Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Nick Thompson]

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 here. The most exciting work is the result of a nice balance
between these two activiites,  and dumb work results when we get out of
balance.  .  

I think our effort to move ahead on netlogo models to demonstrate
fundamental principles of complexity foundered on our inabililty to come to
a common understanding of  order ... the very issue that we have been
discussing here.  Remember we were never quite sure what we meant by order
... as in "order"parameter.  As Glen suggested for us here, here, it was
probably time to start examining some cases in the Wedtech
discussions....in other words, we may have talked too long and we needed to
DO something to correct the balance.  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Cc: aku <[hidden email]>
> Date: 7/11/2009 4:32:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>
> > I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list  
> > around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
> I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.
>
> Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were hoping to create a  
> synergistic community, where the whole was greater than its parts.  
> Specifically, cross-discipline projects (Stephen's Hollywood model)  
> creating fascinating technology with complexity being a foundational  
> piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.
>
> The philosophical conversations thus far have not contributed to this,  
> and indeed have created a second culture: folks who want to talk about  
> things.
>
> Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a distraction when not  
> helping create a foundation for creating things.
>
> There is a good example of a middle ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way  
> or the highway) alternative to the traditional iterated prisoner's  
> dilemma.  It was concrete enough to result in a project and a couple  
> of papers.
>
> So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction is along that line:  
> many if not most of us are interested in creating things.
>
> Thus to make the conversations more acceptable, it would be reasonable  
> for it to suggest an investigation or project.  The failure to  
> summarize is just an example of how non-constructive the philosophic  
> conversations have been.
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> > I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list  
> > around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
> >
> > I know only of one specific person on the list who has a  
> > significantly alternate perspective.
> >
> > Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical  
> > traditions which we are products of.
> >
> > Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics,  
> > science, language, etc.  *because* we were exposed to these ideas  
> > and modes of thought from an early age and from many angles.  Even  
> > if we grew up in a household where there was a modicum of magical  
> > thinking and animism around us, the larger world, and most *any*  
> > practical-minded western family today is going to be acting and  
> > speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
> >
> > We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is  
> > how most people (try to) understand the world.   If were were  
> > trained in mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely  
> > trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
> >
> >
> > Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly  
> > implies that we are logical positivists.   These are philosophical  
> > traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method  
> > or system of organizing the human experience.
> >
> > Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with  
> > the nature and the limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is  
> > the branch concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the  
> > world.  Science and Mathematics reside almost exclusively within  
> > Metaphysics and Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which touch  
> > on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and Ethics, but the meat is in  
> > the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
> >
> > Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit)  
> > seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
> > • Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is  
> > "Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often)  
> > dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment  
> > is given to "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same  
> > reasons.
> > • The "white males" who show up most notably throughout our history  
> > as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were  
> > products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings  
> > in the realm of human and social equality, justice, etc.  do not  
> > necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
> > Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular  
> > attachment and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of  
> > philosophy and that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our  
> > experience and perhaps interest.   And *within* these subdomains of  
> > Philosophy, why can't we admit that our specific methods are derived  
> > from the more general ones of metaphysics, epistomology, and  
> > sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
> >
> > For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western  
> > Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable  
> > exception (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not  
> > play as central of a role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws  
> > many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other  
> > traditions...
> >
> > It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the  
> > merits of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge  
> > and experience except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM  
> > members) who for the most part sings *only* in the keys of E and R  
> > to be squabbling as if some of us are in a completely different key  
> > when in fact, the only problem is that few if any of us have perfect  
> > pitch.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> > I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my  
> > plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my  
> > chain, and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the  
> > way).
> > ============================================================
> > 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

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 other hand, bad science is done by people who act without thinking.   

 

Now I suppose that bad science is better than no science;   but why have these suddenly become the alternatives?  I am in this conversation because I believe that if we are willing to hammer out some of these conceptual issues, we will do better, sharper work on complexity.  I have no interest in blather for blather's sake.   But, iff I and some of your colleagues want to pursue such a project, what's it to yah?  Wish us well and get back to what you were doing.   If we turn up something useful, you can be surprized and grateful.  If we dont, well, ....

 

nick

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Cc: [hidden email]

Sent: 7/11/2009 4:58:38 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science

Let me make sure I understand what you just said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:

Owen: "There are more people on this list who want to talk about doing things then there are people who actually want to do things, or, perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."

Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.

If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter about philosophy certainly meets this description.  I openly admit a bias against philosophy, and in particular against philosophical discussions about philosophy because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.

Not, mind you, that I have anything against masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.

If you meant something else, sorry to have misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share your preference to actually engage in interesting work, rather than just talking about the philosophies of how to accomplish work.

--Doug

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...

I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.

Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were hoping to create a synergistic community, where the whole was greater than its parts.  Specifically, cross-discipline projects (Stephen's Hollywood model) creating fascinating technology with complexity being a foundational piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.

The philosophical conversations thus far have not contributed to this, and indeed have created a second culture: folks who want to talk about things.

Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a distraction when not helping create a foundation for creating things.

There is a good example of a middle ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way or the highway) alternative to the traditional iterated prisoner's dilemma.  It was concrete enough to result in a project and a couple of papers.

So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction is along that line: many if not most of us are interested in creating things.

Thus to make the conversations more acceptable, it would be reasonable for it to suggest an investigation or project.  The failure to summarize is just an example of how non-constructive the philosophic conversations have been.

   -- Owen

On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...

I know only of one specific person on the list who has a significantly alternate perspective.

Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical traditions which we are products of.

Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because* we were exposed to these ideas and modes of thought from an early age and from many angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where there was a modicum of magical thinking and animism around us, the larger world, and most *any* practical-minded western family today is going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.

We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is how most people (try to) understand the world.   If were were trained in mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.


Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly implies that we are logical positivists.   These are philosophical traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience.

Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with the nature and the limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is the branch concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world.

Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
       • Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is "Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often) dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment is given to "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same reasons.
       • The "white males" who show up most notably throughout our history as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings in the realm of human and social equality, justice, etc.  do not necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular attachment and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our experience and perhaps interest.   And *within* these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we admit that our specific methods are derived from the more general ones of metaphysics, epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?

For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable exception (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not play as central of a role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions...

It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and experience except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be squabbling as if some of us are in a completely different key when in fact, the only problem is that few if any of us have perfect pitch.

- Steve

I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain, and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

[Jack K. Horner]

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 faced, as has been asserted,
with a choice of either philosophizing or
"building things",  here are some challenges:

         1.  What are "things"?   (Some mathematicians regard
            numbers, sets, rings, fields, etc., as "things" in the
            sense I suspect most of us regard
            tables and chairs as "things". Some ethical
            theorists regard rights as as substantive, real, existent,
            etc., as tables and chairs. The notion of a thing is far
            murkier than we would like to admit.)

         2.  Which "things" should we build and why? (Devil's Advocate:
            why not just use drugs instead of building things?
            (OK, somebody has to "build" the drugs; else, we would
            eventually run out of drugs  ;->   ))

         3.  Is knowledge/ABM/science possible without making
            at least some presumptions (even if they are only
            conventions) about meaning, logic, and perception?  Even
            if they are only conventions, which conventions should
            we choose and why?

There is no way to deal with these questions
without backing into issues that in any normative
sense are in the domain of "philosophy". These
questions, furthermore, are independent of our
personal psychological or sociological histories
(the questions arise regardless of our views
about empiricism, rationalism, materialism, or Obamanism).

The fact that we can drive a car, perform quantum
mechanical calculations, or write a heap o' Java
merely means shows as a practical matter, we make
certain assumptions about cars, quanta, or
Java.  Some of those assumptions may even be
reasonably well tested.  We assume the car won't
blow up when we turn the ignition key, that the
quantum theory is consistent (and maybe even
complete), and that Java compiler/interpreter
builders are deeply trained in formal language
theory (a dangerously "philosophical" business).

