[FRIAM] Judith Rosen website

[Orlando Leibovitz]

Glen,

Although you said not to go to the Judith Rosen website I did it anyway 
and then wrote to her because of the ads on the site. I don't know if 
the ads were part of your negative feelings but here is a copy of the 
correspondence.

Orlando Leibovitz


*Hi Orlando,

When I put google ads up on the site, their web "bot" was supposedly 
going to use the keywords for the site to target ads to the content of 
the site. Unfortunately, the software for their bot is pretty lame. I 
think it's the Kirlian photos that confuse it and lead to stuff like 
that, I'm not sure why. In any case, I haven't seen a penny from the 
google ads, in over two years, so maybe it's time to just pull that 
software off the site. Thanks for making me aware of this situation-- 
the ads change all the time so I haven't seen any creationist ads but I 
have seen a lot of new age type things and scratched my head over it. I 
expected it to improve over time, since google has been growing and 
developing an awful lot since I first decided to allow advertising on my 
website. But creationist?! Yuck.

Sorry!
Judith

*
Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the 
Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Nov 28, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Orlando Leibovitz wrote:

Hello Judith Rosen,

Can you please explain why there are three or four creationist ads and a 
creationist video on your web site? Thanks.

Orlando Leibovitz



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Introducing Santa Fe Complex: 632 Agua Fria ( was: some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632)

[Owen Densmore]

Attached?

On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

> Great summary, Dave!
>
> This may be the first time 632 Agua Fria has been mentioned on  
> FRIAM. As a
> belated introduction, we're planning on opening what Dave is  
> describing in his
> attached Word document in March 
>
> We are working on the financial details...Hopefully much of the  
> space will be
> subsidized from various funding sources for the first couple of  
> years. We hope
> that many FRIAMers, local, and international, see this as a potential
> collaboration space and we invite interested folks to participate  
> and co-locate
> for short or long periods of time.
>
> More details will certainly follow. Also, please share with the  
> list if you have
> any good ideas for candidate projects or funders for the space...
>
> -Stephen
>
> --- -. .   ..-. .. ...    - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.Redfish.com
> 624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501
> mobile: (505)577-5828
> office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Prof David West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied
>> ComplexityCoffee Group
>> Subject: [FRIAM] some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632
>>
>>
>> I have spent too much time thinking about this and too little
>> actually putting the ideas on paper.  Consider the attached
>> to be an outline that will be collectively developed and
>> elaborated - or summarily rejected.
>>
>> Warning - the attached is highly idiosyncratic and biased,
>> even though it is based on observations and interactions with
>> the 632 and Friam community.
>>
>> Feedback - even jeers and catcalls - welcomed.
>>
>> dave west
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[Russell Standish]

All scientific models/theories tend to lie on a plane with the axes
"accuracy" and "ease of use". Explicability is also there, roughly
aligned with "ease of use".

Basically we should only keep those theories/models that lie on the
Pareto front, and discard those that are dominated. This is why we
still keep Newtonian gravity, even though it is less accurate than
GR (ie falsified), but discard the Ptolomaic system.

Cheers.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:42:19PM -0800, Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:

> 
> Anyway, I definitely agree that it's a "mistake" in some sense to
> discard all but the best projections.  However, in cases where a limit
> _exists_ (and it is reasonable to believe it exists), then it's not a
> mistake at all.  Preserving an erroneous model when much more accurate
> models are at hand would be perverse (or evidence that one should be a
> historian rather than a scientist).  I'm not talking about the type of
> preservation that allows us to think back and learn from previous
> events.  I'm talking about someone _sticking_ to and/or regularly
> relying on a "bad" model even when they know it's wrong.
> 

-- 


A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] Introducing Santa Fe Complex: 632 Agua Fria ( was: some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632)

[Stephen Guerin]

Great summary, Dave!

This may be the first time 632 Agua Fria has been mentioned on FRIAM. As a
belated introduction, we're planning on opening what Dave is describing in his
attached Word document in March 

We are working on the financial details...Hopefully much of the space will be
subsidized from various funding sources for the first couple of years. We hope
that many FRIAMers, local, and international, see this as a potential
collaboration space and we invite interested folks to participate and co-locate
for short or long periods of time.

More details will certainly follow. Also, please share with the list if you have
any good ideas for candidate projects or funders for the space...

