Friam

Just as a bye-the-way

Classic

List

Threaded

77 messages Options

1234

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

So, NIck: after an hour long mountain bike ride to reflect upon induction, as the practice of inferring generalities from specifics, I'd have to conclude that it was overrated. In my opinion, of course. Aside from giving philosophers something to endlessly discuss, it'd say the practice is just a non-mathematical way of playing the odds.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word induction has many applications and connotations. Here are a few:

In biology and chemistry:

§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds

§

§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect

§

§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme

§

§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth

§

§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center

§

§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic

§

§ Morphogenesis

§

§ Regulation of gene expression

§

§ Cellular differentiation

§

§ Enzyme induction and inhibition

§

In mathematics:

§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics

§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction

§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction

§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction

§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction

§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.

§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.

§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.

In philosophy, logic, and computer science:

§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning

§ Backward induction in game theory and economics

§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations

In physics:

§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object

§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.

§ Electrostatic induction in physics

§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter
(spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks.
It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the
process, what I consider to be spam.

In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain
why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's
books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less
than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of
induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which
also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have
been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got
kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where
such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing
little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which
I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so
incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less.

BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior
way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems
that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of
> induction?
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
>
>
>
> So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably
> experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a
> person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140
IQ.
>
> I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence
> measure for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious
> dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief.
>
> I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their
> intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process
> "taking it as an article of faith" when one of the irrational elements
> of their religion is brought into the spotlight.
>
> So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X
> intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to
> suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to
> believe religious bullshit?
>
> Working from my phone today...
>
> -Doug
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you
> are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a
> problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge
> to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are
> looking like an omni-something being etc.
>
> Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more
> intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote
> for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system?
> Would the jails be empty?
>
> Thanks
> Robert C
>
> On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a
> reference for answering that one.
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of <insert your spiritual
> leader
> here>. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell> found the same core
> message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral
> atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all
> persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political
> or financial power
> - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social
> phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in
> peace, can we knock it?
>
> Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the
> cloth at the CotFSM <http://www.venganza.org/> and following in a
> long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we
> are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About
page). Noodle on.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert C
> PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R
>
> On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as
> indirect bullying.
>
>
>
> I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for
> reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They
> are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in
> anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper
> sticker that reads "A proud member of the religious left".
>
>
>
> Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are
> making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by
> casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also
> makes fun of everyone with religious feelings.
>
>
>
> The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is
> either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people
> I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The
> Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the
> world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it --
> and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about
> certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it.
>

>
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know:
>
>
>
> If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony.
>
>
>
> "With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc."

>
>
>
> -Father Doug
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
>
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>
>
> <a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
> <a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word induction has many applications and connotations. Here are a few:

In biology and chemistry:

§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds

§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect

§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme

§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth

§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center

§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic

§ Morphogenesis

§ Regulation of gene expression

§ Cellular differentiation

§ Enzyme induction and inhibition

In mathematics:

§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics

§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction

§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction

§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction

§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction

§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.

§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.

§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.

In philosophy, logic, and computer science:

§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning

§ Backward induction in game theory and economics

§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations

In physics:

§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object

§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.

§ Electrostatic induction in physics

§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter
(spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks.
It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the
process, what I consider to be spam.

In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain
why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's
books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less
than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of
induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which
also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have
been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got
kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where
such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing
little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which
I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so
incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less.

BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior
way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems
that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of
> induction?
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
>
>
>
> So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably
> experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a
> person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140

IQ.

>
> I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence
> measure for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious
> dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief.
>
> I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their
> intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process
> "taking it as an article of faith" when one of the irrational elements
> of their religion is brought into the spotlight.
>
> So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X
> intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to
> suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to
> believe religious bullshit?
>
> Working from my phone today...
>
> -Doug
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you
> are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a
> problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge
> to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are
> looking like an omni-something being etc.
>
> Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more
> intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote
> for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system?
> Would the jails be empty?
>
> Thanks
> Robert C
>
> On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a
> reference for answering that one.
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of <insert your spiritual
> leader
> here>. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell> found the same core
> message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral
> atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all
> persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political
> or financial power
> - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social
> phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in
> peace, can we knock it?
>
> Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the
> cloth at the CotFSM <http://www.venganza.org/> and following in a
> long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we
> are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About

page). Noodle on.

