Friam

So, Are We Alone?

Classic

List

Threaded

70 messages Options

1234

Bruce Sherwood

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we
inhabit as is possible.

To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the
definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively
uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There
are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement.

Bruce

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies
> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my
> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that
> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an
> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking
> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these
> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting.
> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off
> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the
> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR
> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming
>
>
>
> Nick

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: So, Are We Alone?

<Lilke>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we
inhabit as is possible.

To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the
definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively
uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There
are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement.

Bruce

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies
> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my
> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that
> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an
> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking
> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these
> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting.
> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off
> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the
> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR
> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming
>
>
>
> Nick

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

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

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

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

Nick Thompson

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Doug

You read me wrong. I found it uninteresting, but assumed that if it interested you there MUST b e a reason, and that if I knew the reason, I, too, would find it interesting.

Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it.

I was asking you to expand my experience.

Or not.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

<Lilke>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing.

--Doug

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it.

I was asking you to expand my experience.

Or not.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

<Lilke>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we
inhabit as is possible.

To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the
definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively
uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There
are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement.

Bruce

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies
> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my
> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that
> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an
> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking
> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these
> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting.
> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off
> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the
> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR
> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming
>
>
>
> Nick

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
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

============================================================
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: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Fantasy is the sharp edge of creative thought. Fantasy is proto-science. No pejorative intended.

My question is NOT argumentative … or not meant to be. In a way, I have bet my whole career on such questions.

Let me give you an example, which is sort of creepy, but, I think, “interesting”. In the 70’s, everybody got sick of writing being taught in English departments. After all, every faculty member in a university writes for a living, more or less. So, shouldn’t every faculty member be teaching writing. So, I taught this freshman seminar in which the students could write on any subject they wanted, although, because they knew I was a psychologist, they always took something psychological. I stubbornly played the role of a resource person and an editor. I questioned them in ways I took to deepen and broaden their enquiries in a way that would attract a reader’s interest. But I scrupulously avoided the role of “expert.”

Every year, one or more of the students would want to do a paper on child abuse. It seemed to me a really dark topic, and probably arose as an interest for the student because they were toying with the idea that they themselves had been abused as children. They were kind of hoping, perhaps, that I would play the role of clinician, but I had no training or interest in that. To the extent that their interest was self directed, I took it as lacking universal interest, and therefore not a proper subject for a piece of writing. But I did see that an interesting paper COULD be written about child abuse because hidden in the concept is a very fundamental confusion. We all would agree that having sex with a child or flogging a child at random would be an AB-use of a child; but what, exactly, do we agree is the proper USE of a child. What are children FOR? I never got a student to open that door, let alone, walk through it.

Now I have read some science fiction, over the years. Shirley Jackson’s the lottery, ETOIN SHURLU, a story about a very hot summer in new York and a termite invasion, whose last line was “pried from the jaws of the termite a bright fleck of steel.” I was even addicted to late night startrek for a year or so, although, I have to admit, I dosed through many of the episodes. Every one of those stories was riveting but not because it was the result of some idle curiosity, but because it explored some fundamental question about who we are and why we are that way. Such questions are what make psychology “interesting”, and are the beginning of scientific inquiry. But to turn such an interest into science, we have to explore WHY it is interesting.

AS to Doug;s question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are hard on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction requires faith. And it also require us to join in a community of faith that shares our belief in induction. Such communities resemble formal religions in some uncomfortable ways. However, is that pragmatic faith in induction, which helped us build bridges and fly at faster than the speed of sound, and go to the moon, and provide cheap food for millions of people and, brought us so many important American institutions, such as the marketplace of ideas and the notion of settled legal opinion. All of this now under attack, by, apparently, people to whom its benefits are not self evident. I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith is better than theirs, or be prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

There's a long lost Star Trek episode ' Run In With The Kardashians' on YouTube but I wouldn't go there - it should remain lost. The 'real' Cardassians are mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian. Their noses are gray.

Now setting aside possible derogatory use of 'fantasies', I think discovering possibly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is interesting because of the subsequent cultural ramifications here on Earth. All sorts of noses of all kinds of colors will be bent out of shape. Will they have their own Hero's Journey myths, etc. etc. What will their philosophies look like? Will contact of the x-kind change who I consider to be my friends and the way I stir my coffee- absolutely! Purely pragmatic and of self-interest. Perhaps they will tell us what the meaning of INTERESTING is too.

Robert C

On 4/4/12 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Ah, one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. Well, in 2012 the von Neumann machines were used to increase the density of Jupiter to fusion point, creating Lucifer, the solar system's second star, in order that the life on Europa might have a more stable source of heat to evolve in than the mercurial hotspots on the ocean bottom created by Jupiter's tidal forces. This is why human beings must ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE, so they do not interfere with the process of advancement to civilisation as arranged by the mysterious monolith-controlling aliens (who have energy bodies like Dave Bowman has at the end of 2001 [who by the way becomes incorporated with the energy body of HAL to become Halman after 2010] but who used to have spaceship bodies like Rama in Clarke's Rama series). For those who enjoyed the films, I highly recommend the book series, it is excellent.

