Re: [FRIAM] How do forces work?
I wonder if Russ's question relates to a point that was raised in another thread –one that I tried to follow --unsuccessfully because it was mostly over my head. Nick wrote that: Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N. My first thought was that we would first need language –without language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another? But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be determined through experimentation. This would explain why science seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as Objects tend to fall in a downward direction. And why it seems necessary, when grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already comfortable with. And Russ's question might be part of what is needed to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I had about the physical world. From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:59 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How do forces work? I know I am not qualified to join this discussion, but may I say just one thing? As we struggle with our data from our accelerators n’ stuff, we bring to bear models from our experience … metaphors. The language of your discussion is full of such metaphors, and full, also, of expressions of pain that these metaphors are not only incomplete -- all metaphors are incomplete – but that they are incompletete in ways that are essential to the phenomena you are trying to account for. Now, it seems to me, that this conversation is like the conversation that would ensure if we were to see a unicorn drinking out of the fountain at St. Johns, but did not have the mythology of unicorns, or even the word, unicorn, to bring to bear. We would instantly start to apply incomplete models. “It’s a whacking great horse!” One of us would say. “Yeah, but, it’s got a narwhale tooth sticking out of its forehead.” Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:40 PM To: stephen.gue...@redfish.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How do forces work? S - I'd like to think Gil and I could take credit for running Bruce off with our Light/Dark Boson/Lepton nonsensery but I think he's hardier than that! Carry On! - S Aya, it turns out Bruce recently unsubscribed from FRIAM. I hope you guys on the list are happy with your signal to noise ratio ;-)Just kidding...keep it up. Anyway, Bruce, as I had hoped, had a nice response, albeit offlist. If you want to respond to this thread, please cc: Bruce. I copy his response below. //** Bruce Sherwood response offlist Feynman diagrams give one visualization of forces. In this picture, consider two electrons moving near each other. With a calculable probability, one of the electrons may emit a photon, the carrier of the electromagnetic interaction, and this electron recoils. The other electron absorbs the photon and recoils. At least for electric repulsion, this is a nice way to think about the interaction, but it has obvious problems for talking about attraction. The exchanged photon is a virtual photon which unlike unbound photons has mass. At the individual interaction vertices (emission event and absorption event) momentum and energy need not be conserved, but for the two-electron system momentum and energy are conserved. For the strong (nuclear) interaction, the interaction carrier is the gluon. It is thought that the gravitational interaction is carried by a gravitron but we have no direct evidence for this. The weak interaction is mediated by the W and Z bosons and is so similar to electromagnetism that one speaks of the
[FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)
That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors. I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that. But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and getting other people to do what you do. And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g. the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated most of that behavior. We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and down and emitting complex sequences of grunts. If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science? I suspect it would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education. It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like the Celts. But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of language. To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary for us to call something a language? At bottom, I think it boils down to the ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize (put yourself in the pointer's shoes). This strikes me as the root of language. If so, a harder counterfactual is: Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things? I think the answer to that is, No. But as long as we have that root, regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I think the answer is Yes, science can exist without the implementation details of what we now call language. John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM: My first thought was that we would first need language –without language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another? But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be determined through experimentation. This would explain why science seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as Objects tend to fall in a downward direction. And why it seems necessary, when grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already comfortable with. And Russ's question might be part of what is needed to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I had about the physical world. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek -- == glen e. p. ropella The suckers giving up their souls FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)
Glen, John, A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. (It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes. It's a duck!) I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that all thought is in language. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?) That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors. I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that. But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and getting other people to do what you do. And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g. the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated most of that behavior. We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and down and emitting complex sequences of grunts. If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science? I suspect it would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education. It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like the Celts. But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of language. To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary for us to call something a language? At bottom, I think it boils down to the ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize (put yourself in the pointer's shoes). This strikes me as the root of language. If so, a harder counterfactual is: Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things? I think the answer to that is, No. But as long as we have that root, regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I think the answer is Yes, science can exist without the implementation details of what we now call language. John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM: My first thought was that we would first need language -without language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another? But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be determined through experimentation. This would explain why science seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as Objects tend to fall in a downward direction. And why it seems necessary, when grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already comfortable with. And Russ's question might be part of what is needed to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I had about the physical world. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek -- == glen e. p. ropella The suckers giving up their souls FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)
