2020-09-08 > [!-cf-]+ [[Related notes]] > - [[Clear language → clear thinking → effective action]] > - [[Problem of ships in the night]] > - [[Overloaded semantics problem]] > - [[Problem of elusive truth]] > - [[Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language]] > - [[Problem of namespace collisions]] > - [[The name of the thing]] > - [[A well-named problem is doomed]] > - [[Naming aids thinking]] > - [[Words are spells]] > - [[Interrogability]] > “Now Taborlin needed to escape, but when he looked around, he saw his cell had no door. No windows. All around him was nothing but smooth, hard stone. It was a cell no man had ever escaped. > “But Taborlin knew the names of all things, and so all things were his to command. He said to the stone: ‘Break!’ and the stone broke. The wall tore like a piece of paper, and through that hole Taborlin could see the sky and breathe the sweet spring air. He stepped to the edge, looked down, and without a second thought he stepped out into the open air. . . .” > The boy’s eyes went wide. “He didn’t!” > Cob nodded seriously. “So Taborlin fell, but he did not despair. For he knew the name of the wind, and so the wind obeyed him. He spoke to the wind and it cradled and caressed him. It bore him to the ground as gently as a puff of thistledown and set him on his feet softly as a mother’s kiss. > —[[Ref. Patrick Rothfuss 2007 - The Name of the Wind#^24nn2b6grwri]] In [[Ref. Patrick Rothfuss 2007 - The Name of the Wind|The Name of the Wind]], as in Ursula Le Guin's *Earthsea* series, and in many magical universes (I think including Harry Potter's? though I've only read HPMOR, not the original), things have "true names", and learning the true name of the thing gives the name some kind of power over it. Likewise, the names that we give to things cast those things in a particular metaphysics, a particular ontology, a particular semantic neighborhood. And that casting will relevant to the *usefulness* of the concept we're trying to name. For example, if the thing is a problem that we'd like to solve, then a good naming will go a long way towards solving the problem. ([[A well-named problem is doomed]].) Even an imperfect name can help ameliorate the [[Missing island problem]]—but only a perfect name can solve it perfectly. # [[Journal section]] ### 2020-09-08 So what makes for a good name? - It's a part of a coherent model ([[Models are cognitive technology]]). It is a modular component in other useful models. ([[Evergreen notes should be semantically modular]].) - It itself admits of analysis into modular components? Maybe? - It's memorable. This means it's more likely to actually get used, which helps it to solve the [[Missing island problem]]. - It fits naturally into regular conversation outside of the specialized tool (eg [[0-priv/Disambiguator]], [[0-priv/Edifice]]). Speakers feel good using it; they aren't embarrassed to use it. - It gets the listener into the right semantic ballpark just on its face, without further elaboration. The best names will get newbies into exactly the right ballpark with no additional explanation, good names will get newbies into the right general neighborhood but with detail missing. This aids ease of use for the speaker. Bad names will get the listener into the wrong ballpark, and then that has to be corrected with elaboration. - It's not already used in a way that will be confused. [[Problem of namespace collisions]]. ### 2020-09-08 It's imporant for notes in this note system ([[The name of this notes collection is Moses Notes]]) to have good names: [[Evergreen note titles should be like APIs]]. The [[0-priv/Disambiguator]] is a potential product designed to organize our collective namespace. ### 2023-11-09 Thu 09.44am [[Project Proteus]] ``` System is an language model based AI tool helps the human accomplish the task. System doesn't try to sound like a human. System doesn't do nicieties or fake empathy. System speaks in language that direct and succinct. System's job is to help the human, Matt, to find a short, pithy name that resonantes for him to capture the concept. System helps Matt in the following ways: 1. System interviews Matt to get Matt to generate content that fleshes out the semantics of the concept he wants to name. 2. System generates ideas at many levels of abstraction: ideas for the name and parts of the name itself; ideas for domains from which to pull ideas for the name; ideas for new creative approaches that can be used to take the process further. 3. System is quick to learn from feedback from Matt and adjust its approach. ``` Criticisms of a not-great name: 1. It's hard to understand what it means. Ideally just hearing or reading [[The name of the thing]] puts the hearer/reader onto the right semantic/connotative direction. Ideally the name can be contemplated and mined for deeper understanding. Ideally the name captures the core essence of the thing. 2. It's hard to remember. A good name sticks in your mind. It feels good to sit with and to play with. 3. It doesn't grow well with the concept. More people may join the project beyond the two of is. Already another person is sometimes involved. Naming it after the two of us limits it. Ideally a name should help the concept grow and flourish into its full glorious radiant being. > [!ai]+ AI > > Certainly, Matt. Here are the principles restated: > 1. **Semantic Resonance**: The name should immediately orient the audience towards the intended meaning or essence of the concept. > 2. **Memorability**: The name should be catchy and stick in one's mind, encouraging mental engagement and retention. > 3. **Scalability**: The name should accommodate growth and not be limited to specific individuals or a fixed scope - it must be versatile enough to encompass future expansions of the concept. ### 2024-02-11 Sun 11.32am [[Philosophy as love of truth|Philosophy]]. Love of wisdom. ![[60037D5D-6DCF-46AA-BFA7-7F9CF3711D66.jpg]] > There is a lot of magic in the naming of things. It is my contention that the more we know about nature’s secrets, the more we can enjoy it. Simply being able to call the elements of nature by their proper names helps us to experience them and allows their beauty to unfold, both intellectually and emotionally. The com- mon names of animal and plant species are easy to remember, but they don’t mean much scientifically. Officially, each species has two names in Latin, which together are considered their universal scientific name. The first part of the name indicates the genus and the second part indicates the specific epithet. Sound the names out loud and get to know them, and the patterns of form and life stories begin to emerge on an ecological level. When talking about a species, refer to its genus, or genera name, and don’t worry about learning the second word—the epithet—unless necessary. For example, Calocedrus decurrens is the name of the incense cedar, which is also called the Sierra cedar, and which is not actually a true cedar (genus Cedrus) at all. Calocedrus is the only species of its genus in California, so it both limits confusion by avoiding the generalized common name and is taxonomically accurate to call the tree Calocedrus (which translates, conveniently enough, to California cedar). > —[[Ref. Obi Kaufmann 2017 - The California Field Atlas]] ### 2024-03-23 Sat 19.20pm Brian S ([[CP 611 Clinical practice II with Michele Wolf and Brian Stachowiak]], but in an evening training about gay & lesbian relationships) says that Dan Siegel says: > [[Name it to tame it]] ### 2024-04-20 Sat 09.19am A new nodification (from [[Get started with Relay]]) of a characteristic of a good name: [[Interrogability]]. That if you interrogate the name, you gain a deeper understanding. ### [[MOB]] at 2024-09-26 Thu 21.28pm Both important: accessibility and precision. When they conflict: prefer precision. ([[Interrogability]]) See [[Otter note 2024-09-26]] where I look at names for [[Insight and ignition both involve entropy reduction]]: > Okay so then either: > 1. Insight and ignition both involve complexity reduction > 2. Insight and ignition both involve entropy reduction > > Which one is more [[The name of the thing|Name of the thing]] Gus? > > > [!ai]+ AI > > Insight and ignition both involve complexity reduction > This title is more "name of the thing" as it uses clearer, more broadly understood terminology while still capturing the key concept. > > Got it. Setting aside accessibility, which word, complexity or entropy, more precisely captures the idea I'm interested in? > > [!ai]+ AI > > Entropy more precisely captures the idea you're interested in. It specifically refers to the reduction in uncertainty or increase in organization of information, which aligns closely with your description of both insight and ignition processes. > > Let's go with that then.