Nick, The toy seems to me to illustrate that one variable can be causally related to another (selected) and correlated to a third which is not causally connected to the third.
Or something like that. Am I close? Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 10:04 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Eric, > > > > Nobody should treat my thoughts concerning epiphenomena, intension, > extension, etc. as anything more than vaguely informed explorations. But > you know that. I have struggled for years to understand what my > colleagues mean by these terms and they constantly necker-cube for me, so > to the extent that I cannot usually be relied to know what I am talking > about, this is a particularly dangerous area for me. In particular, I > don’t think Sober uses the term, “epiphenomenon”, in his book, so I would > not like to have my understanding of the term scraped off on him. Calling > it the device (see attachment) the Sober Epiphenomenator is probably all on > me. > > > > My colleagues have warned me away from poking at this dungheap, but I am > fascinated by it. It just seems to me that underlying all this mess is a > pretty simple idea, and I would like to clear it up, if only for myself. > And it further seems to me that the Sober device, in its childlike > simplity, might be a good place to start. > > > > I look forward to considering your economic example to see if it fits the > template, if there is a template. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Saturday, August 15, 2020 9:30 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] "Brown eggs are local eggs and local eggs are > FRESH!" > > > > It is so interesting that, just as in the earlier discussions of emergence > and probably others, Nick uses the word “epiphenomenal” in ways it would > never occur to me to use it, and as far as I can tell quite exclusive of > the only way it did ever occur to me to use it. I guess DS Wilson (or > Elliot Sober?) uses it the same way as Nick is using it, and I never looked > up what was the canonical usage. > > > > But anyway… > > > > I had always used the term in reference to neoclassical economics (NE) and > its treatment of preferences and institutions. I had always said that NE > treated institutions as epiphenomena of preferences. By which I mean the > following: > > 1. Even economists can’t simply pretend institutions don’t exist. > > 2. However, Arrow, Debreu, and McKenzie proved lovely existence theorems > for optimal allocations from the competition of individual preferences, and > the economists really really insist on remaining in the Garden of Eden of > those existence proofs. > > > > What to do? > > > > 3. Acknowledge that all these names and descriptions of institutions do > really point at things-in-the-world, but declare that economically those > things don’t actually do any work or mean anything. They are like > constellations in the sky; patterns that can be seen from certain angles, > as one looks at the _actual_ basis for economic behavior, which is > individual preferences. > > > > That was what I had thought was captured in the characterization > “epiphenomenal”. But clearly I am using it as something of a gesture-word, > and not something for which I am building a strict formal logic. It is > more an attempt to explain the patterns of choices and work by a group of > people, and to impute a state of mind to them to explain those choices. > > > > The alternative to institutions as “epiphenomena” of preferences would be > institutions that not only exist as patterns to be named, but as real > things in the world that do essential work in determining what happens. > They govern what actions are available to us, what knowledge we have to act > on, what power or authority or roles, and on and on. They define signaling > systems (monetary units and physical monies, ownership claims, etc.) and > provide the channels on which the signals are transmitted (contract law, > taxation, etc.), and thus are the framework to operationally coordinate > pretty-much everything we think of as constituting economic life. Without > them we would not have raw, competing complete preferences; we would > largely cease to exist as economic agents. > > > > The usage isn’t entirely unlike Nick’s semiotic/intensional-extensional > contrasts, but it seems to differ in the sense that, when I say the NE guys > treat institutions as epiphenomena of preferences, the work that they want > done would be the same whether done by preferences or by institutions. So > if they were to think of institutions as mattering, those would be > contributing part of the mechanics of choice then not carried by > preferences, whereas if they are epiphenomena they are like a kind of > transparent window that preferences can be seen through, while the > preferences carry all the weight. Kind