-Stephen

--- -. .   ..-. .. ...    - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.Redfish.com
624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501
mobile: (505)577-5828
office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769
  

> -Original Message-
> From: Prof David West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied 
> ComplexityCoffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632
> 
> 
> I have spent too much time thinking about this and too little 
> actually putting the ideas on paper.  Consider the attached 
> to be an outline that will be collectively developed and 
> elaborated - or summarily rejected.
> 
> Warning - the attached is highly idiosyncratic and biased, 
> even though it is based on observations and interactions with 
> the 632 and Friam community.
> 
> Feedback - even jeers and catcalls - welcomed.
> 
> dave west
> 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[Stephen Guerin]

I have "Life Itself" and "Essays on Life Itself". I'll bring them Friday...

-Stephen

--- -. .   ..-. .. ...    - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.Redfish.com
624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501
mobile: (505)577-5828
office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769


 

> -Original Message-
> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Russell Standish; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen
> 
> Thanks, Russell,
> 
> Does anybody in the Mother Church have a copy s/he could 
> bring to Friday's Meeting
> 
> Nick 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied 
> > Complexity
> Coffee Group 
> > Date: 11/29/2007 1:10:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen
> >
> > Try http://www3.vcu.edu/complex/
> >
> > However, you'll probably find it easier to borrow one of 
> Rosen's books 
> > from the library and read that, rather than to try to 
> understand what 
> > others make of him. It's sort of the reverse of David Bohm...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:46:55AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > Glen
> > > ,
> > > 
> > > Everybody but me seems to know what Robert Rosen work you are 
> > > referring
> to.
> > > If I apologize for being an ill-educated bounder, could 
> you provide 
> > > me
> with
> > > a netref or two to work with?  
> > > 
> > > I apologize. 
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > (if you give me the reference, will that be an instance of 
> > > causality?)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: 
> > > > Date: 11/28/2007 10:04:16 AM
> > > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25
> > > >
> > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> > > > friam@redfish.com
> > > >
> > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more 
> > > > specific than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Today's Topics:
> > > >
> > > >1. Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > >   Causality) (Nicholas Thompson)
> > > >2. [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008] (Robert 
> Cordingley)
> > > >3. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > >   Causality) (Robert Cordingley)
> > > >4. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > >   Causality) (Glen E. P. Ropella)
> > > >5. some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632 
> (Prof David West)
> > > >6. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > > >   andCausality) (Nicholas Thompson)
> > > >7. one laptop per child (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > > >8. Re: one laptop per child (Carl Tollander)
> > > >9. Re: one laptop per child (Alfredo Covaleda)
> > > >   10. My employer in the news (Douglas Roberts)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> --
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:22:54 -0700
> > > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property 
> (was FRIAM and
> > > > Causality)
> > > > To: friam@redfish.com
> > > > Cc: echarles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this 
> > > > discussion
> > > into
> > > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of 
> > > > the
> plain
> > > > text. 
> > > >
> > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical 
> formalization 
> > > > of "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What 
> EVERYBODY --from 
> > > > the
> most
> > > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming 
> Dawkinsian 
> > > > -- agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects 
> > > > which we
> might
> > > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been 
> > > > sewn
> by
> > > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --
> with the
> > > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal 
> explanation in
> biology
> > > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I 
> > > > call,
> just
> > > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
> biology
> > > by
> > >

Re: [FRIAM] some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632

[Robert Holmes]

Dave

I think the idea of using togas to denote status at 632 is inspired. Here's
what the different togas used to signify (from
http://ancient-culture.suite101.com/). I presume that Steve gets the *toga
picta*. I'll leave it to others to suggest additional person-toga mappings.

*Toga virilis* – made of undyed wool, this toga was off-white in color and
was the "everyday" toga for an adult male citizen.

*Toga praetexta* – Also off-white in color, this toga featured a wide purple
border that denoted the wearer was a Senator or some type of
Magistrate,
such as an 
aedileor
consul .
Stripes of varying width would have indicated the specific government
position.

*Toga pulla* – this toga was a dark gray or brown garment that was reserved
for periods of mourning.

*Toga candida* – A toga for political candidates, its bright white-dyed
color symbolized the candidate's purity and honesty.