>
> Thanks,
> Robert C
> PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R
>
> On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as
> indirect bullying.
>
>
>
> I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for
> reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They
> are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in
> anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper
> sticker that reads "A proud member of the religious left".
>
>
>
> Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are
> making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by
> casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also
> makes fun of everyone with religious feelings.
>
>
>
> The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is
> either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people
> I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The
> Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the
> world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it --
> and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about
> certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know:
>
>
>
> If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony.
>
>
>
> "With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc."
>
>
>
> -Father Doug
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
>
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>
>
> <a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
> <a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Edward Angel

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

<base href="x-msg://189/">Did I miss something here? Mathematical Induction is the most important method of proof in Computer Science, both for algorithms and theory.

__________

Ed Angel

Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon

Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home) [hidden email]

505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel

On Mar 24, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

So, NIck: after an hour long mountain bike ride to reflect upon induction, as the practice of inferring generalities from specifics, I'd have to conclude that it was overrated. In my opinion, of course. Aside from giving philosophers something to endlessly discuss, it'd say the practice is just a non-mathematical way of playing the odds.

--Doug
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word induction has many applications and connotations. Here are a few:

In biology and chemistry:
§  Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds
§
§  Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect
§
§  Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme
§
§  Induction (birth), induction of childbirth
§
§  Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center
§
§  Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic
§
§  Morphogenesis
§
§  Regulation of gene expression
§
§  Cellular differentiation
§
§  Enzyme induction and inhibition
§
In mathematics:
§  Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics
§  Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction
§  Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction
§  Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction
§  Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction
§  Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.
§  induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.
§  Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.
In philosophy, logic, and computer science:
§  Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning
§  Backward induction in game theory and economics
§  Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations
In physics:
§  Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering
§  Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object
§  Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.
§  Electrostatic induction in physics
§  Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter
(spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks.
It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the
process, what I consider to be spam.

In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain
why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's
books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less
than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of
induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which
also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have
been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got
kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where
such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing
little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which
I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so
incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less.

BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior
way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems
that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of
> induction?
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
>
>
>
> So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably
> experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a
> person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140
IQ.

>
> I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence
> measure for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious
> dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief.
>
> I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their
> intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process
> "taking it as an article of faith" when one of the irrational elements
> of their religion is brought into the spotlight.
>
> So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X
> intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to
> suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to
> believe religious bullshit?
>
> Working from my phone today...
>
> -Doug
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you
> are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a
> problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge
> to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are
> looking like an omni-something being etc.
>
> Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more
> intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote
> for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system?
> Would the jails be empty?
>
> Thanks
> Robert C
>
> On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a
> reference for answering that one.
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of <insert your spiritual
> leader
> here>. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell> found the same core
> message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral
> atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all
> persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political
> or financial power
> - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social
> phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in
> peace, can we knock it?
>
> Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the
> cloth at the CotFSM <http://www.venganza.org/> and following in a
> long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we
> are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About
page). Noodle on.

>
> Thanks,
> Robert C
> PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R
>
> On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as
> indirect bullying.
>
>
>
> I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for
> reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They
> are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in
> anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper
> sticker that reads "A proud member of the religious left".
>
>
>
> Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are
> making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by
> casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also
> makes fun of everyone with religious feelings.
>
>
>
> The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is
> either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people
> I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The
> Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the
> world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it --
> and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about
> certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know:
>
>
>
> If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony.
>
>
>
> "With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc."
>
>
>
> -Father Doug
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
>
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>
>
> <a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">505-455-7333 - Office
> <a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their stars off ages ago.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:

Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system.

Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived.