Ha! Nick, you DO understand computer science: Duck Typing has been popular as a way of describing loosely typed dynamic languages. I guess to be fair I'll start calling it Peirce Typing. -- Owen On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Glen, John, A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. (It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes. It's a duck!) I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that all thought is in language. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?) That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors. I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that. But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and getting other people to do what you do. And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g. the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated most of that behavior. We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and down and emitting complex sequences of grunts. If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science? I suspect it would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education. It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like the Celts. But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of language. To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary for us to call something a language? At bottom, I think it boils down to the ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize (put yourself in the pointer's shoes). This strikes me as the root of language. If so, a harder counterfactual is: Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things? I think the answer to that is, No. But as long as we have that root, regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I think the answer is Yes, science can exist without the implementation details of what we now call language. John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM: My first thought was that we would first need language -without language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another? But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be determined through experimentation. This would explain why science seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as Objects tend to fall in a downward direction. And why it seems necessary, when grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already comfortable with. And Russ's question might be part of what is needed to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I had about the physical world. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek -- == glen e. p. ropella The suckers giving up their souls FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
I agree that the closure of the feedback loop between peeking and poking (experimentation) is the root of science. Of course, perhaps that's not much of a statement _if_ that's the root of everything, as maybe the autopoiesis guys might claim. An interesting question is what would the _medium_ look like for a language-less science? Can we imagine an alternative reality where some form video sprouted from cave paintings, through comic strips, to movies, without written language? Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/22/2013 09:41 AM: A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. (It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes. It's a duck!) I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that all thought is in language. -- == glen e. p. ropella Broadcast dead revolution don't pay FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion
This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals abduction. Is Duck Typing a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your neologism. I like it. Actually, from Peirce's point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with It's a duck! (Some might say I was guilty of a canard. Heh. Heh.) I should have written, It's more probably a duck. The point is, channeling my mentor again, that abducktion (=duck-typing, as you put it) is a probabilistic enterprise. As we accumulate concordant properties between the white feathered thing in front of us and what we know about ducks, the creature seems more probably to be a duck. No poke is ever the last poke. Each poke leads to future pokes. After Poke-squawk works, we might try to see if the creature goes well in a cassoulet, and if the result of that experiment is also, yes, then the creature is even more probably a duck. But I really need to learn more about duck-typing. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:47 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: mikeby...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?) Ha! Nick, you DO understand computer science: Duck Typing has been popular as a way of describing loosely typed dynamic languages. I guess to be fair I'll start calling it Peirce Typing. -- Owen On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Glen, John, A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. (It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes. It's a duck!) I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that all thought is in language. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?) That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors. I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that. But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and getting other people to do what you do. And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g. the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated most of that behavior. We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and down and emitting complex sequences of grunts. If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science? I suspect it would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education. It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like the Celts. But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of language. To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary for us to call something a language? At bottom, I think it boils down to the ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize (put yourself in the pointer's shoes). This strikes me as the root of language. If so, a harder counterfactual is: Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things? I think the answer to that is, No. But as long as we have that root, regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I think the answer is Yes, science can exist without the implementation details of what we now call language. John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM: My first thought was that we would first need language -without language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another? But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be determined through experimentation. This would explain why science seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as Objects tend to fall in a downward direction. And why it seems necessary, when grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already comfortable with. And Russ's question might be part of what is needed to understand
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
