Ramble on Parametric Names as Link Relations
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?