Bottom line: we can choose to ignore
"philosophy", but we can't make it go away.


Jack

>From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:00:19 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364996038748e2046e702fa9
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, of the two-wheeled variety
>Message: 1
>
>The FRIAMers were philosophizing when I left,
>they're still philosophizing now that I'm back:
>some things do not appear to change very much.
>
>Speaking of which, Pirsig really does present a
>lot of good observations in the areas of
>perception, world-view, perspective, and plain
>good common sense and the complete lack
>thereof.  This passage in particular has always
>resonated with me.  I know people like John, the BMW rider:
>
>So it is with John. I could preach the practical
>value and worth of motorcycle maintenance till
>I'm hoarse and it would make not a dent in him.
>After two sentences on the subject his eyes go
>completely glassy and he changes the
>conversation or just looks away. He doesn't want to hear about it.
>
>Sylvia is completely with him on this one. In
>fact she is even more emphatic. "It's just a
>whole other thing," she says, when in a
>thoughtful mood. "Like garbage," she says, when
>not. They want not to understand it. Not to hear
>about it. And the more I try to fathom what
>makes me enjoy mechanical work and them hate it
>so, the more elusive it becomes. The ultimate
>cause of this originally minor difference of
>opinion appears to run way, way deep.
>
>Inability on their part is ruled out
>immediately. They are both plenty bright enough.
>Either one of them could learn to tune a
>motorcycle in an hour and a half if they put
>their minds and energy to it, and the saving in
>money and worry and delay would repay them over
>and over again for their effort. And they know
>that. Or maybe they don't. I don't know. I never
>confront them with the question. It's better to just get along.
>
>But I remember once, outside a bar in Savage,
>Minnesota, on a really scorching day when I just
>about let loose. We'd been in the bar for about
>an hour and we came out and the machines were so
>hot you could hardly get on them. I'm started
>and ready to go and there's John pumping away on
>the kick starter. I smell gas like we're next to
>a refinery and tell him so, thinking this is
>enough to let him know his engine's flooded.
>
>"Yeah, I smell it too," he says and keeps on
>pumping. And he pumps and pumps and jumps and
>pumps and I don't know what more to say.
>Finally, he's really winded and sweat's running
>down all over his face and he can't pump
>anymore, and so I suggest taking out the plugs
>to dry them off and air out the cylinders while we go back for another beer.
>
>Oh my God no! He doesn't want to get into all that stuff.
>
>"All what stuff?"
>
>"Oh, getting out the tools and all that stuff.
>There's no reason why it shouldn't start. It's a
>brand-new machine and I'm following the
>instructions perfectly. See, it's right on full choke like they say."
>
>"Full choke!"
>
>"That's what the instructions say."
>
>"That's for when it's cold!"
>
>"Well, we've been in there for a half an hour at least," he says.
>
>It kind of shakes me up. "This is a hot day,
>John," I say. "And they take longer than that to
>cool off even on a freezing day."
>
>He scratches his head. "Well, why don't they
>tell you that in the instructions?" He opens the
>choke and on the second kick it starts. "I guess
>that was it," he says cheerfully.
>
>And the very next day we were out near the same
>area and it happened again. This time I was
>determined not to say a word, and when my wife
>urged me to go over and help him I shook my
>head. I told her that until he had a real felt
>need he was just going to resent help, so we
>went over and sat in the shade and waited.
>
>I noticed he was being superpolite to Sylvia
>while he pumped away, meaning he was furious,
>and she was looking over with a kind of "Ye
>gods!" look. If he had asked any single question
>I would have been over in a second to diagnose
>it, but he wouldn't. It must have been fifteen
>minutes before he got it started.
>
>Later we were drinking beer again over at Lake
>Minnetonka and everybody was talking around the
>table, but he was silent and I could see he was
>really tied up in knots inside. After all that
>time. Probably to get them untied he finally
>said, "You know -- when it doesn't start like
>that it just -- really turns me into a monster
>inside. I just get paranoic about it." This
>seemed to loosen him up, and he added, "They
>just had this one motorcycle, see? This lemon.
>And they didn't know what to do with it, whether
>to send it back to the factory or sell it for
>scrap or what -- and then at the last moment
>they saw me coming. With eighteen hundred bucks
>in my pocket. And they knew their problems were over."
>
>In a kind of singsong voice I repeated the plea
>for tuning and he tried hard to listen. He
>really tries hard sometimes. But then the block
>came again and he was off to the bar for another
>round for all of us and the subject was closed.
>
>He is not stubborn, not narrow-minded, not lazy,
>not stupid. There was just no easy explanation.
>So it was left up in the air, a kind of mystery
>that one gives up on because there is no sense
>in just going round and round and round looking for an answer that's not there.
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Steve Smith
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>My style of philosophy, which is more the vein
>>of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
>>Maintenance:
>><http://mc-canada-trip-2009.blogspot.com/>http://mc-canada-trip-2009.blogspot.com/
>Nicely done...  makes me sorry I haven't replaced my last bike.
>
>All my long trips have been a lot less civilized!
>
>Welcome back to the funny farm!
>
>- Steve
>
>============================================================
>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>http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>--
>Doug Roberts
><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]
><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]
>505-455-7333 - Office
>505-670-8195 - Cell
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Cc: aku <[hidden email]>
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References:
><[hidden email]>
><[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:11:00 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Subject: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 2
>
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>I know only of one specific person on the list
>who has a significantly alternate perspective.
>
>Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there
>are philosophical traditions which we are products of.
>
>Most of us here are interested in the topics of
>mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because*
>we were exposed to these ideas and modes of
>thought from an early age and from many
>angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where
>there was a modicum of magical thinking and
>animism around us, the larger world, and most
>*any* practical-minded western family today is
>going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
>
>We got that way by being raised in a time and
>culture where that is how most people (try to)
>understand the world.   If were were trained in
>mathematics or the sciences, we were almost
>surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
>
>
>Most of us here are empiricists and
>rationalists, which roughly implies that we are
>logical positivists.   These are philosophical
>traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western
>tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience.
>
>Epistemology is the branch of (Western)
>Philosophy concerned with the nature and the
>limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is
>the branch concerned with the fundamental nature
>of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics
>reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and
>Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which
>touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and
>Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
>
>Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise,
>explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
>    * Serious sounding talk about anything we
> don't understand is "Philosophy" and we either
> therefore hold it in awe or (more often)
> dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list),
> the same treatment is given to "Mathematics"
> and "Science" for approximately the same reasons.
>    * The "white males" who show up most notably
> throughout our history as the shapers of
> Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were
> products of their social/cultural milieu and
> their personal failings in the realm of human
> and social equality, justice, etc.  do not
> necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
>Why can't we simply accept that most of us have
>a particular attachment and fondness for the
>empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and
>that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our
>experience and perhaps interest.   And *within*
>these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we
>admit that our specific methods are derived from
>the more general ones of metaphysics,
>epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
>
>For those who have experience/interest in other
>systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar
>things are true, with the most notable exception
>(in my observation) that empiricism and
>rationality do not play as central of a
>role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws
>many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions...
>
>It is outside the scope of this particular
>posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and
>Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and
>experience except to say that this particular
>Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part
>sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be
>squabbling as if some of us are in a completely
>different key when in fact, the only problem is
>that few if any of us have perfect pitch.
>
>- Steve
>
>I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride
>(stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves,
>synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain,
>and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).
>
>From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
>Cc: aku <[hidden email]>
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References:
><[hidden email]>
><[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:32:00 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 3
>
>>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list
>>around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.
>
>Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were hoping to create a
>synergistic community, where the whole was greater than its parts.
>Specifically, cross-discipline projects (Stephen's Hollywood model)
>creating fascinating technology with complexity being a foundational
>piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.
>
>The philosophical conversations thus far have not contributed to this,
>and indeed have created a second culture: folks who want to talk about
>things.
>
>Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a distraction when not
>helping create a foundation for creating things.
>
>There is a good example of a middle ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way
>or the highway) alternative to the traditional iterated prisoner's
>dilemma.  It was concrete enough to result in a project and a couple
>of papers.
>
>So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction is along that line:
>many if not most of us are interested in creating things.
>
>Thus to make the conversations more acceptable, it would be reasonable
>for it to suggest an investigation or project.  The failure to
>summarize is just an example of how non-constructive the philosophic
>conversations have been.
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
>On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list
>>around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>>
>>I know only of one specific person on the list who has a
>>significantly alternate perspective.
>>
>>Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical
>>traditions which we are products of.
>>
>>Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics,
>>science, language, etc.  *because* we were exposed to these ideas
>>and modes of thought from an early age and from many angles.  Even
>>if we grew up in a household where there was a modicum of magical
>>thinking and animism around us, the larger world, and most *any*
>>practical-minded western family today is going to be acting and
>>speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
>>
>>We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is
>>how most people (try to) understand the world.   If were were
>>trained in mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely
>>trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
>>
>>
>>Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly
>>implies that we are logical positivists.   These are philosophical
>>traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method
>>or system of organizing the human experience.
>>
>>Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with
>>the nature and the limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is
>>the branch concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the
>>world.  Science and Mathematics reside almost exclusively within
>>Metaphysics and Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which touch
>>on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and Ethics, but the meat is in
>>the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
>>
>>Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit)
>>seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
>>         • Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is
>>"Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often)
>>dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment
>>is given to "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same
>>reasons.
>>         • The "white males" who show up most
>> notably throughout our history
>>as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were
>>products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings
>>in the realm of human and social equality, justice, etc.  do not
>>necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
>>Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular
>>attachment and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of
>>philosophy and that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our
