I would prefer it be modeled as a wave function and that people resist the urge
to take unnecessary observations. I’m from another generation, though.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Maybe I missed this earlier, but this thread might be more lively if it
considers the latest gender conversation: the fluidity of gender as a form
of cultural identity. I have to practice constantly referring to several
of my granddaughter's friends as "they", not "she" or "he" or "her" or
"him."
Hopefully in the most loving way. I very much admire the dedication of a
focused scholar, but I also enjoy poking a little fun at inevitable myopia.
Chandrasekar likely feels like you do about Newton, but that wouldn't stop
me from giggling when he speaks of Newton as the foremost Physicist.
--
Not sure why I keep picking my bruised and batter body up from that mat you
have all put me on.
But, yes, it's Peirce I was thinking of. The quick and dirty heuristics, which
cognitive scientists taught me were illogical but useful, Peirce understood as
valid probabilistic logic.
Perhaps I
Jon,
Thou mockest me.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:18 PM
To:
I don't mean to derail here, but I would love to see an analysis of the tonk
operator as a terminal object in an additive category. It seems like it's
function is a lot like the zero vector space or the trivial group in a
category with exact sequences. Idk.
--
Sent from:
Well, computation is a direct descendant of logic. And "mathematical logic" is
a bit of an offshoot related to the foundations of math. Things like modus
ponens are simply mechanical/effective transformations. You can build any logic
you want by removing or adding the operations from some
By my internal model of Nick, I would guess that he is referring to Peirce.
Though it is funny to imagine that logic has done nothing of consequence
since 1914, that no other thinkers have come along and moved the subject
forward, and that logicians still simply practice the subject from within
Gary,
I sent this to Nick offlist. I think we're on the same page.
" Who is the American logician you cite?
My opinion is that that formal logic is an axiomatic system and a part of
pure mathematics. As such it has nothing to do with the world which is the
subject of empirical science except
I would have thought that most members of FRIAM, when speaking of logic,
are referring to the mathematical and/or computational concept of
propositional logic, which has little if anything to do with a human
dimension. You know, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. Logic in that sense
would exist
I also found the branch to normativity odd. Took listening to several rounds
of this joust to find quite the right metaphor to express why.
If I suddenly became Chaitin, and cared more than anything else about which
numbers were random and which weren’t, I would be saddled with a need for
And the extent to which we can find principles that guide us when we are trying
to match logic's to problems, that to is logic.
N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original
I learned a phrase for missing analytical extensions today: hermeneutical
lacunae. But the discussion on premature registration deserves a bit more
content in light of such lacunae. The problem BC Smith brought to light was not
*premature* registration, but *preemptive* registration. So, here,
Both EricS and Marcus launched in the direction I want to go, which I *think*
ends in parallel Turing machines. Modern AI/ML is clearly a success. And I'd
argue that its success depends fundamentally on its multi-paradigm modeling (or
as it makes more sense to me, multiple "models of
There's no "only way" brother dear.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:15 PM wrote:
> No, I still disagree. IFF thinking holistically is the only way to think
> rightly, THEN thinking holistically is the only logical way to think.
>
>
>
> But we are about to be bickering over definitions, rather than
this whole conversation seems so (il)logical
> Its funny how a non-logician presupposes he has a better definition of logic
> than others. The arrogance is debilitating.
>
> On 1/14/21 8:31 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It’s nice to know that logic is being celebrated. Still –
Unless one believes AI isn’t possible, or that machine learning doesn’t make
holistic assessments, this seems pretty ridiculous. It is all implemented on
logic.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Ha! It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. [sigh] Arrogance isn't the
problem. It's *this* particular arrogance that is debilitating.
On 1/14/21 11:33 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Glen, I have to say this: You are */at least/* as arrogant as I am, */and I
> love you for it/*/. /
"if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it
ain't. That's logic."
Oh, surely this is a more heterodox definition than the one I offered.
Glen, I have to say this: You are at least as arrogant as I am, and I love you
for it.
So there,
Nick
I tend to follow the standard diagnostic caveat that some thing isn't a problem
until/unless it *interferes* with one's daily activities. And the dose is the
poison. Arrogance (or over-confidence), as Jon pointed out one time can be
quite useful and appropriate in some circumstances. (I don't
No, I still disagree. IFF thinking holistically is the only way to think
rightly, THEN thinking holistically is the only logical way to think.
But we are about to be bickering over definitions, rather than clarifying
meanings. So long as you know that there is normative dimension in how
No, Nick. Thinking logically is just not thinking holistically, it misses
the whole enchilada, and one of the reasons we're doomed--clumsy, but the
best I have time to come up with now.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:24 AM wrote:
> Merle,
>
>
>
> I think the objection you have to logic flows from
Glen,
My definition arises from a logician, perhaps the foremost American logician.
I just did a quick run though some dictionary definitions of "logic", and the
one I offer does not seem to be particularly exceptional. I wonder if the
"celebratory" announcement was even written by a
< If Marcus' nihilist view that "it is all levers" is more true than not, it
explains why this grand experiment of "civilization" seems to be collapsing
into a cesspool of it's own making, under it's own weight. >
I’m not sure why you call it nihilist. If some people are trying to change
Thank you for moving the discussion of ethics further along its bifurcated
decision tree. Marcus' *it's all levers* remark summarizes (as far as I
understand it) a serious post-modern position/observation. Many on the list
(though not uniquely so) strawman PM by the silly boys and girls producing
Its funny how a non-logician presupposes he has a better definition of logic
than others. The arrogance is debilitating.
On 1/14/21 8:31 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> It’s nice to know that logic is being celebrated. Still – surprise!—I have a
> correction.
>
> Logic ... [is] the
Merle,
I think the objection you have to logic flows from the misunderstanding of what
logic is. If you define logic is thinking that leads to truth, then any
thinking that leads to truth is logical, and the project of Logic Studies is
the project of finding out what sorts of thinking
Steve,
Well, when good threads are bent, you and I will bend them.
Let me complete my thought: There are two kinds of feminism here, right?
[Merle, please be kind.] One claims that women are not different, and
therefore should be treated equally. The other claims that women are or
I find this celebration very disturbing and even dangerous at a time when
some are beginning to realize that logic alone is bereft of the complexity
of all the ways of being in a more-than-human world.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:32 AM wrote:
> Thanks, Glen,
>
>
>
> It’s nice to know that logic
In 1963 I was taking Philosophy 12, Introduction to Formal Logic, at
Berkeley. The professor at some point during the semester said that he
used to teach other lower division courses but once he was discussing the
meaning of "reality" and some student had a psychotic break. He was then
relegated
Thanks, Glen,
It’s nice to know that logic is being celebrated. Still – surprise!—I have a
correction.
Logic ... [is] the principles of [right] reasoning,
Funny how, this article, a celebration of logic, buggers the definition of
logic, leaving out it’s ethical dimension. Well,
> nst> Sorry. You missed my point. It was—YPTE—introspective. I was
> noticing that I could not believe that a world without women was
> dreary without being a sexist.
>
>
>
> nst> Probably not that interesting a thought if one is under 50, or
> 60, or 70, or perhaps even 80
>
and I submit
https://en.unesco.org/commemorations/worldlogicday
>
>
> The ability to think is one of the most defining features of humankind. In
> different cultures, the definition of humanity is associated with concepts
> such as consciousness, knowledge and reason. According to the classic western
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
