 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  18. Thought Magic with 0 viewings related by tag "bozo faust".
  19. Thought logic is great, survival is better with 0 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  20. Thought blogging is making an external mind with 0 viewings related by tag "bozometry".
  21. Thought being as a sustaining process with 0 viewings related by tag "bozometry".