>>experience and perhaps interest.   And *within* these subdomains of
>>Philosophy, why can't we admit that our specific methods are derived
>>from the more general ones of metaphysics, epistomology, and
>>sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
>>
>>For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western
>>Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable
>>exception (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not
>>play as central of a role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws
>>many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other
>>traditions...
>>
>>It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the
>>merits of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge
>>and experience except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM
>>members) who for the most part sings *only* in the keys of E and R
>>to be squabbling as if some of us are in a completely different key
>>when in fact, the only problem is that few if any of us have perfect
>>pitch.
>>
>>- Steve
>>
>>I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my
>>plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my
>>chain, and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the
>>way).
>>============================================================
>>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
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Cc: aku <[hidden email]>
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:56:40 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364d1dab88dbd8046e7600f1
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 4
>
>Let me make sure I understand what you just
>said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:
>
>Owen: "There are more people on this list who
>want to talk about doing things then there are
>people who actually want to do things, or,
>perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."
>
>Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.
>
>If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I
>wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter
>about philosophy certainly meets this
>description.  I openly admit a bias against
>philosophy, and in particular against
>philosophical discussions about philosophy
>because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.
>
>Not, mind you, that I have anything against
>masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just
>that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.
>
>If you meant something else, sorry to have
>misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share
>your preference to actually engage in
>interesting work, rather than just talking about
>the philosophies of how to accomplish work.
>
>--Doug
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Owen Densmore
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>
>I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.
>
>Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were
>hoping to create a synergistic community, where
>the whole was greater than its
>parts.  Specifically, cross-discipline projects
>(Stephen's Hollywood model) creating fascinating
>technology with complexity being a foundational
>piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.
>
>The philosophical conversations thus far have
>not contributed to this, and indeed have created
>a second culture: folks who want to talk about things.
>
>Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a
>distraction when not helping create a foundation for creating things.
>
>There is a good example of a middle
>ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way or the
>highway) alternative to the traditional iterated
>prisoner's dilemma.  It was concrete enough to
>result in a project and a couple of papers.
>
>So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction
>is along that line: many if not most of us are interested in creating things.
>
>Thus to make the conversations more acceptable,
>it would be reasonable for it to suggest an
>investigation or project.  The failure to
>summarize is just an example of how
>non-constructive the philosophic conversations have been.
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
>
>On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>I know only of one specific person on the list
>who has a significantly alternate perspective.
>
>Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there
>are philosophical traditions which we are products of.
>
>Most of us here are interested in the topics of
>mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because*
>we were exposed to these ideas and modes of
>thought from an early age and from many
>angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where
>there was a modicum of magical thinking and
>animism around us, the larger world, and most
>*any* practical-minded western family today is
>going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
>
>We got that way by being raised in a time and
>culture where that is how most people (try to)
>understand the world.   If were were trained in
>mathematics or the sciences, we were almost
>surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
>
>
>Most of us here are empiricists and
>rationalists, which roughly implies that we are
>logical positivists.   These are philosophical
>traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western
>tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience.
>
>Epistemology is the branch of (Western)
>Philosophy concerned with the nature and the
>limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is
>the branch concerned with the fundamental nature
>of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics
>reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and
>Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which
>touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and
>Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
>
>Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise,
>explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
>        • Serious sounding talk about anything
> we don't understand is "Philosophy" and we
> either therefore hold it in awe or (more often)
> dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list),
> the same treatment is given to "Mathematics"
> and "Science" for approximately the same reasons.
>        • The "white males" who show up most
> notably throughout our history as the shapers
> of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science)
> were products of their social/cultural milieu
> and their personal failings in the realm of
> human and social equality, justice, etc.  do
> not necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
>Why can't we simply accept that most of us have
>a particular attachment and fondness for the
>empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and
>that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our
>experience and perhaps interest.   And *within*
>these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we
>admit that our specific methods are derived from
>the more general ones of metaphysics,
>epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
>
>For those who have experience/interest in other
>systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar
>things are true, with the most notable exception
>(in my observation) that empiricism and
>rationality do not play as central of a
>role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws
>many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions...
>
>It is outside the scope of this particular
>posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and
>Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and
>experience except to say that this particular
>Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part
>sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be
>squabbling as if some of us are in a completely
>different key when in fact, the only problem is
>that few if any of us have perfect pitch.
>
>- Steve
>
>I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride
>(stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves,
>synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain,
>and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).
>============================================================
>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>http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>From: Robert Holmes <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:04:01 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174bee88f68ad6046e761ba6
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 5
>
>Welcome back Doug. We've missed you.
>
>-- Robert
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>Let me make sure I understand what you just
>said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:
>
>Owen: "There are more people on this list who
>want to talk about doing things then there are
>people who actually want to do things, or,
>perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."
>
>Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.
>
>If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I
>wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter
>about philosophy certainly meets this
>description.  I openly admit a bias against
>philosophy, and in particular against
>philosophical discussions about philosophy
>because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.
>
>Not, mind you, that I have anything against
>masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just
>that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.
>
>If you meant something else, sorry to have
>misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share
>your preference to actually engage in
>interesting work, rather than just talking about
>the philosophies of how to accomplish work.
>
>--Doug
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Owen Densmore
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>
>I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.
>
>Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were
>hoping to create a synergistic community, where
>the whole was greater than its
>parts.  Specifically, cross-discipline projects
>(Stephen's Hollywood model) creating fascinating
>technology with complexity being a foundational
>piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.
>
>The philosophical conversations thus far have
>not contributed to this, and indeed have created
>a second culture: folks who want to talk about things.
>
>Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a
>distraction when not helping create a foundation for creating things.
>
>There is a good example of a middle
>ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way or the
>highway) alternative to the traditional iterated
>prisoner's dilemma.  It was concrete enough to
>result in a project and a couple of papers.
>
>So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction
>is along that line: many if not most of us are interested in creating things.
>
>Thus to make the conversations more acceptable,
>it would be reasonable for it to suggest an
>investigation or project.  The failure to
>summarize is just an example of how
>non-constructive the philosophic conversations have been.
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
>
>On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>I know only of one specific person on the list
>who has a significantly alternate perspective.
>
>Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there
>are philosophical traditions which we are products of.
>
>Most of us here are interested in the topics of
>mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because*
>we were exposed to these ideas and modes of
>thought from an early age and from many
>angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where
>there was a modicum of magical thinking and
>animism around us, the larger world, and most
>*any* practical-minded western family today is
>going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
>
>We got that way by being raised in a time and
>culture where that is how most people (try to)
>understand the world.   If were were trained in
>mathematics or the sciences, we were almost
>surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
>
>
>Most of us here are empiricists and
>rationalists, which roughly implies that we are
>logical positivists.   These are philosophical
>traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western
>tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience.
>
>Epistemology is the branch of (Western)
>Philosophy concerned with the nature and the
>limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is
>the branch concerned with the fundamental nature
>of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics
>reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and
>Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which
>touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and
>Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
>
>Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise,
>explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
>        • Serious sounding talk about anything
> we don't understand is "Philosophy" and we
> either therefore hold it in awe or (more often)
> dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list),
> the same treatment is given to "Mathematics"
> and "Science" for approximately the same reasons.
>        • The "white males" who show up most
> notably throughout our history as the shapers
> of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science)
> were products of their social/cultural milieu
> and their personal failings in the realm of
> human and social equality, justice, etc.  do
> not necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
>Why can't we simply accept that most of us have
>a particular attachment and fondness for the
>empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and
>that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our
>experience and perhaps interest.   And *within*
>these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we
>admit that our specific methods are derived from
>the more general ones of metaphysics,
>epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
>
>For those who have experience/interest in other
>systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar
>things are true, with the most notable exception
>(in my observation) that empiricism and
>rationality do not play as central of a
>role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws
>many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions...
>
>It is outside the scope of this particular
>posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and
>Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and
>experience except to say that this particular
>Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part
>sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be
>squabbling as if some of us are in a completely
>different key when in fact, the only problem is
>that few if any of us have perfect pitch.
>
>- Steve
>
>I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride
>(stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves,
>synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain,
>and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).
>============================================================
>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>http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>============================================================
>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>http://www.friam.org
>
>
>From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:07:29 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dbea5b33e8a1046e762795
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 6
>
>Just not very much...
>
>;-{
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Robert Holmes
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>Welcome back Doug. We've missed you.
>
>-- Robert
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>Let me make sure I understand what you just
>said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:
>
>Owen: "There are more people on this list who
>want to talk about doing things then there are
>people who actually want to do things, or,
>perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."
>
>Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.
>
>If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I
>wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter
>about philosophy certainly meets this
>description.  I openly admit a bias against
>philosophy, and in particular against
>philosophical discussions about philosophy
>because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.
>
>Not, mind you, that I have anything against
>masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just
>that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.
>
>If you meant something else, sorry to have
>misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share
>your preference to actually engage in
>interesting work, rather than just talking about
>the philosophies of how to accomplish work.
>
>--Doug
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Owen Densmore
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>
>I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.
>
>Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were
>hoping to create a synergistic community, where
>the whole was greater than its
>parts.  Specifically, cross-discipline projects
>(Stephen's Hollywood model) creating fascinating
>technology with complexity being a foundational
>piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.
>
>The philosophical conversations thus far have
>not contributed to this, and indeed have created
>a second culture: folks who want to talk about things.
>
>Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a
>distraction when not helping create a foundation for creating things.
>
>There is a good example of a middle
>ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way or the
>highway) alternative to the traditional iterated
>prisoner's dilemma.  It was concrete enough to
>result in a project and a couple of papers.
>
>So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction
>is along that line: many if not most of us are interested in creating things.
>
>Thus to make the conversations more acceptable,
>it would be reasonable for it to suggest an
>investigation or project.  The failure to
>summarize is just an example of how
>non-constructive the philosophic conversations have been.
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
>
>On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>I'm not clear on why there is such a culture
>clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...
>
>I know only of one specific person on the list
>who has a significantly alternate perspective.
>
>Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there
>are philosophical traditions which we are products of.
>
>Most of us here are interested in the topics of
>mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because*
>we were exposed to these ideas and modes of
>thought from an early age and from many
>angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where
>there was a modicum of magical thinking and
>animism around us, the larger world, and most
>*any* practical-minded western family today is
>going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.
>
>We got that way by being raised in a time and
>culture where that is how most people (try to)
>understand the world.   If were were trained in
>mathematics or the sciences, we were almost
>surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.
>
>
>Most of us here are empiricists and
>rationalists, which roughly implies that we are
>logical positivists.   These are philosophical
>traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western
>tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience.
>
>Epistemology is the branch of (Western)
>Philosophy concerned with the nature and the
>limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is
>the branch concerned with the fundamental nature
>of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics
>reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and
>Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which
>touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and
>Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world.
>
>Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise,
>explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
>        • Serious sounding talk about anything
> we don't understand is "Philosophy" and we
> either therefore hold it in awe or (more often)
> dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list),
> the same treatment is given to "Mathematics"
> and "Science" for approximately the same reasons.
>        • The "white males" who show up most
> notably throughout our history as the shapers
> of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science)
> were products of their social/cultural milieu
> and their personal failings in the realm of
> human and social equality, justice, etc.  do
> not necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
>Why can't we simply accept that most of us have
>a particular attachment and fondness for the
>empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and
>that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our
>experience and perhaps interest.   And *within*
>these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we
>admit that our specific methods are derived from
>the more general ones of metaphysics,
>epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?
>
>For those who have experience/interest in other
>systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar
>things are true, with the most notable exception
>(in my observation) that empiricism and
>rationality do not play as central of a
>role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws
>many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions...
>
>It is outside the scope of this particular
>posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and
>Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and
>experience except to say that this particular
>Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part
>sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be
>squabbling as if some of us are in a completely
>different key when in fact, the only problem is
>that few if any of us have perfect pitch.
>
>- Steve
>
>I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride
>(stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves,
>synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain,
>and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).
>============================================================
>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>http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
>Cc: aku <[hidden email]>
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:24:41 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-74-619225322
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 7
>
>Bingo!
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
>On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>>Let me make sure I understand what you just
>>said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:
>>
>>Owen: "There are more people on this list who
>>want to talk about doing things then there are
>>people who actually want to do things, or,
>>perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."
>>
>>Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.
>>
>>If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I
>>wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter
>>about philosophy certainly meets this
>>description.  I openly admit a bias against
>>philosophy, and in particular against
>>philosophical discussions about philosophy
>>because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.
>>
>>Not, mind you, that I have anything against
>>masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just
>>that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.
>>
>>If you meant something else, sorry to have
>>misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share
>>your preference to actually engage in
>>interesting work, rather than just talking
>>about the philosophies of how to accomplish work.
>>
>>--Doug
>
>From: Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>         <[hidden email]>
>In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:43:11 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-620335425
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>Message: 8
>
>Big sighs of relief from others of us as well...
>Direct action, that's the ticket. Bring it all
>down out onto the material plane.
>The Complex plays around with direct, effective
>action in areas that have not been represented
>very well so far. We can do more.
>[ I do realize this is the Friam list and not
>exactly the Complex list, but we are in a sense
>an incubator for the ideas that Friam discusses,
>and obviously there is a symbiotic relationship here. ]
>Unknown synergies are possible.
>Doesn't matter the domain (science, art, technology, etc etc) .
>The initial point of contact is that we can do
>what many others can't by using this hands-on
>synergy to create.  Like the SimTable does.
>
>Tory
>  "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive, but
> it's lightning that does all the work."
>-Mark Twain
>
>
>On Jul 11, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>     -- Owen
>>
>>
>>On Jul 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>
>>>Let me make sure I understand what you just
>>>said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:
>>>
>>>Owen: "There are more people on this list who
>>>want to talk about doing things then there are
>>>people who actually want to do things, or,
>>>perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."
>>>
>>>Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.
>>>
>>>If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I
>>>wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter
>>>about philosophy certainly meets this
>>>description.  I openly admit a bias against
>>>philosophy, and in particular against
>>>philosophical discussions about philosophy
>>>because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.
>>>
>>>Not, mind you, that I have anything against
>>>masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just
>>>that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.
>>>
>>>If you meant something else, sorry to have
>>>misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share
>>>your preference to actually engage in
>>>interesting work, rather than just talking
>>>about the philosophies of how to accomplish work.
>>>
>>>--Doug
>>
>>============================================================
>>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>http://www.friam.org
>
>From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
>References: <[hidden email]>
>Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:13:14 -0600
>Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>         <[hidden email]>
>Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-68-499738536
>Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [sfx: Discuss] Projected Light
>Message: 9
>
>The complex is hosting Projected Light .. this weekend (Friday,
>Saturday, Sunday) are the last days for the show:
>   http://sfcomplex.org
>
>Drop by!
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Orlando Leibovitz <[hidden email]>
>>Date: July 10, 2009 9:58:31 AM MDT
>>To: SFx Advisory Discuss <[hidden email]>
>>Subject: [sfx: Discuss] Projected Light
>>Reply-To: General topics & issues <[hidden email]>
>>
>>This is the final weekend for Projected Light. If you have not sent
>>an email to your contacts, now would be a good time. Attached is a
>>PDF of our press release. I am sending it along with a link to the
>>Complex. Anything you can do is much appreciated. Thanks. O
>>--
>>
>>
>>Orlando Leibovitz
>>Studio Phone: [phone]
>>http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>[hidden email]
>>http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html
>
>
>
>The complex is hosting Projected Light .. this
>weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) are the last days for the show:
>   <http://sfcomplex.org>http://sfcomplex.org
>
>Drop by!
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Orlando Leibovitz
>><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]>
>>Date: July 10, 2009 9:58:31 AM MDT
>>To: SFx Advisory Discuss
>><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]>
>>Subject: [sfx: Discuss] Projected Light
>>Reply-To: General topics & issues
>><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]>
>>
>>This is the final weekend for Projected Light.
>>If you have not sent an email to your contacts,
>>now would be a good time. Attached is a PDF of
>>our press release. I am sending it along with a
>>link to the Complex. Anything you can do is much appreciated. Thanks. O
>>--
>>
>>
>>Orlando Leibovitz
>>Studio Phone: [phone]
>><http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com>http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]
>>http://lists.sfcomplex.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>><http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html>http://www.nabble.com/sfComplex-Discuss-f33403.html
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Friam mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Jack K. Horner
P. O. Box 266
Los Alamos, NM  87544-0266
Voice:   505-455-0381
Fax:     [phone]
email:   [hidden email]


