Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

It would almost be worth it to see the look on your face, Steve. On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > On 3/26/13 9:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Doug, > > ** ** > > One day, I will sit down with you over a beer and ruin your life by > proving to you (using philoso

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

On 3/26/13 9:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Doug, One day, I will sit down with you over a beer and ruin your life by proving to you (using philosophical methods of course) that you ARE interested in it. At which point you will experience a Saul-to-Paul conversion and appear on the Plaza

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

be...@cal.berkeley.edu > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas > Thompson > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 11:57 PM > *To:* russ.abb...@gmail.com; 'The Fr

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

spiritual wisdom to the masses. Beware. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 12:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice This list constantly

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Merle Lefkoff wrote at 03/26/2013 02:00 PM: > Do you guys believe the metaphor of the Edge of Chaos is applicable > here for promoting hope? I use it to say with a perfectly straight > face: this is when change is most likely to happen. I'm not a big fan of the Edge of Chaos. It's attractive, I

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Steve Smith wrote at 03/26/2013 01:43 PM: > I have to say that your world-view (which I think you will claim doesn't > exist or at least that *I* can't possibly come to share) continues to be > more and more fascinating as you pull back more layers of otherwise > "common" understandings which you d

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Tory and Glen, Meaty. Thanks. The Buddhist part of me gets you, Glen. So when I meet in Jordan this summer with our group of grass-roots Palestinian activists (all women in their 20s) I shall facilitate only ACTION, and no--or very little--interactive dialogue. And although I no longer beli

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Glen - I have to say that your world-view (which I think you will claim doesn't exist or at least that *I* can't possibly come to share) continues to be more and more fascinating as you pull back more layers of otherwise "common" understandings which you don't share with the world at large.

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Victoria Hughes wrote at 03/26/2013 12:02 PM: > I'm curious- how do you talk to your friends? Or your children, if > you have any? Or those you want to teach you something? Great question! I'm often frustrated by my conversations with my friends. I usually feel like I'm offering alternative expl

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

On 3/26/13 2:23 AM, Joshua Thorp wrote: When I was in high school, someone gave me a photocopy of an article from OMNI magazine. It was an interview with Chris Langton about artificial life. I think I have been fascinated with these same twinkling lights ever since. It was pretty inspiring f

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Russ Abbott wrote at 03/26/2013 12:01 PM: > _Causation and Explanation_ looks like a good book. Strangely, its > Amazon paperback price >

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

_Causation and Explanation_ looks like a good book. Strangely, its Amazon paperback price is only $13.52 even though its Amazon Kindle pr

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

How interesting, Glen! I'm curious- how do you talk to your friends? Or your children, if you have any? Or those you want to teach you something? Yes, I do believe, and practice as best I can, opportunities for non-intellectual posturing. I certainly claim the right to posture with knowledge a

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Victoria Hughes wrote at 03/26/2013 11:27 AM: > 1. The discussion also references non-European, non-white-male models for > awareness, reality, conceptual modeling, etc. > 2. The discussion does not devolve into intellectual posturing. This reminded me of the Ulam quote: "Talking about non-line

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

ck, >>> etc. I was surprised to find that it’s available on Google books: >>> http://tinyurl.com/d9l44jh >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> &

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

com/d9l44jh >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> wimber...@gmail.com

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

70-9918 > > > > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:57 PM > To: russ.abb...@gmail.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > Group' > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyo

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

; ** ** > > wimber...@gmail.com wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > ** ** > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas > Thompson > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 11:57 PM > *To:* r

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

gt; ** ** > > Really, Russ? That’s quite a sweeper, isn’t it? > > ** ** > > Nick > > ** ** > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ > Abbott > *Sent:* Monday, March 25, 2013 4:45 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:05 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice Nick, You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and caus

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Steve Smith wrote at 03/25/2013 03:42 PM: > I prefer Pamela's description > of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the > *honest*. He does cite Rosen in this paper: Towards a Post Reductionist Science: The Open Universe http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2492 which make

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

pes of experiments are better than others at revealing such relationships (Glymour & Wimberly, 2007). Frank? Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:05 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffe

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Nick, You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and cause. Do you think science organizes its theories in terms of causes? I see equations, entities, structures, geometries, and mechanisms, but I don't see causes. As I'm sure you know, th

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Russ - Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples. This was on a long drive from NM to OR last Thanksgiving... in the course of about 30 hours of driving we talked about a LOT of things. I am pretty sure this first

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice It seems strange to me that Kauffman would focus on cause. (I'll admit that I got that from just looking at the start of the paper. Perhaps he goes in a different direction.) Science really doesn't think in terms of causes. A

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Pamela - You mention Chris Langton. He was also part of that small SFI group twenty years ago that would drop everything to answer your questions. To my utter delight, he showed up at a San Francisco party for one of my books a few years ago. I have great, great respect for him, and since n

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Steve, I didn't see you as unduly critical. Stu's work raises many questions, small and large. By me, that's fine. Great work does that. He's trying to overthrow a paradigm. I hope Stu's work is great. It might not be. He's good--at least in intimate conversation--at saying, of course I may be f

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

I know Stu pretty well because we share two groups who have met fairly regularly in the past: we are both Lindisfarne Fellows, and Stu brought me into a deep dialogue group in Ottawa, Canada, on "Complexity, Spirituality, and Reconciliation." Take a look at his new work on "adjacent possibilities

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

It seems strange to me that Kauffman would focus on cause. (I'll admit that I got that from just looking at the start of the paper. Perhaps he goes in a different direction.) Science really doesn't think in terms of causes. As I understand it science thinks in terms of forces, particles, etc., and

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) - I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

I've been lucky enough to talk to Stu (last time in January; we've corresponded within the week) about some of these ideas. He *is* careless with references. But I'm sure I've heard him mention Prigogine as he talked. These ideas have been fermenting for several years, and I'm not surprised he o

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Quite a few of us on the list worked for Stu at BiosGroup a decade ago. I was just a software geek there (not a scientist), so I'm not qualified to criticize the veracity of his ideas, but I will say that he has an amazing charisma and made many of us True Believers. "Rock Star" doesn't seem qui

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books. Curt Glen wrote: > Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments. Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books. Curt On Mar 25, 2013 12:18 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" wrote: > Roger Critchlow wrote at 03/25/2013 07:55 AM: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684 > > > > Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments. > > Wow, seriously? A paper on the exac

Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Roger Critchlow wrote at 03/25/2013 07:55 AM: > http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684 > > Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments. Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What am I missing?

[FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684 Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments. -- rec -- FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listi