Ha! Yeah, the conference I went to a few months ago was _ripe_ (no, not rife,
RIPE) with this stuff ... mostly in the context of automatic cars. I really
appreciated one attendee trashing the Trolley Problem as so ideal as to be
useless. I heard an interview with the creator of Wolverine the
Glen writes:
"Which course corrections can I make that still lead to a satisficing objective
(like crashing my bike without brain damage), which lead to failure (brain
damage), which lead to optimal outcome (dodging the left-turning old lady
completely), etc."
In one universe there's brain dam
My answer to Roger's question is "both", FWIW. But my concern seems slightly
different from both Marcus' and Nick's answers. I'm more concerned with the
granularity of the updates/iota. Nick's 70/30-clean/scramble is pretty fscking
coarse. As I said early on, my beliefs/skepticism is *never*
Glen writes:
< I'd be interested to hear how you (and others) answer Roger's question: "So
when the actor believes in a probabilistic network of possible futures, updates
those expectations according to each iota of evidence as it is received, and
acts accordingly, is that belief or skepticism
] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 10:56 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
On 09/22/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic.
And that's not true, either. 8^) You know more about logic
On 09/22/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic.
And that's not true, either. 8^) You know more about logic than an
overwhelming majority of people. The trick is you're convinced of the
unitarity and hegemony of some particular type
ten be on oblique angles and miss one another,
>> intentionally or not. In any case, this was _my_ idea and don't steal it!
>> I will dig up the Java code to prove it!
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>> ----------
>> *From:* Friam on behalf of Eric Smith
t/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 6:17 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> */[NST==&g
s was _my_ idea and don't steal it!
> I will dig up the Java code to prove it!
>
>
> Marcus
> --
> *From:* Friam on behalf of Eric Smith <
> desm...@santafe.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 4:14:01 AM
> *To:* The Friday
2, 2017 4:14:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Thanks Nick,
Yes, I understand the distinctions below. I am glad I opened with “Some how I
imagine that…”, giving me enough wiggle room to have been wrong in the
imaginatio
On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> */[NST==> Is there any logic in which, “Let X be Y; therefore X is Y” is not
> entailed. If a belief is defined as that upon which one is prepared to act,
> is there any logic in which acting does not imply belief? <==nst] /*
Of course. E.g. mod
rsity
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:44 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
ck
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
, September 21, 2017 8:01 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
On 09/21/2017 04:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, answering in the sophistic manner, because logically speaking, acting
> tentatively affirms tentativeness.
You seem to forget that there ar
On 09/21/2017 04:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, answering in the sophistic manner, because logically speaking, acting
> tentatively affirms tentativeness.
You seem to forget that there are many types of logic, paraconsistent,
defeasible, higher order, etc.
> Is it possible (can you giv
Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 5:29 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
If you, as a non-dualist, allow for tentative action, why not allow for
tentative belief?
On 09/21/2017 02:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Peirce defined belief as that upon which we
You should get back to talking to your television!
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
I believe you all have
ver just hop out of bed without looking because the dog could be
>> there.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
>> Thompson
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:46 PM
>>
>> *To:* 'The Fri
If you, as a non-dualist, allow for tentative action, why not allow for
tentative belief?
On 09/21/2017 02:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Peirce defined belief as that upon which we act and doubt as the absence of
> belief. It follows logically that anything we act on affirms some belief
> and,
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
There is nothing that infuriates me more than trying to solve a problem
with/for someone is confident in their hypothesis for no reason other than a
few past exper
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Somehow I imagine that Nick means to say there are costly signals in this game
— that motor action is thicker than conversation or reflection.
If I am walking across a snowfield that I know to be filled with crevasses, and
I know I can’t tell which
x27;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Ok. Self-reflection time.
>
> 1. Ah! Perhaps we ARE just quibbling about meanings. To what
> extent does action based on ass
Nick Thompson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:46 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Ok. Self-reflection time.
1. Ah! Perhaps we ARE just quibbling about meanings. To what extent
does action based on ass
Excellent digestion! I'll fully admit that my body has a kind of momentum.
