[Inquiry] Re: Inquiry: Nature Of Collaboration

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

elijah wright wrote:
> 
> > I am now already heavily dependent on Google to remember what I was
> > thinking about a week, a month, a year ago -- and if there's a file
> > on my disk drive that I also distributed somewhere, I can always
> > "recollect" it faster with Google than I can find it again with
> > Windows Find.
> 
> I think many of us suffer from this same sort of problem.  ;)
> Any system that supports inquiry in the long term MUST support
> search and categorization in one way or another, yes?

Yes, but ... from the number of conference announcements that I see on the SeWeb list,
I'm assumimg that a lot of this is going to get itself covered well enough ... I will
try to focus on some information lo-ways less trammeled by, like how to sieve, sift,
and sort by 3-ductive means the wit from the chaff, once it's crossed the threshold
of your personal computing space.  and how to compute the practical bearings ...

> > I guess I was a bit far down the road there.  And maybe trying to
> > digest some raw experiences that are tougher for me to understand
> > than mere canned spam, dyspepsia, and the occasional distraction.
> > They have spam filters on the Gmane site, and list memberships seem
> > easy enough to control.  Right now we would be lucky to get anybody
> > else interested in the task of building honest-to-Peirce inquiry
> > software -- believe me I know!
> 
> :)
> 
> > I am a bit more worried about the other branch of the dynamics,
> > where it turns out that the safe thing to do -- at least it always
> > seems like the safe thing in the short run -- is just for everybody
> > to go back to ignoring the problem that they once thought was crucial
> > or interesting enough to work on.
> 
> I find this worrisome, but am not sure what to do about it.  I guess this
> is a Grand Problem of sorts -- how to get all of the benefits with as few
> of the pains as possible.

Yep.  I guess it's just a thing to watch out for next time
and see if we can think of a new, non-knee-jerky response.

> > EW: is this the same program that you sent me a copy of several years ago?
> >     i can't remember, and never got around to doing anything with what you
> >     sent me.
> >
> > Yes, I think so.  When Nexist was going strong, I was able to start
> > creating a really detailed annotation and exposition of it, with
> > hyper-linked comments and glosses and links that exploded the
> > whole "pattern of calls".  So I will see what I can salvage
> > of that from my Notepad files.
> 
> please do.

will do.

> > This is where all my best ideas about integrating empirical (data-driven)
> > and rational (concept-driven) models of inquiry and modalities of intelligent
> > functioning in general have been tucked away.  It's not likely that I'm going
> > to learn another language at this time, but maybe I can lay it out in a way
> > that will be portable, I hope.
> 
> just having a representation of the ideas that is unpacked enough
> to be comprehensible would make a big difference, i would think.
> even if that means writing it out at great length and indexing
> the bits of it.

i am re-signed to it.

Jon

> _______________________________________________
> Inquiry mailing list
> Inquiry at stderr.org
> http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/inquiry
>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o