But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

So, NIck: after an hour long mountain bike ride to reflect upon induction, as the practice of inferring generalities from specifics, I'd have to conclude that it was overrated. In my opinion, of course. Aside from giving philosophers something to endlessly discuss, it'd say the practice is just a non-mathematical way of playing the odds.

--Doug
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word induction has many applications and connotations. Here are a few:

In biology and chemistry:

§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds

§

§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect

§

§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme

§

§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth

§

§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center

§

§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic

§

§ Morphogenesis

§

§ Regulation of gene expression

§

§ Cellular differentiation

§

§ Enzyme induction and inhibition

§

In mathematics:
§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics

§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction

§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction

§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction

§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction

§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.

§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.

§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.

In philosophy, logic, and computer science:

§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning

§ Backward induction in game theory and economics

§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations

In physics:
§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object

§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.

§ Electrostatic induction in physics

§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter
(spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks.
It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the
process, what I consider to be spam.

In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain
why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's
books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less
than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of
induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which
also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have
been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got
kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where
such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing
little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which
I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so
incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less.

BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior
way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems
that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of
> induction?
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
>
>
>
> So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably
> experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a
> person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140
IQ.
>
> I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence
> measure for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious
> dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief.
>
> I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their
> intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process
> "taking it as an article of faith" when one of the irrational elements
> of their religion is brought into the spotlight.
>
> So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X
> intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to
> suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to
> believe religious bullshit?
>
> Working from my phone today...
>
> -Doug
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you
> are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a
> problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge
> to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are
> looking like an omni-something being etc.
>
> Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more
> intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote
> for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system?
> Would the jails be empty?
>
> Thanks
> Robert C
>
> On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a
> reference for answering that one.
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of <insert your spiritual
> leader
> here>. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell> found the same core
> message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral
> atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all
> persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political
> or financial power
> - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social
> phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in
> peace, can we knock it?
>
> Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the
> cloth at the CotFSM <http://www.venganza.org/> and following in a
> long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we
> are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About
page). Noodle on.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert C
> PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R
>
> On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as
> indirect bullying.
>
>
>
> I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for
> reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They
> are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in
> anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper
> sticker that reads "A proud member of the religious left".
>
>
>
> Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are
> making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by
> casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also
> makes fun of everyone with religious feelings.
>
>
>
> The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is
> either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people
> I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The
> Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the
> world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it --
> and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about
> certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it.
>

>
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know:
>
>
>
> If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony.
>
>
>
> "With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc."

>
>
>
> -Father Doug
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
>
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>
>
> <a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
> <a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
>

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Nick Thompson

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Edward Angel

Doug is correct; mathematical induction is actually a form of cascading deduction.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Edward Angel
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 3:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Did I miss something here? Mathematical Induction is the most important method of proof in Computer Science, both for algorithms and theory.

__________

Ed Angel

Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon

Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home) [hidden email]

505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel

On Mar 24, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

In biology and chemistry:

§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds

§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect

§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme

§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth

§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center

§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic

§ Morphogenesis

§ Regulation of gene expression

§ Cellular differentiation

§ Enzyme induction and inhibition

In mathematics:

§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics

§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction

§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction

§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction

§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction

§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.

§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.

§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.

In philosophy, logic, and computer science:

§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning

§ Backward induction in game theory and economics

§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations

In physics:

§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object

§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.

§ Electrostatic induction in physics

§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

IQ.

page). Noodle on.

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Nick Thompson

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug,

Well, I take it that you don’t regard the “dark matter” proof as very substantial, so I haven’t taken it up. I am hoping to work with some proof that you regard as substantial. I guess I should also wonder what a proof is to you. I gather you have signed on to mathematical “induction”, so you have confidence in deductive proofs. Are there any other kinds of valid proofs?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:

Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system.

Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived.

But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

In biology and chemistry:

§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds

§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect

§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme

§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth

§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center

§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic

§ Morphogenesis

§ Regulation of gene expression

§ Cellular differentiation

§ Enzyme induction and inhibition

In mathematics:

§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics

§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction

§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction

§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction

§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction

§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.

