Friam

Some reductionism verbiage

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Some reductionism verbiage

John Kennison wrote --

"Does reductionism mean a belief that the best strategy is always to
analyze complex things in terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a
small number of irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in
nature is nothing more than a sum of simple components?"

To which nthompson, The Brigadier of Blather, replied --

Or a third view, in which reductionism is just a form of "nothing buttery",
as in "mind is 'nothing but' the firings of neurons. On this view, "up"
reductionism becomes a possibility, as in "mind is nothing but the sum of
the cultural forces focussed on a human individual."

I guess the thread common to all these usages is a resistance to the idea
that levels of organization have their own phenomena and deserve their own
explanatory entities.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])

> [Original Message]
> From: <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: 9/5/2008 8:18:18 PM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Douglas Roberts)
> 2. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Jack Leibowitz)
> 3. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Jack Leibowitz)
> 4. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Jack Leibowitz)
> 5. re Young but distant (peggy miller)
> 6. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (John F. Kennison)
> 7. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Phil Henshaw)
> 8. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Phil Henshaw)
> 9. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Phil Henshaw)
> 10. Re: "no one talks .... specifics" (Nicholas Thompson)
> 11. Re: Young but distant gallaxies ([hidden email])
> 12. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (G?nther Greindl)
> 13. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (glen e. p. ropella)
> 14. Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
> (Kenneth Lloyd)
> 15. Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
> (Douglas Roberts)
> 16. Re: Young but distant gallaxies (Jack Leibowitz)
> 17. Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
> (Jack Leibowitz)
> 18. Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
> (Douglas Roberts)
> 19. Re: Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
> (Kenneth Lloyd)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:00:44 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> You might not have been sarcastic enough, Ken. I fear that we are about

> be launched on a round of non-specific philosophical verbiage about
> reductionism.
>
> Oh, what the heck. Let me help kick this one off:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
>
> Or, better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)
>
> Gag.
>
> </sarcasm>
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > G?nther,
> >
> > Examining the English language, reductionism is an ingrained concept.

For
> > example, there are only two kinds of people in the world. Me and you
(you

> > being the collective you all, akin to the French vous).
> >
> > For the literalists out there, I am being somewhat sarcastic.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of G?nther Greindl
> > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints
> > > belonging under
> > > > the heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
> > >
> > > Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > G?nther
> > >
> > > --
> > > G?nther Greindl
> > > Department of Philosophy of Science
> > > University of Vienna
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
> > > Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> > > Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/f5cffed6
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:09:42 -0600
> From: "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <000d01c90f71$d275b3e0$3ceef004@dell8400>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Read my e-mail more carefully.
>
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas Roberts
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
> You might not have been sarcastic enough, Ken. I fear that we are

about to be launched on a round of non-specific philosophical verbiage
about reductionism.
>
> Oh, what the heck. Let me help kick this one off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

>
> Or, better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)
>
> Gag.
>
> </sarcasm>
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]>

wrote:
>
> G?nther,
>
> Examining the English language, reductionism is an ingrained concept.
For
> example, there are only two kinds of people in the world. Me and you
(you

> being the collective you all, akin to the French vous).
>
> For the literalists out there, I am being somewhat sarcastic.
>
> Ken
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
>
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of G?nther Greindl
> > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints
> > belonging under
> > > the heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
> >
> > Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > G?nther
> >
> > --
> > G?nther Greindl
> > Department of Philosophy of Science
> > University of Vienna
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> > Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/ea920536
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:11:49 -0600
> From: "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <002001c90f72$1d865100$3ceef004@dell8400>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> To Gunther
> I don't think the word is horrible. Note the quotes around the word in

my e-mail.

>
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas Roberts
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
> You might not have been sarcastic enough, Ken. I fear that we are

about to be launched on a round of non-specific philosophical verbiage
about reductionism.
>
> Oh, what the heck. Let me help kick this one off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

>
> Or, better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)
>
> Gag.
>
> </sarcasm>
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]>

wrote:
>
> G?nther,
>
> Examining the English language, reductionism is an ingrained concept.
For
> example, there are only two kinds of people in the world. Me and you
(you

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:13:06 -0600
> From: "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <002401c90f72$4b881e30$3ceef004@dell8400>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> To Gunther:
>
> I dont think the word is horrible.
> Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