The running example is perfect. For the 1st mile (for certain), every breath
and every step seems equivalently doubted, ungainly, awkward. As I literally
force myself into the 2nd mile, I suspect my body changes. I b
son
>
> 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:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:
riam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Dear Glen,
I don't know why I am so pissed at Feynman right now but this quote:
"When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with
doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I thi
Somehow I imagine that Nick means to say there are costly signals in this game
— that motor action is thicker than conversation or reflection.
If I am walking across a snowfield that I know to be filled with crevasses, and
I know I can’t tell which snow holds weight and which doesn’t, my movemen
21, 2017 2:32 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
No regrets or apology are needed. And even if we are about to "argue about
words" ... I forget what famous dead white guy said that ... it's still useful
to me.
You say: "if one acts in the assuran
No regrets or apology are needed. And even if we are about to "argue about
words" ... I forget what famous dead white guy said that ... it's still useful
to me.
You say: "if one acts in the assurance that some fact is the case, one cannot
be said to really doubt it" The answer is clarified by
hompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Cc: 'Mike Bybee'
> Subj
raldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: 'Mike Bybee'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
To cl
lto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:58 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
It's strange. You speak about the way _you_ think and behave as if that's the
way _I_ think and behave. Can we all say "vainglor
It's strange. You speak about the way _you_ think and behave as if that's the
way _I_ think and behave. Can we all say "vainglorously" together? 8^)
I can tell you unflinchingly and honestly that I DO doubt that the floor is
still under my feet when I put my legs out of the bed in the morning.
people
can’t depart from their priors in the face of actual evidence.
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:48 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic -
nt: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:59 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a BBC
interview:
"When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with
doubt, and uncertainty,
ginal Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:32 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Cc: 'Mike Bybee'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Glen,
This baff
OK, you got me.. (as usual).
I suppose I was speaking of how this particular Feynman Quote is
(mis)used vs how the Dyson quote is (mis)used. I wasn't responding to
your elaboration in this case, nor presuming to know what either of them
actually *meant*. How is that for weasely?
Thanks
Heh, I'm on the side of people who refuse to take aphorisms seriously, no
matter who coins them, repeats them, etc. Otto's reading Nietzsche is the
perfect example. Attempts to be pithy only appeal to sloppy thinkers.
I admit that inside jokes can be good and comforting, but ONLY when you're s
Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:28 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
It's definitely sage. But the sagacity doesn't hinge on the word "science", it
hinges on the word _useful_. Science is o
Bah! Do you actually think Dyson's aphorism is in stark juxtaposition to
Feynman's? I thought, by including so much of what Feynman said, it would be
less likely anyone would read it wrong. But if you think Feynman was saying
being vague is better than being wrong, you TOTALLY misunderstood w
, 2017 12:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Glen -
in stark juxtaposition, we have Freeman Dyson saying:
"it is better to be wrong than vague"
I think I know what he meant and generally support not getting
Glen -
in stark juxtaposition, we have Freeman Dyson saying:
"it is better to be wrong than vague"
I think I know what he meant and generally support not getting frozen in
inaction or muddying/qualifying a statement to the point of losing meaning.
On the other hand, I find this quote (or
A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a BBC
interview:
"When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with
doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to
live not knowing than to have answers which might
It's definitely sage. But the sagacity doesn't hinge on the word "science", it
hinges on the word _useful_. Science is often thought to be a body of
knowledge. But there's a huge swath of people, me included, who think science
is not knowledge, but a method/behavior for formulating and testin
ish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven A
> Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Tangentially on the topic of Philo
sh.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Tangentially on the topic of Philosophy v. Physics, in my review of
Dempster-Shaffer (to avoid making too stu
`accurate reasoner’.
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
Tangentially on the topic of Philosophy v. Physics, in
Tangentially on the topic of Philosophy v. Physics, in my review of
Dempster-Shaffer (to avoid making too stupid of misrepresentations on my
bumper-sticker) I was fascinated to find Raymond Smullyan's "Types of
Reasoners" reduced to formal logic (but also couched in natural language
explanatio
48 matches
Mail list logo