§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.

§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.

In philosophy, logic, and computer science:

§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning

§ Backward induction in game theory and economics

§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations

In physics:

§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object

§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.

§ Electrostatic induction in physics

§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

IQ.

page). Noodle on.

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

lrudolph

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

Nick,

> I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the
server
> throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

FWIW, I also didn't get it then. Do you know Auden's "Domesday
Song"? It begins,

Jumbled in the common box
Of their dumb mortality,
Orchid, swan, and Caesar lie.
Time that tires of everyone
Has corroded all the locks,
Thrown away the key for fun.

Now, back to your (of course very standard) definition:

> Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or
rules from
> specific facts.

I wish to use this discussion to give another brief push to a new
item on my agenda, viz., plugging my new catchphrase "evolutionary
ontology" (which is supposed to be part of a matched pair with the
"evolutionary epistemology" that has been getting a bit of a run
lately, and which was arguably presaged by Konrad Lorenz in that
hard-to-find article on "Kantian A-Priorism in the Light of
Contemporary [i.e., c. 1944] Biology" that I sent you--in the vain
hope of eliciting a response--months and months ago).

One of the traditional problems in justifying "inductive reasoning"
(sometimes explicitly observed to be a problem, sometimes hidden
under the rug) is that (seemingly) to have *any* hope of *validly*
(even in the sense of "it's a good bet") "inferring general
principles or rules from specific facts", the (necessarily, I think,
several) "specific facts" have to be recognized (by the inferring
agent) as "specific facts" that are 'of the same kind' (or 'about
things of the same kind', or 'about events of the same kind', etc.).

But it is very, very hard (which doesn't stop some philosophers and
others from trying) to make serious sense of any notion of 'sameness
of kind' (or 'kind' itself) that is at all independent of an
observing/inferring agent. The simple-minded solution (which I am
entitled to propose because I am *not* a philosopher, or even trying
to do philosophy) is to embrace the observing/inferring agent and
declare that 'kinds' (and 'sameness' or difference thereof) are
properties, not of 'things' or 'events', but of a *system* that
comprises 'things'/'events'/'environments' together with an
observing/inferring agent.

The "evolutionary ontology" slogan now comes in as a catchy way to
summarize a hypothesis (which seems eminently reasonable to me)
that, in an uncatchy and confused way, should run something like "an
organism recognizes [or tends to recognize] *as* 'things'/'events'
that which it has evolved to so recognize; it recognizes *as*
'things'/'events' 'of the same kind' those collections of
'things'/'events' which it has evolved to so recognize; etc." In
the William James version of pragmatism, this is a sort of converse
to the notion that "a difference that makes no difference is no
difference"--that is, it says "differences are differences because
they make differences". Theories of "reasoning by induction" then
begin to look like, at worst, _post hoc_ rationalizations of the
favorable outcomes of evolved behaviors, and, at best, as attempts
to emulate (and if possible improve the ratio of favorable to
unfavorable outcomes) such behavior in a (more or less) formal, or
formalizable, way (that might possibly be performed by an artificial
agent or algorithm).

Coming back to Auden, "orchid, swan, and Caesar lie" "jumbled in the
common box of their dumb stupidity" only because Auden (disguising
himself, as he often did at that period in his poetic career, as
Time) has put them their: they are not (absent his agency) members
of a 'natural kind'; no one would apply "inductive reasoning" to
them (until Auden has provided the prompt).

Lee Rudolph

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

glen ep ropella

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Russell Standish

Russell Standish wrote circa 12-03-23 10:21 PM:
> In order to persuade me that induction is invalid,

Here's a great example of how a belief in induction allows us to think
in sloppy ways:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/25/attorney-zimmerman-used-term-of-endearment-before-killing-trayvon-martin/

As usual, the question of the validity of induction is ill-formed
because it assumes the law of the excluded middle. Sentences are either
valid or invalid and not allowed to be semi-valid or valid-in-context
but invalid-out-of-context. The fact is that sometimes induction is
valid and sometimes it's not, depending on what the sentence says and
the context in which it's said.

