Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick, David: you are both correct.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West"  wrote:

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>    All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>    To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>    Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>    More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gepr ⛧]

Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism. 
So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to 
focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like 
Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help clarify any 
disagreements. I think his conception of reality relies on a principle of 
plenitude where his conception of existence does not.  So I think it's a 
mistake to limit the conversation to truth/reality.


On October 14, 2017 11:59:08 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  
wrote:
>
>You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he
>is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have
>your own `truths'.
>It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one
>that can see and hear.

-- 
⛧glen⛧


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Gary Schiltz]

And that's the God's Honest Truth :-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Nick, David: you are both correct.
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West"  wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
> FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
> compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.
>
> The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
> you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
> 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
> privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
> Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
> man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
> conversational table.
>
> see you in December
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> > come back so I can administer cold compresses.
> >
> > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> > have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> > I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> > have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
> >  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> > the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> > ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> > it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> > produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> > readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> > has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> > diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> > would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> > random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> > drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> > way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> > no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> > randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> > However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> > will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> > confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> > account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> > is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> > will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
> >
> > Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> > all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> > would be if there ever were any.
> >
> > Come back.  We miss you.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> > Clark University
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> > West
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > 
> > Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
> >
> > Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> > Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> > few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> > of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> > and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> > such claim, as will be explained later.
> >
> > There can be no Truth.
> >    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> > - ‘truths’ are possible.
> >    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> > might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> > ‘truths’ are possible.
> >    All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> > illusory.
> >
> > There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> >    To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> > privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> > scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
> >
> > There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> > sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> >    Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> > Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
> > 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.


If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two c

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Marcus, you are correct re: the program itself and the theory of how
the program is supposed to work and even the personalities / style of
the coders.
I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an
affair of the world and how the program would deal with it. This is
quite different from the idea of theory ala Brooks which was only of how
the machine was operating and moving from state to state - i.e. the
succession of states and the congruence of source code to executing
compiled code.
davew




On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Dave writes:


> 


> > Specifically that a program was
>  > the expression of a consensual theory share among those that
>  > developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of
>  > the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot
>  > be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be
>  > transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission
>  > would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)> 
> I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.
> While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the
> artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are
> objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from
> other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can
> establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation
> of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such
> programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the
> author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting
> them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what
> is done.> 


> If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly
> arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of
> attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have
> very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only
> thing that really holds them together are consequential logical
> constraints in their work products.> 


> Marcus


> 
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Prof David West
>  *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is
> it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”>  
> 
> Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
> FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply
> cold compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.
>
>  The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response.
>  First, you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery
>  of the 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that
>  method privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits
>  using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the
>  term "rational man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some
>  individuals at the conversational table.
>
>  see you in December
>
>
>  On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>  > David,
>  >
>  > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.
>  > Please  come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>  >
>  > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of
>  > things I have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has
>  > a kind of edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:
>  > Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a
>  > signal from outer space. Imagine you are interested in the
>  > frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either be
>  > random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the
>  > signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely
>  > possible that such a sample of measurements could be produced by a
>  > random signal.But now let us double the number of readings, and
>  > let us also notice that the variation of the measurements has also
>  > diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
>  > diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While
>  > we both would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the
>  > signal is not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that
>  > such a sample is drawn from a population of measurements with a
>  > mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  It's quite possible that
>  > our experience is random, and no amount of consistency  can ever
>  > convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain
>  > of experiences is not random. However, as experience increases in
>  > consistency, the same rational man will be more likely to bet that
>  > that chain of experiences will be confirmed in the very long run of
>  > human experiences.  On Peirce,s account, that is what it means to
>  > say that something "is the truth"  It is to bet that this string of
>  > experiences that we ar

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Steven A Smith]

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this 
argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.



What of examples of /convergent evolution/ where similar structures 
(with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I 
would not claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that 
anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical 
abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse 
engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".



A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous 
example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this 
example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's 
dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast 
metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" 
tens of times...



Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of 
"Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is 
entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is 
useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to 
the structures they describe/explain themselves.




Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)


I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the 
artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are 
objective about the behavior of the program.  One can learn from other 
sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can 
establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation 
of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such 
programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the 
author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them 
too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.



If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly 
arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of 
attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have 
very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only 
thing that really holds them together are consequential logical 
constraints in their work products.



Marcus


*From:* Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 


*Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely 
Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this: Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer 
space.

>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we 
both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal 
is not

> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population o

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:


"I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair 
of the world and how the program would deal with it."


