[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism? (nominalism, yet again)

From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:51:29 -0700
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:34 PM, jrstern<jrstern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@...> wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Kirby responds by telling Josh he thinks in the computer language,
>> > BASIC.
>>
>> Well, I recall Josh saying to us as a list that he thinks in BASIC,
>
> No, I said I have worked in a dozen dialects of Basic,
> from pretty nearly the original to the newer VBA, VB.net, and
> such that have all the features Djikstra could want. But my
> major work the last few years has been in SQL dialects, fwiw.
>

Thank you for confirming.

Djikstra wasn't looking for "features" I'd hazard.  It was the
foundation, the core of the language, he was dissing.  Of course it
sprouted a lot of add-ons.

One thing about core Logo I didn't like was the "one turtle" was
implied i.e. this was always in "first person" i.e. FD 10 means that one
global turtle goes forward ten spaces.

In a more Smalltalky rendition, you first give birth to a turtle, by giving
it a handle or name (like when talking to SQL engines, you get
that connection token -- how to think of Python variable names)).

>>> turtleA = Turtle()
>>> turtleB = Turtle()
>>> turtleA.forward(10)
>>> turtleB.backward(20)

.... that's how it'd look in standard dot notation, talking computer
Logic, i.e. these are a family of Leibniz-anticipated languages based
on binary logic (which he learned through I Ching, brought back by
Jesuits visiting China).  Not saying all computer languages use dot
notation or are object oriented, but many are.

Python is a gateway to many of them.

BASIC contorted itself into an object oriented language somewhat late
in the game, but wasn't designed from the ground up that way, so comes
across as a hodgepodge with no gyroscope or guiding paradigm.  It's a
good example of "design by committee".

Of course the very first BASIC is probably most immune from these
charges -- it's more the spin off dialects that come off as lame, as
trying to do too much (it was a training wheels language from
Dartmouth, I know some of the lore, yes (I also know a lot about
nominalism)).

Like it's one thing to have training wheels and call those elegant.
It's another to run around advertising oneself as a programmer, while
still using 'em.  That's like being a trained chauffeur and yet
needing a driving instructor in the passenger seat.

>> had a lot of experience with that language. I'd argue my position
>> is factual, whereas Josh's command of English is clearly no better
>> than mine, so his was just a diss.
>
> I have given a number of dictionary entries for nominalism
> and you have not. Instead, you diss dictionaries.
>

I went with that passage by Wittgenstein you quoted as plenty clear.
This is a Wittgenstein list, he was a great philosopher, his meaning
should do us just fine.  Plus when I gave the Python model, you said
that seemed nominalist, which was partly why I was giving it.

I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests I understand
what nominalism means, I just don't agree with its theses, and this
has nothing whatever to do with being a skeptic or not (how silly
to conflate these separate threads, what other trash are people
getting away with behind my back, I shudder to think).

I didn't diss dictionaries, you should read more slowly, not just do
stream of consciousness or whatever.  I very explicitly praised them,
took time out to do so, anticipating a false charge (seems I was not
amiss).

What I dissed was namby pamby philosophies of language that
use dictionaries and definitions for security blankets, as crutches.

>> I'm actually attacking BASIC for real. I'm a leading education
>> reformer and don't think we can afford some kind of national
>> curriculum in which VBA or VB muscles in as the language of the
>> future. These are important issues whereas getting along with Josh
>> on this list is entirely doable, especially if he takes the time to
>> (a) learn some Python, which is clearly nominalist in flavor and
>> (b) maybe lose the dead albatross and join the Wittgenstein camp.
>
> I have worked in Python, and a dozen Python-like languages.
>

That's good, so we can trade examples in Logic, talk about nominalism
in those terms.  I wasn't sure you understood the least bit about
Python because when I started explaining the concept of "name" (as in
communications token -- see above), you started going ??? and !!!.
When Mirsky does that, I assume he's saying "I'm clueless" or
"color me dingbat" or something like that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Python-like languages".  That they use
dot notation?  That'd be like Javascript, Java, Ruby, C#... but we'd
not always lump those together.  Depending on your filtering criteria,
you'll get Python lumped with different others in a set.  Guido says
he's inheriting from ABC especially, went to a dinner in Gothenberg
where he honored one of his teachers, after first attending a talk
all about Python's origins (Apple Lisa important).

Anyway, helps to spell out those criteria a little.  Feel free.

> And I did pretty much everything that is now in Python,
> back when it was only available in Interlisp, twenty-plus
> years ago, and Python was still just some fairly recent
> reruns of the BBC shows.
>

Yeah, I'm an old guy too, remember when punch cards were the bees
knees and blah blah.  I hope we don't get into too many "I'm older
than you" contests as these really have no bearing on anything right?

> Kirby, I'm happy to disagree with you in detail, but you're
> drifting a long way from facts.
>
> Josh

If I saw "a dozen other Python-like languages" on a resume, I might
file it to the bottom.  Careful when flaunting credentials, don't get
too sloppy, wise words of advice.

Kirby
Group Home Page: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
Group Discussion Board: http://seanwilson.org/forum/
Yahoo Archive: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMzg0Z3FnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI4NjkzODY5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTYzMjIyNwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNTE4NDE4MDc-
Google Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
FreeList Archive: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs
FreeList for September: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
FreeList for August: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/08-2009
Group Creator's Page: http://seanwilson.org/
Today's Messages: 
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?S=d886f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=1&rng2=0&u=86400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit=Begin+Search
Messages From Last 3 Days: 
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?S=d886f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=3&rng2=0&u=86400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit=Begin+Search
This Week's Messages: 
http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?S=d886f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=7&rng2=0&u=86400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit=Begin+Search

<a 
href="http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?S=d886f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=1&rng2=0&u=86400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit=Begin+Search";>
 <img src="http://ludwig.squarespace.com/storage/image/x/today.png"; border="0" 
vspace="1" hspace="3"></a>
<a 
href="http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?S=d886f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=3&rng2=0&u=86400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit=Begin+Search";>
 <img src="http://ludwig.squarespace.com/storage/image/x/3days.png"; border="0" 
vspace="1" hspace="3"></a>
<a 
href="http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?S=d886f18704524b9992bac8164354cd96&SQ=0&t=mnav&rng=7&rng2=0&u=86400&forum_limiter=&btn_submit=Begin+Search";>
 <img src="http://ludwig.squarespace.com/storage/image/x/week.png"; border="0" 
vspace="1" hspace="3"></a>
[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism? (nominalism, yet again)

Other related posts:
