Re: [FRIAM] The Mysterious Triangular Truss!

[Nicholas Thompson]

Peter, 

Diddle I say so? 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: Peter  Lissaman 
> To: 
> Date: 4/29/2009 12:17:30 PM
> Subject: [FRIAM] The Mysterious Triangular Truss!
>
> Wot be Cognitive Vertigo But a discussion by people don't know the topic?
> ANY triangle consisting of three joined members (wood or gold, and not 
> necessarily straight, or pinned) if supported on a base will "resist" any 
> load through any vertex.  It is not particularly good at this and much
less 
> rigid than a single member of the truss in direct load .  Leonardo used 
> these a lot.  Even made stylish cartoons of same. Called a simple
triangular 
> truss.  The basis of all space frames. 
>
>
> 
> 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] FW: NYTimes.com: End the University as We Know It

[Tom Carter]

Just a couple of brief comments . . .

From: some...@somewhere . . .


  (Do you give
an undergraduate a major in "Water"? What are they then prepared
for?)


For what it's worth, the largest major on our campus is "Liberal  
Studies" . . . I'll let you speculate on "What they are then prepared  
for . . ."


I would say that one of the big problems with undergraduate education  
these days is the idea that your "major" is "preparing you for a  
job."  That might, perhaps, be better said, "preparing you for the  
interview for your first job" . . . I've seen statistics indicating  
that it has been (and will be) typical for a person to change careers  
(not "jobs") 3 or 4 times during their working life.  Suppose I, as an  
educator, want to help my students be prepared for the next 40 years  
of their lives.  What should I help them learn?


My bachelors degree was in Philosophy, and my first "real" job was as  
a budget and forecasting analyst in a financial institution . . .  
turned out I was quite well "prepared" for that job . . . (but also,  
ask me sometime about IPOs and ethics and . . .)



Concerning tenure -- maybe understanding it is not a lot more  
complicated than understanding "emergence" :-)   At some level,  
"tenure" is an emergent (partial?) solution to a set of problems -- I  
find this essay on the topic interesting:


http://agecon.unl.edu/royer/tenure.htm



Herb Simon once pointed out that good interdisciplinary work
must be first-class work within the standards of each discipline
involved.




I think Herb Simon (along with many other people) mistakes  
"interdisciplinary" for "multidisciplinary."  I would agree with him  
if he's really talking about multidisciplinary work, but not so much  
if he's talking about interdisciplinary work.




"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look  
respectable."


John Kenneth Galbraith



Or, as someone said, "Economists have predicted 10 of the last 4  
recoveries from recessions." :-)


tom

p.s. Also for what it's worth . . . some 15 years ago, I was part of a  
task force helping to "create" a new California State University (CSU  
Monterey Bay).  They wanted it to be a "new kind of University," so  
they asked us to "think outside the box" (etc. . . .).  My group was  
supposed to develop a division/college of "informatics and media" . . .


I put together a proposal:

http://csustan.csustan.edu/~tom/misc-admin/academic-organization/academic-organization.txt

(which, of course, was roundly rejected as "absurd," "utopian,"  
"unworkable," "incomprehensible" . . .)
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] emergence, again

[Russ Abbott]

To Owen:  Here it is in a gross of words.

Since probably the beginning of science (and even before) we have tended to
think of higher level things as being composed of lower level things in a
way that allows us to link the lower level to the higher level. That's only
natural.  Everything that has "components" is understood that way. However
(as you and every other computer scientist or software developer on this
list knows) abstract data types (and most other abstractly defined higher
level things) may be implemented in any of a number of ways. The
implementation is not relevant as long as the specification is satisfied.
That's one of the insights computer science has bought to the world. I argue
that the way to understand emergence is through that same lens--a higher
level abstraction that is implemented by lower level elements--but not
composed of them the traditional reductionist sense.

-- Russ


On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Ted Carmichael  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
>>  Sometimes it seems to me that people prefer to think of emergence as
>> mysterious. It's not.
>>
>
> I agree.  That's generally the problem I have when folks start talking
> about downward causation.
>
> I had an interesting conversation with Mark Bedau at a conference last
> month.  He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that any conceptual model is fine, as
> long as you find it useful in some way.  Emergence is a surprising property
> of a system because it is behavior that is not explicitly accounted for in
> the micro rules, and so it is useful to talk about emergence.
>
> It is also useful to talk about downward causation.  I think the error is
> when folks take an emergent property from the "surprising" category and put
> it in the "mysterious" category, as if it can't be understood in terms of
> rules and interactions of the system's constituent parts.
>
> It's useful to say: when a school of fish turn left, that behavior
> influences a single fish to also turn left.  But we all know, from
> programming these models, that the single fish is really only influenced by
> his simple rules, and the behavior of the nearby individuals that he
> interacts with.  (And he, of course, influences them in turn.)
>
> When I program CAS models, I try to avoid programming any downward
> causation.  I prefer to have emergent properties come from the simple rules,
> rather than explicitly control for it with macro-level rules.  I think to do
> otherwise is tricky business, and it's very easy to artificially introduce
> behavior that you are trying to explain, thereby undermining your
> explanation.
>
> Personally, I think even difficult concepts - such as consciousness, or
> intelligence - can be explained without resorting to "mysterious" downward
> causation.  (Even though we're not there yet.)  And even if it is sometimes
> more useful to use a conceptual model of consciousness that utilizes
> macro-level causation, I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is
> the "real" model, or the only model available to us.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I should have said that the properties of a, b, c and E are synchronic.
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>>> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > [Original Message]
>>> > From: russell standish 
>>> > To: ; The Friday Morning Applied
>>> Complexity
>>> Coffee Group 
>>> > Date: 4/29/2009 6:14:43 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:33:42PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>> > > Here
>>> > > is  the kind of problem that bothers philosophers:  let a, b, and c
>>> > > constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by
>>> the
>>> > > properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the
>>> behaviors
>>> > > of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?
>>> > >
>>> > > Nick
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > No. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable way of building a control
>>> > system. Should there be a problem?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> 
>>> > Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>>> > Mathematics
>>> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052   hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>>> > 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

Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again

[Ted Carmichael]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

>  Sometimes it seems to me that people prefer to think of emergence as
> mysterious. It's not.
>

I agree.  That's generally the problem I have when folks start talking about
downward causation.

I had an interesting conversation with Mark Bedau at a conference last
month.  He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that any conceptual model is fine, as
long as you find it useful in some way.  Emergence is a surprising property
of a system because it is behavior that is not explicitly accounted for in
the micro rules, and so it is useful to talk about emergence.

It is also useful to talk about downward causation.  I think the error is
when folks take an emergent property from the "surprising" category and put
it in the "mysterious" category, as if it can't be understood in terms of
rules and interactions of the system's constituent parts.

It's useful to say: when a school of fish turn left, that behavior
influences a single fish to also turn left.  But we all know, from
programming these models, that the single fish is really only influenced by
his simple rules, and the behavior of the nearby individuals that he
interacts with.  (And he, of course, influences them in turn.)

When I program CAS models, I try to avoid programming any downward
causation.  I prefer to have emergent properties come from the simple rules,
rather than explicitly control for it with macro-level rules.  I think to do
otherwise is tricky business, and it's very easy to artificially introduce
behavior that you are trying to explain, thereby undermining your
explanation.

Personally, I think even difficult concepts - such as consciousness, or
intelligence - can be explained without resorting to "mysterious" downward
causation.  (Even though we're not there yet.)  And even if it is sometimes
more useful to use a conceptual model of consciousness that utilizes
macro-level causation, I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is
the "real" model, or the only model available to us.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

Ted



> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I should have said that the properties of a, b, c and E are synchronic.
>> Nick
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
>> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > [Original Message]
>> > From: russell standish 
>> > To: ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>> Coffee Group 
>> > Date: 4/29/2009 6:14:43 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:33:42PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> > > Here
>> > > is  the kind of problem that bothers philosophers:  let a, b, and c
>> > > constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by
>> the
>> > > properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the
>> behaviors
>> > > of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?
>> > >
>> > > Nick
>> > >
>> >
>> > No. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable way of building a control
>> > system. Should there be a problem?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 
>> > Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> > Mathematics
>> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052   hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> > 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 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] emergence, again

[John Kennison]

My favorite example is the following definition for a pair of differentiable 
functions, s and c, from the reals to the reals. They are defined so that:

s' = c,   c' =- s,   s(0) = 1-c(0),   c(0) = 1+s(0)

Of course, the last two conditions just say that s(0) = 0 and c(0) = 1. The 
only possible pair with these properties are s(x) = sin x
and c(x0 = cos x. One waty to see this is to note that s and c are both 
solutions of y'' + y = 0 and the only known solutions of that equation are of 
the form Asin(x) + Bcos x where A,B are arbitrary constants. But even if 
calculus had been developed before trig, one can still prove there exists a 
unique pair of solutions to the conditions defining s and c by appealing to 
quite general existence and uniqueness theorems for differential equations. In 
fact, I understand that some exotic but useful functions are defined by 
differential equations, sometimes for pairs of functions (I am a category 
theorist, not a differential equations theorist, but I have had courses in that 
subject, which are still a dim memory)


From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert 
Howard [...@symmetricobjects.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:04 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again

John: So circular definitions are permissible if and only if you can show there 
is a unique pair with the given relation.



That’s very interesting. How do you prove you have a unique pair? Do you know 
an example of such a circular definition that is popular or obvious? For 
example, I would define sqrt(49) as 7, but I would never define 7 as the 
sqrt(49). I always thought definitions should reduce the complexity of 
understanding. 7 seems simpler than sqrt(49) – a number is simpler than a 
functional lookup. And when you get to a minimum complexity, you state it as an 
axiom, or throw in the towel. I’ve never heard of circular logic as being an 
acceptable final state; that is, when you encounter one, it implies there’s 
more work to do.



Rob




From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of 
John Kennison
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again


As a practicing mathematician, my understanding is that it is permissible to 
define anything by a property if and only if you can prove there exists a 
unique thing with that property.
For example, you cannot define sqrt(49) as “an integer whose square is 49” 
since there are two such integers. Nor could you define sqrt(-1) as the real 
number whose square is –1 as there is no such real number (and you can’t define 
sqrt(-1) as the complex number whose square is –1 as there are two such complex 
numbers, i and –i.)
So circular definitions (where A is defined in terms of B and B in terms of A) 
are permissible if and only if you can show there is a unique pair (A,B) with 
the given relation.


On 4/29/09 9:21 AM, "glen e. p. ropella"  wrote:
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 04/28/2009 08:33 PM:
> let a, b, and c
> constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the behaviors
> of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?

There's no problem with it.  It's called an impredicative definition,
which basically means the application of a universal quantifier (e.g.
"for all") over a set as a part of the definition of the members of that
set.  (IIRC, of course... ;-)

Here's a quote from Barwise and Moss' "Vicious Circles" that may address
the "problem" you've heard "philosophers" talk about:

"In certain circles, it has been thought that there is a conflict
between circular phenomena, on the one hand, and mathematical rigor, on
the other.  This belief rests on two assumptions.  One is that anything
mathematically rigorous must be reducible to set theory.  The other
assumption is that the only coherent conception of set precludes
circularity.  As a result of these two assumptions, it is not uncommon
to hear circular analyses of philosophical, linguistic, or computational
phenomena attacked on the grounds that they conflict with one of the
basic axioms of mathematics.  But both assumptions are mistaken and the
attack is groundless."

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



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] emergence, again

[Owen Densmore]

Hi Russ.  Could you say a bit more than just "read the article"?

For example, I'm not sure we're directly concerned with reductionism.   
I see the connection, certainly, but defining emergence clearly,  
offering a theorem based structure, classifying types of  
emergence, ... is a big deal and it'd be nice to have a hint at your  
approach before plowing through 9501 words of text!


-- Owen


On Apr 28, 2009, at 11:45 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, I will continue to claim that  
I've solved the problems of emergence and reductionism in "The  
reductionist blind spot." (Yes, it's an audacious claim.) You are  
welcome to look elsewhere of course, but that paper is a significant  
advance beyond anything in the literature including Cartwright,  
Miller/Page, and Bedau and Humphrey's collection.  If you disagree,  
tell me why. Sometimes it seems to me that people prefer to think of  
emergence as mysterious. It's not.


-- Russ 





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] emergence, again

[Owen Densmore]

After reading the On Emergence chapter (ch 4) in Miller/Page, I think  
it has a solid conceptual framework for how to approach emergence.   
Have you access to the book?  I could fax/copy it if you'd like.


-- Owen




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] logicomix

[Roger Critchlow]

This must fit into the unreasonable effectiveness threads somewhere,

http://www.logicomix.com/en/

Covering a span of sixty years, the graphic novel Logicomix was inspired by
the epic story of the quest for the Foundations of Mathematics.

This was a heroic intellectual adventure most of whose protagonists paid the
price of knowledge with extreme personal suffering and even insanity. The
book tells its tale in an engaging way, at the same time complex and
accessible. It grounds the philosophical struggles on the undercurrent of
personal emotional turmoil, as well as the momentous historical events and
ideological battles which gave rise to them.

The role of narrator is given to the most eloquent and spirited of the
story’s protagonists, the great logician, philosopher and pacifist Bertrand
Russell. It is through his eyes that the plights of such great thinkers as
Frege, Hilbert, Poincaré, Wittgenstein and Gödel come to life, and through
his own passionate involvement in the quest that the various narrative
strands come together.
-- rec --

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] emergence, again

[Nicholas Thompson]

Hmmm!  I had always thought that it was explanations that simplified; it never 
occured to me that a definition was under any such obligation. 

n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




- Original Message - 
From: Robert Howard 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 4/29/2009 10:04:19 AM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again


John: So circular definitions are permissible if and only if you can show there 
is a unique pair with the given relation.
 
That’s very interesting. How do you prove you have a unique pair? Do you know 
an example of such a circular definition that is popular or obvious? For 
example, I would define sqrt(49) as 7, but I would never define 7 as the 
sqrt(49). I always thought definitions should reduce the complexity of 
understanding. 7 seems simpler than sqrt(49) – a number is simpler than a 
functional lookup. And when you get to a minimum complexity, you state it as an 
axiom, or throw in the towel. I’ve never heard of circular logic as being an 
acceptable final state; that is, when you encounter one, it implies there’s 
more work to do.
 
Rob
 



From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of 
John Kennison
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again
 

As a practicing mathematician, my understanding is that it is permissible to 
define anything by a property if and only if you can prove there exists a 
unique thing with that property. 
For example, you cannot define sqrt(49) as “an integer whose square is 49” 
since there are two such integers. Nor could you define sqrt(-1) as the real 
number whose square is –1 as there is no such real number (and you can’t define 
sqrt(-1) as the complex number whose square is –1 as there are two such complex 
numbers, i and –i.)
So circular definitions (where A is defined in terms of B and B in terms of A) 
are permissible if and only if you can show there is a unique pair (A,B) with 
the given relation. 


On 4/29/09 9:21 AM, "glen e. p. ropella"  wrote:
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 04/28/2009 08:33 PM:
> let a, b, and c
> constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the behaviors
> of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?

There's no problem with it.  It's called an impredicative definition,
which basically means the application of a universal quantifier (e.g.
"for all") over a set as a part of the definition of the members of that
set.  (IIRC, of course... ;-)

Here's a quote from Barwise and Moss' "Vicious Circles" that may address
the "problem" you've heard "philosophers" talk about:

"In certain circles, it has been thought that there is a conflict
between circular phenomena, on the one hand, and mathematical rigor, on
the other.  This belief rests on two assumptions.  One is that anything
mathematically rigorous must be reducible to set theory.  The other
assumption is that the only coherent conception of set precludes
circularity.  As a result of these two assumptions, it is not uncommon
to hear circular analyses of philosophical, linguistic, or computational
phenomena attacked on the grounds that they conflict with one of the
basic axioms of mathematics.  But both assumptions are mistaken and the
attack is groundless."

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



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] FW: NYTimes.com: End the University as We Know It

[victoria]

	A good description of this process of altering the American use of 
information is laid out in 'The Metaphysical Club- a history of ideas 
in America between the Civil War and WW1' by Louis Menand. Won the 
Pulitzer.
	Growing up abroad I was dismayed, returning to the US for college, to 
note an actual mistrust of intelligence and thoughtfulness in parts of 
our country. No more enjoyment of learning for its own sake, or for 
knowledge and identification with our place in the world.
	Menand points out a shift from the 1800's in how we think about 
thinking and social responsibilty, as 'commonwealth' was replaced by 
'corporation', and changes arose in how we educated. Among many things. 
Useful book. Made me realize that in my idiosyncratic love of knowledge 
and learning I am classically American.
	Of course the grand social experiment called television changed 
everything, and now the web is doing it again. Our information stream 
flows more and more internally. Try not using your computer - at all - 
for even two days, and see what happens.

Tory

On Apr 29, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Prof David West wrote:



some context

Education, especially higher education used to be considered a 
"calling"

(not unlike a religious calling) and the objective was wisdom and the
advancement of human knowledge.  Access to the academy was closely
guarded and elitist.

K-12 education started moving away from this model in the 1800s in
response to an idealist notion of "universal education" and a market
notion of needing an educated (to a certain vocation driven extent)
workforce. Today, the idea of knowledge for knowledge's sake is
vestigial at best, and knowledge for a job dominates the philosophy,
structure, and process of that segment of our educational system.

College and graduate education was slowly succumbing but reasonably
resistant to those same influences until the end of WWII.  At that 
point

the universal education and vocational training forces were compounded
by the need for a factory, assembly line, high volume educational
process and a severe need to use education as a means for regulating 
the

workforce.  (You had to get all those women out of the workforce and
find something for the unemployable - because of lack of demand -
ex-soldiers to do.)  Over time "higher ed" succumbed to these forces
just as K-12 did.

In parallel, there was a change in management philosophy, away from
considering educational institutions as something akin to a "church" 
led

by wise elders (faculty) to considering them as a business led and
governed by MBAs with curricula as commodity and students as customers.

The result is an educational system that is substantially bankrupt and
that substantially should be abandoned as the op-ed piece suggests.

Tenure evolved from being an acknowledgement of accomplishment and
scholarship plus protection from political and ideological harassment 
to

a labor relations negotiating chip as the threat to faculty primarily
became (and is) grounded in budget decisions.  Today the issue with
tenure is not who has it and why but the proportion of expensive
tenured/tenure track versus adjunct and non-tenure track in the 
faculty.

 This ratio is effectively more important in accreditation criteria for
an institution than the quality of education it delivers.  (The second
most important accreditation criteria - not surprisingly - is outcomes
assessment, skewed to how much money your graduates earn in the
workforce and how pleased their employers are with the education you
provided.)