But perhaps a better literary comparison is Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the eponymous question being "Will we [humans] ever reverse entropy?". In the story, we have a series of vignettes of a human asking a computer the question, from engineers asking it of a huge supercomputer on Earth (contemporary to the time of writing) to a family asking it of a starship they are living on to a pair of transgalactic (energy-body, again) conversers asking it of a mystical supercomputer keeping it's vast mass in hyperspace. None of the computers can answer, and prefer to wait for more data. Eventually the computers and humans merge (that theme again) into a single being (I guess that is the Singularity?) and slip into hyperspace just before the universe heat-dies (correct usage?) and the HumPuter (my term, I forget what Asimov calls it) ponders the Question, eventually deciding it has figured it out. Thus entropy is reversed and the universe was created, with the implication that this is what God is (the religion conversation sneaking back into this thread).

-Arlo James Barnes

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

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: So, Are We Alone?

I guess I must have spoiled your game somewhat by turning out to be barely lukewarm regarding the charms of induction, NIck.

Well, what can I say, except that one person's fascination is, well, one person's fascination.

--Doug

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fantasy is the sharp edge of creative thought. Fantasy is proto-science. No pejorative intended.

My question is NOT argumentative … or not meant to be. In a way, I have bet my whole career on such questions.

Let me give you an example, which is sort of creepy, but, I think, “interesting”. In the 70’s, everybody got sick of writing being taught in English departments. After all, every faculty member in a university writes for a living, more or less. So, shouldn’t every faculty member be teaching writing. So, I taught this freshman seminar in which the students could write on any subject they wanted, although, because they knew I was a psychologist, they always took something psychological. I stubbornly played the role of a resource person and an editor. I questioned them in ways I took to deepen and broaden their enquiries in a way that would attract a reader’s interest. But I scrupulously avoided the role of “expert.”

Every year, one or more of the students would want to do a paper on child abuse. It seemed to me a really dark topic, and probably arose as an interest for the student because they were toying with the idea that they themselves had been abused as children. They were kind of hoping, perhaps, that I would play the role of clinician, but I had no training or interest in that. To the extent that their interest was self directed, I took it as lacking universal interest, and therefore not a proper subject for a piece of writing. But I did see that an interesting paper COULD be written about child abuse because hidden in the concept is a very fundamental confusion. We all would agree that having sex with a child or flogging a child at random would be an AB-use of a child; but what, exactly, do we agree is the proper USE of a child. What are children FOR? I never got a student to open that door, let alone, walk through it.

Now I have read some science fiction, over the years. Shirley Jackson’s the lottery, ETOIN SHURLU, a story about a very hot summer in new York and a termite invasion, whose last line was “pried from the jaws of the termite a bright fleck of steel.” I was even addicted to late night startrek for a year or so, although, I have to admit, I dosed through many of the episodes. Every one of those stories was riveting but not because it was the result of some idle curiosity, but because it explored some fundamental question about who we are and why we are that way. Such questions are what make psychology “interesting”, and are the beginning of scientific inquiry. But to turn such an interest into science, we have to explore WHY it is interesting.

AS to Doug;s question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are hard on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction requires faith. And it also require us to join in a community of faith that shares our belief in induction. Such communities resemble formal religions in some uncomfortable ways. However, is that pragmatic faith in induction, which helped us build bridges and fly at faster than the speed of sound, and go to the moon, and provide cheap food for millions of people and, brought us so many important American institutions, such as the marketplace of ideas and the notion of settled legal opinion. All of this now under attack, by, apparently, people to whom its benefits are not self evident. I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith is better than theirs, or be prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:46 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
There's a long lost Star Trek episode ' Run In With The Kardashians' on YouTube but I wouldn't go there - it should remain lost. The 'real' Cardassians are mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian. Their noses are gray.

Now setting aside possible derogatory use of 'fantasies', I think discovering possibly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is interesting because of the subsequent cultural ramifications here on Earth. All sorts of noses of all kinds of colors will be bent out of shape. Will they have their own Hero's Journey myths, etc. etc. What will their philosophies look like? Will contact of the x-kind change who I consider to be my friends and the way I stir my coffee- absolutely! Purely pragmatic and of self-interest. Perhaps they will tell us what the meaning of INTERESTING is too.

Robert C

On 4/4/12 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Ah, one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. Well, in 2012 the von Neumann machines were used to increase the density of Jupiter to fusion point, creating Lucifer, the solar system's second star, in order that the life on Europa might have a more stable source of heat to evolve in than the mercurial hotspots on the ocean bottom created by Jupiter's tidal forces. This is why human beings must ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE, so they do not interfere with the process of advancement to civilisation as arranged by the mysterious monolith-controlling aliens (who have energy bodies like Dave Bowman has at the end of 2001 [who by the way becomes incorporated with the energy body of HAL to become Halman after 2010] but who used to have spaceship bodies like Rama in Clarke's Rama series). For those who enjoyed the films, I highly recommend the book series, it is excellent.