<[hidden email]>

> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the
> > heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
>
> Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> G?nther
>
> --
> G?nther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [hidden email]
>
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:30:57 -0600
> From: "peggy miller" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] re Young but distant
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Liked the discussion on this ... had a question --
> Do the young stars and galaxies create vaccuums of energy when appearing,
> contributing to both light speed changes, deflections, and or changes in
> energy and gravity on our earth? I had read somewhere they do when they

die
> (burnout) but did not know if they do when they are born .. and if so ..
> does the impact get felt universally simultaneously, or does it flow,
> reaching us on a path like the path of light?
>
> Just wondered. sort of like the pebble in the pond maybe? or more like a
> huge vaccum cleaner hose sitting over the pond pulling at all the water at
> the same time .. maybe not enough to lift it entirely, but enough to
change
> the makeup of the watery depths. shift the behavior of the fish .. that
sort
> of thing. ..
>
> Peggy Miller
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/4af3b0bc
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:08:08 -0400
> From: "John F. Kennison" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <C4E6EDC8.6A68%[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might

be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief that
the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of simpler
components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)? Or is it
a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple
components?

>
> --John
>
>
> On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> To Gunther:
>
> I dont think the word is horrible.
> Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

<[hidden email]>

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/45081667
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:38:12 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <000001c90f86$8daf9ae0$a90ed0a0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Jack,
> Well, there's a couple other parts of conversation style in a forum like
> this. How people converse, mixing all kinds of personal and cultural

banter
> with science ideas, and the potential of our fluid imaginations to conjure
> images and associations, is distinctly different in kind from any physical
> system. Then there's our subject and its duality, the use of science as a
> set of controlled tools trying to find how to begin to understand some the
> uncontrolled processes on which both our survival and interest in life
rely.
>
>
> I really think that 1996 essay of Rosen's I mentioned got to a very useful
> and easily understood side of his objection to science, that restricting
> science to the study of convergent sequences misses the divergent ones.
> Divergent processes seem to include many ones you observe that don't
contain

> any information about what they're going to run into until they do, and so
> 'learn as they go'.
>
> Phil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jack Leibowitz
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:11 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >
> > Are you happy with that prescription? It seems to me that when we talk
> > about physical phenomena and explanation- or attempts at same- we
> > needn't
> > discard the basic idea of a scientific statement: consistency with what
> > is
> > known and predictability and falsifiability for what is claimed.
> > Otherwse,
> > we can substitute God for all the other words, such as emergence, etc.
> >
> > I don't mean to discredit concepts such those related to "emergence",
> > etc.
> > Some beautiful possibilities may reside in that direction. But I hope
> > it
> > doesn't suggest to proponents that we can abandon being scientists and
> > join
> > the ranks of those not similarly constrained by understandings about
> > what
> > makes Science so fabulously successful.
> >
> > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under
> > the
> > heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
> >
> > By this time, I think , I have overstayed my welcome. I do respect the
> > good
> > things the group does.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Carl Tollander" <[hidden email]>
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >
> >
> > > An emergent idea is one relatively few people are paying attention
> > to.
> > > If we indulged in specifics, the ideas would cease to be emergent.
> > >
> > > So I think its kind of like we're using averted vision. A post that
> > > points out an
> > > emergent idea is not necessarily inviting a collective hot needle of
> > > inquiry
> > > on that idea, but instead is illuminating a potential cloud of nearby
> > > ones.
> > > Sometimes it also takes a bit of noise injection to figure out what's
> > > being
> > > discussed, so you see those kinds of posts too.
> > >
> > > So, if you are new, the conversation seems to jump around a lot.
> > Takes
> > > a bit of getting used to. The main thing is to not think of the list
> > > primarily
> > > (though it does happen from time to time) a coherent narrative,
> > > but as a part of a larger environment of thought, readings and off
> > line
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > Robert Holmes wrote:
> > >> Jack -
> > >>
> > >> First rule of FRIAM: no one talks about specifics.
> > >> Second rule of FRIAM: no one talks about specifics
> > >>
> > >> Robert
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Jack Leibowitz
> > <[hidden email]
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> As a new correspondent in the FRIAM family, would someone please
> > >> explain,
> > >> with specifics, what particular emergent ideas are being
> > referred
> > >> to in the
> > >> paragraph below.
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > >> To: <[hidden email]
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>; "'The Friday Morning
> > Applied
> > >> Complexity
> > >> Coffee Group'" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:17 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >I guess that's the puzzle, since we can't use triangulation to
> > >> measure
> > >> > distance for stars we use various corollaries for age to
> > measure
> > >> distance
> > >> > and of distance to measure age, according to the equations
> > that
> > >> have
> > >> > seemed
> > >> > to make sense so far. That the equations have not been making
> > >> sense in
> > >> > several ways, like needing the invention of dark energy and
> > dark
> > >> matter to
> > >> > bend them for other discrepancies, is what science keeps
> > doing,
> > >> adding
> > >> > "epicycles" on old theory until some complete impasse
> > arises... and
> > >> > someone
> > >> > finally has to think up something completely new. If others
> > >> don't come
> > >> > to
> > >> > the same impasse, like not seeing that emergence *must* be a
> > local
> > >> > individual developmental process and so not asking *how*, no
> > >> amount of
> > >> > good
> > >> > solutions for the problem will be recognized.
> > >> >
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: [hidden email]
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > >> [mailto:[hidden email]
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>] On
> > >> >> Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> > >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:09 PM
> > >> >> To: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > >> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Dumb question for you cosmologists to chew over:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How can they be so far away and yet so young? Or, to put it
> > even
> > >> >> dumber,
> > >> >> are there parts of the Universe that are so far away that
> > they
> > >> havent
> > >> >> happened yet?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I guess this is a question about scales of distance vis a vis
> > >> scales of
> > >> >> time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Nick
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson
> > >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> > >> >> Clark University ([hidden email]
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>)
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> > Friam mailing list
> > >> >> > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> > >> >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 63, Issue 3
> > >> >> > ************************************
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ============================================================
> > >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ============================================================
> > >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ============================================================
> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > >>
> > >> ============================================================
> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:38:12 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <000101c90f86$8e351e90$aa9f5bb0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> No problem. The question for any good science of emergence is often

