I call the author out for not being widely read in areas where they are attempting to coin neologisms. If that seems like insulting someone’s intelligence and telling them to calm down to you then I’m not sure this will be a productive conversation.
Coining new terms for established ideas is not intellectual contribution — it is, in Wiredu’s language, the opposite of conceptual decolonization. The topic does not need new vocabulary. The author needs to read more widely, cite more justly, and recognize that the scholars they overlook understood these problems first, understood them more deeply, and in some cases paid significant professional costs for doing so.
She didn't claim to be an expert, so she doesn't have to satisfy any "standards".
You consider yourself intellectual but you don't apply benefit of the doubt? You neither offered reasonable correction, only a thin bun with a lot of beef.
Let’s not avoid the problem by being disingenuous. The below, to you, does not qualify as trying to be an intellectual? The author skips over 150 years of engagement with Peirce and tries to go straight back to the source but fails to locate any actual reason to do so:
> In the research phase of this article, I came to the conclusion that existing system models are insufficient as they do not describe the process of how human knowledge, ideas and concepts evolve and how they are connected in a form that makes the idea of this work easily understandable. That is why I propose the “Dynamic Dialectic Substrate” to describe a model of cognition including the resulting dynamics and evolution. I hope this system model helps to understand this article. I choose the name “Dynamic Dialectic Substrate” because it symbolizes the obvious dialectic process, but other than the popular understanding of dialectic, it is, in my understanding, not static and rather dynamic, which I wanted to explicitly include in the name. Also, although a substrate is usually thought of as something passive, it is used here in a very active way. The idea was that humans (and apparently also AIs) are the actors and the Dynamic Dialectic Substrate is just the pool or medium out of which the actors draw their dialectics and, in doing so, changing the substrate itself. One could also say that the Dynamic Dialectic Substrate is just Pragmatism (C.S. Peirce’s logic of abduction) or Evolutionary Epistemology… if you have this perspective, please ask yourself if it is really REALLY the same and if the Dynamic Dialectic Substrate is not a much better representation of what needs to be grasped here.
I know that there are many theories of cognition like Conceptual blending, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis and also in some sense Memetics, but they all catch only parts of what we need here to understand the problem, like they only describe the mechanism of cognition or the transport mechanism of memes. The Hegelian Dialectic is too abstract, widely misunderstood, and bloated while vague at the same time. For example, the Hegelian Dialectic is often perceived as static and not dynamic, although Hegel would probably be very angry about that. It is by the way a common misconception that the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis model is from Hegel, it is actually from Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus. ↩
Dialectic, also known as the dialectical method, refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric; the object is more an eventual and commonly held truth than the ‘winning’ of an (often binary) competition.
I have provided several references to authors who developed material subject to peer review that would belong in an properly cited article. You have contributed exactly nothing to the discussion except trying to imply I am responding out of sexism, and then implying that someone referencing Peirce and stating they feel there is a need for a new informational substrate without engaging with any of the work since is not acting as an “intellectual.”
so i am not entirely sure what you mean with "trying to be an intellectual", to me it sounds like a personal attack tbh and a quite cynic one.
I wanted to preventively write about all the concepts i have looked at because i wanted to prevent that people get hung up on the form and stop discussing about the content the the core message of my post.
As i wrote i don't see that "150 years of Peirce" have produced a model that is similar to what i am trying to say here.
You apparently take a offence in whatever you are offended and i want to give you a chance to speak with me directly about whatever you seem to think i have missed under the precondition that you try to actually engage with my text and don't hand wave it in a cynical fashion like you did until now.
I have looked, as i wrote, at Peirce and although he describes theories that are similar to the end effects of the DDS with AI-skew, it still is something completely different.
Besides that i am saddened that you seem to put form over content and that you did not really engage with the blog post itself.
I said she didn't claim to be an expert. I said you consider yourself an intellectual. Don't twist my words for your false arguments. I wanted to hear from you that you are just slamming her for the sake of it. I got multiple answers.
You again go on an pseudo intellectual LLM assisted rampage just for the win. You don't contribute to the discussion, you erode it.
It's nuts that I use the pronouns of the author, and you turn it into an sexism accusation.
I am not sure without additional clarification, but by “pseudo intellectual LLM assisted rampage” you seem to be referring to the long passage I pulled verbatim from the notes section of the author’s post.
I am not sure what argument you are making about sexism but it seems like we are not having the same conversation.
We disagree that “not claiming to be an expert” is sufficient cover for “apparently not having read much at all in the topical area.”
You are actively misunderstanding me. Of course I can differ your text from quoted text. Is that really the way you see disagreement? Others got you wrong in the most miserable way?
You insinuated that I've accused you of sexism. Which is simply not true, not even implied. To make it very clear: You are harsh without reason and hide behind intellectual gibberish.
If it is your opinion she is doing it wrong and I give her too much credit, that's fine. You don't have to prove it, it's sufficient to say it. I am happy to disagree.
Coining new terms for established ideas is not intellectual contribution — it is, in Wiredu’s language, the opposite of conceptual decolonization. The topic does not need new vocabulary. The author needs to read more widely, cite more justly, and recognize that the scholars they overlook understood these problems first, understood them more deeply, and in some cases paid significant professional costs for doing so.