*Toga picta* – this special toga was dyed purple (the color of royalty), and
featured elaborate gold embroidery. It was worn by victorious generals
during triumphal
processions,
and later by Emperors for official state events.
Robert





On Nov 27, 2007 3:15 PM, Prof David West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I have spent too much time thinking about this and too little actually
> putting the ideas on paper.  Consider the attached to be an outline that
> will be collectively developed and elaborated - or summarily rejected.
>
> Warning - the attached is highly idiosyncratic and biased, even though
> it is based on observations and interactions with the 632 and Friam
> community.
>
> Feedback - even jeers and catcalls - welcomed.
>
> dave west
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[Glen E. P. Ropella]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


Sorry for breaking the threading.

Phil wrote:
> But isn't the shape of our varying ability to fit our models a direct
> image of 'nature itself', in fact, and our main mistake to discard
> them all but the 'best' one and so loose the shape of what they are
> all unable to describe?  That's why I like to go back and forth
> studying alternate models for their discrepancies and their fit,
> using models as learning tools rather than answers.  I think the
> notable thing you find that way is independent whole systems...i

Yes!

Sheesh, your prose is so hard to parse it feels good when I finally do
parse it. [grin]

Anyway, I definitely agree that it's a "mistake" in some sense to
discard all but the best projections.  However, in cases where a limit
_exists_ (and it is reasonable to believe it exists), then it's not a
mistake at all.  Preserving an erroneous model when much more accurate
models are at hand would be perverse (or evidence that one should be a
historian rather than a scientist).  I'm not talking about the type of
preservation that allows us to think back and learn from previous
events.  I'm talking about someone _sticking_ to and/or regularly
relying on a "bad" model even when they know it's wrong.

However, in most cases, we have no idea if the limit even exists and it
is often just psychological bias or delusion that makes us believe in
such a limit.  And in _those_ cases (MOST cases) it is definitely a
mistake to discard any model that is reasonably effective.  (Notice my
shift from "erroneous" or "accurate" to "effective".)

Personally, I believe this is the fundamental point of critical
rationalism and _open_ science where we allow and seriously consider
_any_ hypothesis, no matter how bizarre or offensive.  Only when a
hypothesis is falsified should it be demoted to secondary consideration
or the history books.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and
to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and
his children smart. -- H.L. Mencken

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHTfzbZeB+vOTnLkoRAon3AJwLpmeuuW86PeKLEjj9Raw+erP23ACgtOcM
UPMukBlumR6ywMMkAb9TF0M=
=5vqn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[Nicholas Thompson]

t;
> > >
> > > Well, given that I am referring to a PATTERN, and patterns are a form
of
> > negentropy, I think I am required to agree.  
> > >
> > > Nick 
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: Robert Cordingley 
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > Coffee Group
> > > Sent: 11/27/2007 2:12:11 PM 
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > andCausality)
> > >
> > >
> > > Quick thought.  Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a local
> > reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ?  There's lots of
> > math on entropy.
> > > Robert C
> > >
> > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: 
> > > All, 
> > >
> > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion
> > into
> > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of the
plain
> > > text. 
> > >
> > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of
> > > "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What EVERYBODY --from the
most
> > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian -- 
> > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we
might
> > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been sewn
by
> > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be -- 
with the
> > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal explanation in
biology
> > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call,
just
> > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
biology
> > by
> > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It would
put
> > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of
the
> > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking for here is a
> > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations,
I
> > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness". 
Assuming
> > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it
round
> > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
surroundings,
> > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have
to be
> > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures
were
> > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then -- are we in a
> > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
explanation
> > > for this property.  
> > >
> > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an
> > > analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether.  Many of you
> > will
> > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive
purposes,
> > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its
> > > valleys ar

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[Glen E. P. Ropella]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


For some reason, I didn't receive this message from Nick.  Nor did I
receive Phil's last post.  I wonder what's going on... perhaps my server
was unavailable and the messages are frozen in the redfish.com spool?

Anyway, Russell's right.  I wouldn't recommend Mikulecky's site
until/unless you've read some of Rosen's works directly.  I also would
NOT recommend Rosen's daughter's website:

   http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/.

