Friam

Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence)

Classic

List

Threaded

115 messages Options

123456

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

Well, now I can't resist.

Eric, you said,

When people on this list talk about ... etc., don't most of them think they are talking about something real?

Since you used the word would you mind clarifying what distinction you are making between what is "real" and what people only believe is "real." Or are you saying that the word "real" doesn't mean anything at all -- in which case why are you using it?

By the way, you may be interested in this discussion of "scientific realism." Here's how it begins.

Scientific realists hold that the characteristic product of successful scientific research is knowledge of largely theory-independent phenomena and that such knowledge is possible (indeed actual) even in those cases in which the relevant phenomena are not, in any non-question-begging sense, observable. According to scientific realists, for example, if you obtain a good contemporary chemistry textbook you will have good reason to believe (because the scientists whose work the book reports had good scientific evidence for) the (approximate) truth of the claims it contains about the existence and properties of atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, energy levels, reaction mechanisms, etc. Moreover, you have good reason to think that such phenomena have the properties attributed to them in the textbook independently of our theoretical conceptions in chemistry. Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value."

And here's how it ends.

Scientific realism is, by the lights of most of its defenders, the sciences' own philosophy of science. Considerations of the significant philosophical challenges which it faces indicate that it can be effectively defended only by the adoption of a metaphilosophical approach which is also closely tied to the science, viz., some version or other of philosophical naturalism.

Here's a brief description of philosophical naturalism.

In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."^[1] All things and powers commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, God, souls and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent. This position is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism, or sometimes as ontological naturalism.

What is your position on these issues?

-- RussA

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

Miles: "I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing
that we can drill into that has ultimate reality."

Marcks: "But there
are a lot of things that can be controlled very effectively and with
predictable failure rates."

Miles: "Good [we agree]... [but] I'm not
sure how many people -- including "scientists" who should know better -- still
believe in such."
--

It's funny, I have the general notion that "scientists" shouldn't know better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I think it is much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff they do, and they do it better, if they think they are REALLY doing it. Albeit, it may be fun to predict where a cannon ball is going to land, or what the orbit of the planets will be, but if people didn't think they were finding out something "real" about "gravity" I doubt the activity would have been as engaging.

For an example in a science that seems less useful to me: It always amazes me that social and personality psychologists can go around thinking that the things they study are "real"... extroversion, emotional intelligence, in-group preference, etc.... Yet, I also have the feeling that if they for one moment thought as I did, that they were (at best) just playing a strange prediction game, the whole enterprise would suddenly grind to a halt. Ah, the time and money that would be saved.

Of course, the social and personality psychologists would likely say the same thing about my work, reinforcing my point: I to go about my work just fine, at least in part, because (barring the occasional metaphysical spaz) I go about my day to day business with the firm belief that I am REALLY studying things.

When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability, threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think they are talking about something real?

Eric

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

Miles Parker

Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence)

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly

Hi Frank!

On Sep 16, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> Isn't that the postmodernist position?

It does happen to coincide -- which is why I suggested that litcrit
would be a good thing to teach to future scientists-- I'm not claiming
it's original. :) In fact, the basic point of view is much older,
richer and non-nihilistic than that. See Nagarjuna, et. al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-truths_doctrine

For the book, I was thinking of discussing more or less informally why
they can be show to be "not existent, not non-existent..." and then
why they still matter / are useful, if used with an appreciation for
their inherent empty qualities. I'm not sure if it's a silly idea or
not. I'd appreciate any feedback either here or privately.

>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On Behalf
> Of Miles Parker
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:04 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence
> Seminar--BritishEmergence)
>
>
> I would put it more strongly and say that it is "entirely not subject
> neutral". I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that
> we can drill into that has ultimate reality. I'm not being cute, or
> deep, or nihilistic, ;) but I really don't think that this is simply a
> matter of reducing to the absurd either. Or if it is, then we are
> showing that the very act of reduction is itself absurd. Once we begin
> with that kind of understanding of the profound limitations of
> conceptual knowledge then we can begin to do real science.
>
> (I am thinking quite seriously about writing a book that catalogs
> material and concepts simply as an exercise in loosing our affection
> for seeing things as "really real".)
>
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:41 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09/16/2009 06:49 AM:
>>> Miles Parker wrote:
>>>> What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent?
>>>> Context?
>>>>
>>> Scientific writing aims to facilitate the reader in understanding
>>> how to
>>> reproduce a result. It must be subject neutral.
>>
>> I.e. it's not entirely subject neutral.
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Miles Parker

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

It's funny, I have the general notion that "scientists" shouldn't know better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I think it is much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff they do, and they do it better, if they think they are REALLY doing it. Albeit, it may be fun to predict where a cannon ball is going to land, or what the orbit of the planets will be, but if people didn't think they were finding out something "real" about "gravity" I doubt the activity would have been as engaging.