Yes, I know I am painting in broad strokes, and that there are
exceptions.

davew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:58 -0600, "Owen Densmore" 
wrote:

Well, not to go on, but:

- Wouldn't most of the problems tenure solves be solved by variations
on the 20% theme: You have 20% of your time to be exploring "research"
that is not on your main "deliverable" path?  Google does this.  Xerox
too.  Ditto SunLabs.  And any savvy engineer/researcher does it on the
sly.  Sabbaticals are on a different time scale, but similar in 
nature.


And as far as jobs -- I don't recall even thinking about jobs until
well after getting out of schools.  I just assumed, due to all the
money flying around for tech/sci/math after Sputnik, that learn Math
and Physics .. mainly 'cause they are deeply philosophic and you *do*
need somehow to figure our how the world works.  But it wasn't related
to work, only getting aligned with the world somehow.

But I certainly also hear a lot about folks studying X for job Y.
Isn't that a pretty new thing, tho?  Most folks go to college to go
through that last phase of life before "growing up".

Man, I'm old.

 -- Owen


On Apr 29, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:


Yes, tenure helps. If you're pursuing really strange paths, with a
high probability of failure (but a big payoff if they work) tenure
helps. One example jumps to mind: Lotfi Zadeh says he could never
have worked on fuzzy logic if he hadn

Re: [FRIAM] FW: NYTimes.com: End the University as We Know It

[Prof David West]

some context

Education, especially higher education used to be considered a "calling"
(not unlike a religious calling) and the objective was wisdom and the
advancement of human knowledge.  Access to the academy was closely
guarded and elitist.

K-12 education started moving away from this model in the 1800s in
response to an idealist notion of "universal education" and a market
notion of needing an educated (to a certain vocation driven extent)
workforce. Today, the idea of knowledge for knowledge's sake is
vestigial at best, and knowledge for a job dominates the philosophy,
structure, and process of that segment of our educational system.

College and graduate education was slowly succumbing but reasonably
resistant to those same influences until the end of WWII.  At that point
the universal education and vocational training forces were compounded
by the need for a factory, assembly line, high volume educational
process and a severe need to use education as a means for regulating the
workforce.  (You had to get all those women out of the workforce and
find something for the unemployable - because of lack of demand -
ex-soldiers to do.)  Over time "higher ed" succumbed to these forces
just as K-12 did.

In parallel, there was a change in management philosophy, away from
considering educational institutions as something akin to a "church" led
by wise elders (faculty) to considering them as a business led and
governed by MBAs with curricula as commodity and students as customers.

The result is an educational system that is substantially bankrupt and
that substantially should be abandoned as the op-ed piece suggests.

Tenure evolved from being an acknowledgement of accomplishment and
scholarship plus protection from political and ideological harassment to
a labor relations negotiating chip as the threat to faculty primarily
became (and is) grounded in budget decisions.  Today the issue with
tenure is not who has it and why but the proportion of expensive
tenured/tenure track versus adjunct and non-tenure track in the faculty.
 This ratio is effectively more important in accreditation criteria for
an institution than the quality of education it delivers.  (The second
most important accreditation criteria - not surprisingly - is outcomes
assessment, skewed to how much money your graduates earn in the
workforce and how pleased their employers are with the education you
provided.)

Yes, I know I am painting in broad strokes, and that there are
exceptions.

davew

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:58 -0600, "Owen Densmore" 
wrote:
> Well, not to go on, but:
> 
> - Wouldn't most of the problems tenure solves be solved by variations  
> on the 20% theme: You have 20% of your time to be exploring "research"  
> that is not on your main "deliverable" path?  Google does this.  Xerox  
> too.  Ditto SunLabs.  And any savvy engineer/researcher does it on the  
> sly.  Sabbaticals are on a different time scale, but similar in nature.
> 
> And as far as jobs -- I don't recall even thinking about jobs until  
> well after getting out of schools.  I just assumed, due to all the  
> money flying around for tech/sci/math after Sputnik, that learn Math  
> and Physics .. mainly 'cause they are deeply philosophic and you *do*  
> need somehow to figure our how the world works.  But it wasn't related  
> to work, only getting aligned with the world somehow.
> 
> But I certainly also hear a lot about folks studying X for job Y.   
> Isn't that a pretty new thing, tho?  Most folks go to college to go  
> through that last phase of life before "growing up".
> 
> Man, I'm old.
> 
>  -- Owen
> 
> 
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:
> 
> > Yes, tenure helps. If you're pursuing really strange paths, with a  
> > high probability of failure (but a big payoff if they work) tenure  
> > helps. One example jumps to mind: Lotfi Zadeh says he could never  
> > have worked on fuzzy logic if he hadn't already got tenure. It took  
> > both intellectual and missionary work over more than a decade before  
> > it even began to pay off. As a young untenured assistant professor,  
> > he could never have done this--he'd be out after his sixth year.
> >
> > I could write an essay on where the liberal arts went wrong (an old  
> > English major here) but I'll spare you except to say as disciplines,  
> > they went from irrelevant to downright scandalous, the result of one  
> > part science-envy, one part who the hell knows. I'm speaking here of  
> > literary studies, not anthropologists or psychologists, who have an  
> > honest claim to be scientists, in that they study phenomena to try  
> > and understand them, illuminate those phenomena for others.
> >
> > Merle and others have smacked our wrists for thinking about  
> > employability, but it's a fact of life for most people. I don't  
> > think it needs to be THE central issue in higher education, but it  
> > needs to be considered. However, I like her idea that the university

[FRIAM] The Mysterious Triangular Truss!

[Peter Lissaman]

Wot be Cognitive Vertigo But a discussion by people don't know the topic?
ANY triangle consisting of three joined members (wood or gold, and not 
necessarily straight, or pinned) if supported on a base will "resist" any 
load through any vertex.  It is not particularly good at this and much less 
rigid than a single member of the truss in direct load .  Leonardo used 
these a lot.  Even made stylish cartoons of same. Called a simple triangular 
truss.  The basis of all space frames. 




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] The Mysterious Triangular Truss!