But perhaps a better literary comparison is Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the eponymous question being "Will we [humans] ever reverse entropy?". In the story, we have a series of vignettes of a human asking a computer the question, from engineers asking it of a huge supercomputer on Earth (contemporary to the time of writing) to a family asking it of a starship they are living on to a pair of transgalactic (energy-body, again) conversers asking it of a mystical supercomputer keeping it's vast mass in hyperspace. None of the computers can answer, and prefer to wait for more data. Eventually the computers and humans merge (that theme again) into a single being (I guess that is the Singularity?) and slip into hyperspace just before the universe heat-dies (correct usage?) and the HumPuter (my term, I forget what Asimov calls it) ponders the Question, eventually deciding it has figured it out. Thus entropy is reversed and the universe was created, with the implication that this is what God is (the religion conversation sneaking back into this thread).

-Arlo James Barnes
============================================================
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: So, Are We Alone?

Dear Doug,

Thanks, Doug. No offence taken, but … none of this is a game to me. Thinking about stuff, getting to the bottom of what I and others are thinking, is everything for me. It’s way up the hierarchy from sex and food. We have been talking long enough about enough things so I am sure you know that.

And I disagree that there is no value in looking below the surface of a fascination. To be unwilling to look below the surface of a fascination is just to be dazzled by it.

By the way, “they said” you and I couldn’t have a conversation in which we argued fair. I think we proved them wrong, don’t you?

“False and foolish prophets they”

All be best,

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

I guess I must have spoiled your game somewhat by turning out to be barely lukewarm regarding the charms of induction, NIck.

Well, what can I say, except that one person's fascination is, well, one person's fascination.

--Doug

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fantasy is the sharp edge of creative thought. Fantasy is proto-science. No pejorative intended.

My question is NOT argumentative … or not meant to be. In a way, I have bet my whole career on such questions.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:46 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Nick

-Arlo James Barnes

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

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: So, Are We Alone?

Best to you as well, Nick.

One point of clarification, though: I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought there was no value in picking at the scabs of of a person's fascinations/obsessions/interests. I did mean to convey that the person's motivations for being enamored of a certain point of view were generally of little interest to me. And, I am seldom dazzled by what others think.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Doug,

Thanks, Doug. No offence taken, but … none of this is a game to me. Thinking about stuff, getting to the bottom of what I and others are thinking, is everything for me. It’s way up the hierarchy from sex and food. We have been talking long enough about enough things so I am sure you know that.

And I disagree that there is no value in looking below the surface of a fascination. To be unwilling to look below the surface of a fascination is just to be dazzled by it.

By the way, “they said” you and I couldn’t have a conversation in which we argued fair. I think we proved them wrong, don’t you?

“False and foolish prophets they”

All be best,

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:05 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
I guess I must have spoiled your game somewhat by turning out to be barely lukewarm regarding the charms of induction, NIck.

Well, what can I say, except that one person's fascination is, well, one person's fascination.
--Doug
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantasy is the sharp edge of creative thought. Fantasy is proto-science. No pejorative intended.

My question is NOT argumentative … or not meant to be. In a way, I have bet my whole career on such questions.

Let me give you an example, which is sort of creepy, but, I think, “interesting”. In the 70’s, everybody got sick of writing being taught in English departments. After all, every faculty member in a university writes for a living, more or less. So, shouldn’t every faculty member be teaching writing. So, I taught this freshman seminar in which the students could write on any subject they wanted, although, because they knew I was a psychologist, they always took something psychological. I stubbornly played the role of a resource person and an editor. I questioned them in ways I took to deepen and broaden their enquiries in a way that would attract a reader’s interest. But I scrupulously avoided the role of “expert.”

Every year, one or more of the students would want to do a paper on child abuse. It seemed to me a really dark topic, and probably arose as an interest for the student because they were toying with the idea that they themselves had been abused as children. They were kind of hoping, perhaps, that I would play the role of clinician, but I had no training or interest in that. To the extent that their interest was self directed, I took it as lacking universal interest, and therefore not a proper subject for a piece of writing. But I did see that an interesting paper COULD be written about child abuse because hidden in the concept is a very fundamental confusion. We all would agree that having sex with a child or flogging a child at random would be an AB-use of a child; but what, exactly, do we agree is the proper USE of a child. What are children FOR? I never got a student to open that door, let alone, walk through it.

Now I have read some science fiction, over the years. Shirley Jackson’s the lottery, ETOIN SHURLU, a story about a very hot summer in new York and a termite invasion, whose last line was “pried from the jaws of the termite a bright fleck of steel.” I was even addicted to late night startrek for a year or so, although, I have to admit, I dosed through many of the episodes. Every one of those stories was riveting but not because it was the result of some idle curiosity, but because it explored some fundamental question about who we are and why we are that way. Such questions are what make psychology “interesting”, and are the beginning of scientific inquiry. But to turn such an interest into science, we have to explore WHY it is interesting.

AS to Doug;s question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are hard on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction requires faith. And it also require us to join in a community of faith that shares our belief in induction. Such communities resemble formal religions in some uncomfortable ways. However, is that pragmatic faith in induction, which helped us build bridges and fly at faster than the speed of sound, and go to the moon, and provide cheap food for millions of people and, brought us so many important American institutions, such as the marketplace of ideas and the notion of settled legal opinion. All of this now under attack, by, apparently, people to whom its benefits are not self evident. I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith is better than theirs, or be prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:46 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
There's a long lost Star Trek episode ' Run In With The Kardashians' on YouTube but I wouldn't go there - it should remain lost. The 'real' Cardassians are mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian. Their noses are gray.