I had a discussion with a manager the other day where the question was raised 
"What is the function of this project?"  (In other words, how does it change 
how the machine moves from state to state or how does it improve life for 
users.)   I replied, "It is to change how developers feel about the project."  
In fact, the project serves no other purpose but to address frustration and 
stated complaints (valid or not) about their daily work.  To make them feel 
that their theory of the world is valid, so that perhaps they will engage in 
the way that is needed.I suppose it also has a more subtle purpose too, to 
show these same managers, that once these individuals feel validated, they will 
soon find something else to complain about, such as, say, the resolution to 
their first set of complaints.   ;-)


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:57:17 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Marcus, you are correct re: the program itself and the theory of how the 
program is supposed to work and even the personalities / style of the coders.

I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair 
of the world and how the program would deal with it. This is quite different 
from the idea of theory ala Brooks which was only of how the machine was 
operating and moving from state to state - i.e. the succession of states and 
the congruence of source code to executing compiled code.

davew




On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.


If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.


Marcus



From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”


Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signa

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Steve writes:


..
So if we exclude the compelling argument that evolution has invented the same 
kinds of solutions over and over -- there are objective, universal constraints 
to optimize around and a relatively constrained solution space that would 
nonetheless take decades of engineering effort for skilled humans -- then, why 
should we take the alternative formal systems that humans use as evidence of 
the possibility different Truths and not just a bunch of psychobabble?   In 
some sense our meta-patterns we arrogantly upgrade to Theory aren't so 
impressive compared to the diversity of life on earth.


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Steven A Smith 

Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:41:52 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”


Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument 
(as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.


What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".


A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...


Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of 
"Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a 
construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to 
consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures 
they describe/explain themselves.


Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.


If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.


Marcus


From: Friam  on 
behalf of Prof David West 
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Naw.  Come on Dave.  You're just picking a fight!  I don't meed the "rational 
man" at all.  All I need is that people either will, or will not, share an 
opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by definition, if shared, is 
what we mean by truth.  And the edge I am talking about here is emotional.  I  
am not pressing this view with the ferocity that you take me for.  Persistence, 
perhaps, but not ferocity.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at FRIAM for 
a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold compresses then, 
or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First, you 
propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the 'certainty' 
of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method privileged? I.e. what 
is it about Probability that merits using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More 
egregious is the use of the term "rational man" — this is what I meant about 
allowing only some individuals at the conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
> 
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  
> Please come back so I can administer cold compresses.
> 
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I 
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of 
> edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine 
> that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer 
> space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I 
> say, the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that 
> the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 
> hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the 
> measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double 
> again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is 
> not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample 
> is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's 
> that way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is 
> random, and no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man 
> that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man 
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be 
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s 
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  
> It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the 
> midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
> 
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything 
> at all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what 
> truth would be if there ever were any.
> 
> Come back.  We miss you. 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David 
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
> 
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with 
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the 
> past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in 
> a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of 
> assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I 
> am making no such claim, as will be explained later.
> 
> There can be no Truth.
>    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only 
> ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
>    All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
> 
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

The measurements, by different means, either will or will not converge on a 
common opinion.  Science does that all the time.  That’s how bridges get built, 
no?  The great majority of bridges actually carry weight.  And so we continue, 
never certain, but making a winning bet almost every time we get on an airplane 
to Vienna. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:59 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

 

Nick writes:

 

"Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a 
signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the 
signal."


You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he is deaf. 
 Communication may be challenging and so you may each have your own `truths'. 
It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one that can 
see and hear. 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:50:17 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

 

David, 

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come 
back so I can administer cold compresses.  

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have 
said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't 
think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy 
antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are 
interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either 
be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal 
give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a 
sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.But now let us 
double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the 
measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, 
and diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both 
would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not 
random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from 
a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  
It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency 
 can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain 
of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, 
the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences 
will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s 
account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to 
bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be 
confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all 
that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be 
if there ever were any. 

Come back.  We miss you. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 


  

  Natural Designs - 
EarthLink

home.earthlink.net  

Natural Theologists were a group of scientist/christians who believed that the 
best way to know God was to study nature. If only I believed in God ...




-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick 
since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) 
use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; 
and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at 
minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be 
explained later.

There can be no Truth.
n   Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
n   Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Hi glen, 

This may be a late Peirce/Early Peirce thing.  I confess to not having much of 
a grip on the late Peirce, which seems to fade away into irrationalism, for me. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of gepr ?
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:08 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism. 
So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to 
focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like 
Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help clarify any 
disagreements. I think his conception of reality relies on a principle of 
plenitude where his conception of existence does not.  So I think it's a 
mistake to limit the conversation to truth/reality.


On October 14, 2017 11:59:08 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  
wrote:
>
>You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he 
>is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have 
>your own `truths'.
>It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one 
>that can see and hear.

