It seems strange to me that Kauffman would focus on cause. (I'll admit that I got that from just looking at the start of the paper. Perhaps he goes in a different direction.) Science really doesn't think in terms of causes. As I understand it science thinks in terms of forces, particles, etc., and equations that relate them, but not causes. This is especially noticeable when considering that the equations work forwards and backwards. If one wants to think in terms of a "forward" (in time) cause that implies a parallel "backward" (in time) cause, which makes the whole cause notion much less useful.
Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples. *-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach *_____________________________________________* On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) - > > I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I > apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of > him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the > *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a > rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are > simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually > *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their > music. > > As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling > Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any > references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article > including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I > suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history? > > I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe > the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* > high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. > They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics > professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in > psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their > self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes > we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out > of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is > Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think. > > I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand > them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This > says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the > late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of > _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home > in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something > stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading > of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis > of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. > I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual > distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by > Alexander and Kauffman equally. > > My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me > married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the > value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of > science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is > value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the > hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might > be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I > mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on > Science(tm) in their neighborhood. > > Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope > that we will discuss them a bit? > > - Steve > > > > > ==============================**============================== > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/**listinfo/friam_redfish.com<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