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

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick, you misunderstood me:

So-called "dark matter" is a very important example, in that until a deeper understanding of cosmological physics is developed, induction can provide little insight into the the referenced phenomenon.

Please take up "dark matter" in your discourse on "induction".

If, however, for some reason you find the topic of "dark matter" an unsatisfactory vehicle for this discussion, I have another waiting in the wings.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

Well, I take it that you don’t regard the “dark matter” proof as very substantial, so I haven’t taken it up. I am hoping to work with some proof that you regard as substantial. I guess I should also wonder what a proof is to you. I gather you have signed on to mathematical “induction”, so you have confidence in deductive proofs. Are there any other kinds of valid proofs?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 4:09 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their stars off ages ago.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:

Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system.

Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived.

But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics.

--Doug

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

So, NIck: after an hour long mountain bike ride to reflect upon induction, as the practice of inferring generalities from specifics, I'd have to conclude that it was overrated. In my opinion, of course. Aside from giving philosophers something to endlessly discuss, it'd say the practice is just a non-mathematical way of playing the odds.

--Doug
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug,

I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun.

From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Of course. Sorry.

Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word induction has many applications and connotations. Here are a few:

In biology and chemistry:

§ Inductive effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds

§

§ Induction period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect

§

§ Regulation of gene expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme

§

§ Induction (birth), induction of childbirth

§

§ Asymmetric induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center

§

§ Inductive reasoning aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic

§

§ Morphogenesis

§

§ Regulation of gene expression

§

§ Cellular differentiation

§

§ Enzyme induction and inhibition

§

In mathematics:
§ Mathematical induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics

§ Strong induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction

§ Transfinite induction, a kind of mathematical induction

§ Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction

§ Structural induction, a generalization of mathematical induction

§ Statistical induction, also known as statistical inference.

§ induced representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects.

§ Parabolic induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive group from representations of its parabolic subgroups.

In philosophy, logic, and computer science:

§ Inductive reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning

§ Backward induction in game theory and economics

§ Concept learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations

In physics:
§ Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

§ Induction heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object

§ Induction cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking.

§ Electrostatic induction in physics

§ Forced induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake

So, you could perhaps pick which application of induction you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it.

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's
not the point.

I wanted to hear Doug;s

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter
(spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks.
It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the
process, what I consider to be spam.

In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain
why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's
books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less
than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of
induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which
also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have
been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got
kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where
such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing
little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which
I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so
incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less.

BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior
way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems
that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of
> induction?
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
>
>
>
> So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably
> experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a
> person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140
IQ.
>
> I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence
> measure for the purpose of this discussion.
>
> I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious
> dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief.
>
> I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their
> intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process
> "taking it as an article of faith" when one of the irrational elements
> of their religion is brought into the spotlight.
>
> So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X
> intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to
> suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to
> believe religious bullshit?
>
> Working from my phone today...
>
> -Doug
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you
> are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a
> problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge
> to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are
> looking like an omni-something being etc.
>
> Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more
> intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote
> for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system?
> Would the jails be empty?
>
> Thanks
> Robert C
>
> On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a
> reference for answering that one.
>
> Sent from Android.
>
> On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley"
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of <insert your spiritual
> leader
> here>. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell> found the same core
> message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral
> atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all
> persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political
> or financial power
> - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social
> phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in
> peace, can we knock it?
>
> Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the
> cloth at the CotFSM <http://www.venganza.org/> and following in a
> long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we
> are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About
page). Noodle on.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert C
> PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R
>
> On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as
> indirect bullying.
>
>
>
> I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for
> reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They
> are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in
> anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper
> sticker that reads "A proud member of the religious left".
>
>
>
> Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are
> making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by
> casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also
> makes fun of everyone with religious feelings.
>
>
>
> The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is
> either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people
> I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The
> Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the
> world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it --
> and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about
> certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it.
>

>
>
> Sorry for the rant.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know:
>
>
>
> If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony.
>
>
>
> "With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc."
>
>
>
> -Father Doug
>
>
>
>

Robert Holmes

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

This reminds me of a comment in the "Physics vs. Chemistry" episode of the BBC's "Infinite Monkey Cage":

"Chemistry is better than physics, because if something doesn't work you can't pretend that it does by sticking the word 'dark' in front of it."