--
⛧glen⛧


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

In trying to explicate Peirce’s definition of truth, I am not talking about  
short term group think..  Remember, if convergence, in the very long run of 
time, never occurs, then there is no Truth of the matter, by definition, and 
Dave is right.   My sense is that Dave is trying to turn a Pragmati[ci]st 
definition into a Cartesian one and then hang it around my neck like a 
road-killed skunk. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:39 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)


I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs. 

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> >
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David, 
> 
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.  
> 
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random. 
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in t

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Steven, 

 

As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like your 
“eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over the long 
haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul. 

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and 
molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative 
theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we 
earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an 
infinite number of better ones.   

 

For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these 
sorts of arguments.  

 

And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the facts 
of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite clear that 
that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually matter.  He only 
asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the form of a 
convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long run.  

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument 
(as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of 
"Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a 
construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to 
consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures 
they describe/explain themselves.

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)


I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs. 

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam    on 
behalf of Prof David West   
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of 

[FRIAM] Crow Conscription?

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -
You seem to have a history with/affection for the Corvids, at least 
Ravens.   Do you see these two efforts as having any credibility or 
possibility?  It almost seems like there could be an ethical question of 
whether we *should* do these things, even if we *can*?   Of course, 
many, many, many (most) species have adapted to us already, so this is 
just one more adaptation I suppose (if it works)?



http://www.crowdedcities.com/

http://www.thecrowbox.com/​

- Steve

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Robert Wall]

Steven writes:

What of examples of *convergent evolution* where similar structures (with
> similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not
> claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that anything
> "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions
> around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or
> "discovered" or "recognized".
>


> A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in
> cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example
> is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes
> from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble
> in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has
> apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...


Nick responds to Steven with:

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry
> and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an
> alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that
> mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded
> the development of an infinite number of better ones.


I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and
found this version of that "truth"--

*National Geographic*: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar
genetic building blocks

(2008).

The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important innovations,
such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes are used,
rather than adding new ones to the mix.


This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent
with Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and
in addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot
of time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to
consider along with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like
Marcus' programmer with a discernable personality:

According to this analysis (*Nautilus *2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit
,
there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping)
to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different
> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit,
> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don’t
> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of
> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two
> vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account
> of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for
> example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of
> possible circuits is more than 10700. That’s a lot, lot more than the
> number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are
> the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or
> “human” traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did
> evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?


So, it seems that nature's methodology seems more akin to design engineering
 than development from
scratch (subgenomic?); that is, creating new applications (biological
inventions) from a rearrangement of the parts (e.g., atoms, molecules,
genes) of existing parts.  This also seems consistent with Nick (something
*is* conserved|reused--genes, including regulatory ones that seem to
quicken adaptation), Marcus (seeing this Hox gene circuit as the preference
of the programmer), Dave [Heraclitus, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North
Whitehead] ("Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time
there might
be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
‘truths’ are possible."), Steven ("What of examples of *convergent
evolution* where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear
to arise independently. " e.g., jellyfish eye versus the human eye.),
and Jeremy
England :

If [*Jeremy*] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could
> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every
> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the
> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
> because X is more fit than Y, but b

[FRIAM] Gah a spam bot

[Gillian Densmore]

is (trying to) flood this acount with comically bad giberish.. any ideas
what to do?

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Spam

[Gillian Densmore]

some of that spam is coming from spam bots that found a school project. I
was under the impression google has/had a low tolerance to spam it's pretty
funny to read. I simply don't know if their is a gmail setting I don't know
of to say stuff like:
seo traffic from abana gubernaterals for generating a bajillion webyweb
visitors a nanosecond is likly spam.

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.  

 

Thank you, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Steven writes:

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Nick responds to Steven with:

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and 
molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative 
theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we 
earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an 
infinite number of better ones.   

 

I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and found 
this version of that "truth"-- 

 

National Geographic: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic 
building blocks 

  (2008).

 

The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important innovations, 
such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes are used, rather 
than adding new ones to the mix.

 

This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent with 
Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and in 
addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot of 
time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to consider along 
with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like Marcus' programmer 
with a discernable personality: 

 

According to this analysis ( 
 
Nautilus 2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit, there doesn't seem to be enough 
time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping) to be explanatory. The numbers tend 
to say this would be absurd. 

 

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary developmental 
biology that the different body plans of many complex organisms, including us, 
arise not from different genes but from different networks of gene interaction 
and expression in the same basic circuit, called the Hox gene circuit. To get 
from a snake to a human, you don’t need a bunch of completely different genes, 
but just a different pattern of wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene 
circuit. For these two vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If 
you take account of the different ways that these genes might regulate one 
another (for example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number 
of possible circuits is more than 10700. That’s a lot, lot more than the number 
of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are the 
chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or “human” 
traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did evolution 
manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?