I think that's a really neat way to think about it. I'm sure that it is helpful to a lot of people, and in fact as the reference I sent makes clear, it would actually be impossible to accomplish anything without some ability to conceptualize things as if they were real, or certainly to communicate them. On the other hand, the belief that such things are real has lead to all sorts of mischief -- including scientific materialism itself, but also see say classical economics.

When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability, threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think they are talking about something real?

Put me into the "No" category.

Except that I will say that emergence and complexity might be the closest thing to something that is "real", i.e. pervasive and permanent. But I better leave it at that.

glen e. p. ropella-2

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 09-09-16 01:35 PM:
> When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic
> organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability,
> threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think they
> are talking about something real?

I'm sure we do think it's real AT THE TIME... in the context... during
execution of the use case. What's that famous quote by Steven Hawking?
... something like: "I have noticed even people who claim everything is
predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they
cross the road."

There's another quote by someone... perhaps Fitzgerald? ... perhaps
previously quoted by Nick? "The test of a first rate intelligence is
the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and
still retain the ability to function."

I would suggest this is just an inevitable outcome of a relatively
accurate model of the world (if my previous assertion is true that
multiple models are required to model a complex system). Often, those
models will be contradictory ... more precisely, the _mechanisms_ that
implement the behavior of those models will be contradictory. But the
phenomena need not be contradictory. You just have to be smart enough
to know when to switch from using one model to using another.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Miles Parker

So Miles,

Since you and Eric seem to be in basic agreement, I'd be interested in your answer to the questions I posed for Eric.

-- Russ

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Miles Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

It's funny, I have the general notion that "scientists" shouldn't know better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I think it is much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff they do, and they do it better, if they think they are REALLY doing it. Albeit, it may be fun to predict where a cannon ball is going to land, or what the orbit of the planets will be, but if people didn't think they were finding out something "real" about "gravity" I doubt the activity would have been as engaging.

I think that's a really neat way to think about it. I'm sure that it is helpful to a lot of people, and in fact as the reference I sent makes clear, it would actually be impossible to accomplish anything without some ability to conceptualize things as if they were real, or certainly to communicate them. On the other hand, the belief that such things are real has lead to all sorts of mischief -- including scientific materialism itself, but also see say classical economics.

When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability, threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think they are talking about something real?

Put me into the "No" category.

Except that I will say that emergence and complexity might be the closest thing to something that is "real", i.e. pervasive and permanent. But I better leave it at that.

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

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2

I guess you too Glenn.

It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the notion of "real." What do you intend to substitute for it?

-- Russ

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 09-09-16 01:35 PM:

> When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic
> organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability,
> threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think they
> are talking about something real?

I'm sure we do think it's real AT THE TIME... in the context... during
execution of the use case. What's that famous quote by Steven Hawking?
... something like: "I have noticed even people who claim everything is
predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they
cross the road."

There's another quote by someone... perhaps Fitzgerald? ... perhaps
previously quoted by Nick? "The test of a first rate intelligence is
the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and
still retain the ability to function."

I would suggest this is just an inevitable outcome of a relatively
accurate model of the world (if my previous assertion is true that
multiple models are required to model a complex system). Often, those
models will be contradictory ... more precisely, the _mechanisms_ that
implement the behavior of those models will be contradictory. But the
phenomena need not be contradictory. You just have to be smart enough
to know when to switch from using one model to using another.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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

Miles Parker

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

It's funny, I have the general notion that "scientists" shouldn't know better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I think it is much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff they do, and they do it better, if they think they are REALLY doing it. Albeit, it may be fun to predict where a cannon ball is going to land, or what the orbit of the planets will be, but if people didn't think they were finding out something "real" about "gravity" I doubt the activity would have been as engaging.