============================================================
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

[Douglas Roberts-2]

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 philosophy course that I enrolled in, only to drop out three agonizing hours later after suffering through the professor's pontifications about "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it..."

--Doug

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Jack K. Horner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bottom line: we can choose to ignore "philosophy", but we can't make it go away.


Jack

============================================================
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

[Victoria Hughes]

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) 

My thoughts below derive from making a living /a lifetime of

 1. taking action, creating things and selling them, and 

2. deliberately studying, investigating and developing enough useful ideas about how the process works to make a living teaching, writing, and consulting: how to do this more 'successfully' (whatever our own goals for the project are)

Both the hard sciences and the intuitive processes are required. We know this.. 

Both factual knowledge of basic physical principles, material characteristics, properties etc - and a knowledge of our goal, the rough area of solutions to a given problem, what things can be made that will satisfy a given criteria, the inner realm of desire to make the invisible visible, all that internal, intuitive stuff. 

Creation of anything comes from reciprocal action: taking things (information, memes, ideas, perceptions) in [talking and thinking], and giving out them out [acting]

=  information combined and enhanced in a new form.

I would agree that no science is done by people who think but do not act;  on the other hand, bad science is done by people who act without thinking.   (nst)

There is a lot of bad art everywhere being done by taking action without much thought. 

Pretty much everything said here recently can be applied to "art" as well as to "science".  

Both are problem-solving: action taken in expression of principles, actions taken on beliefs and experience about the perceived world. I could only have been as successful as my knowledge of  how the material world works, so I can manipulate it to be 'successful'.

We humans are free agents. Hopefully we make connections and invent new forms through unique and self-aware process. 

We each have both an internal world and an external world. 

There does not have to be conflict between them. They are designed to support and enhance each other. 

 'Too much talking' often happens when the pendulum between thought and action has gotten tangled in something - and the same goes for too much action without thinking/talking. 

Some resistance in the 'system' (please excuse my slightly different word usage here, I know this is a broader def. than some of you specify)  is inhibiting movement into action. 

Often in a functional creational environment, science or art, there is an ongoing, fairly short-period oscillation between thought/reflection-intake of new information, and taking action on that information. 

Going back to the model of a conversation, ideally in a dialogue the pendulum swings back and forth, each person taking in and giving out. Easy fluid motion. 

Listening and talking. Taking in and manipulating information, and then taking action on that. 

Obviously in some activities, the time the pendulum takes to swing back and forth will be longer, accumulate more information. But after a certain point, it takes more energy to keep the weight of the pendulum held to one side than it does to let it move responsively to the 'forces' on it.

Thanks for reading. I appreciate this forum and learn a great deal from it. 

Enjoy your day.

Tory

n Jul 12, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

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 other hand, bad science is done by people who act without thinking.   

 

Now I suppose that bad science is better than no science;   but why have these suddenly become the alternatives?  I am in this conversation because I believe that if we are willing to hammer out some of these conceptual issues, we will do better, sharper work on complexity.  I have no interest in blather for blather's sake.   But, iff I and some of your colleagues want to pursue such a project, what's it to yah?  Wish us well and get back to what you were doing.   If we turn up something useful, you can be surprized and grateful.  If we dont, well, ....

 

nick

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Cc: [hidden email]

Sent: 7/11/2009 4:58:38 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science

Let me make sure I understand what you just said, Owen, by paraphrasing what I thought I heard:

Owen: "There are more people on this list who want to talk about doing things then there are people who actually want to do things, or, perhaps, even have relevant experience at doing things."

Or, an even shorter synopsis: Talk is cheap.

If that is in fact what you were suggesting, I wholeheartedly agree.  IMO, the latest chatter about philosophy certainly meets this description.  I openly admit a bias against philosophy, and in particular against philosophical discussions about philosophy because they invariably come across as giant exercises in mental masturbation.

Not, mind you, that I have anything against masturbation, mental or otherwise.  It's just that nothing ever comes of it, so to speak.

If you meant something else, sorry to have misunderstood.  Otherwise, I believe I share your preference to actually engage in interesting work, rather than just talking about the philosophies of how to accomplish work.

--Doug

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...

I think the conflict may be nearly trivial: constructing things.

Many of us, especially at the sfComplex, were hoping to create a synergistic community, where the whole was greater than its parts.  Specifically, cross-discipline projects (Stephen's Hollywood model) creating fascinating technology with complexity being a foundational piece.  The TED conferences in the complex domain.

The philosophical conversations thus far have not contributed to this, and indeed have created a second culture: folks who want to talk about things.

Talking is great, but for some of us becomes a distraction when not helping create a foundation for creating things.

There is a good example of a middle ground.  Nick had the Moth (My way or the highway) alternative to the traditional iterated prisoner's dilemma.  It was concrete enough to result in a project and a couple of papers.

