Ramble on Parametric Names as Link Relations

WHAT’S IN A NAME? EXPLAIN KRIPKE TO ME OR I’LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON’T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN KRIPKE TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I’LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOU! WHAT THE FUCK IS AN ACCOUNT OF MEANING? WHAT THE FUCK ARE INITIAL BAPTISMS? DON’T DUMB IT DOWN OR I’LL FUCKING KILL YOU

Algonyms would model the boundary between algorithm and meaning-tags whose life-time depends on certain metacomputational and non-metacomputational procedure’ status in as much as they are determined in the last instance by charismatic, constitutional, agile, and so on constraints.

All names are created equal. Let’s expand this point, that names are not thinking; naming is an activity which baptizes meaning into the web of belief. However, equality is a process, in as much whatever it may be revealed to be in structure, logically prior to a state of affairs. “Equals A” does something to A, despite being hardly different from “A”. Names go into loops, often, as often as “you” and “I”; they have the look of *flowers*, *viruses*, *thoughts*, *hallucinations*, *objects with relations*, *desires*, *sex*, *joys*, etc. that are looked at. All the same, when we speak of the equality of names, “men”, things, numbers, and so on, we must remind ourselves that “man” is an abstractive performance. In “man, A, equals man, B,” the latter man is modified simply in virtue of becoming an object of our perceptual relation: to enter a window of actuality is to touch the difficulty of that actual representation, its modal force is constrained to the window or enframing of perceptual state. Names are logically prior to description, despite not being chronologically prior to it.

So even when we set out a regime of procedure to discover and compare names, or determine identity between them, we must account for the meta-computational and non-metacomputational ontological and phenomenological relations, paradigmatic representations, which are logically prior to determines of consistency, availability, etc.: we must target addressability, or what might be called in analytic philosophy: warrantability. How might we fashion a theory of /meta-computational warrant/ for BDI agents, for and of our human and nonhuman web of belief?

--

--

--

nobody leaves the cave before the end of a new dawn https://modal-forces.surge.sh

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

The Carter Catastrophe

Do we Need Math? Imagine our Life Without It

Different Ways to Integrate the Bell Curve

Understanding Logarithms and Roots

Why studying Calculus is important for ML and where to start

You Never Know, Math Tips: What Happened to King Henry Again?

Using Old Algorithms for New Trading Strategies

How Many Number Fields Are There?

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
⚫️ nothingness negates itself

⚫️ nothingness negates itself

nobody leaves the cave before the end of a new dawn https://modal-forces.surge.sh

More from Medium

3 Steps I Use To Draw Human Bodies with a Super Easy Structure

Fundamental of microservices

Scrum vs Kanban — A Debate

Refactoring UI: an essential guide