of like the bulk magnetization in a > ferromagnet is not a “different” thing that “supervenes” on all the > microscopic magnetic moments and forces them into coordination: rather the > bulk magnetization is nothing more than a summary statistic for the > microscopic magnetizations, and really and truly _nothing_ more or less > than the aggregate of them, and hence an epiphenomenon of > them-all-taken-together. In contrast, all of Nick’s epiphenomena are > actual, independent, real properties, and the discussion then branches off > in a different direction of who or what does or doesn’t consider them > consequential. That to me seems more of a contrast of salient vs. > ancillary actual properties, rather than fundamental versus epi or purely > apparitional phenomena. > > > > But who knows. I guess it depends on what problem you want to solve, what > count as useful categorizations. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2020, at 6:40 AM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < > thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The quote in the subject line was (is?) a slogan that Massachusetts egg > farmers offered in Massachusetts shoppers trying to get them to buy their > eggs. It came with a ditty which, if you call me up, I will happily sing > for you. The back story is that the factory egg producers in neighboring > NY used chickens that produced white eggs. Like as not, if you were eating > a white egg in MA you were eating an egg that had been shipped in from NY, > hence longer in transit. So, if the campaign were successful, shoppers > would seek out brown eggs because of their color. Brownness in eggs would > be their cue for purchase. If the campaign worked, the freshness would > become epiphenonmenal with respect to their selection criteria. From the > point of view of Massachusetts egg-producers, the brownness of the eggs was > epiphenomenal. All they cared about is whether the eggs sold in MA were > from MA This would of course break down if NY farmers started using > chickens that laid brown eggs or Massachusetts farmers started storing eggs > before shipping them. > > > > At Friday’s meeting, my mentors urged me to get off the “epiphenomenon” > kick. I suppose I could instead use the language of semeiotics. [Pause > for moaning in the distance.] In this case we could say that the producers > were trying to make brownness a sign of value in eggs. This works for two > quite distinct reasons: it works for the consumer because the brown is a > sign of local and local is a sign of fresh; it works for the producers > because brown is a sign of eggs that come from their farms. > > > > Instead of semiotic language, we could use the language of intension and > extension. [More anguished groans] The marketing campaign works because > although the intensions of the choices of the two agents are different, > these intensions are both part of the extension of brown eggs in > Massachusetts. > > > > Note also that the slogan is an example of powers and perils of > abduction. The sloganeer first abduces that brown eggs are local and from > that category (local eggs) deduces that the eggs are fresh. The two steps > in the abduction/deduction process are > > > > *These eggs are brown; local eggs are brown; these eggs are local;* > > *Local eggs are fresh; these [brown] eggs are local; these [brown] eggs > are fresh. * > > > > The point (to me) is that there is a very simple thread underlying all of > these ways of talking about natural selection phenomena. Could all this > baroque verbiage be reduced to a simple formula? > > > > Years ago I wrote a paper > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239787151_A_system_for_describing_bird_song_units> > that reduced the terminology of bird song down to three operations and 5 > levels of organization. In short, the paper showed that while scientists > had been using several dozen terms, they had, along, only been talking > about three different sorts of thing. That is the sort of reduction I > would like to do on all this talk of epiphenomena, intension, extension, > function, purpose, cue, side-effect, spandrel, exaptation, blah, blah-blah, > and blah-blah-blah. > > > > Thanks for allowing me to think in your space and on your time. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,TnTbxPkRvg0BPvNaE6Fq1T3uJwmDF09KgnNO50mP_S__KFuXCTGN04T7rnC9KsuFHuhDJNjMv8TyGxf7tFaR6WbcG2IAvfnoPeclnYDb2y4WqcEzsdraQVOESm4,&typo=1> > > > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,6cMuqWPe9JiOkEl266eujA1JPx7YYXkhooL9PeebplfCugYa2IKSF-Yi4__KU5fUJKVowOCqRJhMb8LqJPynccw1GP04kXYKT3QNdDYjvUQ,&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,4h3FA-MabVadYI2oUnBQdpsu0HdBQIw9ZwHoEGELxpmgjZ_Gb9xJLztxqYQ8XaIOGrmzW8Mq0hHQrkyftEIPv9U9d7Hwgdr0KZzfijHJHA,,&typo=1 > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