whether
> you're mad enough! Emergence is something we notice as the 'madness'
of
> nature herself, in doing things without having a prior rule to follow,
after
> all. The emergence question I was raising in response to Nick's question
> was about the emergence of contradictions in science. We tolerate
> accumulations of them, and may make individual adjustments to theory as we
> go, but then may get to an impasse and be forced to expand our thinking
in a
> more general way occasionally. It may have been a little off point
as I
> didn't have the prior reference, and as Owen's response seemed to be more
> direct.
>
>
>
> I think you guys generally don't take me seriously because you don't see
the
> problems my work is a response to. I find emergence far more
> comprehendible when treating time as an accumulative processes of change
> rather than as a line of points on a scale projected by an equation, a
> process rather than a location. That makes me also drop the idea that
any

> physical process is composed of our information about it. Physical
> things are generally ever so much richer in features than any form of
> information could ever replace. That's why I need to refer to the
> individual developments of systems themselves as what my techniques is
> designed to shed light on , identified as developmental events with key
> information pointers for where to look their functional organization.
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On

Behalf

> Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:41 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
>
> My apologies to Phil. My e-mail was intended only for Jack L. Paul
>
>
> **************
> It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/bd2fdbd0
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:54:52 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <001801c90f88$e2030f30$a6092d90$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Well, maybe one very general way is to say reductionism is representing

that
> things are well represented by our information at hand (i.e. using our
> information to substitute for things rather than to refer to them,
> ?reducing? things to our information about them). Our best information
is
> generally that our information is limited, and significantly under
> represents the phenomena we observe .
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf

> Of John F. Kennison
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:08 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might

be,
> but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief that the
> best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of simpler
> components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)? Or is
it

> a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple
> components?
>
> --John
>
>
> On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> To Gunther:
>
> I dont think the word is horrible.
> Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

<[hidden email]>

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/3ed9f6fd
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:13:57 -0600
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "no one talks .... specifics"
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Robert Holmes wrote
>
> ==>"First rule of FRIAM: no one talks about specifics"<===
>
>
> Nick Thompson replies:
>
> BAD Robert; BAD, BAD, BAAAAAD!
>
> "Bad" because untrue. Sometimes the list gets mindnumbingly specific,

say,
> about specific softwares and what you use them for.
>
> And Bad because we were talking to a Newbie at the time and your irony
> might in fact be taken for a friam proscription. It's called,
> "self-fullfilling irony."
>
> For me, the list is most exciting when there is tension between the
> specific and the general, when, for instance, we talk about Rosen, but do
> so with a specific passge or text in mind, or talk about relativity, with
a
> specific phenomenon or formulation in mind, or, at the other extreme,
> talk about a specific software development or scientific observation
> because it raises some general issue or paradox. When we achieve that
> tension, we are ..... incandescent! I would urge all of us, when we are
> discussing generalities, to provide examples from texts or from nature,
and