So my hunch is that the "Please God No" reaction is along that line: many if not most of us are interested in creating things.

Thus to make the conversations more acceptable, it would be reasonable for it to suggest an investigation or project.  The failure to summarize is just an example of how non-constructive the philosophic conversations have been.

   -- Owen

On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

I'm not clear on why there is such a culture clash on this list around Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science...

I know only of one specific person on the list who has a significantly alternate perspective.

Whether we know of them (formally) or not, there are philosophical traditions which we are products of.

Most of us here are interested in the topics of mathematics, science, language, etc.  *because* we were exposed to these ideas and modes of thought from an early age and from many angles.  Even if we grew up in a household where there was a modicum of magical thinking and animism around us, the larger world, and most *any* practical-minded western family today is going to be acting and speaking with a lot of rational and empirical modes.

We got that way by being raised in a time and culture where that is how most people (try to) understand the world.   If were were trained in mathematics or the sciences, we were almost surely trained by people who were grounded deeply in this philosophy.


Most of us here are empiricists and rationalists, which roughly implies that we are logical positivists.   These are philosophical traditions. Philosophy (in this case, Western tradition) is a method or system of organizing the human experience.

Epistemology is the branch of (Western) Philosophy concerned with the nature and the limitations of human knowledge.   Metaphysics is the branch concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world.  Science and Mathematics reside almost exclusively within Metaphysics and Epistimology.  There are aspects of both which touch on (or are informed by) Aesthetics and Ethics, but the meat is in the study of knowledge and the study of the world.

Most criticism I hear (here and otherwise, explicit or implicit) seems to come down to one of two (mis)understandings:
       • Serious sounding talk about anything we don't understand is "Philosophy" and we either therefore hold it in awe or (more often) dismiss it.  For some folks (few on this list), the same treatment is given to "Mathematics" and "Science" for approximately the same reasons.
       • The "white males" who show up most notably throughout our history as the shapers of Philosophy (and Mathematics and Science) were products of their social/cultural milieu and their personal failings in the realm of human and social equality, justice, etc.  do not necessarily discredit the work that is associated with them.
Why can't we simply accept that most of us have a particular attachment and fondness for the empirical and rational subsets of philosophy and that the *rest* of it is mostly outside of our experience and perhaps interest.   And *within* these subdomains of Philosophy, why can't we admit that our specific methods are derived from the more general ones of metaphysics, epistomology, and sometimes aesthetics and ethics?

For those who have experience/interest in other systems than Western Philosophy, I think similar things are true, with the most notable exception (in my observation) that empiricism and rationality do not play as central of a role.  It seems *precisely* this which draws many (not so many here, but many in the larger world) to other traditions...

It is outside the scope of this particular posting to go into the merits of Empiricism and Rationality _vs_ other modes of knowledge and experience except to say that this particular Choir (FRIAM members) who for the most part sings *only* in the keys of E and R to be squabbling as if some of us are in a completely different key when in fact, the only problem is that few if any of us have perfect pitch.

- Steve

I think I need to take a long Motorcycle Ride (stopping to clean my plugs, adjust my valves, synchronize my carburators, lubricate my chain, and tear down and rebuild my forks at least once along the way).

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

[Steve Smith]

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 (following Aku's lead)!

---

I happen to enjoy constructing things a great deal...
            useful things... then using them....
                a lot more than I like talking about constructing things.

Ideas, on the other hand...  
    especially well-considered, carefully contextualized ones,
    are very interesting to me, and difficult to "construct"
    on one's own.  This is actually what lead me into mathematics
    and science.... how much one can "construct" with carefully
    chosen ideas (and notations).

As for FRIAM-the-list... any mail list (in my experience) has a high noise/signal ratio.  

I have learned to winnow fairly well... not engage in the conversations that do not serve me.

Given the (300+ ?) membership here and the significantly lower number speaking up, I'd
say a lot of folks here share that ability.

Some of the "philosophical discussions" here serve me nicely... I weigh in on some and I
read others with interest, and a few I simply leave only skimmed over because they do
not serve me very well at all.  Sometimes I simply do not have enough background to
appreciate them, and other times, they can simply be "lame".

Of the "discussions of constructing things",  a few offer interesting tidbits for me...
ideas about things which are _worth constructing_, and ideas for new tools or materials
for doing them with.   But a lot of that discussion can seem pretty self-aggrandizing
and/or masturbatory as well.   I've dabbled with tens of computer languages in my
lifetime, and probably mastered 3 or 4...  and I am happy for those who still get
excited over the latest nuances of the latest version of the latest language or tool... but
perhaps like Nick (yet for different reasons), it doesn't do that much for me.

I don't need to suggest that such discussions not occur... Like sitting in a coffee
shop to do work...  I find happy babble that I don't understand or care much about
a useful backdrop.   If the background noise doesn't serve me, I block it out or
find a different place to "hang out".  If I happen to engage in happy babble there
myself, I hope it is as useful to others who have chosen the same coffee shop.

Carry on with the happy babble...

- Steve

PS.  Anybody know where I can get a good deal on a set of injectors for an 86 VW
Rabbit?   Or a good third-member from an older 4x4 subaru or tercel wagon?
Or a line on some good DC motors to drive these axles on the CRX this is going into?
How about a couple of Canon Cameras using the vxWorks OS (to hack into a
white-light scanner)?  Is the ubiquity of JavaScript interpreters
in many tools (beyond web browsers now!) leading to a "Cambrian Explosion"?
Anyone interested in helping me dig a 40' trench for the
foundation of an atrium?   Anyone have any experience making foam-crete (same
project)?  Anybody nimble enough to climb to  the top of my Cottonwood to rig
me some lines so when I start to cut one of the dead limbs out, it won't crash
into my house  (or the atrium-to-be)?  What's the cheapest way to get a copy of MS
Windows XP to load on my Mac?   Does anyone know of a practical open-source
hybrid laser/white-light scanning system?   How about a review of all of the
current "rapid prototyping" systems and/or service bureaus?   Who wants to
start a FreeGeek.org NM?  And what about that New Realism?
Anybody know how  to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly?





============================================================
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 Densmore]

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  
equivalent of a Ring?

>        2.  Which "things" should we build and why?

Anything that lasts.  So that it can be built upon.

>        3.  Is knowledge/ABM/science possible without making
>           at least some presumptions (even if they are only
>           conventions) about meaning, logic, and perception?

Yes.

> ...
> Bottom line: we can choose to ignore "philosophy", but we can't make  
> it go away.

Yes we can: we can ask that community to start a separate mail list.  
It clearly is both popular and important.  But not to the original  
intent of Friam, which was to create a community of those interested  
in SFI and applied complexity.

Let me be clear: philosophy is fine, we all participate in our own  
personal brand of it to get through life.  I none the less agree:  
Please God No.

There is nothing at all wrong in building a new list, it happens all  
the time that successful communities do so.  If it would help, I can  
construct it for folks needing it in case the philosophic excludes  
network expertise.  It would be, I think, based on the Philosophy of  
Science, right?  Its a commendable discourse.  But not for me and many  
of the Friam list.

    -- Owen


============================================================
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 Densmore]

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 with sub-topics, one of which would be the  
philosophy of science.

