As you say, Nick. And that will either right before, or right afterward I
convert to some religion or another.

But in the mean time, we can still have that beer.

--Doug


On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Doug,  ****
>
> ** **
>
> One day, I will sit down with you over a beer and ruin your life by
> proving to you (using philosophical methods of course) that you ARE
> interested in it.  At which point you will experience a Saul-to-Paul
> conversion  and appear on the Plaza in white robes and sandals dispensing
> spiritual wisdom to the masses.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Beware. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> Roberts
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:04 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice****
>
> ** **
>
> 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>
> ****
>
> *
> 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
>



-- 
*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

Reply via email to