—R

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick, you misunderstood me:

So-called "dark matter" is a very important example, in that until a deeper understanding of cosmological physics is developed, induction can provide little insight into the the referenced phenomenon.

Please take up "dark matter" in your discourse on "induction".

If, however, for some reason you find the topic of "dark matter" an unsatisfactory vehicle for this discussion, I have another waiting in the wings.

--Doug

glen ep ropella

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be
inductive. The inductive form is:

o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed
o everything is in this set
o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts
.: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy.

A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid:

o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data
o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far
.: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws.

No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of
matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've,
so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's
complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it.
So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's
not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined)
would think the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't
know of any physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be
modified.

I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the
reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory.

Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM:

> There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its
> way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the
> inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has
> recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable,
> observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their stars
> off ages ago.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:
>
> Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely
> on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding
> of a system.
>
> Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from
> having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable
> universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological
> time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the
> existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational
> repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise
> inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be
> to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of
> our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be
> derived.
>
> But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological
> "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics.
>
> --Doug

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.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

Eric Charles

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by Russell Standish

Glen,
There is good reason to exclude the middle though. I am uncomfortable with the non-right-or-wrong options you have given. To me, it seems that an argument can only be correct if it specifies the circumstances under which it is correct (when the intended circumstances are "always", we often don't explicitly specify, but that doesn't mean the circumstances are not part of the claim). For example, even the most esoteric conclusions in Euclidean geometry are understood to be correct in a world in which Euclid's 5 axioms hold; many current Republicans argue that individual mandates are a good idea, but only when the alternative is Hillary-care, a disparaging comment about a woman only evidences discrimination in a context that lacks an (roughly) equal number of disparaging comments about men, etc.

Thus, rather than calling something "valid-in-context", why not include the context in the thing, and then just call it "valid"? It seems to me that you are merely arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the many ways in which something can be invalid. I would agree with that.

Eric

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 10:52 AM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russell Standish wrote circa 12-03-23 10:21 PM:
> In order to persuade me that induction is invalid,

Here's a great example of how a belief in induction allows us to think
in sloppy ways:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/25/attorney-zimmerman-used-term-of-endearment-before-killing-trayvon-martin/

As usual, the question of the validity of induction is ill-formed
because it assumes the law of the excluded middle.  Sentences are either
valid or invalid and not allowed to be semi-valid or valid-in-context
but invalid-out-of-context.  The fact is that sometimes induction is
valid and sometimes it's not, depending on what the sentence says and
the context in which it's said.

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

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

glen ep ropella

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 03/26/2012 11:01 AM:
> Thus, rather than calling something "valid-in-context", why not include
> the context in the thing, and then just call it "valid"?

Because that's difficult to do, as Dale's ongoing documentation of his
actors indicates. Nick and Doug are both being flippant because a
mailing list is not a conducive forum to rigorous conversation. They
seemingly enjoy their lack of empathy toward the other, at least here
... probably not face-to-face. So, the likelihood either will assume
the other has completely thought through the context in which they made
their assertions is low.

I.e. neither Doug nor Nick will assume the context is (adequately)
included. (Indeed none of us are likely to assume that. That's one of
the problems with e-mail and other online fora.)

> It seems to me
> that you are merely arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the many
> ways in which something can be invalid. I would agree with that.

Yes, then we agree. But further, you can't get that nuance without
either lots of text or densely packed terminology.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.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

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

.... or by working with examples so staightfoward and free of technical
detail that the context is obvious to all participants without a whole lot
of explication .... .