     -- Owen


On Jul 12, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> 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 (following Aku's lead)!
> I happen to enjoy constructing things a great deal...
>             useful things... then using them....
>                 a lot more than I like talking about constructing  
> things.
>
> Ideas, on the other hand...
>     especially well-considered, carefully contextualized ones,
>     are very interesting to me, and difficult to "construct"
>     on one's own.  This is actually what lead me into mathematics
>     and science.... how much one can "construct" with carefully
>     chosen ideas (and notations).
>
> As for FRIAM-the-list... any mail list (in my experience) has a high  
> noise/signal ratio.
>
> I have learned to winnow fairly well... not engage in the  
> conversations that do not serve me.
>
> Given the (300+ ?) membership here and the significantly lower  
> number speaking up, I'd
> say a lot of folks here share that ability.
>
> Some of the "philosophical discussions" here serve me nicely... I  
> weigh in on some and I
> read others with interest, and a few I simply leave only skimmed  
> over because they do
> not serve me very well at all.  Sometimes I simply do not have  
> enough background to
> appreciate them, and other times, they can simply be "lame".
>
> Of the "discussions of constructing things",  a few offer  
> interesting tidbits for me...
> ideas about things which are _worth constructing_, and ideas for new  
> tools or materials
> for doing them with.   But a lot of that discussion can seem pretty  
> self-aggrandizing
> and/or masturbatory as well.   I've dabbled with tens of computer  
> languages in my
> lifetime, and probably mastered 3 or 4...  and I am happy for those  
> who still get
> excited over the latest nuances of the latest version of the latest  
> language or tool... but
> perhaps like Nick (yet for different reasons), it doesn't do that  
> much for me.
>
> I don't need to suggest that such discussions not occur... Like  
> sitting in a coffee
> shop to do work...  I find happy babble that I don't understand or  
> care much about
> a useful backdrop.   If the background noise doesn't serve me, I  
> block it out or
> find a different place to "hang out".  If I happen to engage in  
> happy babble there
> myself, I hope it is as useful to others who have chosen the same  
> coffee shop.
>
> Carry on with the happy babble...
>
> - Steve
>
> PS.  Anybody know where I can get a good deal on a set of injectors  
> for an 86 VW
> Rabbit?   Or a good third-member from an older 4x4 subaru or tercel  
> wagon?
> Or a line on some good DC motors to drive these axles on the CRX  
> this is going into?
> How about a couple of Canon Cameras using the vxWorks OS (to hack  
> into a
> white-light scanner)?  Is the ubiquity of JavaScript interpreters
> in many tools (beyond web browsers now!) leading to a "Cambrian  
> Explosion"?
> Anyone interested in helping me dig a 40' trench for the
> foundation of an atrium?   Anyone have any experience making foam-
> crete (same
> project)?  Anybody nimble enough to climb to  the top of my  
> Cottonwood to rig
> me some lines so when I start to cut one of the dead limbs out, it  
> won't crash
> into my house  (or the atrium-to-be)?  What's the cheapest way to  
> get a copy of MS
> Windows XP to load on my Mac?   Does anyone know of a practical open-
> source
> hybrid laser/white-light scanning system?   How about a review of  
> all of the
> current "rapid prototyping" systems and/or service bureaus?   Who  
> wants to
> start a FreeGeek.org NM?  And what about that New Realism?
> Anybody know how  to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,  
> balance accounts,
> build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give  
> orders, cooperate,
> act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,  
> program a computer,
> cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly?
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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

[Stephen Guerin]

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 to a Forum with sub-topics, one of which would be the  
> philosophy of science.

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. I think as long as people use subject  
lines appropriately and forking them when the topic of conversation  
changes, readers of the list can ignore what is noise to them. Also,  
as a reminder, folks should be careful not to quote the whole threads  
from digests.

-Steve
--- -. .   ..-. .. ... ....   - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... ....
[hidden email]
(m) 505.577.5828  (o) 505.995.0206
redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ lava3d.com

============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

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.  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 7/12/2009 1:13:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>
> 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  
> equivalent of a Ring?
>
> >        2.  Which "things" should we build and why?
>
> Anything that lasts.  So that it can be built upon.
>
> >        3.  Is knowledge/ABM/science possible without making
> >           at least some presumptions (even if they are only
> >           conventions) about meaning, logic, and perception?
>
> Yes.
>
> > ...
> > Bottom line: we can choose to ignore "philosophy", but we can't make  
> > it go away.
>
> Yes we can: we can ask that community to start a separate mail list.  
> It clearly is both popular and important.  But not to the original  
> intent of Friam, which was to create a community of those interested  
> in SFI and applied complexity.
>
> Let me be clear: philosophy is fine, we all participate in our own  
> personal brand of it to get through life.  I none the less agree:  
> Please God No.
>
> There is nothing at all wrong in building a new list, it happens all  
> the time that successful communities do so.  If it would help, I can  
> construct it for folks needing it in case the philosophic excludes  
> network expertise.  It would be, I think, based on the Philosophy of  
> Science, right?  Its a commendable discourse.  But not for me and many  
> of the Friam list.
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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 Densmore]

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 on population was new for us then and we've  
used it many times since.

> Programs and simulations show the entailments of an
> argument with a precision that no [other form of] philosophical  
> argument
> could hope for.

Indeed, that's our point, and the gist of Please God No.

    -- Owen


============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

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 ..... puritanical ... about your
position.  As if a bumptious conversation about ideas was ... like public
nakedness. .  Just avert your eyes!

Finally, one last ad hominem:  It seems to be that some of the people most
frustrated by this discussion are themselves EXTREMELY thoughtful and
reflective people.  the kind of people who watch ted videos and stuff.   Is
it that we are TEMPTING you to waste your time?  

My reason for keep some of these conversations on this list is that (1) I
keep hearing from new people with interesting opinions and (2) I keep
hoping that you folks who understand computers will contribute from that
knowledge to such questions as how computers are designed to gather and
make use of knowledge about themselves.


Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 7/12/2009 1:16:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>
> 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 with sub-topics, one of which would be the  
> philosophy of science.
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> > 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 (following Aku's lead)!
> > I happen to enjoy constructing things a great deal...
> >             useful things... then using them....
> >                 a lot more than I like talking about constructing  
> > things.
> >
> > Ideas, on the other hand...
> >     especially well-considered, carefully contextualized ones,
> >     are very interesting to me, and difficult to "construct"
> >     on one's own.  This is actually what lead me into mathematics
> >     and science.... how much one can "construct" with carefully
> >     chosen ideas (and notations).
> >
> > As for FRIAM-the-list... any mail list (in my experience) has a high  
> > noise/signal ratio.
> >
> > I have learned to winnow fairly well... not engage in the  
> > conversations that do not serve me.
> >
> > Given the (300+ ?) membership here and the significantly lower  
> > number speaking up, I'd
> > say a lot of folks here share that ability.
> >
> > Some of the "philosophical discussions" here serve me nicely... I  
> > weigh in on some and I
> > read others with interest, and a few I simply leave only skimmed  
> > over because they do
> > not serve me very well at all.  Sometimes I simply do not have  
> > enough background to
> > appreciate them, and other times, they can simply be "lame".
> >
> > Of the "discussions of constructing things",  a few offer  
> > interesting tidbits for me...
> > ideas about things which are _worth constructing_, and ideas for new  
> > tools or materials
> > for doing them with.   But a lot of that discussion can seem pretty  
> > self-aggrandizing
> > and/or masturbatory as well.   I've dabbled with tens of computer  
> > languages in my
> > lifetime, and probably mastered 3 or 4...  and I am happy for those  
> > who still get
> > excited over the latest nuances of the latest version of the latest  
> > language or tool... but
> > perhaps like Nick (yet for different reasons), it doesn't do that  
> > much for me.
> >
> > I don't need to suggest that such discussions not occur... Like  
> > sitting in a coffee
> > shop to do work...  I find happy babble that I don't understand or  
> > care much about
> > a useful backdrop.   If the background noise doesn't serve me, I  
> > block it out or
> > find a different place to "hang out".  If I happen to engage in  
> > happy babble there
> > myself, I hope it is as useful to others who have chosen the same  
> > coffee shop.
> >
> > Carry on with the happy babble...
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> > PS.  Anybody know where I can get a good deal on a set of injectors  
> > for an 86 VW
> > Rabbit?   Or a good third-member from an older 4x4 subaru or tercel  
> > wagon?
> > Or a line on some good DC motors to drive these axles on the CRX  
> > this is going into?
> > How about a couple of Canon Cameras using the vxWorks OS (to hack  
> > into a
> > white-light scanner)?  Is the ubiquity of JavaScript interpreters
> > in many tools (beyond web browsers now!) leading to a "Cambrian  
> > Explosion"?
> > Anyone interested in helping me dig a 40' trench for the
> > foundation of an atrium?   Anyone have any experience making foam-
> > crete (same
> > project)?  Anybody nimble enough to climb to  the top of my  
> > Cottonwood to rig
> > me some lines so when I start to cut one of the dead limbs out, it  
> > won't crash
> > into my house  (or the atrium-to-be)?  What's the cheapest way to  
> > get a copy of MS
> > Windows XP to load on my Mac?   Does anyone know of a practical open-
> > source
> > hybrid laser/white-light scanning system?   How about a review of  
> > all of the
> > current "rapid prototyping" systems and/or service bureaus?   Who  
> > wants to
> > start a FreeGeek.org NM?  And what about that New Realism?
> > Anybody know how  to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
> > butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,  
> > balance accounts,
> > build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give  
> > orders, cooperate,
> > act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,  
> > program a computer,
> > cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