Now setting aside possible derogatory use of 'fantasies', I think discovering possibly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is interesting because of the subsequent cultural ramifications here on Earth. All sorts of noses of all kinds of colors will be bent out of shape. Will they have their own Hero's Journey myths, etc. etc. What will their philosophies look like? Will contact of the x-kind change who I consider to be my friends and the way I stir my coffee- absolutely! Purely pragmatic and of self-interest. Perhaps they will tell us what the meaning of INTERESTING is too.

Robert C

On 4/4/12 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Ah, one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. Well, in 2012 the von Neumann machines were used to increase the density of Jupiter to fusion point, creating Lucifer, the solar system's second star, in order that the life on Europa might have a more stable source of heat to evolve in than the mercurial hotspots on the ocean bottom created by Jupiter's tidal forces. This is why human beings must ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE, so they do not interfere with the process of advancement to civilisation as arranged by the mysterious monolith-controlling aliens (who have energy bodies like Dave Bowman has at the end of 2001 [who by the way becomes incorporated with the energy body of HAL to become Halman after 2010] but who used to have spaceship bodies like Rama in Clarke's Rama series). For those who enjoyed the films, I highly recommend the book series, it is excellent.

But perhaps a better literary comparison is Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the eponymous question being "Will we [humans] ever reverse entropy?". In the story, we have a series of vignettes of a human asking a computer the question, from engineers asking it of a huge supercomputer on Earth (contemporary to the time of writing) to a family asking it of a starship they are living on to a pair of transgalactic (energy-body, again) conversers asking it of a mystical supercomputer keeping it's vast mass in hyperspace. None of the computers can answer, and prefer to wait for more data. Eventually the computers and humans merge (that theme again) into a single being (I guess that is the Singularity?) and slip into hyperspace just before the universe heat-dies (correct usage?) and the HumPuter (my term, I forget what Asimov calls it) ponders the Question, eventually deciding it has figured it out. Thus entropy is reversed and the universe was created, with the implication that this is what God is (the religion conversation sneaking back into this thread).

-Arlo James Barnes
============================================================
 
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: So, Are We Alone?

Doug,

Well, when you are talking about motivations, you are talking about my so-called area of expertise.

But I don’t think we have been talking about motivations. I think we have been talking about LOGIC. The implicit reasoning that HAS to underlie a position to make it make sense. So, I share your lack of interest in whether somebody’s mother spanked them, unless that fact is somewhere a premise in their conclusions about the way the world is. Rereading what you wrote, I see that we agree on all of that.

I also agree that I am rarely dazzled by what other people think; I am, however, often dazzled by what I think, and logical analysis by my self and others often helps to break that spell. I assume that other people feel the same way.

There are three ways to reason badly, as I see it. (1) To not understand the rules of inference, induction, deduction, abduction. [i.e., to be dumb] (2) To start with shoddy premises [i.e., to be ignorant]. (3) and to have low standards of probabilistic inference [i.e., to be unwise].

I am often guilty of all three.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Best to you as well, Nick.

--Doug

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Doug,

And I disagree that there is no value in looking below the surface of a fascination. To be unwilling to look below the surface of a fascination is just to be dazzled by it.

By the way, “they said” you and I couldn’t have a conversation in which we argued fair. I think we proved them wrong, don’t you?

“False and foolish prophets they”

All be best,

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:05 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

I guess I must have spoiled your game somewhat by turning out to be barely lukewarm regarding the charms of induction, NIck.

Well, what can I say, except that one person's fascination is, well, one person's fascination.

--Doug

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fantasy is the sharp edge of creative thought. Fantasy is proto-science. No pejorative intended.

My question is NOT argumentative … or not meant to be. In a way, I have bet my whole career on such questions.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:46 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Nick

-Arlo James Barnes

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

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

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Bruce Sherwood

Dear Nick

I'm rather surprised to learn from you that "the notion of settled
legal opinion" is an American Institution brought about by induction.
By this reasoning almost everything that are "uniquely" American
useful things - apple pie, Thanksgiving turkey etc can be ascribed to
induction in addition to bridges, cheap food etc,

The apple falling on Newton's head could equally have been induced by
him to formulate a recipe for Apple Pie for the masses instead of the
Law of Gravitation.

Could you be a little more specific on what you consider "induction"
to be as I think you and Doug or Bruce understand induction to be
different things. I am an engineer (aka. intelligent designer) , while
designing bridges or machines etc I have neither the time nor
inclination to consider the philosophical implications of whether my
creation has feelings or free will. I just need to focus on my "grand
design" and its purpose.