[Peter Lissaman]

Wot be Cognitive Vertigo But a discussion by people don't know the topic?
ANY triangle consisting of three joined members (wood or gold, and not 
necessarily straight, or pinned) if supported on a base will "resist" any 
load through any vertex.  It is not particularly good at this and much less 
rigid than a single member of the truss in direct load .  Leonardo used 
these a lot.  Even made stylish cartoons of same. Called a simple triangular 
truss.  The basis of all space frames. 




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] emergence, again

[glen e. p. ropella]

Thus spake John Kennison circa 04/29/2009 08:02 AM:
> As a practicing mathematician, my understanding is that it is
> permissible to define anything by a property if and only if you can
> prove there exists a unique thing with that property. For example,
> you cannot define sqrt(49) as "an integer whose square is 49" since
> there are two such integers. Nor could you define sqrt(-1) as the
> real number whose square is -1 as there is no such real number (and
> you can't define sqrt(-1) as the complex number whose square is -1 as
> there are two such complex numbers, i and -i.) So circular
> definitions (where A is defined in terms of B and B in terms of A)
> are permissible if and only if you can show there is a unique pair
> (A,B) with the given relation.

I think that's right.  The relevant axiom is the anti-foundation axiom
(AFA).  And I believe it can be proven that the AFA means that every
system of equations has a unique solution.  (If we assume the foundation
axiom instead, as in the "usual" math, that's not true.)

But the AFA can be stated as: a set can contain itself as its only
element, which is the simplest form of the circularity issue broached by
Nick.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



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] emergence, again

[Robert Howard]

John: So circular definitions are permissible if and only if you can show
there is a unique pair with the given relation.

 

That’s very interesting. How do you prove you have a unique pair? Do you
know an example of such a circular definition that is popular or obvious?
For example, I would define sqrt(49) as 7, but I would never define 7 as the
sqrt(49). I always thought definitions should reduce the complexity of
understanding. 7 seems simpler than sqrt(49) – a number is simpler than a
functional lookup. And when you get to a minimum complexity, you state it as
an axiom, or throw in the towel. I’ve never heard of circular logic as being
an acceptable final state; that is, when you encounter one, it implies
there’s more work to do.

 

Rob

 

  _  

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of John Kennison
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:03 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again

 


As a practicing mathematician, my understanding is that it is permissible to
define anything by a property if and only if you can prove there exists a
unique thing with that property. 
For example, you cannot define sqrt(49) as “an integer whose square is 49”
since there are two such integers. Nor could you define sqrt(-1) as the real
number whose square is –1 as there is no such real number (and you can’t
define sqrt(-1) as the complex number whose square is –1 as there are two
such complex numbers, i and –i.)
So circular definitions (where A is defined in terms of B and B in terms of
A) are permissible if and only if you can show there is a unique pair (A,B)
with the given relation. 


On 4/29/09 9:21 AM, "glen e. p. ropella" 
wrote:

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 04/28/2009 08:33 PM:
> let a, b, and c
> constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the behaviors
> of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?

There's no problem with it.  It's called an impredicative definition,
which basically means the application of a universal quantifier (e.g.
"for all") over a set as a part of the definition of the members of that
set.  (IIRC, of course... ;-)

Here's a quote from Barwise and Moss' "Vicious Circles" that may address
the "problem" you've heard "philosophers" talk about:

"In certain circles, it has been thought that there is a conflict
between circular phenomena, on the one hand, and mathematical rigor, on
the other.  This belief rests on two assumptions.  One is that anything
mathematically rigorous must be reducible to set theory.  The other
assumption is that the only coherent conception of set precludes
circularity.  As a result of these two assumptions, it is not uncommon
to hear circular analyses of philosophical, linguistic, or computational
phenomena attacked on the grounds that they conflict with one of the
basic axioms of mathematics.  But both assumptions are mistaken and the
attack is groundless."

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



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] emergence, again

[Owen Densmore]

After poking about a bit in the Emergence realm, I find I enjoy Miller/ 
Page's discussion, mainly because it summarizes the puzzle and puts it  
into perspective.  And I like their prose.


Basically, its the wide domain of local interactions (at a micro  
level) producing a global behavior (macro) not obviously connected to  
the local interactions.  [Their use of perception (macro) of unrelated  
pixels (micro) is a bit involved, but makes their point in a very  
human domain.]


This leads me to suggest something.  How about you pause for a bit,  
and put together your thoughts on the matter, and present them at a  
Wedtech .. or even as a blog/wiki article.  Then we can decide whether  
to haul in the philosophers, and if so, how.


-- Owen


On Apr 28, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

I am told on Higher Authority that I cannot think about emergence  
any more before I have read the following reference:


 Cartwright, Nancy D. "Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?"  
Pacific Philosophy Quarterly, 61, 1980 (pp 64-75).  Reprinted in The  
Philosophy of Science Reader,  1980, Yuri V. Balashov (ed).  
Routledge Press. Reprinted in Philosophy of Science: The Central  
Issues, 1998, Martin Curd and J.A. Cover (ed). Norton & Company Inc.  
Also in Readings on Laws of Nature, 2004 J.W.Carroll (ed).  
University of Pittsburgh Press.


Does anybody have a copy?  Ingenta has it, but they want big bucks  
for it.


N



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] emergence, again

[Nicholas Thompson]

Russ Standish wrote __

 Can somebody remind me what are the supposed problems with emergence and
> reductionism? 

Russ, I will do my best but you have to promise not to growl at me when I
get it wrong. 

Two problems, closely related: 

(1) Self Cause; (2) Downward Causation

It is one of those problems that appears and dissappears as you rotate it
in your hands.  In my attempts to stabilize my  thinking about the problem,
I have been imagining an equilateral triangle of wood built out of three
one-by-two's and hinges, so you can stand it on its edge and press down on
its apex.  The emergent property is the extreme resistance of the triangle
to downward force applied to its apex.  The downward causation is to the
property of the hinges which are inflexible under these circumstances.  I
cant work this out right now ... late for a meeting ... but I think if you
ask yourself questions like Why does the triangle resist compression
[unlike a parallelogram]? and Why are the hinges rigid? you will experience
some cognitive vertigo.  If not, then all power to you.  

