Doug,
Maybe Bush was elected in 2004, so that is once. He was selected in 2000.
O
Douglas Roberts wrote:
Günther,
One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice
demonstrated blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as
follows:
1) that reductionism did not app
Thanks Steve. O
Steve Smith wrote:
Orlando-
You can find good references in Wikipedia on this
topic, including the Descartes references.
Reductionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as
automata —
Enjoying it with a nice glass of wine. The wine should produce all the
spiraling I can foresee needed for the near term, thanks.
--Doug
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > I think there would be a certain reductionis
Douglas Roberts wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I think there would be a certain reductionist symmetry if you were to
> use one of my own guns to shoot me, don't you?
The Reductionist in me does find that satisfying.
Emergent Complexicists, however, believe in symmetry-breaking at the
onset of a phase-chang
Steve,
I think there would be a certain reductionist symmetry if you were to use
one of my own guns to shoot me, don't you?
;-}
--Doug
(And how do you know that I even wear pants around the house, anyhow? I
telecommute, after all. Now try to get *that* image out of your head...)
On Sun, Sep
Doug -
> Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well,
actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But
> other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.
From what I know of you (for the rest of the list, Doug and are friends
off-l
Orlando-
You can find good references in Wikipedia on this
topic, including the Descartes references.
Reductionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as
automata — De homines 1662.
Reductionism can either mean (a
(if pics don't travel, see link below) from Steve Kurtz
Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain
SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 | ISSUE
44.36
Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of
logic.
DAYTON, TN-A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather i
TRANSIMS & EpiSims.
Yes, a lot of verbiage has been spent extolling the wonders of the
"emergent behaviors" demonstrated by those two simulation systems.
I'm pretty sure that none of us who designed & implemented those two
applications ever used any reductionist methodologies during the active
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well, actually,
> I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But other people
> seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.
>
> ;-}
>
>
Günther,
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Günther Greindl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> OK, so in your symbol space reductionism is tied to "stupid" and
> "simplistic" - it is hard to argue when the term has so bad connotations
> in your mind. Certainly I can't argue in a few words without being
>
Orlando Here,
Sorry, I may have missed this in another email...also please excuse my
ignorance. But could someone please explain in some detail Descarte's
reductionist duck postulate. Where would I find it in the writings of
Descarte? Thanks much.
O
Douglas Roberts wrote:
Günther,
One o
Doug,
> One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice
> demonstrated blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as follows:
Again, Descartes was at the beginning of science. He wrote after a
thousand years dominion of the Catholic Church in Europe.
Do not hold his erro
Ah yes, I believe in scientific thinking as doing reduction the 'right way'
too, but not without checking.That's then done by having a way to look
for how we're doing it the 'wrong way'. If you don't have the latter the
former can be just self-fulfilling prophecy.
The basic dilemma is tha
Glen,
Right, it does quite depend on the context. That's why learning how to see
the context without looking through the lens of your own or someone else's
clumsy reduction is important. That'll hide all the discoveries your new
questions today might make if you were not filtering all your data
Günther,
One of the foremost historical reductionists (Descarte) twice demonstrated
blind egotism in his "Reductionist Duck" postulate, as follows:
1) that reductionism did not apply to humans, and
2) that when applied to non-humans, the non-human could be reduced to an
automata.
I'm not sure wh
Ah, Vaucanson's famous duck! Thanks, Doug.
Reductionism has had its wonderful big wins, and may continue to have
them. But much in the way of phenomena cannot be "reduced." These
are the phenomena that complexity is taking a crack at. The sciences
of complexity are barely a quarter-centu
Doug,
> Reductionists have a well-earned reputation for performing blind
> over-simplifications in their often miss-guided attempts to analyze
> complex systems.
Viewing this as a failure is grossly misunderstanding science.
Science works by proposing theories (=mechanisms) of how something
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Glen,
>
>
> Reductionism is about understanding what's going on under the hood. I
> don't know why people oppose this.
>
>
Here's one reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
Reductionists have a well-earned r
Glen,
I think you are spot on with this:
> it's a compliment, albeit a back-handed one. It seems to have become a
> term we use for careful thinkers. You only get called "reductionist" if
> you keep nit-picking until everyone's mad at you. [grin] Up until that
I am very pro reductionist, beca
Jack,
Jack Leibowitz wrote:
> I meant quite the opposite of discrediting reductionism. It has been the
Ok thanks, that's what I wanted to know :-)
> This is a large story, in which, as aa scholar in the philosophy of
> sciences, you need no instruction, I'm sure.
yup
Cheers,
Günther
--
G
We've been considering projects based on the XO in sfx. There are
several available from the earlier g1g1 program. One of the barcamp
attendees was quite active, building a wiki etc.
I think the difficulty with the XO is calibrating its best use. The
UI is definitely odd and takes some ge
22 matches
Mail list logo