But, Tim Gwinn's site is pretty good:

   http://www.panmere.com/

Reading Rosen can be problematic.  So, you might want to start with
Tim's site and if anything seems interesting go directly to Rosen's
words, rather than what others say about his work.  That's because (in
my not so humble opinion) most Rosenites wildly misinterpret or
over-extrapolate what Rosen said to fit their own private world view.

If you're like me and you prefer original material, then I recommend his
book:  "Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural
Systems" first and foremost.  Then for a lighter meal, try his "Essays
on Life Itself", second.  And third, I'd recommend "Anticipatory
Systems".  If you get through all that, then you should be well equipped
to partially parse "Life Itself".

When I was in Santa Fe, the SFI library only had "Life Itself".  But
that book is a bit dense in Rosen's private vocabulary, which is why I
think there's so much ambiguity around what Rosen was trying to say.
(There also seems to be many people who _claim_ to understand what Rosen
was saying; but some deep poking often shows them to have only a vague
understanding, unfortunately.  For myself, I only understand a few of
the basic concepts and have over-extrapolated his work to fit my own
world view, which is more akin to non-well-founded set theory. ;-)

To jump to the point, though.  My misrepresentation of his work is that
he was doing 2 things:

1) building an argument that acyclic inference is inadequate for
representing certain systems (e.g. life), and

2) using category theory (or whatever else might work) as the jumping
off point for building a new body of math to handle cyclic inference.

This hypothetical body of new math would allow us to handle cause-effect
cycles (e.g. what Rosen calls "anticipation").  And in such cycles, we
can build systems where the end purpose _causes_ the beginning and
middle effects that then cause the cause, as it were.  That's why I
suggest that your call for a "hierarchy of relations that lead to
attributions of 'designedness'".

Russell Standish on 11/28/2007 02:10 PM:
> Try http://www3.vcu.edu/complex/
> 
> However, you'll probably find it easier to borrow one of Rosen's books
> from the library and read that, rather than to try to understand what
> others make of him. It's sort of the reverse of David Bohm...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:46:55AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> Glen
>> , 
>>
>> Everybody but me seems to know what Robert Rosen work you are referring to.
>> If I apologize for being an ill-educated bounder, could you provide me with
>> a netref or two to work with?  
>>
>> I apologize. 
>>
>> Nick 
>>
>> (if you give me the reference, will that be an instance of causality?)  

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to
fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHTfT5ZeB+vOTnLkoRAswOAJ9/H3V50oEqvcsmne/s+JmvgWg2nACg1wDY
JacO4IWrJ97B6Quvo5uXIFQ=
=WDWr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[Russell Standish]

atcalls - welcomed.
> >
> > dave west
> > -- next part --
> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > Name: SFCEdu.doc
> > Type: application/msword
> > Size: 53248 bytes
> > Desc: not available
> > Url :
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/0b345037
> /attachment-0001.doc 
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:14:51 -0700
> > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > andCausality)
> > To: "Robert Cordingley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"The Friday Morning
> > Applied Complexity Coffee Group" 
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Well, given that I am referring to a PATTERN, and patterns are a form of
> negentropy, I think I am required to agree.  
> >
> > Nick 
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: Robert Cordingley 
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> > Sent: 11/27/2007 2:12:11 PM 
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> andCausality)
> >
> >
> > Quick thought.  Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a local
> reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ?  There's lots of
> math on entropy.
> > Robert C
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson wrote: 
> > All, 
> >
> > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion
> into
> > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of the plain
> > text. 
> >
> > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of
> > "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What EVERYBODY --from the most
> > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian -- 
> > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we might
> > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been sewn by
> > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --  with the
> > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal explanation in biology
> > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call, just
> > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> >
> > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for biology
> by
> > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It would put
> > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of the
> > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking for here is a
> > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations, I
> > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness".  Assuming
> > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it round
> > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their surroundings,
> > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have to be
> > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures were
> > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then -- are we in a
> > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best explanation
> > for this property.  
> >
> > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an
> > analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether.  Many of you
> will
> > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive purposes,
> > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its
> > valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down
> > landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll
> around
> > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the rolling, it
> > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the
> > landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of this assumes that the
> > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the landscape into a
> > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls through
> > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an
> > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating.  Some
> > organisms -- weedy sp

[FRIAM] My employer in the news

[Douglas Roberts]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/795087.html

-- 
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org