rushing to a meeting.  Hope to pick this up later today.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: russell standish 
> To: ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group 
> Date: 4/29/2009 11:43:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:45:48PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, I will continue to claim that I've
> > solved the problems of emergence and reductionism in "The reductionist
blind
> > spot ." (Yes, it's an
> > audacious claim.) You are welcome to look elsewhere of course, but that
> > paper is a significant advance beyond anything in the literature
including
> > Cartwright, Miller/Page, and Bedau and Humphrey's collection.  If you
> > disagree, tell me why. Sometimes it seems to me that people prefer to
think
> > of emergence as mysterious. It's not.
> > 
> > -- Russ
> > 
>
> Can somebody remind me what are the supposed problems with emergence and
> reductionism? 
>
> -- 
>
>

> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052   hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> 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 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] emergence, again

[John Kennison]

As a practicing mathematician, my understanding is that it is permissible to 
define anything by a property if and only if you can prove there exists a 
unique thing with that property.
For example, you cannot define sqrt(49) as "an integer whose square is 49" 
since there are two such integers. Nor could you define sqrt(-1) as the real 
number whose square is -1 as there is no such real number (and you can't define 
sqrt(-1) as the complex number whose square is -1 as there are two such complex 
numbers, i and -i.)
So circular definitions (where A is defined in terms of B and B in terms of A) 
are permissible if and only if you can show there is a unique pair (A,B) with 
the given relation.


On 4/29/09 9:21 AM, "glen e. p. ropella"  wrote:

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 04/28/2009 08:33 PM:
> let a, b, and c
> constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the behaviors
> of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?

There's no problem with it.  It's called an impredicative definition,
which basically means the application of a universal quantifier (e.g.
"for all") over a set as a part of the definition of the members of that
set.  (IIRC, of course... ;-)

Here's a quote from Barwise and Moss' "Vicious Circles" that may address
the "problem" you've heard "philosophers" talk about:

"In certain circles, it has been thought that there is a conflict
between circular phenomena, on the one hand, and mathematical rigor, on
the other.  This belief rests on two assumptions.  One is that anything
mathematically rigorous must be reducible to set theory.  The other
assumption is that the only coherent conception of set precludes
circularity.  As a result of these two assumptions, it is not uncommon
to hear circular analyses of philosophical, linguistic, or computational
phenomena attacked on the grounds that they conflict with one of the
basic axioms of mathematics.  But both assumptions are mistaken and the
attack is groundless."

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



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] FW: NYTimes.com: End the University as We Know It

[Owen Densmore]

Well, not to go on, but:

- Wouldn't most of the problems tenure solves be solved by variations  
on the 20% theme: You have 20% of your time to be exploring "research"  
that is not on your main "deliverable" path?  Google does this.  Xerox  
too.  Ditto SunLabs.  And any savvy engineer/researcher does it on the  
sly.  Sabbaticals are on a different time scale, but similar in nature.


And as far as jobs -- I don't recall even thinking about jobs until  
well after getting out of schools.  I just assumed, due to all the  
money flying around for tech/sci/math after Sputnik, that learn Math  
and Physics .. mainly 'cause they are deeply philosophic and you *do*  
need somehow to figure our how the world works.  But it wasn't related  
to work, only getting aligned with the world somehow.


But I certainly also hear a lot about folks studying X for job Y.   
Isn't that a pretty new thing, tho?  Most folks go to college to go  
through that last phase of life before "growing up".


Man, I'm old.

-- Owen


On Apr 29, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:

Yes, tenure helps. If you're pursuing really strange paths, with a  
high probability of failure (but a big payoff if they work) tenure  
helps. One example jumps to mind: Lotfi Zadeh says he could never  
have worked on fuzzy logic if he hadn't already got tenure. It took  
both intellectual and missionary work over more than a decade before  
it even began to pay off. As a young untenured assistant professor,  
he could never have done this--he'd be out after his sixth year.


I could write an essay on where the liberal arts went wrong (an old  
English major here) but I'll spare you except to say as disciplines,  
they went from irrelevant to downright scandalous, the result of one  
part science-envy, one part who the hell knows. I'm speaking here of  
literary studies, not anthropologists or psychologists, who have an  
honest claim to be scientists, in that they study phenomena to try  
and understand them, illuminate those phenomena for others.


Merle and others have smacked our wrists for thinking about  
employability, but it's a fact of life for most people. I don't  
think it needs to be THE central issue in higher education, but it  
needs to be considered. However, I like her idea that the university  
is a complex adaptive system waiting to happen, and would love to  
take that discussion on further.


Pamela




On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:


On Apr 28, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:

Some other takes on the essay, from Dave Farber's listserv:


Nice!  I suspect it's pretty right on in the academic world.   
Although I'm a bit surprised at the mud-slinging at "far liberal  
arts".


In industry, we were delighted to have the humanities finally  
become part of the high tech world.  We had anthropologists study  
our organizations, and Human Interface experts (with expertise  
spanning everything from psychology to brain studies) help us  
figure out how to integrate computers into human activities.


I've never had Tenure.  Does it really help?

  -- Owen


From: "David P. Reed" 
Date: April 28, 2009 4:34:57 PM EDT
To: d...@farber.net
Cc: ip 
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Op-Ed Contributor - End the University as We
Know It -  NYTimes.com

I agree with Ben Kuipers below. But here's a simpler observation:  
what
hubris allows a religion professor in Columbia to indict ALL  
graduate

programs in ALL universities without doing any research whatsoever?

Any serious professor in any serious graduate school would have  
never

allowed him to get a Bachelor's degree, much less a graduate degree
with that attitude towards the craft of learning...

Flunk him out.

David Farber wrote:



Begin forwarded message:

From: Benjamin Kuipers 
Date: April 28, 2009 10:29:39 AM EDT
To: d...@farber.net
Cc: "ip" , Benjamin Kuipers 
Subject: Re: [IP] Op-Ed Contributor - End the University as We Know
It -  NYTimes.com

Dave,

A colleague forwarded that column to me last night, and here is my
reply:

With all due respect, I disagree with this Op-Ed essay,
comprehensively.

First, far from being "the Detroit of higher learning", American
graduate education, at least in the STEM fields, is the envy of the
world. (This is changing under the influence of Bush-era visa
restrictions that have made it more difficult for American
universities to get the very best students from around the world,  
so

graduate programs in other countries have been improving rapidly.)

Second, Mark Taylor, the author of this essay, is a religion
professor at Columbia.  Many of his criticisms are relevant to  
(what

I might call) the "far liberal arts", rather than to the STEM
fields, the social sciences, and many of the more empirically-
oriented humanities.  (I have a great deal of respect for the
humanities, including the "far liberal arts", but they do face very
different intellectual issues from the STEM fields.)