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 Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

> Date: 7/12/2009 2:01:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science
>
> 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 on population was new for us then and we've  
> used it many times since.
>
> > Programs and simulations show the entailments of an
> > argument with a precision that no [other form of] philosophical  
> > argument
> > could hope for.
>
> Indeed, that's our point, and the gist of Please God No.
>
>     -- Owen

============================================================
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 Densmore]

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 appropriately and  
> forking them when the topic of conversation changes, readers of the  
> list can ignore what is noise to them. Also, as a reminder, folks  
> should be careful not to quote the whole threads from digests.
>
> -Steve

I'd add the request to respect threads: do not hi-jack (hit Reply,  
then change subject: or to:) nor split (hit New, then cut/paste same  
subject: or to:) established threads.  Admittedly this is subtle, but  
we could post a wiki entry on it and other netiquette.

    -- Owen


============================================================
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 Densmore]

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*  
observing netiquette.

Lets not fret.  I'll filter better in the future.  But I *really* do  
not want to loose our focus on applied complexity.

How about this: For every 10 philosophy posts, require 1 algorithm?!  
Or 1 germane post of any sort relating concretely to applied complexity?

I note my challenge on the two VSI books (Math, Wittgenstein) was  
ignored.  Like the Cauchy Sequence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence 
  which bridges the discrete and continuous, this bridges the math/
philosophy gap by exposing one fine mathematician's use of philosophy  
to lay the basis for his abstract approach.

     -- Owen


On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> 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 ..... puritanical ... about your
> position.  As if a bumptious conversation about ideas was ... like  
> public
> nakedness. .  Just avert your eyes!
>
> Finally, one last ad hominem:  It seems to be that some of the  
> people most
> frustrated by this discussion are themselves EXTREMELY thoughtful and
> reflective people.  the kind of people who watch ted videos and  
> stuff.   Is
> it that we are TEMPTING you to waste your time?
>
> My reason for keep some of these conversations on this list is that  
> (1) I
> keep hearing from new people with interesting opinions and (2) I keep
> hoping that you folks who understand computers will contribute from  
> that
> knowledge to such questions as how computers are designed to gather  
> and
> make use of knowledge about themselves.
>
>
> Nick

============================================================
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

[Steve Smith]

@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 finds them in one of the many streams of used books she swims in.  Maybe you can loan your copies to/through the self-organizing Library at sfX?

@Nick:
    I'm happy with the Philosophy of Science, Language, Perception, and Mind discussions you generate.   I think you did a meritable job many months ago of trying to take these types of discussions offline in a creative way with what I remember you calling "Noodles" on a Wiki Page.   Sadly, I think you and I and maybe only one other took to it.  A shift of venue/form seems difficult here.   I'd be game to try again if you can remind/resurrect the effort.  We can take our noodles (marbles?) off in the corner and play with them by ourselves!   Maybe others will join us this time.  The noodler's corner might very well be it's own summary, no?

@Tory
    Thanks for wading into this testosterone-infused kaffe klatch during a food fight...  we can be a rowdy crowd in our own egg-headed way.

@Stephen:
    Thanks for moderating the food fight at the FRIAM cafe...   let's go construct some cool stuff.  Got photons and bits?

@Doug:
    Welcome back... let's have a beer and air out our spark plugs.  I'll give Pirsig a call and see if he wants to join us.

@All:
    Thanks for your patience with my own long-winded philosophical interjections...

Now, let's go butcher some hogs (algorithmically), write some sonnets (in JavaScript so they can go mobile and feral on the nets), plan an invasion (of AOL?), change some diapers (our own?), comfort the dying (Fortran, Pascal, SGI, etc.), take some orders (how about some fries with those drinks?), give some orders (quiet down over there, you, you, you... philosophers!), cooperate (nah!), act alone (hah!), solve some equations (Reimann Zeta Functions anyone?), write a proof (Goldbach's conjecture before breakfast!), pitch manure (oops, already done that one), program a computer (old hat!), fight efficiently (food only), and die gallantly (or at least dramatically)!

Happy Babbling...

 - Steve

OK... so, I'm having waaaayyy too much fun.  I think it might be the heat.  Or the mint-juleps.


============================================================
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

[Robert Holmes]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snips> 

Lets not fret.  I'll filter better in the future.  But I *really* do not want to loose our focus on applied complexity.
<snip>
I note my challenge on the two VSI books (Math, Wittgenstein) was ignored.  Like the Cauchy Sequence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence which bridges the discrete and continuous, this bridges the math/philosophy gap by exposing one fine mathematician's use of philosophy to lay the basis for his abstract approach.

   -- Owen

On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

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 ..... puritanical ... about your
position.  As if a bumptious conversation about ideas was ... like public
nakedness. .  Just avert your eyes!

Finally, one last ad hominem:  It seems to be that some of the people most
frustrated by this discussion are themselves EXTREMELY thoughtful and
reflective people.  the kind of people who watch ted videos and stuff.   Is
it that we are TEMPTING you to waste your time?

My reason for keep some of these conversations on this list is that (1) I
keep hearing from new people with interesting opinions and (2) I keep
hoping that you folks who understand computers will contribute from that
knowledge to such questions as how computers are designed to gather and
make use of knowledge about themselves.


Nick

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

[Robert Holmes]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

Robert,

 

Go for it!

 

n

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 7/12/2009 5:35:40 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snips> 

Lets not fret.  I'll filter better in the future.  But I *really* do not want to loose our focus on applied complexity.
<snip>
I note my challenge on the two VSI books (Math, Wittgenstein) was ignored.  Like the Cauchy Sequence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_sequence which bridges the discrete and continuous, this bridges the math/philosophy gap by exposing one fine mathematician's use of philosophy to lay the basis for his abstract approach.

   -- Owen

On Jul 12, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

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 ..... puritanical ... about your
position.  As if a bumptious conversation about ideas was ... like public
nakedness. .  Just avert your eyes!

Finally, one last ad hominem:  It seems to be that some of the people most
frustrated by this discussion are themselves EXTREMELY thoughtful and
reflective people.  the kind of people who watch ted videos and stuff.   Is
it that we are TEMPTING you to waste your time?

My reason for keep some of these conversations on this list is that (1) I
keep hearing from new people with interesting opinions and (2) I keep
hoping that you folks who understand computers will contribute from that
knowledge to such questions as how computers are designed to gather and
make use of knowledge about themselves.


Nick

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

[Roger Critchlow-2]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> 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.

No.  They are algorithms.  And can be built upon.

Can be built upon in theory, but in practice they are with high probability thrown away and rebuilt from scratch.

Because they are complex linguistic objects which, like philosophers' arguments, are often harder to figure out than to do over from first principles.

-- rec --

============================================================
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