Jeees Louise. … I've been trying so hard to curb my addiction to taking time to respond to the continuously intriguing things that show up at the Friam…. but I must say, Doug, that the phrase "violently disinterested" is a classic, even for you. And as long as I'm at it, Sas, I laughed out loud at your various descriptions of the Vilmains, from your KaliLoki wife on along…. Thanks you all- Tory
On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net> wrote: > 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] 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? > > > > <image001.gif><image001.gif>[If this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am > very interested in the subject, though.] > > <image001.gif><image001.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/ > > CS 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/ > > CS 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 > > > > <image002.png><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 > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-672-8213 - Mobile > ============================================================ > 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