Third, while his praise for inter-d

Re: [FRIAM] FW: NYTimes.com: End the University as We Know It

[Owen Densmore]

On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Tom Johnson wrote:

Owen:

For me, the best thing about tenure was that it allowed me to take  
up to two years of unpaid-leave whenever I wanted, safe in the  
knowledge that my job (with fine retirement and health bennies)  
would be there when I came back.  Without that safety valve, I  
surely would not have been able to bear my 19th century dean and  
many of my colleagues as long as I did.  This, of course, may not be  
universal policy, and it was something that I only discovered after  
receiving tenure.


I can say, however, that half my colleagues never even took  
sabbaticals (a semester off at full pay or two at half pay), much  
less invested in their own continuing education during the regular  
year.


-tom


Interesting.  I talked Sun Microsystems into pseudo-sabbaticals .. one  
to go to Italy and study italian and work "in the field" with Sun's  
Milan office, the other to go to the SFI summer school.  The deal was  
that I'd pay for my daily costs and Sun would not dock me vacation time.


Both were life-changing .. wish I had done a couple more!

So if that is tenure-related, I'd say its quite important.  It gets  
one un-stuck.


-- Owen




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] FW: NYTimes.com: End the University as We Know It

[Pamela McCorduck]

Yes, tenure helps. If you're pursuing really strange paths, with a  
high probability of failure (but a big payoff if they work) tenure  
helps. One example jumps to mind: Lotfi Zadeh says he could never have  
worked on fuzzy logic if he hadn't already got tenure. It took both  
intellectual and missionary work over more than a decade before it  
even began to pay off. As a young untenured assistant professor, he  
could never have done this--he'd be out after his sixth year.


I could write an essay on where the liberal arts went wrong (an old  
English major here) but I'll spare you except to say as disciplines,  
they went from irrelevant to downright scandalous, the result of one  
part science-envy, one part who the hell knows. I'm speaking here of  
literary studies, not anthropologists or psychologists, who have an  
honest claim to be scientists, in that they study phenomena to try and  
understand them, illuminate those phenomena for others.


Merle and others have smacked our wrists for thinking about  
employability, but it's a fact of life for most people. I don't think  
it needs to be THE central issue in higher education, but it needs to  
be considered. However, I like her idea that the university is a  
complex adaptive system waiting to happen, and would love to take that  
discussion on further.


Pamela




On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:


On Apr 28, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:

Some other takes on the essay, from Dave Farber's listserv:


Nice!  I suspect it's pretty right on in the academic world.   
Although I'm a bit surprised at the mud-slinging at "far liberal  
arts".


In industry, we were delighted to have the humanities finally become  
part of the high tech world.  We had anthropologists study our  
organizations, and Human Interface experts (with expertise spanning  
everything from psychology to brain studies) help us figure out how  
to integrate computers into human activities.


I've never had Tenure.  Does it really help?

   -- Owen


From: "David P. Reed" 
Date: April 28, 2009 4:34:57 PM EDT
To: d...@farber.net
Cc: ip 
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Op-Ed Contributor - End the University as We
Know It -  NYTimes.com

I agree with Ben Kuipers below. But here's a simpler observation:  
what

hubris allows a religion professor in Columbia to indict ALL graduate
programs in ALL universities without doing any research whatsoever?

Any serious professor in any serious graduate school would have never
allowed him to get a Bachelor's degree, much less a graduate degree
with that attitude towards the craft of learning...

Flunk him out.

David Farber wrote:



Begin forwarded message:

From: Benjamin Kuipers 
Date: April 28, 2009 10:29:39 AM EDT
To: d...@farber.net
Cc: "ip" , Benjamin Kuipers 
Subject: Re: [IP] Op-Ed Contributor - End the University as We Know
It -  NYTimes.com

Dave,

A colleague forwarded that column to me last night, and here is my
reply:

With all due respect, I disagree with this Op-Ed essay,
comprehensively.

First, far from being "the Detroit of higher learning", American
graduate education, at least in the STEM fields, is the envy of the
world. (This is changing under the influence of Bush-era visa
restrictions that have made it more difficult for American
universities to get the very best students from around the world, so
graduate programs in other countries have been improving rapidly.)

Second, Mark Taylor, the author of this essay, is a religion
professor at Columbia.  Many of his criticisms are relevant to (what
I might call) the "far liberal arts", rather than to the STEM
fields, the social sciences, and many of the more empirically-
oriented humanities.  (I have a great deal of respect for the
humanities, including the "far liberal arts", but they do face very
different intellectual issues from the STEM fields.)

Third, while his praise for inter-disciplinary work is certainly
appropriate, he ignores the need for interdisciplinary work to build
on a strong disciplinary foundation.  There was a fad for
"interdisciplinary studies" starting in the 1960s, that I believe
led more-or-less nowhere, but turned out people with inadequate
preparation to do interesting interdisciplinary work.  (Do you give
an undergraduate a major in "Water"? What are they then prepared
for?)  Herb Simon once pointed out that good interdisciplinary work
must be first-class work within the standards of each discipline
involved.

Fourth, I believe that the importance of tenure for intellectual
freedom is not so much freedom from reprisals for controversial
positions (though this may be more of an issue in other
disciplines), but freedom to pursue the intellectual directions that
one considers important, over a career.  This has proved to be an
effective way to get interesting and important new knowledge created
by a selected community of scholars.

Fifth, to support individuals who devote a lifetime to pursuing
intellectual questions they conside

Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again

[glen e. p. ropella]

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 04/28/2009 08:33 PM:
> let a, b, and c
> constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> properties and intereactions of a, b and c.  Now, let one of the behaviors
> of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c.  Is there a problem here?  

There's no problem with it.  It's called an impredicative definition,
which basically means the application of a universal quantifier (e.g.
"for all") over a set as a part of the definition of the members of that
set.  (IIRC, of course... ;-)

Here's a quote from Barwise and Moss' "Vicious Circles" that may address
the "problem" you've heard "philosophers" talk about:

"In certain circles, it has been thought that there is a conflict
between circular phenomena, on the one hand, and mathematical rigor, on
the other.  This belief rests on two assumptions.  One is that anything
mathematically rigorous must be reducible to set theory.  The other
assumption is that the only coherent conception of set precludes
circularity.  As a result of these two assumptions, it is not uncommon
to hear circular analyses of philosophical, linguistic, or computational
phenomena attacked on the grounds that they conflict with one of the
basic axioms of mathematics.  But both assumptions are mistaken and the
attack is groundless."