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 03/26/2012 11:01 AM:
> Thus, rather than calling something "valid-in-context", why not
> include the context in the thing, and then just call it "valid"?

Because that's difficult to do, as Dale's ongoing documentation of his
actors indicates. Nick and Doug are both being flippant because a mailing
list is not a conducive forum to rigorous conversation. They seemingly
enjoy their lack of empathy toward the other, at least here ... probably not
face-to-face. So, the likelihood either will assume the other has
completely thought through the context in which they made their assertions
is low.

I.e. neither Doug nor Nick will assume the context is (adequately) included.
(Indeed none of us are likely to assume that. That's one of the problems
with e-mail and other online fora.)

> It seems to me
> that you are merely arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the
> many ways in which something can be invalid. I would agree with that.

Yes, then we agree. But further, you can't get that nuance without either
lots of text or densely packed terminology.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.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

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

lrudolph

a tangent from "Re: Just as a bye-the-way"

Glen wrote:

> Nick and Doug are both being flippant because a mailing
> list is not a conducive forum to rigorous conversation. They seemingly
> enjoy their lack of empathy toward the other, at least here ... probably not
> face-to-face. So, the likelihood either will assume the other has completely
> thought through the context in which they made their assertions is low.
>
> I.e. neither Doug nor Nick will assume the context is (adequately) included.
> (Indeed none of us are likely to assume that. That's one of the problems with
> e-mail and other online fora.)

My experience with "mailing list"s, "e-mail and other online fora"
has not been as uniformly bad as yours appears to have been.
Specifically, I have participated (and continue to participate) in
several of each that *have been* (and are) "conducive...to rigorous
conversation". In the face of those good experiences, I am always
puzzled by people (you are not necessarily one; see below) who
generalize from their (presumably) bad experiences to the conclusion
that "e-mail and other online fora" are irremediably flawed, and who
further (I definitely don't think you're one of these) use that
conclusion as a basis for actively undercutting those such fora that
they are involved with. (Nick and I have been through just that
experience on one forum, at that time local to us, which was
eventually destroyed by one very malignant person in a position of
power. [Nick might disagree with my version of events.])

I said that you're not *necessarily* concluding that the FRIAM forum
(in particular) is *irremediably* flawed (you do, after all, continue
to participate non-trivially). But you might think it is, so I ask
you, do you? If not, how might it be remediated (practically or
impractically)?

One reason, by the way, that I think "mailing lists", "e-mail", and
newsgroups (e.g., Usenet--but not Google Groups, god forbid) actually
are *more* "conducive...to rigorous conversation" than many "face-to-
face" fora is their asynchronicity. ("Chat", by contrast, has all
the disadvantages of "face-to-face"ness without any of its
advantages, for me. There's nothing about the "online"ness that
makes them work--for me; an exchange of paper letters, if it could be
done at the speed that used to be normal in London, with two
deliveries a day, would be just as good. And phone calls are teh
sux0r.)

Lee Rudolph

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

glen ep ropella

Re: a tangent from "Re: Just as a bye-the-way"

[hidden email] wrote at 03/26/2012 02:08 PM:
> I said that you're not *necessarily* concluding that the FRIAM forum
> (in particular) is *irremediably* flawed (you do, after all, continue
> to participate non-trivially). But you might think it is, so I ask
> you, do you? If not, how might it be remediated (practically or
> impractically)?

I definitely do NOT think abstracted media like e-mail lists and web
forums are irredeemably flawed. (FWIW, I don't know why you said
"irremediably" ... I'm still working on that.) To try to one-up your
meta 8^), I'll further assert that I receive benefits beyond my
contribution from most fora in which I participate ... and even some
where I just lurk. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is
whether such fora can assist with "valid-in-context" sentences.

My claim is that abstracted media (including but not limited to journal
articles and e-mail) are valuable precisely _because_ they prevent the
sender from creating a closure. It's literally easy to have a happy go
lucky, in-context conversation face-to-face. Any moron can do that. ;-)
What's difficult is to have an in-context conversation under harsh
conditions. These abstracted media _force_ us to read with empathy ...
run little simulations in our heads imagining what the other party could
possibly mean by their ridiculous assertions. That's what, in my
opinion, remedies both journals and e-mail lists.