> when when we are talking about specifics, to provide the principles or
> issues to which they are relevant.
>
> That's my two cents.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:20:55 EDT
> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: [hidden email], [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks Phil. I also consider myself slightly mad (hopefully interesting

at
> times); who wouldn't be living in the present state of the world. When
I was
> in the UN, we used to say, when speaking of the complexities of
developing

> nations, "if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly."
>
> And as an environmentalist, I also tend to analyze without resort to
> mathematics and look for trends and observed emergence.
>
> cheers Paul
>
>
> **************
> Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new
> fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at

StyleList.com.
>
> (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/01cdaca2
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:36:33 +0200
> From: G?nther Greindl <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Jack,
>
> ok, I phrased my question badly. To avoid any nitpicking ;-), I would
> like to know what you mean by this:
>
> "This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under
> the heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
>
> Cheers,
> G?nther
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:27:39 -0700
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> John F. Kennison wrote:
> > I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism
> > might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a
> > belief that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in
> > terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of
> > irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in nature is
> > nothing more than a sum of simple components?
>
> Well, I'll jump in. I can't say what "reductionism" actually means.
> But I can say what I mean when I say it and how I interpret it when I
> hear it.
>
> When I say it, I mean that reductionism is a _fetish_ for or zealous
> commitment to reduction/analysis, beyond the practical.
>
> When I _hear_ the word, though, I tend to make a less extreme inference.
> Reductionism and reductionist seem to be used to refer to the very
> analytic processes we revere and reward in all our most successful
> humans. And although it's often slung as an epithet, I tend to think
> it's a compliment, albeit a back-handed one. It seems to have become a
> term we use for careful thinkers. You only get called "reductionist" if
> you keep nit-picking until everyone's mad at you. [grin] Up until that
> point, reduction is always considered a pretty good method. When people
> are happy with it, they call it "parsimony" or "elegance" or some other
> nice word. Then when you piss them off, they call it "reductionism".
>
> That's why I usually end up saying something like "a little bit
> reductionist", which is a silly phrase if you put too much emphasis on
> the denotation... kinda like being a little bit pregnant. Stick to
> reduction for a little too long, and you're "a little bit reductionist".
> Commit your entire existence to it and you're a zealot.
>
> As usual, people tend to draw stark and false dichotomies. Nobody's
> actually a reductionist and nobody's actually a holist. We just like to
> pidgeon-hole people and their statements because it makes our lives

easier.

>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:35:06 -0600
> From: "Kenneth Lloyd" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
> quasars
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <DAEA6C6181E14FEB855981222B1A6E18@wattp4>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> John,
>
> I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I

suggest
> you consider the case for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and the problem it
> creates for reductionism. Some of us have come to understand complexity
by
> modeling wavelet perturbations on temporally extended, recurrent,
non-linear

> network graphs. The results have been very enlightening.
>
> Caveat: such results have been met with great skepticism, if not total
> disbelief, within the FRIAM community.
>
> Ken
>
>
> _____
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On

Behalf

> Of John F. Kennison
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:08 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might

> a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple
> components?
>
> --John
>
>
> On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> To Gunther:
>
> I dont think the word is horrible.
> Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

<[hidden email]>

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/80e9ae1d
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:44:04 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
> quasars
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Me, I'm a simulationist. I run these large, complex population mobility
> ABMs in the utmost confidence that I can make the output support whichever
> claim happens to be the current politically expedient one.
>
> Pragmatism trumps vague Reductionism every time.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I
> > suggest you consider the case for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and the
> > problem it creates for reductionism. Some of us have come to understand
> > complexity by modeling wavelet perturbations on temporally extended,
> > recurrent, non-linear network graphs. The results have been
> > very enlightening.
> >
> > Caveat: such results have been met with great skepticism, if not total
> > disbelief, within the FRIAM community.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] *On
> > Behalf Of *John F. Kennison
> > *Sent:* Friday, September 05, 2008 12:08 PM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might

be,
> > but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief that the
> > best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of simpler
> > components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)? Or
is it