How would you say E = MC^2 without language? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:51 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: I agree that the closure of the feedback loop between peeking and poking (experimentation) is the root of science. Of course, perhaps that's not much of a statement _if_ that's the root of everything, as maybe the autopoiesis guys might claim. An interesting question is what would the _medium_ look like for a language-less science? Can we imagine an alternative reality where some form video sprouted from cave paintings, through comic strips, to movies, without written language? Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/22/2013 09:41 AM: A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. (It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes. It's a duck!) I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that all thought is in language. -- == glen e. p. ropella Broadcast dead revolution don't pay FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:21 AM: How would you say E = MC^2 without language? I don't think a scientist would say such a thing. But I also don't think E = MC^2 is science. Yes, I know. After saying that, you will (again) think to yourself that it's not worth talking to me. ;-) But the point Nick raises remains. Science is about peeking and poking the stuff around you, not idealizing everything down into abstract math. The math is a tool, but not the objective. So, a scientist would not say E = MC^2. A scientist would say something like If I manipulate machine X with buttons Y and Z, then A, B, and C obtain. What that experiment _means_, ideologically, is left to the metaphysicians, some of which may trigger new behaviors in the scientists. So, your question boils down to how would you teach a student to run a particle accelerator without talking or writing anything down? -- == glen e. p. ropella Swan diving off the tongues of crippled giants FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that? On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: If I manipulate machine X with buttons Y and Z, then A, B, and C obtain. *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM: It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that? To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make sense of, give meaning to, physics. Unlike some, I give metaphysics quite a bit of respect. To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between theoretical physics and speculative physics. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable. So, as long as you can _also_ describe your test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say that your theory is scientific. But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that your theory is scientific, but not science. It's related to the science, but it's not the core constituent. E = MC^2 is a fine thought. But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it to make reality different, then it's not science. The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in and breathe and manipulate with our fingers. -- == glen e. p. ropella A greased up atomic pavillion FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If you remove the benefit part and simply talk about the application of the forces of nature, is that what you are calling science? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM: It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that? To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make sense of, give meaning to, physics. Unlike some, I give metaphysics quite a bit of respect. To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between theoretical physics and speculative physics. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable. So, as long as you can _also_ describe your test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say that your theory is scientific. But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that your theory is scientific, but not science. It's related to the science, but it's not the core constituent. E = MC^2 is a fine thought. But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it to make reality different, then it's not science. The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in and breathe and manipulate with our fingers. -- == glen e. p. ropella A greased up atomic pavillion FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If you remove the benefit part and simply talk about the application of the forces of nature, is that what you are calling science? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM: It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that? To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make sense of, give meaning to, physics. Unlike some, I give metaphysics quite a bit of respect. To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between theoretical physics and speculative physics. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable. So, as long as you can _also_ describe your test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say that your theory is scientific. But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that your theory is scientific, but not science. It's related to the science, but it's not the core constituent. E = MC^2 is a fine thought. But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it to make reality different, then it's not science. The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in and breathe and manipulate with our fingers. -- == glen e. p. ropella A greased up atomic pavillion FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
I would say that the product of the scientific enterprise is knowledge. If that's the case, then the question becomes how one expresses that knowledge. Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't any expression of knowledge imply a language? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.comwrote: There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If you remove the benefit part and simply talk about the application of the forces of nature, is that what you are calling science? *-- Russ Abbott* *_* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688 * * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/ and the courses I teach *_* On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM: It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that? To be as stark as possible, Yes. It's metaphysics, which is how we make sense of, give meaning to, physics. Unlike some, I give metaphysics quite a bit of respect. To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between theoretical physics and speculative physics. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable. So, as long as you can _also_ describe your test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say that your theory is scientific. But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that your theory is scientific, but not science. It's related to the science, but it's not the core constituent. E = MC^2 is a fine thought. But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it to make reality different, then it's not science. The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in and breathe and manipulate with our fingers. -- == glen e. p. ropella A greased up atomic pavillion FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM: The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently? Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to (semi)permanently modify our surroundings. Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification. Hence, medicine is in an interesting position. It's a little bit science and a little bit engineering. Unfortunately, it's approached as purely engineering. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate the world. I disagree. I'd say that something like 90% of today's science is something any individual can use to manipulate the world. The trick is that you have to think scientifically. How can you _test_ E=MC^2? Most people don't even think about how they might actually test that, because they're _programmed_ to think it's some high-falutin' idea that they can't use. Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:26 AM: Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't any expression of knowledge imply a language? As I said before, the question boils down to the definition of language. Is it expressing knowledge to, without writing or talking, bake a cake while another person watches? -- == glen e. p. ropella I'm living free because the rent's never due FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals “abduction”. Is “Duck Typing” a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your neologism. I like it. ** ** Actually, from Peirce’s point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with ** ** “It's a duck!” (Some might say I was guilty of a canard. Heh. Heh.) ** ** I should have written, “It’s more probably a duck.” The point is, channeling my mentor again, that “abducktion (=duck-typing, as you put it) is a *probabilistic* enterprise. As we accumulate concordant properties between the white feathered thing in front of us and what we know about ducks, the creature seems more probably to be a duck. No poke is ever the last poke. Each poke leads to future pokes. After “Poke-squawk” works, we might try to see if the creature goes well in a *cassoulet*, and if the result of that experiment is also, “yes”, then the creature is even more probably a duck. ** ** But I really need to learn more about “duck-typing”. ** ** Nick In strongly typed languages, you declare what something is at compile time so the compilar can both optimize the translation into machine language, and to catch errors during compilation. Typically, in Object Oriented parlance, if you declare a variable to be a Duck, and Duck has walk, swim, quack methods (procedures), then declaring a variable duck to be a Duck lets you call duck.quack() for example. In Duck Typing, your playing a trust game. I have an undeclared variable, named duck, that happens to have the three Duck methods. It also has a explode method, but I don't ever call that, so I rely on run time testing suites to determine that, for me it is a duck. There are endless (and pointless) arguments made as to how strongly typed a language is but basically its compile vs run time discovery of errors. From the font of all knowledge, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing In computer programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming with object-orientedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming programming languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language, *duck typing* is a style of dynamic typinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Dynamic_typing in which an object's *methodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(computer_programming) and properties*determine the valid semantics, rather than its inheritancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_(object-oriented_programming) from a particular class or implementation of a specific interface. The name of the concept refers to theduck test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test, attributed to James Whitcomb Rileyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Whitcomb_Riley (see history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#History below), which may be phrased as follows: When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#cite_note-1 In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing. Duck typing is aided by habitually *not* testing for the type of arguments in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear code and testing to ensure correct use. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
What is Language? What is Science? What is Engineering? What is Metaphysics? It seems that Glen is confronting us to sort these out a bit more/differently than usual. I find your (Glen) presentation of these concepts idiosyncratic but generally to good effect. I almost always flinch and want to disagree at your first sentences, but by the end of the paragraph or post, I usually appreciate the point you are making or position you are taking. It almost always provides parallax and sometimes clarification. *Language:* I *think* you (Glen) made the point that what *most of us* call language would be the spoken/written tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that you would claim that language is much more than that. I think using the notion of pointing at only barely opens the can of language worms by essentially coining nouns or subject and/or object symbols. While I think that your definition of language is probably a good motivation for the kernel or core of language or maybe only proto language. I don't know that the ability to name things sufficiently covers the span of language, but it is a good start. I defer to Bohm's Rheomode on what might perhaps be the next step in complexity, perhaps that of defining (only symmetric?) relations (predicates) between what we conventionally call Subject/Object. The non-dualists here (of which Rich is the only hard-core one I have seen self-identify, though I think Tory might accept that same term?) would probably want our elaboration of language to stop at that point... and not allow for the differentiation between subject and object... I'm unclear on whether dualism is a valuable tool or an illusion or if I'm thinking like Glen, maybe both? /Sidenote.../ It seems to me that classical procedural programmers would prefer the modern definition of predicate while the OO programmers would prefer the more classical (where the grammarial object is part of the predicate, but the OO Object is the grammarial subject)? Seems like Glen/Marcus and a few others might have an opinion/observation on this little sidenote... *Science:* I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the Scientific Method? I agree that without the act (including the will, the means and the ability?) to test hypotheses, I'm not sure what we would have... possibly magick or alchemy? Possibly less than that. I also accept your contention that much of what we call Science is Metaphysics. I also share Glen's appreciation of metaphysics as a context-provider for science itself. *Engineering*: A great deal of the *rest* of what we call Science is instead Engineering. I'd contend that most of what passes for experimental science is *engineering* in the sense that it is about constructing and crafting various apparatti to establish a controlled context for testing an hypothesis. The generation of the hypothesis (aside from the intrinsic iterative nature of science) is outside of this engineering, as is the interpretation of the results. /In summary/... We discuss (here and many other places) the role of Science without distinction between what is Metaphysics, what is Mathematics, and what is and what is Engineering. For the most part that is not a problem, as we all share a common vernacular use of the term Science to roughly mean all things which touch Science. Medicine (a great deal of Engineering/Technology and Social Practice) we tend to call Science. Anything involving technology we tend to refer to as Science. And anything requiring (or benefitting from?) Mathematics we tend to want to refer to as Science. I think this is not that interesting of a question... in Nick's terms I think all that might be wanted here is some *local* (within this community?) convergence on the use of the terms: Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Metaphysics. I think this has all been settled long ago and all we are asking for between each other is some you know what I meant class of understanding. As for Language... I think *this* is a more interesting question of which the former question(s) are strongly influenced. Just my $US.02 (e.g. adjust downward in other currencies) - Steve Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM: The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently? Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to (semi)permanently modify our surroundings. Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification. Hence, medicine is in an interesting position. It's a little bit science and a little bit engineering.