Personally, I am usually frustrated with the face-to-face conversations
I have. Everyone comes away from those claiming that I'm so precise in
my language and, seemingly, have thought about whatever the arbitrary
topic is beforehand. In reality, I just say whatever comes to my head
and am astonished if/when it comes out coherent at all. I chalk it up
to having a yankee dad and a cajun mom ... they canceled each other out
nicely to create the mediocrity that defines me.

The "remedy" for this coercion can only be for each participant to
remember that a complex adaptive system lies at the other end of the
wire. What you get out may be woefully tiny compared to what you put in
_or_ what you get out might show a fantastic ROI. Those of us used to
thinking linearly (e.g. my motorcycle will perform in proportion to the
effort I spend maintaining it) will likely be disappointed until they
abandon that linearity and embrace it as a complex system.

> One reason, by the way, that I think "mailing lists", "e-mail", and
> newsgroups (e.g., Usenet--but not Google Groups, god forbid) actually
> are *more* "conducive...to rigorous conversation" than many "face-to-
> face" fora is their asynchronicity. ("Chat", by contrast, has all
> the disadvantages of "face-to-face"ness without any of its
> advantages, for me. There's nothing about the "online"ness that
> makes them work--for me; an exchange of paper letters, if it could be
> done at the speed that used to be normal in London, with two
> deliveries a day, would be just as good. And phone calls are teh
> sux0r.)

I agree with you. But I think the value lies in their inability to
create a cognitive closure ... to carry adequate context for validity or
invalidity to be obvious in any sense. Asynchronicity is part of this
context-breaking, but not all of it. There's also lack of tone, lack of
body language, etc. That lack of context is what stimulates our
imaginations. Small people tend to insult others when their
imaginations fail them lacking context. Large people tend to give
others the benefit of the doubt because their imaginations fill in the
blanks ... part of the "Dunning-Kruger effect", I suspect.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.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

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Dear Doug,

I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think

The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction.

The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his The New Riddle of Induction. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?”

Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “

“Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t HAVE properties like that.

“Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, but only up till now!”

In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is:

o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts

.: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy.

A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid:

o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far

.: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws.

No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it.

So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of any physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified.

I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory.

Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM:

> There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its

> way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the

> inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has

> recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable,

> observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their

> stars off ages ago.

> --Doug

> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]

> <[hidden email]>> wrote:

> I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:

> Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely

> on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding

> of a system.

> Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from

> having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable

> universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological

> time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the

> existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational

> repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise

> inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be

> to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of

> our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be

> derived.

> But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological

> "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics.

> --Doug

glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view.

Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll probably believe it.

If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I sent you earlier).

As to religion: for me it's a big "No thank you" to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon "hieroglyph"-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a miracle to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there.

In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector.

--Doug

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Doug,

I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think

.
The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction.

The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his The New Riddle of Induction. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?”

Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “

“Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t HAVE properties like that.

“Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, but only up till now!”

In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is:

o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts

.: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy.

A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid:

o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far
.: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws.

No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it.

So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of any physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified.

I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory.

Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM:
> There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its
> way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the

> inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has
> recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable,
> observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their

> stars off ages ago.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]

> <[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:

>
>     Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely
>     on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding
>     of a system.

>
>     Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from
>     having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable
>     universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological
>     time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the
>     existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational

>     repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise
>     inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be
>     to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of

>     our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be
>     derived.
>
>     But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological

>     "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics.
>
>     --Doug

--

glen e. p. ropella, <a href="tel:971-222-9095" value="+19712229095" target="_blank">971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.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

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

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Nick Thompson

Re: Just as a bye-the-way

Doug wrote

In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector

Well, why not. it’s always worked in the past …. .

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way

Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view.

As to religion: for me it's a big "No thank you" to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon "hieroglyph"-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a miracle to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there.