This list constantly reminds me that we are all, thankfully, different. Offhand, I can not think of a topic that I would be more violently disinterested in than the "philosophy of causation". Unless maybe it would be "the philosophy of complexity", or perhaps "the philosophy of agent-based model design".
But I acknowledge that a not small fraction of you eat this stuff up, so please: have at it! --Doug On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com>wrote: > Nick,**** > > ** ** > > Here is the complete citation:**** > > ** ** > > Glymour, C., and Wimberly, F. **** > > Actual Causes and Thought Experiments,**** > > in Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, Harry S. Silverstein > (eds.), **** > > Causation and Explanation: Topics in Contemporary Philosopy, MIT > Press, Cambridge, July 2007.**** > > ** ** > > I’ll buy a cup of coffee for anyone who reads the whole paper. The book > contains a number of papers by luminaries in the area of philosophy of > causation including Patrick Suppes, Nancy Cartwright, Christopher > Hitchcock, etc. I was surprised to find that it’s available on Google > books: *http://tinyurl.com/d9l44jh * > > * * > > Frank** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Frank C. Wimberly**** > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz**** > > Santa Fe, NM 87505**** > > ** ** > > wimber...@gmail.com wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu**** > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas > Thompson > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 11:57 PM > *To:* russ.abb...@gmail.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group' > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice**** > > ** ** > > Russ, **** > > ** ** > > I don’t know wtf I am. I have always thought of myself as a scientist, > but I am sure that many on this list have their doubts. I am certainly not > a “hard” scientist. **** > > ** ** > > I was hoping by my comment to lure you into a more lengthy explication of > the idea that real scientists don’t think in terms of causes. But now you > have smoked me out instead, so here goes. **** > > ** ** > > Many of the *philosophers* I know, from time to time like to talk about > causality as if it were a sophomoric illusion, citing Hume, or some sort of > weird quantum theory. But that does not keep them from using causal > reasoning freely in their everyday lives. I have never heard a philosopher > who was reluctant to say things like “my car stalled because it ran out of > gas”. I think what they mean when they deny causality is the denial of > something that, as a behaviorist, I never thought to entertain: some deep > gear-and-cog mechanism lurking behind experience. If one once concedes > that all one means by causality is some forms of relation between previous > and successive events such that a previous event makes a successive event > more likely, then determining causality is just an exercise in > experimentation. The sort of thing that all scientists do all the time. > Thus, while “causality” may be unfounded in some fastidious philosophical > sense, it is by no means empty. I’ll quote below from a footnote from a > paper we just wrote which tries to preempt criticism our use of “causal” > arguments in the paper. The footnote makes reference to work by a > colleague and friend of mine, here in Santa Fe, Frank Wimberly. I will > copy him here to try and get him to speak up. He tends to lurk, until I > say something really foolish, which no doubt I have. The whole paper is at > http://www.behavior.org/resource.php?id=675 . So, here is the footnote:*** > * > > ** ** > > Some might argue that in falling back on a more vernacular understanding > of causality we have paid too great a price in rigor. However, as our > Seminar colleague Frank Wimberly pointed out, the vernacular understanding > of casualty is potentially rigorous. Research investigating what aspects of > the world lay people are sensitive to when assigning causality suggests > people are sensitive to particular types of probabilistic relationships > (Cheng, Novick, Liljeholm, & Ford, 2007) and that certain types of > experiments are better than others at revealing such relationships (Glymour > & Wimberly, 2007).**** > > ** ** > > Frank? **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<friam-boun...@redfish.com>] > *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 11:05 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice**** > > ** ** > > Nick,**** > > ** ** > > You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more > qualified to talk about science and cause. **** > > ** ** > > Do you think science organizes its theories in terms of causes? I see > equations, entities, structures, geometries, and mechanisms, but I don't > see causes. As I'm sure you know, the notion of "cause" is very slippery. I > think science is better off without it. **** > > ** ** > > But I'm interested in your perspective. What do you think?**** > > ** ** > > [image: > https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/851f757a2285823ad6d3350e1f01df84/spacer.gif][image: > http://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/851f757a2285823ad6d3350e1f01df84/spacer.gif][If > this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am very interested in the subject, > though.]**** > > [image: > https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/9e8cb4a2ede661bd0c79d43ed37f8b20/spacer.gif][image: > http://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/9e8cb4a2ede661bd0c79d43ed37f8b20/spacer.gif] > **** > > > **** > > **** > > *-- 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/*<http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> > **** > > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* **** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:*** > * > > Russ -**** > > ** ** > > Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find > out more about some of your daughter's examples. **** > > This was on a long drive from NM to OR last Thanksgiving... in the course > of about 30 hours of driving we talked about a LOT of things. > > I am pretty sure this first exmaple is merely "neo-Lamarckian" or > "Lamarckianesque" as they only applied to the single next generation. > The germline of the child does not carry the changes, although if the child > experiences the same conditions the parent did, the same epigenetic > mechanisms would be in effect in the subsequent generation. This example > had to to do with Long Term Potentiation (a feature of neural > connectivity). What surprised me most was that this particular example > involved the female/mother/eggs which are not manufactured "on the fly". > It seems more likely that the father/male/sperm would be prone to this type > of effect? There may have been two sub-examples, one about memory and one > about "bad mothering"? > > A more Lamarckian example was, I think, in Roundworms and involved RNA > interference. The result (minus the details) was something like > hereditible immunity. > > A parallel example I *can* remember was the case of Tasmanian Devils and > what is known as DFTD for Devil Facial Tumor Disease. Apparently it is an > *infectuous* cancer (non-viral, meaning it isn't about a virus transferring > from one host to another, then causing cancer). A cancerous cell from one > individual literally becomes part of the other individual's organism... > like an accidental organ donation or skin graft. Apparently the Devils > are prone to lots of scrapping with each other and when one with a tumor on > it's face scraps with one without, a cancerous cell (or cells) can get > transferred to from the skin of one to the other and it can in fact 'graft' > right into the epithelial layer. I don't know if this is more > common/likely because it is cancerous, or if Devils were already exchanging > skin cells before this cancer emerged? > > The point of this Tasmanian Devil example is that it is as unexpected (to > me anyway) as examples of Lamarckian evolution would be. **** > > **** > > **** > > *-- 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/*<http://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**** > > ** ** > > [image: > https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/c3acb76d0941a86b5f06d3d57d01ba29/spacer.gif][image: > http://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/c3acb76d0941a86b5f06d3d57d01ba29/spacer.gif] > **** > > ** ** > > ============================================================**** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > > ============================================================ > 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**** > > ** ** > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> * <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
<<image001.gif>>
<<image002.png>>
============================================================ 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
![https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/851f757a2285823ad6d3350e1f01df84/spacer.gif][image:](https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/851f757a2285823ad6d3350e1f01df84/spacer.gif][image:){kind=link}
![http://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/851f757a2285823ad6d3350e1f01df84/spacer.gif][If](http://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/851f757a2285823ad6d3350e1f01df84/spacer.gif][If){kind=link}
![https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/9e8cb4a2ede661bd0c79d43ed37f8b20/spacer.gif][image:](https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/9e8cb4a2ede661bd0c79d43ed37f8b20/spacer.gif][image:){kind=link}
![https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/c3acb76d0941a86b5f06d3d57d01ba29/spacer.gif][image:](https://app.yesware.com/t/ac60524099a2c2922efb3fea7fcd30ecf03a1482/c3acb76d0941a86b5f06d3d57d01ba29/spacer.gif][image:){kind=link}