I think that's a really neat way to think about it. I'm sure that it is helpful to a lot of people, and in fact as the reference I sent makes clear, it would actually be impossible to accomplish anything without some ability to conceptualize things as if they were real, or certainly to communicate them. On the other hand, the belief that such things are real has lead to all sorts of mischief -- including scientific materialism itself, but also see say classical economics.

Oh, and predicting "where a cannonball is going to land". Somehow I wish that scientists were a little less adept at that sort of thing, and in fact we might even become deliberately poor at such tasks if we gain an appreciation of the broader context of complex interaction, i.e. including flesh and bone. Or better, we might see it as part of our responsibility to impress upon others the potential impact. Scientist do this of course, i.e. Union of Concerned Scientists but it would be nice if that were the rule rather than the exception.

As a more "real world" example, take the development of a new antibiotic or vaccine. If I am driven purely by a local imperative to cure a particular disease, or increase hog yields, and see that problem as "real", while the much more complex problem of pathogenic adaptation is "not real" -- because I don't know how to conceptualize it properly! -- that's a problem for everyone else.

Miles Parker

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

LOL. What was the question? :D

On Sep 16, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

So Miles,

Since you and Eric seem to be in basic agreement, I'd be interested in your answer to the questions I posed for Eric.

-- Russ

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Miles Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

It's funny, I have the general notion that "scientists" shouldn't know better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I think it is much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff they do, and they do it better, if they think they are REALLY doing it. Albeit, it may be fun to predict where a cannon ball is going to land, or what the orbit of the planets will be, but if people didn't think they were finding out something "real" about "gravity" I doubt the activity would have been as engaging.

I think that's a really neat way to think about it. I'm sure that it is helpful to a lot of people, and in fact as the reference I sent makes clear, it would actually be impossible to accomplish anything without some ability to conceptualize things as if they were real, or certainly to communicate them. On the other hand, the belief that such things are real has lead to all sorts of mischief -- including scientific materialism itself, but also see say classical economics.

When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability, threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think they are talking about something real?

Put me into the "No" category.

Except that I will say that emergence and complexity might be the closest thing to something that is "real", i.e. pervasive and permanent. But I better leave it at that.

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

glen e. p. ropella-2

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-16 03:29 PM:
> I guess you too Glen.

Just a note about these sorts of forums... you don't need to call out
each person. If you post a question to the list, you're implicitly
(perhaps unintentionally) inviting answers from everyone on the list.

> It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the
> notion of "real." What do you intend to substitute for it?

I don't substitute anything for "real". I am a soft agnostic. Reality
may be knowable; but I don't know it. All I can do is _approach_ it via
parallax. In that sense, it's a bit like a horizon. It doesn't really
have to exist in order to be useful. Hence, all statements of existence
are speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, or thesis.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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

Russell Standish

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I guess you too Glenn.
>
> It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the notion
> of "real." What do you intend to substitute for it?
>
> -- Russ
>
>

I too, am in the camp that cannot fathom what "real" could possibly
mean. For me, science is about studying phenomenological consistency -
we cannot live in any old world, we cannot, for instance, live in a
world incompatible with our presence in that world, ie the Anthropic
Principle.

But just because phenomenology is consistent, does not make it
real. There is no ontological commitment here. In fact, I tend to
believe that other phenomenologically consistent worlds that are
inconsistent with our own also exist "out there" in the same sense as
our own. The total sum of which adds up to nothing (in a resultant
sense), which requires little, if any ontological commitment.

I have no problem studying our own patch of phenomenology. It means
something to us, even if the in global scheme of things (if there
could be such a viewpoint), it is fundamentally absurd.

And if Glen can make a plug, then I can too. The above is discussed in
considerable more detail in my book "Theory of Nothing", which of
course is already known to the list.

Cheers
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia 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

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive it, conceptualize it, or know about it. I can't even imagine what it would mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.

-- RussA

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I guess you too Glenn.
>
> It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the notion
> of "real." What do you intend to substitute for it?
>
> -- Russ
>
>

I too, am in the camp that cannot fathom what "real" could possibly
mean. For me, science is about studying phenomenological consistency -
we cannot live in any old world, we cannot, for instance, live in a
world incompatible with our presence in that world, ie the Anthropic
Principle.

But just because phenomenology is consistent, does not make it
real. There is no ontological commitment here. In fact, I tend to
believe that other phenomenologically consistent worlds that are
inconsistent with our own also exist "out there" in the same sense as
our own. The total sum of which adds up to nothing (in a resultant
sense), which requires little, if any ontological commitment.