Sarbajit

On 4/6/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Bruce,
> You wrote
> Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
>
> -- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we inhabit
> as is possible.
> Are you obligated to? Probably not since your oral exam on your
> dissertation! However, when your PhD examiners asked you why the problem
> you chose was "interesting", I am sure you didn't reply, "Well, it just
> caught my fancy" So, was that a fair question at the time, or just a power
> trip to which you had to submit to get your degree?
>
> But my point is not really about whether you have to or don't have to. My
> point would be that in point of fact, you did [have a reason]. Your
> explanation for your choices is way too powerful to be useful, or even
> plausible. There was reasoning behind your choice of research topic, and
> spelling out that reasoning will be, I assert, illuminating to you and to
> the rest of us.
>
> You also wrote
>
> I found that discussion massively uninteresting and irrelevant to the
> actual practice of science. There are many variants of philistinism, and of
> engagement.
>
> This position would seem to contradict the idea that interests are all the
> same and not subject to explanation. Doug challenged me in the same way,
> and I tried to meet that challenge as follows.
>
> AS to Doug's question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the
> discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with
> question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are hard
> on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction requires
> faith. And it also require us to join in a community of faith that shares
> our belief in induction. Such communities resemble formal religions in some
> uncomfortable ways. However, is that pragmatic faith in induction, which
> helped us build bridges and fly at faster than the speed of sound, and go to
> the moon, and provide cheap food for millions of people and, brought us so
> many important American institutions, such as the marketplace of ideas and
> the notion of settled legal opinion. All of this now under attack, by,
> apparently, people to whom its benefits are not self-evident. I think we
> either have to be prepared to say why our faith is better than theirs, or be
> prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my
> interest in the problem of induction.
>
> I would be interested in your response.
>
> Nick

Nick Thompson

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Sarbajit,

Before I forget, induction is coming to a conclusion about the character of a class through amassing instances of that class. (Collecting swans that are white to show that all swans are white.) Abduction is amassing properties of an individual to show that that individual is belongs to a class. (This bird is white, water-loving, monogamous ......).

I probably deserved your raillery. I am currently besotted with the American Pragmatist Philosophers, who included Peirce (philosophy), James (psychology) and Holmes (Law) among others. If you want to get as besotted as I, read Menand, The Metaphysical Club. Key to pragmatism is the faith that if everybody thinks carefully, and follows good rational procedures, and collects data, the community of inquiry (or the law) will converge on the truth. Reading that book, and a biography of James, and many original essays by Peirce, I am struck by how much of what I have taken for granted in my life is of relatively recent origin and could easily be torn down in a generation.

I don't know how much you know about our politics over here, but there is actually a political war on rationality going on which is terrifying to me, and should be terrifying to anybody else in the world, given levels of fear and power that we combine. For example, we live in a scruffy little neighborhood in down town santa fe. The other night the little old lady who lives across the street was visited (he knocked on her door) by a begger. She has recently moved here from Texas. On her own report, she sat up the entire subsequent night, facing her door in an armchair, with a loaded shotgun across her knee. "I have a right to defend myself," she said.

Anyway, Please forgive my besottedness. I have been using an awful lot of bandwidth, recently, and it’s probably time to shut up.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Dear Nick

I'm rather surprised to learn from you that "the notion of settled legal opinion" is an American Institution brought about by induction.

By this reasoning almost everything that are "uniquely" American useful things - apple pie, Thanksgiving turkey etc can be ascribed to induction in addition to bridges, cheap food etc,

The apple falling on Newton's head could equally have been induced by him to formulate a recipe for Apple Pie for the masses instead of the Law of Gravitation.

Could you be a little more specific on what you consider "induction"

to be as I think you and Doug or Bruce understand induction to be different things. I am an engineer (aka. intelligent designer) , while designing bridges or machines etc I have neither the time nor inclination to consider the philosophical implications of whether my creation has feelings or free will. I just need to focus on my "grand design" and its purpose.

Sarbajit

On 4/6/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Bruce,

> You wrote

> Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am

> -- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we

> inhabit as is possible.

> Are you obligated to? Probably not since your oral exam on your

> dissertation! However, when your PhD examiners asked you why the

> problem you chose was "interesting", I am sure you didn't reply,

> "Well, it just caught my fancy" So, was that a fair question at the

> time, or just a power trip to which you had to submit to get your degree?

> But my point is not really about whether you have to or don't have to.

> My point would be that in point of fact, you did [have a reason].

> Your explanation for your choices is way too powerful to be useful, or

> even plausible. There was reasoning behind your choice of research

> topic, and spelling out that reasoning will be, I assert,

> illuminating to you and to the rest of us.

> You also wrote

> I found that discussion massively uninteresting and irrelevant to the

> actual practice of science. There are many variants of philistinism,

> and of engagement.

> This position would seem to contradict the idea that interests are all

> the same and not subject to explanation. Doug challenged me in the

> same way, and I tried to meet that challenge as follows.

> AS to Doug's question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the

> discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with

> question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are

> hard on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction

> requires faith. And it also require us to join in a community of

> faith that shares our belief in induction. Such communities resemble

> formal religions in some uncomfortable ways. However, is that

> pragmatic faith in induction, which helped us build bridges and fly at

> faster than the speed of sound, and go to the moon, and provide cheap

> food for millions of people and, brought us so many important American

> institutions, such as the marketplace of ideas and the notion of

> settled legal opinion. All of this now under attack, by, apparently,

> people to whom its benefits are not self-evident. I think we either

> have to be prepared to say why our faith is better than theirs, or be

> prepared to be beaten all the way back into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

> I would be interested in your response.

> Nick

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Dear Nick

I would treat induction/deduction/abduction in an alternate formal manner.
http://psivision.objectis.net/DeductionAbductionInduction

otherwise we would be inducing that all cows in Scotland are black.
http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2006/04/19/are-all-cows-in-scotland-black/

I think you've made a truly great discovery - that almost all of
whatever you've taken for granted in your life is recent and wouldn't
survive beyond a generation or two. This actually is the key to
"faith". People are gulled by "old" lies (the Bible ?) more easily
than new ones.