[FRIAM] DIY science
Given the other discussion of the usability or testability of some scientific theories, I thought these might be interesting links: Build A Fusion Reactor http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/ Bringing particle physics to life: build your own cloud chamber http://www.scienceinschool.org/2010/issue14/cloud Detecting Exoplanets by Gravitational Microlensing using a Small Telescope http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609599 -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Know ten things. Say nine. -- unknown FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Yes, I think how knowledge is recorded includes the machines that do the recording and the playback. For example, knowledge recorded on a magnetic tape is _not_ really knowledge if we don't have a tape player. Only when the tape is played can we call it knowledge. Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 02:56 PM: Do you consider how knowledge is recorded? In your view is there any way to record knowledge other than in human (or other animal?) memory? Perhaps a video is another possibility. What about a cartoon video? If that's acceptable, what about the code that generates that cartoon video? If that's ok, then suppose we can factor that code into the (traditional) knowledge part and the part that converts the knowledge to a presentation. You see where this is heading. -- == glen e. p. ropella But they won't tell us why FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] Presented for FRIAMic Consideration
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces. --Doug -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Presented for FRIAMic Consideration
Popcorn is popped and buttered; knees are crossed in my Adirondack chair. Carry on. P. On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces. --Doug -- Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Presented for FRIAMic Consideration
+1 On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Pamela McCorduck pam...@well.com wrote: Popcorn is popped and buttered; knees are crossed in my Adirondack chair. Carry on. P. On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces. --Doug -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Russ: I you aware that these words might have been quoted, word for word, from Peirce? Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to (semi)permanently modify our surroundings. Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification. I think you might take over the mantle of the Village Pragmatist, here. Nick -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:35 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and language Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM: The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would you say it differently? Yes. Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for future behaving. Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to (semi)permanently modify our surroundings. Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just me. Engineering is a process of other-modification. Hence, medicine is in an interesting position. It's a little bit science and a little bit engineering. Unfortunately, it's approached as purely engineering. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate the world. I disagree. I'd say that something like 90% of today's science is something any individual can use to manipulate the world. The trick is that you have to think scientifically. How can you _test_ E=MC^2? Most people don't even think about how they might actually test that, because they're _programmed_ to think it's some high-falutin' idea that they can't use. Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:26 AM: Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't any expression of knowledge imply a language? As I said before, the question boils down to the definition of language. Is it expressing knowledge to, without writing or talking, bake a cake while another person watches? -- == glen e. p. ropella I'm living free because the rent's never due FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] science and language
Glen - Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to point at, but that what we call language is built on top of that root. But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of language is useless. My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of some kind is the definition of life. Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless language is an odd thing to consider indeed. I *like* the nonduality that the rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries explicitly in it's preference for *not* distinguishing subject from object, but I'm not sure what a process/verb/predicate only language would be? Maybe creatures such as the Cetaceans are more prone to this given their somewhat fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared to our own generally discretized chunky environment?) Or advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag sentients living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter? Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the neurological structure that allows us to empathize. And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved with language itself? I presume you use the phrase appendage with which to point fairly metaphorical as we know plenty of people who can point quite effectively with: their finger (pick any one of several for nuanced implication); their gaze; their shoulder; their head; their chin; their lips... Do Dolphins and Orcas point? I do believe the ones in captivity have no trouble understanding various pointing gestures including gaze and appendage.How much does sharing some basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding? That's critical. E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point. But not very often. For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger. Do cats have language ... well, it all depends on your definition. I would say