> > a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple
> > components?
> >
> > --John
> >
> >
> > On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > To Gunther:
> >
> > I dont think the word is horrible.
> > Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> > Jack
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <
> > [hidden email]>
> > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under

the

> > > heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
> >
> > Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > G?nther
> >
> > --
> > G?nther Greindl
> > Department of Philosophy of Science
> > University of Vienna
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> > Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/e3cdc5f3
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:57:45 -0600
> From: "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <000301c90fbb$96d03be0$3d8df004@dell8400>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I meant quite the opposite of discrediting reductionism. It has been the
> basis of progress in modern science. It doesn't preclude attempts at
> unification , given the information that has been acquired in the

structure
> of matter down to the quantum level. That work continues, as well as
> research in the other direction, especially in cosmology and modern field
> theories-- in which progress has also been made possible from evidence of
> the sort coming from what some might derisively call the reductionist
point

> of view.
>
> This is a large story, in which, as aa scholar in the philosophy of
> sciences, you need no instruction, I'm sure.
>
> All best, Jack
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

<[hidden email]>

> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
> Jack,
>
> ok, I phrased my question badly. To avoid any nitpicking ;-), I would
> like to know what you mean by this:
>
> "This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under
> the heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
>
> Cheers,
> G?nther
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 19:01:25 -0600
> From: "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
> quasars
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <001101c90fbc$19cb6c40$3d8df004@dell8400>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I don't know whether I'm being addressed. Please assume that some others

among us are familiar with Prigogine ,etc.
>
> I'm bowing out of all of this preening. Please exclude me from the e mail
list hereafter.
>
> No offense intended. There seems to be nothing one can say that doesn't
invite intellectual opportunism here. End
>
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas Roberts
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
quasars
>
>
> Me, I'm a simulationist. I run these large, complex population
mobility ABMs in the utmost confidence that I can make the output support
whichever claim happens to be the current politically expedient one.
>
> Pragmatism trumps vague Reductionism every time.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I
suggest you consider the case for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and the
problem it creates for reductionism. Some of us have come to understand
complexity by modeling wavelet perturbations on temporally extended,
recurrent, non-linear network graphs. The results have been very
enlightening.
>
> Caveat: such results have been met with great skepticism, if not
total disbelief, within the FRIAM community.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of John F. Kennison

> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:08 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism

might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief
that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of
simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)?
Or is it a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of
simple components?

>
> --John
>
>
> On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> To Gunther:
>
> I dont think the word is horrible.
> Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> Jack
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"

<[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging
under the
> > heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
>
> Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please
;-)

>
> Cheers,
> G?nther
>
> --
> G?nther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [hidden email]
>
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 19:04:43 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
> quasars
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> None taken.
>
> We prefer the descriptive "Mental Masturbation", btw.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Jack Leibowitz <[hidden email]>

wrote:
>
> > I
> >
> > I'm bowing out of all of this preening. Please exclude me from the e
mail

> > list hereafter.
> >
> > No offense intended. There seems to be nothing one can say that doesn't
> > invite intellectual opportunism here. End
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee

Group<[hidden email]>
> > *Sent:* Friday, September 05, 2008 6:44 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
> > quasars
> >
> > Me, I'm a simulationist. I run these large, complex population mobility
> > ABMs in the utmost confidence that I can make the output support
whichever
> > claim happens to be the current politically expedient one.
> >
> > Pragmatism trumps vague Reductionism every time.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >> I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I
> >> suggest you consider the case for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and the
> >> problem it creates for reductionism. Some of us have come to
understand

> >> complexity by modeling wavelet perturbations on temporally extended,
> >> recurrent, non-linear network graphs. The results have been
> >> very enlightening.
> >>
> >> Caveat: such results have been met with great skepticism, if not total
> >> disbelief, within the FRIAM community.
> >>
> >> Ken
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]

*On

> >> Behalf Of *John F. Kennison
> >> *Sent:* Friday, September 05, 2008 12:08 PM
> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism might
> >> be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a belief

that the
> >> best strategy is always to analyze complex things in terms of simpler
> >> components (with, I presume, a small number of irreducible parts)? Or
is it