Since I'm unwilling to risk a visit to your country (I may be
impounded) perhaps I'm the perfect "alien" to induct with (a Swirski
test?). I'm communicating with you over radio (well the internet
actually), I've been programmed to read/write your language (the "z"
instead of "s" is an irritation), I "watch" reruns of your old TV
shows - from Abbot&Costello to Lucy to Star_Trek to The BigBangTheory
(S05E20-The Transporter Malfunction). My civilisation is much further
advanced than your violent/primitive one (in which old ladies are at
maximum risk), AND our swarm knows the secret of the Universe.

Take me to your Leader !!!

Sarbajit

On 4/6/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sarbajit,
>
> Before I forget, induction is coming to a conclusion about the character of
> a class through amassing instances of that class. (Collecting swans that
> are white to show that all swans are white.) Abduction is amassing
> properties of an individual to show that that individual is belongs to a
> class. (This bird is white, water-loving, monogamous ......).
>
> I probably deserved your raillery. I am currently besotted with the
> American Pragmatist Philosophers, who included Peirce (philosophy), James
> (psychology) and Holmes (Law) among others. If you want to get as besotted
> as I, read Menand, The Metaphysical Club. Key to pragmatism is the faith
> that if everybody thinks carefully, and follows good rational procedures,
> and collects data, the community of inquiry (or the law) will converge on
> the truth. Reading that book, and a biography of James, and many original
> essays by Peirce, I am struck by how much of what I have taken for granted
> in my life is of relatively recent origin and could easily be torn down in a
> generation.
>
> I don't know how much you know about our politics over here, but there is
> actually a political war on rationality going on which is terrifying to me,
> and should be terrifying to anybody else in the world, given levels of fear
> and power that we combine. For example, we live in a scruffy little
> neighborhood in down town santa fe. The other night the little old lady who
> lives across the street was visited (he knocked on her door) by a begger.
> She has recently moved here from Texas. On her own report, she sat up the
> entire subsequent night, facing her door in an armchair, with a loaded
> shotgun across her knee. "I have a right to defend myself," she said.
>
> Anyway, Please forgive my besottedness. I have been using an awful lot of
> bandwidth, recently, and it's probably time to shut up.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
>
> Dear Nick
>
> I'm rather surprised to learn from you that "the notion of settled legal
> opinion" is an American Institution brought about by induction.
>
> By this reasoning almost everything that are "uniquely" American useful
> things - apple pie, Thanksgiving turkey etc can be ascribed to induction in
> addition to bridges, cheap food etc,
>
> The apple falling on Newton's head could equally have been induced by him to
> formulate a recipe for Apple Pie for the masses instead of the Law of
> Gravitation.
>
> Could you be a little more specific on what you consider "induction"
>
> to be as I think you and Doug or Bruce understand induction to be different
> things. I am an engineer (aka. intelligent designer) , while designing
> bridges or machines etc I have neither the time nor inclination to consider
> the philosophical implications of whether my creation has feelings or free
> will. I just need to focus on my "grand design" and its purpose.
>
> Sarbajit
>

glen ropella

definitions will be the death of us (was: So, Are We Alone?)

Sarbajit Roy wrote at 04/06/2012 06:36 AM:
> I would treat induction/deduction/abduction in an alternate formal manner.
> http://psivision.objectis.net/DeductionAbductionInduction

Thread successfully hijacked! ;-)

I think it's hilarious how we all want to _fix_ the semantic map and
that we fail to tolerate others' maps. I also think Nick, Doug, and
Bruce (and everyone else) are and will always be using different
definitions of the word "induction". And I actually think that's a
_good_ thing. Ambiguity is good. N-ary relations are good. Why are so
many of us so _proud_ that we are not dazzled by what others think?
What's wrong with basking in the idiocy, mediocrity, and brilliance of
the world around us? Where lies this impetus to either retreat into
little holes of cynicism or forcibly _remake_ reality to match our
fantasies?

Let's take this back to Doug's original offending question: whether a
two-fold increase in intelligence would lead to a reduction in religious
belief. Moron that I am, I am fascinated and dazzled by tales of magic,
extra terrestrial life, personal transformation, and mythology[*]. I.e.
the thoughts of others. These thoughts breathe life into what can
become a debilitating existence of fact-checking and pompous denigration
of others' semantic maps.

So, if I were to draw lines (which I won't lest I contradict myself ;-),
then you should count me on the side of the morons who prefer to be less
intelligent and continually bedazzled by the thoughts of others.

[*] Though I am thoroughly tired of vampires at this point. [sigh] I
used to love a good vampire story. I'm not sure what happened.

--
glen

============================================================
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: definitions will be the death of us (was: So, Are We Alone?)

Thank you, Glen.

Re: Vampires, Twilight is one thing that happened. Ick.

A note on "dazzled" or "bedazzled", vs. "amused", or "bemused": I am frequently amused, and often bemused by things I see and hear every single day, but almost never dazzled. To be dazzled is to lose one's vision, or perspective, or ability to think rationally - a very unhealthy thing to do as a steady diet. Attempts should be made to avoid blind bedazzlement. It's bad for the rest of us.