I have no problem studying our own patch of phenomenology. It means
something to us, even if the in global scheme of things (if there
could be such a viewpoint), it is fundamentally absurd.

And if Glen can make a plug, then I can too. The above is discussed in
considerable more detail in my book "Theory of Nothing", which of
course is already known to the list.

Cheers
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

Have you ever hit your thumb with a hammer? I don't mean just taking a little girlie swipe at it, I mean NAILING the sucker.

That's real, man.

Even little brains can wrap themselves around the reality of "This *really* hurts."

Ok, back to deep discussions of phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. Really. I'm heading out the door to another dimensional reality; one that involves beer, saxophones, and blues.

--Doug

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive it, conceptualize it, or know about it. I can't even imagine what it would mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.

-- RussA

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I guess you too Glenn.
>
> It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the notion
> of "real." What do you intend to substitute for it?
>
> -- Russ
>
>

I too, am in the camp that cannot fathom what "real" could possibly
mean. For me, science is about studying phenomenological consistency -
we cannot live in any old world, we cannot, for instance, live in a
world incompatible with our presence in that world, ie the Anthropic
Principle.

But just because phenomenology is consistent, does not make it
real. There is no ontological commitment here. In fact, I tend to
believe that other phenomenologically consistent worlds that are
inconsistent with our own also exist "out there" in the same sense as
our own. The total sum of which adds up to nothing (in a resultant
sense), which requires little, if any ontological commitment.

I have no problem studying our own patch of phenomenology. It means
something to us, even if the in global scheme of things (if there
could be such a viewpoint), it is fundamentally absurd.

And if Glen can make a plug, then I can too. The above is discussed in
considerable more detail in my book "Theory of Nothing", which of
course is already known to the list.

Cheers
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miles Parker

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive it, conceptualize it, or know about it. I can't even imagine what it would mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.

I think I notice a subtle but key shift in how you've put this question. The real issue is as Russell put's it -- "can one fathom what real could possibly mean"? I can't see how.

It's easy to confuse "imagine" with "conceptualize". More subtly, our conceptualizations always inform and constrain our imagination. And imagination is by definition a projection. So if we want to understand how there could both be a reality, not be a reality, etc.. we can only experience it and there isn't a particular formula for that.

On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:01 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

I don't substitute anything for "real". I am a soft agnostic. Reality
may be knowable; but I don't know it.

This may be obvious, but I would take a harder line. I think it is possible to demonstrate the reality is not knowable in the sense that I think we mean.

glen e. p. ropella-2

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-16 04:32 PM:
> Both RussS and GlennR

I can't take it anymore! ;-) ... only a single "n". I posit that you
miss that sort of thing because you have two S's and two T's at the ends
of your names.

> responded to my question about the disparagement of
> "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology.

I didn't respond that way. I told you that I don't _know_ and don't
care whether there's a "reality" out there or not. I also don't know or
care whether reality is knowable or not. That statement is pragmatic,
not phenomenological, ontological, or epistemological. Of course, I'm
not a scientist.

> I can't even imagine what it would
> mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.

That's simple. To answer that question at all is a spiritual or
religious belief. And I'm pretty sure you can imagine having a
spiritual belief, right?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
> Yet, I also have the feeling that if they for one moment thought as I
> did, that they were (at best) just playing a strange prediction game,
> the whole enterprise would suddenly grind to a halt. Ah, the time and
> money that would be saved.
>
If it were easy to make reliable predictions from limited data using
nothing but machine learning algorithms, and for many kinds of problems,
I'd agree with that. But finding the right signals and models can be
hard. Simply removing a personal psychological stake in the
ontological status of the semantics doesn't necessarily make it any
easier or harder. For example, one might not bother think about why a
model works and fail to gain further important insights. On the other
hand, investing in understanding lots of details of a model that doesn't
work is also bad; a modeler should be prepared to avoid further similar
work.

Marcus

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

Russell Standish

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of
> "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I
> wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't
> believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive
> it, conceptualize it, or know about it. I can't even imagine what it would
> mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.
>
> -- RussA

It means much the same thing as to answer the question "Is there a god?" in
the negative. If asked that question in a thinking environment, I
might respond "Probably not your God".

The point is that the term reality is hopelessly confused, with many
people meaning completely different things by it.