No, because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at least mine don't seem to. ;-) I'd be interested in the neural mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds. I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is really their gaze, with which their posture follows. I did not train them in this regard, just observed their instinctual nature. I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing. I could drop a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help cleaning it up, no amount of pointing would help right up to moving the pointing finger they were staring at all the way down to the actual object. I would do better to just avoid stepping on the bit of food for a few moments and let the dog find it with their nose. But silly me, I always try to engage as I would with a human. My 1 year old granddaughter seemed to understand pointing soon after her eyes began to focus and she seemed to recognize discrete objects. In her case (and all babies?) pointing started with reaching, a reach that intrinsically exceeds it's grasp? Perhaps *this* is what identifies humans and/or sentience... a reach that exceeds the grasp? I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of throwing. In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give he hint to look or even *run* in the direction where my (pointing) appendage ended up pointing. I had an Irish Setter who also understood (halfway) that a thrown object had a shadow (often) and instead of trying to track the object, would chase the shadow. He was as fast and he obsessive. When the sun was low, his chase would trace a long arc, ending with the (tennis ball usually) bouncing off of his snout which he would then snatch from the air or after another short chase. I think this might be a rederivation of Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by Irish Setter? Oh yeh, he also only had three legs. My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or viszla?) has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to include flashlight beams. Walking at night with her is totally strange, you have to be careful where you point the flashlight because she is *always* aware of where the beam is and will try to pounce on it as she does laser pointers (just like a cat?!). Pointing the flashlight in the path for your guests on the way to their car leads to them tripping over a very eager and focused dog instead. She even seems to correlate the pointing with the (first it was my Infrared Thermometer, then a conventional laser pointer, then accidentally the flashlight) pointing device. A conventional (telescoping or not) pointer means nothing to her except that I might either throw it for her to chase or *whack* her. Maybe if I affixed a laser pointer to it? *Science:* I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the Scientific
Re: [FRIAM] Presented for FRIAMic Consideration
I don't know about you, Pamela, but I've run clean out of popcorn, and I've already re-crossed my knees twice. Truth be known, I'm particularly keen to follow the exposition on the meaning of the word through. Although forces is a close second, followed of course by causal. --Doug On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: +1 On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Pamela McCorduck pam...@well.com wrote: Popcorn is popped and buttered; knees are crossed in my Adirondack chair. Carry on. P. On Apr 22, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces. --Doug -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:37:09PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote: In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing. Duck typing is aided by habitually *not* testing for the type of arguments in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear code and testing to ensure correct use. In C++, generic programming, or static polymorphism, is often called duck-typing. If my generic algorithm expexcts the object passed to it have walk, quack and swim methods, then the compiler will not allow you to pass in something that doesn't have those methods, but otherwise there are no other restrictions on the object passed in. This is in contrast to dynamic polymorphism, which is like Java's - the object you pass in must inherit from a base class, which becomes part of the documented interface of the method. You are only allowed to pass in ducks here, but I don't care what species they are. Side note - Java has generics, but you can't really do generic programming, or duck-typing in Java, AFAICT. Obviously, in more dynamic languages like Javascript, duck-typing errors must be caught at run time, but in static languages like C++, they are caught at compile time. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion
Owen, This really quite splendid. And timely. Just as I would was thinking that the two kinds of conversations that have dominated FRIAM over the last few weeks were going to permanently bifurcate, you bring them together with Abducktion and duck-typing. Your exposition was pretty user-friendly, but still I am not completely sure I understand. Is duck-type roughly equivalent to announcing for all future generations of a program that anything anyone calls a duck is going to have duckwalk, duckquack, ducktastesgoodincassoulet as properties. Or is it more than that. Is there any working that backward in a program. Let's say some programmer in the future, working with your program creates a variable, goose, that also waddles, quacks (sort of) and tastesgoodincassoulets. Is there any way for the program to output to the programmer, don't you mean 'duck?. Nick Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:37 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: mikeby...