Finally, back to the original offending, as you say, question: who is to say we wouldn't find the puzzles of the universe twice as interesting and amusing, and bemusing, if we were twice as smart? Hopefully all the while being less prone to swallowing those absurd religious hooks, lines, and sinkers?

I am particularly unsympathetic towards those who have chosen to be bedazzled by the Mormon religion, because that is the one major "religion" whose genesis occurred entirely during modern recorded history. Joe Smith was a scam artist, a scheister, a grifter, and a lier; that story about the golden tablets he "found" in a field on New York state, covered in "Egyptian hieroglyphics" which only he, conveniently enough, ever saw is the basis of the Mormon religion. The whole story is a HUGE load of bullshit, and yet it is happily swallowed, er, excuse me, taken as "an article of faith" by the multitudes comprising the fastest growing religion on the planet!

And, as one of my friends said recently, "The only difference between the Mormon religion, and Christianity is time and place."

So with that, it is now permitted for those on this list who choose to act in the capacity of apologists for bible-thumping zealots everywhere to resume their chastisement of me for having dared to ask the offensive question. Twice.

--Doug

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sarbajit Roy wrote at 04/06/2012 06:36 AM:
> I would treat induction/deduction/abduction in an alternate formal manner.
> http://psivision.objectis.net/DeductionAbductionInduction

Thread successfully hijacked! ;-)

I think it's hilarious how we all want to _fix_ the semantic map and
that we fail to tolerate others' maps. I also think Nick, Doug, and
Bruce (and everyone else) are and will always be using different
definitions of the word "induction". And I actually think that's a
_good_ thing. Ambiguity is good. N-ary relations are good. Why are so
many of us so _proud_ that we are not dazzled by what others think?
What's wrong with basking in the idiocy, mediocrity, and brilliance of
the world around us? Where lies this impetus to either retreat into
little holes of cynicism or forcibly _remake_ reality to match our
fantasies?

Let's take this back to Doug's original offending question: whether a
two-fold increase in intelligence would lead to a reduction in religious
belief. Moron that I am, I am fascinated and dazzled by tales of magic,
extra terrestrial life, personal transformation, and mythology[*]. I.e.
the thoughts of others. These thoughts breathe life into what can
become a debilitating existence of fact-checking and pompous denigration
of others' semantic maps.

So, if I were to draw lines (which I won't lest I contradict myself ;-),
then you should count me on the side of the morons who prefer to be less
intelligent and continually bedazzled by the thoughts of others.

[*] Though I am thoroughly tired of vampires at this point. [sigh] I
used to love a good vampire story. I'm not sure what happened.

--
glen

============================================================
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: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Hi doug, and Bruce

I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am curious about your response.

I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]

is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way back

into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe things.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

--Doug

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

I was asking you to expand my experience.

Or not.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

<Lilke>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

Russ Abbott

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Nick,

As far as I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily) induction and faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate whereas faith is an imported belief.

You don't need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the case. That's simply how we evolved to be in the world. I don't use explicit induction to conclude that one second from now the world will be pretty much as it is now -- at least at the macro level, which is what I tend to care most about. The principle of induction simply explicates that way of behaving.

In contrast, faith is an imported belief system that one appeals to explicitly for answers.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi doug, and Bruce

I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am curious about your response.

I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]

is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way back

into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe things.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing.

--Doug
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it.

I was asking you to expand my experience.

Or not.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

<Lilke>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we
inhabit as is possible.

To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the
definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively
uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There
are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement.

Bruce

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies
> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my
> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that
> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an
> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking
> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these
> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting.
> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off
> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the
> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR
> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming
>
>
>
> Nick

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
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

--
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

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

Bruce Sherwood

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I find it highly implausible that anyone who sees the authority/value
of a god to be more appealing than the authority/value of the
scientific approach is going to challenge science on the basis of the
definition and use of "induction".

As to the source of my own beliefs about the world, they come from
observing a coherent pattern of observations, with accompanying
unified explanations and predictions. There is no simple statement
that can be made about this, but coherence and unification are
crucial. A simple example is that once upon a time there was a thunder
god responsible for thunder, and a lightning god responsible for
lightning. It is possible that this is the correct explanation for
thunder and lightning, but for me it is vastly more satisfying to have
one explanation and mechanism that coherently explains both. In
addition, the science that explains thunder and lightning not only
unifies these two seemingly distinct phenomena but explains many other
phenomena as well, and one doesn't even need the existence of special
thunder and lightning gods.

In our physics textbook we have a lengthy case study about spark
formation in air. We first introduce a couple of intuitively appealing
models and then show that the predictions of these models are off by
many orders of magnitude in explaining/predicting the strength of
electric field required to create a spark in air. We then introduce a
third model which has the virtue despite its simplicity of predicting
approximately the observed value of the critical field strength. This
doesn't mean the model is "right", but at least we've shown the first
two models to be wrong, a non-trivial and valuable contribution.

