On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> Owen,
>>
>> Is the program we built together MOTH . a thing?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> That's funny, because I have always thought of programs as extremely
>> refined arguments.
>>
>
Steve,
Actually, we carried on the work a little further at Wedtech.pbworks. com. I
have made you a
"writer" there and am happy to make you an administrator if you want to try to
run with it in some way.Until I get done my medical stuff and get back to
SF, I wont be able to give much sys
Seems like everybody, including Owen, has violated the thread rules already,
and that was only three posts ago. So dont know in what sense they are rules.
Can somebody explain to me why so many people treat this list as a sort of
zero-sum game in which one thread crowds out another? it just d
Robert,
Go for it!
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
- Original Message -
From: Robert Holmes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
By the way, if anyone feels like exercising their gray matter, the author of
VSI Mathematics (Timothy Gowers) has a rather nice math-oriented blog at
http://gowers.wordpress.com
--R
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> Wholeheartedly agree on a return to applied complexity.
> I
Wholeheartedly agree on a return to applied complexity.
I also like the idea of appropriate philosophy in appropriate doses. I'll be
joining in your Wittgenstein & Math challenge.
-- Robert
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
Lets not fret. I'll filter better in the futur
I know not what or how philosophy lead to DNA, or the transistor, or
Shannon's Theorem, or Darwin's thoughts. I would be interested in being
informed about how classical philosophy is on the frontier of new concepts
in Natural Philosophy. I reckon My Lord Hamlet had it right when he said,
@Owen:
Yes, let's have more Applied Complexity, that is what a lot
of us are here for (among other things since it definitely ain't the
*coffee*). And I for one am taking your VSI challenge (see my reply of
7/2)... but I'm slow to order up books... I mention them to my wife and
she often f
Chris Argyis has studied why the most successful knowledge workers
often are the ones who have the most difficulty learning:
http://www.velinperformance.com/downloads/chris_argyris_learning.pdf
Regarding the "talking" vs "doing" thread, Logan's "Tribal Leadership"
helps explain why universit
There is a netiquette to observe:
- Announce the taking the conversation off-list.
- Include the addresses of those continuing on.
- .. then others can add themselves.
- Report a summary if you feel it preserves the history of the list.
I am not being any of those thing you describe below. I *am
On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
Philosophy of emergence certainly seems in bounds. I, like most, am
skimming through many of these messages but am enjoying diving into
a couple to read more closely.
Like Tweets, I Follow Glen.
I think as long as people use subject lines a
Owen
Hmmm. I saw MOTH as working out the entailments of, what if one important
and unnatural constraint of the PD game was removed? To what degree does
our belief impossiblity of altruism arise from that unnatural constraint?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Eth
RT @KentBeck Michael Nielsen on learning learning http://bit.ly/qFCEN
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Owen,
well, some of the discussion HAS been off list. Which demonstrates some of
the peril of that strategy, which is that you now don't have access to
parts of the argument.
But way do you want it out of sight? What are you protecting and from what
evil? There is something faintly . p
On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Owen,
Is the program we built together MOTH . a thing?
Yes.
That's funny, because I have always thought of programs as extremely
refined arguments.
No. They are algorithms. And can be built upon.
Ex: The probability based o
Owen,
Is the program we built together MOTH . a thing?
That's funny, because I have always thought of programs as extremely
refined arguments. Programs and simulations show the entailments of an
argument with a precision that no [other form of] philosophical argument
could hope for.
Owen writes:
Steve: I think the difficulty here is that at some point,
conversations are taken off-list when clearly appropriate.
Unfortunately, those participating in the conversation do not know
how to do so.
Can you think of a solution for that? We may want to just zap the
list and go
Steve: I think the difficulty here is that at some point,
conversations are taken off-list when clearly appropriate.
Unfortunately, those participating in the conversation do not know how
to do so.
Can you think of a solution for that? We may want to just zap the
list and go to a Forum
On Jul 12, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Jack K. Horner wrote:
...That granted, if we are faced, as has been asserted, with a
choice of either philosophizing or "building things", here are some
challenges:
1. What are "things"?
Something that lasts. Ideas are fine. What is the philosophic
Owen says:
... I think the conflict may be nearly trivial:
constructing things.
...
and Doug elaborates
...
Talk is cheap.
... I have anything against masturbation, mental or
otherwise. It's just that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.
...
and now for some more Cheap Talk (followin
Nice reminder, Nick: and as one of those that weighed on doing and
not just talking, I have an additional note I want to make clearly.
Just saw Doug's post as well, and ditto: there is room for everyone
and whatever they need to do. Ideally. (given this is all a cyber-
event anyway)
Alternative assessment: Those of us interested in building "things" (no, I
don't feel like playing word games about what a "thing" is) shall do so,
while those interested in merely talking about "philosophy" shall satisfy
their own ambitions accordingly.
Some day I'll relate the story of a philos
Steve Smith has made some very good points about
the relations among philosophy, science, and
math. There is no doubt that much of what is
called "philosophy" is arcane, sometimes
frustrating, and it rarely satisfies bodily
appetites (except perhaps instrumentally). That
granted, if we are f
All,
I continue to be concerned with sloppy use of sexual metaphors here. It seems
to me that masturbation is a lot more like doing stuff without thinking than it
is like thinking about stuff without doing.
I would agree that no science is done by people who think but do not act; on
the oth
Owen,
I am not comfortable with the distinction between creation and talking.
One way or another, most people talk to create. If you are perhaps
referring to the distinction between theory and practice ... between
thinking about stuff and doing stuff, then I think you have a hold of
something
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:43:27AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
> True, mass is _linear_ as is volume and many other characteristics
> (because of the way they're measured). But if nonlinear == emergent,
> then what's the point of the less well-defined term "emergent"?
>
> --
> glen e. p.
Glen wrote:
> I disagree. The _number_ of components in any system is
> purely about relationships between components.
> To see this clearly, imagine how you _measure_ the number
> of components in a system. I can think of 2 basic ways:
> 1) you _count_ them or 2) you estimate the number.
> .
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:28:29PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Another way of saying this is that all systems have emergent properties:
> i.e., properties that arise from the *internal* arrangement or ordering of
> their parts.
I disagree. A model of 0 or 1 part does not have any emergent
pr
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:11:28AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Thus spake russell standish circa 07/08/2009 05:33 PM:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:16:55AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> >> Well, since my post consisted of questions, I could hardly be wrong. ;-)
> >>
> >> The question w
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:04:53AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
> And neither is position or momentum because they both have to be defined
> _relative_ to something, trivially to an arbitrary vector space origin,
> non-trivially to other particles.
The origin of phase space is arbitrary,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:25:14AM -0400, James Steiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:33 PM, russell standish
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:16:55AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> >> The question was: Is there any identifiable property of a system that is
> >> NOT an emergent prop
31 matches
Mail list logo