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com



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] The unreasonable Effectiveness of ABMs in ComplexSystems

[Russell Gonnering]

Just my two cents-ontology, epistemology and emergence are certainly  
not mutually exclusive at all:


www.cognitive-edge.com

--Russ
On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Steve Smith wrote:


Owen Densmore wrote:



Does anybody know a good philosopher or two with time on their  
hands?


Just out of curiosity: why a philosopher?  Why not a scientist/ 
mathematician?  The book looked interesting when you brought it to  
Friam.


   -- Owen
I'd recommend a Scientist with good Mathematical skills who also  
understands the broader context of Science and Mathematics which  
probably makes them something of a Philosopher as well.


There are plenty of Philosophers who would not have much to offer  
here, but possibly as many Scientists and Mathematicians as well.


- Steve

PS. re: Bedau and Humphreys, EMERGENCE.  MIT 2008.  - I'd be reading  
it myself I weren't so busy reading (and writing) all these e-mails!



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] emergence, again

[russell standish]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:45:48PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, I will continue to claim that I've
> solved the problems of emergence and reductionism in "The reductionist blind
> spot ." (Yes, it's an
> audacious claim.) You are welcome to look elsewhere of course, but that
> paper is a significant advance beyond anything in the literature including
> Cartwright, Miller/Page, and Bedau and Humphrey's collection.  If you
> disagree, tell me why. Sometimes it seems to me that people prefer to think
> of emergence as mysterious. It's not.
> 
> -- Russ
> 

Can somebody remind me what are the supposed problems with emergence and
reductionism? 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
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

Re: [FRIAM] The unreasonable Effectiveness of ABMs in ComplexSystems

[Nick Frost]

On Apr 28, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:


On Apr 28, 2009, at 8:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

I wish the hell some you smart folks were reading this book with me:

Bedau and Humphreys, EMERGENCE.  MIT 2008.

Does anybody know a good philosopher or two with time on their hands?


Just out of curiosity: why a philosopher?  Why not a scientist/ 
mathematician?  The book looked interesting when you brought it to  
Friam.


Why not all of the above (scientist, mathematician, and philosopher)?

From one point of view philosophers are students of perception.  A  
20th century example would be Edmund Husserl and a decent/recent book  
mentioning both might be David Abram's "Spell of the Sensuous".  I  
think the world owes a lot to Plato, Aristotle, René Descartes and a  
few others.  Regardless of whether one agrees with their works, the  
consideration thereof has influenced various disciplines for 2,500  
years or so.


Is the study of the perceptions that motivate groups political  
science, systems theory, psychology or philosophy?  Or, is it all or  
none of the above?  I don't know; in lieu of an answer I'd say all  
aforementioned disciplines are valid methods of approaching the  
questions...to the extent that they inform.


It seems to me (and I am more or less publicly saying it's my guess  
because I really don't know) that what little systems theory stuff  
I've read suggests that if you really want to change a system, since  
systems (involving humans) are created and run by people, that the way  
to do it most effectively and potently is to change people's  
perceptions around the system, of the system, etc. Most of what we  
have created existed as thoughts or beliefs in individual or  
collective minds before manifestation (architect dreams up house,  
draws house, builds house).


I don't think science is the problem...but I think a problem is my  
(our) perception and the belief's arising therefrom, whether we are  
talking anthropogenic environmental problems or any number of other  
issues we face individually and collectively.  If the political  
movements that have altered human history stem from individually held  
and mass-held philosophies and the material practices they engender,  
then I think perhaps philosophy is a bit more impactful/relevant than  
one might think, or am I mistaken? (whether we are discussing the  
formerly widely-held view that the Earth was flat, the 5th century  
(B.C.) origins of democracy, or totalitarian and/or fascistic  
movements). Is political science not in part the study of political  
philosophy?


I guess some of my questions are, is philosophy irrelevant because it  
may be viewed by some as less desirable than other disciplines or are  
the subjects and perceptions mentioned matters of political science/ 
psychology and not philosophy? Or, are these disciplines anachronisms  
that should yield to the application of methods of complex systems  
analysis or other academic/scientific disciplines? (I don't know the  
answer to that question and am interested in the answer).  What are  
the most effective and constructive ways to influence group perception  
and group dynamics/behaviors?  Cognitive Neuroscience?  Economics?  
Marketing?


Is the most successful way to influence the power-brokers at the  
Governor's Task Force on the College of Santa Fe a successful  
marketing of a desired philosophy aimed at producing a given outcome?   
Or, is it a matter of demonstrating the economic benefit behind the  
continued presence of higher education in Santa Fe?


-Nick


Nicholas S. Frost
7 Avenida Vista Grande #325
Santa Fe, NM  87508
ni...@nickorama.com




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] The unreasonable Effectiveness of ABMs in ComplexSystems

[Roger Frye]

Reuben Hersh, rhe...@gmail.com,
but you probably think of him as a mathematician.

On Apr 28, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


I am talking about real live philosophers, right here in santa fe.

Anybody know any?

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/





[Original Message]
From: Steve Smith 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >

Date: 4/28/2009 9:59:16 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The unreasonable Effectiveness of ABMs in

ComplexSystems


Owen Densmore wrote:



Does anybody know a good philosopher or two with time on their  
hands?


Just out of curiosity: why a philosopher?  Why not a
scientist/mathematician?  The book looked interesting when you  
brought

it to Friam.

   -- Owen

I'd recommend a Scientist with good Mathematical skills who also
understands the broader context of Science and Mathematics which
probably makes them something of a Philosopher as well.

There are plenty of Philosophers who would not have much to offer  
here,

but possibly as many Scientists and Mathematicians as well.

- Steve

PS. re: Bedau and Humphreys, EMERGENCE.  MIT 2008.  - I'd be  
reading it

myself I weren't so busy reading (and writing) all these e-mails!


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


Roger Frye, 505-670-8840
Qforma, Inc. (formerly CommodiCast)
INNOVATE, NAVIGATE, SURPASS
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain  
confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only  
for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are  
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any  
disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of  
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail  
transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that Qforma can  
arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from  
your inbox. Thank you.






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