But then there's a kicker. We ask a different question, a question
that played no role in the discussion up to this point: How would the
critical field strength change if the air pressure were doubled? The
first two models, discredited on the earlier grounds, predict that the
critical field strength should be independent of the air pressure. The
third model however predicts that the critical field strength should
double. It happens that this is in fact observed (and high-pressure
gas is sometimes used as a good insulator). That the model correctly
predicts a phenomenon that was not considered previously lends (to me)
additional credence to the explanatory power of the third model. This
is an example of coherence. "Belief" (if that is even the right word
to use) is strengthened by coherence, that many seemingly diverse
phenomena are explainable starting from a small number of fundamental
principles (and this coherence of course also strengthens one's
"beliefs" in the universal character of those fundamental principles).

I see this as much more than the kind of belief that the Sun will rise
tomorrow because it has risen so many days in the past. That's just
repetition of the same thing, whereas coherence is the linking of what
on the surface seem like different things.

Another example from our intro physics textbook: Early in the
mechanics portion of the book we introduce the simple
"ball-and-spring" model of a solid, where the "balls" are the atomic
masses (mainly the nuclei) and the "springs" are a model for the
electric interatomic forces, justified by the fact that to stretch a
metal twice as much requires (for small stretches) twice the applied
force, and a force proportional to a stretch is true of macroscopic
springs. On the basis of how much a metal wire stretches when a force
is applied, we're able to deduce the stiffness of the interatomic bond
in that metal, modeled as a spring. From this "spring" stiffness we
show how to predict accurately the speed of sound in a metal. No
student comes to the course imagining that there is any connection
whatsoever between stretching a wire and the speed of propagation of a
disturbance in that metal. Coherence. And later in the course students
are able to predict the temperature dependence of the heat capacity of
the metal, just from the atomic mass and "spring" stiffness. Again, no
student would expect that the temperature dependence of the heat
capacity of a metal, the speed of sound in the metal, and the stretch
obtained when applying a force to a wire made of that metal, could all
three be understood in terms of a simple atomic model of a metal and
fundamental physics principles. Enormous coherence.

For me, the great beauty of the concept of biological evolution is its
exceptionally strong coherence. It explains this, and that, and that ,
and that......

Bruce

From the Wikipedia article on Laplace:

An account of a famous interaction between Laplace and Napoleon is
provided by Rouse Ball:

Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and
the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so
characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full.
Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the
name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions,
received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have
written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never
even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of
politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his
philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas
besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi doug, and Bruce
>
> I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email
> message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am
> curious about your response.
>
> I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]
> is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way
> back into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.
>
> Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on
> induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe
> things.
>
> Nick

Arlo Barnes

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Aside: It seems the Gmane archive of this conversation is the last listing on the first page of a Google search for 'MerKaBa antenna'. The rest (I did not bother to look farther than the first page) are all references to the first hit, In5D.org. Additionally, all are very wu and rather in coherent, and none of them explain the name, they just show this 'antenna' to be interlocked tetrahedra.

-Arlo James Barnes

Eric Charles

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

But Russ, come on now. To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if it was the case'.

Thus, if we act as if induction is the case, we have faith in induction. If I see that someone routinely relies on induction when trying to figure things out, and I have seen that he acts with confidence once the inductive process is complete, then I have seen his faith. If we act as if the world will be here tomorrow, then we have faith that the world will be here tomorrow. If we act as if the bible is true, then we have faith in the bible.

The issue of self-consciousness, or people's ability to verbalize basic principles, is a different issue. I am afraid I do not have the same faith in people's abilities to accurately talk about themselves that you seem to have. At the least, I have trouble acting as if it were the case ;- )

Eric

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 03:50 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick,

As far as I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily) induction and faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate whereas faith is an imported belief.

You don't need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the case. That's simply how we evolved to be in the world. I don't use explicit induction to conclude that one second from now the world will be pretty much as it is now -- at least at the macro level, which is what I tend to care most about. The principle of induction simply explicates that way of behaving.

In contrast, faith is an imported belief system that one appeals to explicitly for answers.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: <a href="https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/" target="" onclick="window.open('https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/');return false;">https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/" style="font-style:italic" target="" onclick="window.open('http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/');return false;">http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:

Hi doug, and Bruce

I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am curious about your response.

I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]

is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way back

into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.

Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe things.

Nick

From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing.

--Doug

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:

Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I WOULD find interesting if I knew it.

I was asking you to expand my experience.

Or not.

Nick

From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

<Lilke>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <bruce.sherwood@...> wrote:

Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am
-- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we
inhabit as is possible.

To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the
definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively
uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There
are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement.

Bruce

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson
<nickthompson@...> wrote:
> I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies
> INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my
> imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that
> NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an
> interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking
> that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these
> fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting.
> The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off
> being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the
> Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR
> noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming
>
>
>
> Nick

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
droberts@...
doug@...

<a href="http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins" target="" onclick="window.open('http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins');return false;">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 <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
droberts@...
doug@...

<a href="http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins" target="" onclick="window.open('http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins');return false;">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 <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">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

Eric Charles

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

Russell Standish

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 12:23:25PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

>
>
> I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction]
>
> is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the way
> back
>
> into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.
>
>

What does "faith in induction" mean? Induction is something one
does. Does one have faith in jogging?

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

1234

So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

definitions will be the death of us (was: So, *Are* We Alone?)

Re: definitions will be the death of us (was: So, *Are* We Alone?)

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

definitions will be the death of us (was: So, Are We Alone?)

Re: definitions will be the death of us (was: So, Are We Alone?)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?