 

So, it seems that nature's methodology seems more akin to design engineering 
  than development from scratch 
(subgenomic?); that is, creating new applications (biological inventions) from 
a rearrangement of the parts (e.g., atoms, molecules, genes) of existing parts. 
 This also seems consistent with Nick (something is conserved|reused--genes, 
including regulatory ones that seem to quicken adaptation), Marcus (seeing this 
Hox gene circuit as the preference of the programmer), Dave [Heraclitus, Henri 
Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead] ("Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat 
death’ (at which time there might be a single Truth), everything changes and 
therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible."), Steven ("What of examples of 
convergent evolution where similar structures (with simi

Re: [FRIAM] Proofs of God?

[Robert Wall]

John writes:

Buddhism does not require a belief in God.


Nor does science.  The Abrahamic God is akin to--perhaps even derived
from--the concept of the *Logos  *of
Heraclitus . In this context, the concept
may even be believed to be the initial physical conditions ("genetic code")
of the universe dictating how all matter will unfold after the initial
creation moment.  And it may be believed to be the creative force itself
that makes the universe so comprehensible to our "God-given" minds.

As Einstein observed, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is
> that it is comprehensible.”


Jeremy England's *Theory of Life* is an intriguing new theory about how
organic life emerged from inorganic substances based on dissipation-driven
organization, maximizing Gibbs free energy.  So, it was bound to happen ...
it was "written in the stars" so to speak.  And, it doesn't *seem *to
require a "guiding hand" for it to happen, which would be consistent with
the Deism of our American forefathers.

The *Genesis *story is another "theory" about the same as it tells us we
were made from inorganic dust or earth.  The "breath of God" would be like
the self-organized ignition of a new metabolic homeostatic event that
prevailing conditions have made easier than before.  These events are
always accompanied by a "psychological" need to escape death through
replication or immortality. Some, like French nuclear physicist,
philosopher and writer Jean-Émile Charon believe that this force is
embedded in all of Matter.

Still, I agree with England's rhetorical question and answer:

Do we need to keep learning about God? For my part, in light of everything
> I know, I am certain that we do.


In any case, learning about "God" is to remain curious about things we do
not know and to continually challenge what we think we already know.  In
this sense, Science can be your god.  And, Buddhism can be your god.  There
is nothing incompatible between these two secular disciplines of thought.
Neither requires a belief in the Abrahamic God; they are just ways of
understanding the human condition:  being thrown with a human consciousness
into a seemingly chaotic, purposeless universe and seeking solid ground on
which to stand.  In this context, we all need a belief system to sustain
our conceptual moorings to this universe.  It seems to be the price of
human consciousness that understands its own death as in inescapable event.

The proof of "God" is in our human condition. God == Learning about God ==
human need to find purpose.  Learning about "God" is to be contemplative as
it is in the Buddhist tradition.  It is mindfulness.

Finally, IMHO, "God" is the inherent psychological force to
understand our raison d'être.  It has many manifestations as it does in
Hinduism and as I have explained here.

Cheers.


On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:47 PM, John Kennison  wrote:

> I don't think that a rigorous proof of how evolution works would be all
> that earth-shaking. Most openly non-scientific religions have had much
> experience at simply ignoring such proofs and the more liberal religions
> have found ways to co-exist with science ("Maybe God used evolution to
> create the world". In my own religion (Unitarian-Universalism) sermons that
> mention God usually include formulations such as "God, as you understand
> the term". Buddhism does not require a belief in God.
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of George Duncan <
> gtdun...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 2:44:18 PM
> *To:* Stephen Guerin; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Proofs of God?
>
> By
> Jeremy England
> Oct. 12, 2017 6:29 p.m. ET
> 311 COMMENTS
> 
>
> I recently learned that I play a role in Dan Brown’s new novel, “Origin.”
> Mr. Brown writes that Jeremy England, an MIT physics professor, “was
> currently the toast of Boston academia, having caused a global stir” with
> his work on biophysics. The description is flattering, but Mr. Brown errs
> when he gets to the meaning of my research. One of his characters explains
> that my literary doppelgänger may have “identified the underlying physical
> principle driving the origin and evolution of life.” If the fictional
> Jeremy England’s theory is right, the suggestion goes, it would be an
> earth-shattering disproof of every other story of creation. All religions
> might even become obsolete.
>
> It would be easy to criticize my fictional self’s theories based on Mr.
> Brown’s brief description, but it would also be unfair. My actual research
>  on how lifelike behaviors
> emerge in inanimate matter is widely available, whereas the Dan Brown
> character’s work is only vaguely described. There’s no real science in the
> book to argue over.
>
>