> >> a belief that everything in nature is nothing more than a sum of simple
> >> components?
> >>
> >> --John
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/5/08 12:13 PM, "Jack Leibowitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> To Gunther:
> >>
> >> I dont think the word is horrible.
> >> Please note the quotes around the word in my e-mail.
> >> Jack
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "G?nther Greindl" <[hidden email]>
> >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under

the

> >> > heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
> >>
> >> Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> G?nther
> >>
> >> --
> >> G?nther Greindl
> >> Department of Philosophy of Science
> >> University of Vienna
> >> [hidden email]
> >>
> >> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> >> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/2fe7ac02
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:17:57 -0600
> From: "Kenneth Lloyd" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and
> quasars
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <0EF16A5430A74F438C0070144EDA7049@wattp4>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Jack,
>
> I'm not sure I catch your meaning re: preening. I really don't see why

this
> would be, or is, the case.
>
> Reductionism has a place at thermodynamic equilibrium. It just becomes
> problematic at non-equilibrium - with irreversible systems. I disagree
with
> that there is intellectual opportunism. There is an opportunity to share
> real information regarding the way complexity in systems works, which I
> thought was the basis for this forum. If you are not persuaded by
> Prigogine, that's OK.
>
> Of course I may be wrong. Maybe it is a game of intellectual
one-upsmanship
> to some contributors. In that case, I wasn't smart enough to catch on to
> the game being played. I don't resonate much with philosophical dialog -
> but some in the group seem to enjoy such sparring. I find the study,
> modeling and simulation of complex systems challenging enough without
> philosophizing or game playing. But when the phenomenon can be replicated
> experimentally, and patterns identified, that's reward enough for me.
> Unfortunately, that study takes some hard, boring work which is how I
> characterize what I do, although some might find it more fun to
pontificate,
> speculate and fantasize. Far be it from me to stand in the way of the
> enjoyment of others.
>
> I get the impression sometimes that people would rather enjoy keeping
> complexity mysterious - even magical. Not so for me. Complexity has
become
> just another phenomenon that can be understood by us mere mortals. While
it
> loses it fantastic qualities, not so its beauty and elegance.
>
> Ken
>
>
> _____
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf

> Of Jack Leibowitz
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:01 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
>
>
> I don't know whether I'm being addressed. Please assume that some others
> among us are familiar with Prigogine ,etc.
>
> I'm bowing out of all of this preening. Please exclude me from the e mail
> list hereafter.
>
> No offense intended. There seems to be nothing one can say that doesn't
> invite intellectual opportunism here. End
>
> Jack
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas <mailto:[hidden email]> Roberts
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee

<mailto:[hidden email]>

> Group
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant (meaning old) galaxies, and quasars
>
> Me, I'm a simulationist. I run these large, complex population mobility
> ABMs in the utmost confidence that I can make the output support whichever
> claim happens to be the current politically expedient one.
>
> Pragmatism trumps vague Reductionism every time.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Kenneth Lloyd <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I

Behalf

<[hidden email]>

> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
>
> Hi,
>
> > This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the
> > heading of that horrible word "reductionism".
>
> Why do you think that the word is horrible? (be specific please ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> G?nther
>
> --
> G?nther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [hidden email]
>
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080905/e5fd2720
/attachment.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
> ************************************

============================================================
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: Some reductionism verbiage

Hi all,

Nick's message gives me an excuse to introduce myself. I've just joined your mailing list. I know some of you already. (Hi Steve, Own, Nick.) And I look forward to meeting the rest of the people on this list.

About my interests, here's a link to my paper, "The reductionist blind spot," which I gave at this summer's Philosophy and Computing conference.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

John Kennison wrote --

"Does reductionism mean a belief that the best strategy is always to
analyze complex things in terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a
small number of irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in
nature is nothing more than a sum of simple components?"

To which nthompson, The Brigadier of Blather, replied --

Or a third view, in which reductionism is just a form of "nothing buttery",
as in "mind is 'nothing but' the firings of neurons. On this view, "up"
reductionism becomes a possibility, as in "mind is nothing but the sum of
the cultural forces focussed on a human individual."

I guess the thread common to all these usages is a resistance to the idea
that levels of organization have their own phenomena and deserve their own
explanatory entities.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])

...

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