Take Doug's thumb. Doug's hammered thumb is purely phenomenological.
The thumb is a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons, the
former two are collections of quarks. The thumbs properties do not
depend much on the properties of the elementary particles, but rather
on the electromagnetic forces keeping them together. The thumb is
actually 99.9...% hard vacuum! The seeming solidity of it is due to
electromagnetism.

What hurts then? Is it the thumb? Is it the neuron that was stimulated
by the thumb? Is it the brain that has processed those signals. The
consciousness that emerges from the activity of the brain. What is
really going on here?

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia 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

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

"What's really going on" is a good question. It presumes that something is going on, which is my point.

I raised the issue to begin with because of what seemed to me to be a disparagement of the notion of reality.

I find it hard to believe that GlenR (one "n". Sorry) doesn't "care whether there's a 'reality' out there or not." But even that statement implies there is an "in here and an out there" which again is my point, namely there is.

Actually I find it hard to put into words the assertion that reality is. I feel driven to Buddhist-like phrases such as "is-ness." But I don't want to go there either because I don't see being aware of reality at all a religious or spiritual thing. It's just reality.

And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand the connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God, if there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is. And I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who are sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from any sort of empirical investigation or verification.

-- RussA

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:12 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of
> "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I
> wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't
> believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive
> it, conceptualize it, or know about it. I can't even imagine what it would
> mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.
>
> -- RussA

It means much the same thing as to answer the question "Is there a god?" in
the negative. If asked that question in a thinking environment, I
might respond "Probably not your God".

The point is that the term reality is hopelessly confused, with many
people meaning completely different things by it.

Take Doug's thumb. Doug's hammered thumb is purely phenomenological.
The thumb is a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons, the
former two are collections of quarks. The thumbs properties do not
depend much on the properties of the elementary particles, but rather
on the electromagnetic forces keeping them together. The thumb is
actually 99.9...% hard vacuum! The seeming solidity of it is due to
electromagnetism.

What hurts then? Is it the thumb? Is it the neuron that was stimulated
by the thumb? Is it the brain that has processed those signals. The
consciousness that emerges from the activity of the brain. What is
really going on here?

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell Standish

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:

>
> And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand the
> connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God, if
> there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is. And
> I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who are
> sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from any sort of
> empirical investigation or verification.
>
> -- RussA
>

The only connection is analogical. There's probably almost as many
conceptions of god as there are people on the planet. Similarly, there
seems to be about as many conceptions of reality. Consequently, both
terms are really superfluous to doing science.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia 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

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

Just because someone uses a word nonsensically, does that make the word nonsense?

I still don't get it. Why are so many people so anxious to dismiss the word reality -- and with it the corresponding notion?

-- Russ_A

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand the
> connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God, if
> there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is. And
> I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who are
> sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from any sort of
> empirical investigation or verification.
>
> -- RussA
>

The only connection is analogical. There's probably almost as many
conceptions of god as there are people on the planet. Similarly, there
seems to be about as many conceptions of reality. Consequently, both
terms are really superfluous to doing science.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell Standish

Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

You tell me. Just what is the notion? Reality could mean:

1) What kicks back. Johnson's stone, or Doug's hammered thumb
2) Elementary particles
3) Force Fields
4) A universal dovetailer (Schmidhuber's Great Programmer)
5) Platonia of mathematical forms
6) Kant's noumenon
7) Standish's Nothing (aka Library of Babel)
8) Real in the sense I am real (RITSIAR)
...

and that's just what I pulled out of my head in a brief moment. The
... indicates that there are many, many, more subtle variants. Most of
these versions of reality are incompatible with each other.

The truth is that the word reality has been debased so much it is
virtually meaningless, unless very carefully qualified.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:55:10PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:

> Just because someone uses a word nonsensically, does that make the word
> nonsense?
>
> I still don't get it. Why are so many people so anxious to dismiss the word
> *reality *-- and with it the corresponding notion?
>
> -- Russ_A
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand
> > the
> > > connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God,
> > if
> > > there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is.
> > And
> > > I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who are
> > > sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from any sort
> > of
> > > empirical investigation or verification.
> > >
> > > -- RussA
> > >
> >
> > The only connection is analogical. There's probably almost as many
> > conceptions of god as there are people on the planet. Similarly, there
> > seems to be about as many conceptions of reality. Consequently, both
> > terms are really superfluous to doing science.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
> > Australia 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

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia 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

123456