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals abduction. Is Duck Typing a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your neologism. I like it. Actually, from Peirce's point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with It's a duck! (Some might say I was guilty of a canard. Heh. Heh.) I should have written, It's more probably a duck. The point is, channeling my mentor again, that abducktion (=duck-typing, as you put it) is a probabilistic enterprise. As we accumulate concordant properties between the white feathered thing in front of us and what we know about ducks, the creature seems more probably to be a duck. No poke is ever the last poke. Each poke leads to future pokes. After Poke-squawk works, we might try to see if the creature goes well in a cassoulet, and if the result of that experiment is also, yes, then the creature is even more probably a duck. But I really need to learn more about duck-typing. Nick In strongly typed languages, you declare what something is at compile time so the compilar can both optimize the translation into machine language, and to catch errors during compilation. Typically, in Object Oriented parlance, if you declare a variable to be a Duck, and Duck has walk, swim, quack methods (procedures), then declaring a variable duck to be a Duck lets you call duck.quack() for example. In Duck Typing, your playing a trust game. I have an undeclared variable, named duck, that happens to have the three Duck methods. It also has a explode method, but I don't ever call that, so I rely on run time testing suites to determine that, for me it is a duck. There are endless (and pointless) arguments made as to how strongly typed a language is but basically its compile vs run time discovery of errors. From the font of all knowledge, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming computer programming with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming object-oriented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language programming languages, duck typing is a style of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Dynamic_typing dynamic typing in which an object's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(computer_programming) methods and propertiesdetermine the valid semantics, rather than its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_(object-oriented_programming) inheritance from a particular class or implementation of a specific interface. The name of the concept refers to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test duck test, attributed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Whitcomb_Riley James Whitcomb Riley (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#History history below), which may be phrased as follows: When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#cite_note-1 [1] In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing. Duck typing is aided by habitually not testing for the type of arguments in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear
Re: [FRIAM] Presented for FRIAMic Consideration
Ok Troll-Boy, I'll bite. Here's the paper referenced in the phys.org post: http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf Are these concepts so foreign that you hope to watch a thread thrash on the semantics and meanings of this theoretical worldview? Is there something in Hewitt's paper that strikes you as ridiculous, hogwosh or complexity babble? The ideas in the paper restate what is obvious to many of the practitioners on this list. Namely that structure formation and origin of life may well be best understood as nature's response to imposed non-equilibrium gradients. To many this is a core idea of Complexity. This mechanism has been linked as a causal mechanism for the emergence of autonomous intelligent emergent behavior since (1980, Kugler, Kelso and Turvey http://web.haskins.yale.edu/Reprints/HL0297.pdf), (2000 Kauffmanhttp://www.amazon.com/Investigations-Stuart-A-Kauffman/dp/0195121058/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1366685204sr=8-2keywords=investigations), (2005 Jun and Hubler http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545530/and 2011 Hubler et alhttp://icmt.illinois.edu/workshops/fluctuations2011/Talks/Hubler_Alfred_ICMT_May_2011.pdf) and (2007 Morowitz and Smithhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20191/abstract) among others. I haven't actually seen the software entropica referenced in the paper and the claims may be a little over stated but the core ideas you quote emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces are not new and strike me as matter of fact. These same ideas have thrashed on the list almost exactly 10 years ago: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.region.new-mexico.santa-fe.friam/256 Doug, where do you think intelligent behavior (ie life) comes from? Do you have a view? a pet theory? too busy? --- -. . ..-. .. ... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... stephen.gue...@redfish.com 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 office: (505) 995-0206 tollfree: (888) 414-3855 mobile: (505) 577-5828 fax: (505) 819-5952 tw: @redfishgroup skype: redfishgroup gvoice: (505) 216-6226 redfish.com | simtable.com On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces. --Doug -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Presented for FRIAMic Consideration
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Stephen Guerin stephen.gue...@redfish.comwrote: Ok Troll-Boy, I'll bite. [...] Doug, where do you think intelligent behavior (ie life) comes from? Do you have a view? a pet theory? too busy? Never too busy to respond to you, G-man. A slight time delay will be incurred, however, as I have two proposals to get out the door this week. But fear not, a saucy riposte is in the works... --TrollBoi --- -. . ..-. .. ... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... stephen.gue...@redfish.com 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 office: (505) 995-0206 tollfree: (888) 414-3855 mobile: (505) 577-5828 fax: (505) 819-5952 tw: @redfishgroup skype: redfishgroup gvoice: (505) 216-6226 redfish.com | simtable.com On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html It is with much anticipation that we await the detailed discussions that are sure to follow which will cover the meanings of emergence, complex, behaviors, through, causal entropic, and forces. --Doug -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
