The case for universal basic income UBI
Locked
Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI
 
|
Thanks Nick, your theory resonates with me. On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 20:54, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI
|
|
Thanks, Pieter, I still like it, but it’s a bit too dawkinsian form my modern eye. How one isolates benefits to collective action from any of the pleiotropic consequences of a “genefur” collective action is a problem that baffles. I understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field. N Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp Thanks Nick, your theory resonates with me. On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 20:54, <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” Was: The case for universal basic income UBI
|
|
Very good Nick. You didn't cite any evidence for the assertions in the copy of the paper you included. What is there along those lines -- not that I'm doubting it. Would you elaborate on the following. You said that you "understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field." In what sense do organisms play to play the game of natural selection--other than that they can't avoid it? Why doesn't your extract already explain when organisms pay for a level playing field? -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 2:27 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” Was: The case for universal basic income UBI
|
|
Russ, Good questions, all. I wish I had good answers for any of them. First, support for assertions. It wasn’t that sort of piece of writing. It was an “op-ed”, an answer to a rather silly article in SKEPTIC by John Hartung challenging Wilson and Sober on the possibility of group selection. To wildly over simplify, Hartung was confused about the relationship between group selected behavior, individual behavior, good, and evil. If you let me know which assertions you particularly were curious about, I will try and remember how I came to believe them. Second, my ruminations about a level playing field, which occurred to me only relatively recently, are simply pulled out of my… um … armpit. You are perhaps well positioned to evaluate the logic of them. Natural selection cannot occur without additive genetic variance (genes as main effects). Given all we have learned about Evo-devo since the 90’s it’s hard to understand how very many complex traits could possess the pleiotropic insularity to be a genetic main effect. Or, if genes are thought of as the things selected, then every gene is favored by the sum effect across all of its pleiotropies, and I cannot see how any one trait-consequence can be freed from the others. Once I suppose that genes are specific only to enzymes and enzymes have effects throughout the developmental process, It becomes very difficult for me to imagine how natural selection could have come about except via some scaffolding mechanism to support it and I cannot imagine in whose interest such a scaffolding mechanism might be. That Eric Smith some sense in the question gave me some comfort for asking it, but his reply was beyond my depth, so I am still bemused. Some force must have made genes selectable, made for two alleles to be equivalent but in only one phenotypic consequence, so that consequence could be cleanly selected for. I suppose it might be possible to make an argument that selection itself can create the “gene-rack” by gradually tidying up the pleiotropies, but I don’t yet see yet how it works. That was all I was trying to get at with my level playing field metaphor, which I guess I now regret. All the best, Nick Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Very good Nick. You didn't cite any evidence for the assertions in the copy of the paper you included. What is there along those lines -- not that I'm doubting it. Would you elaborate on the following. You said that you "understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field." In what sense do organisms play to play the game of natural selection--other than that they can't avoid it? Why doesn't your extract already explain when organisms pay for a level playing field? -- Russ Abbott On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 2:27 PM <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks, Pieter, I still like it, but it’s a bit too dawkinsian form my modern eye. How one isolates benefits to collective action from any of the pleiotropic consequences of a “genefur” collective action is a problem that baffles. I understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field. N Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp Thanks Nick, your theory resonates with me. On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 20:54, <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Russ, Nothing worse than the elderly citing themselves, but what alternatives do I have?
By the way, in this case “genetic out come” refers neither to “the genes” in general or to “benefits to the species” but to the specific competition between the “genefur” supporting collective action and the “genefur” individually directed action. Thus, for the article to make sense to you, you already have to believe in “genesfur”. As you know, I have worried with increasing frequency about the possibility of “genesfur”. How do you get fur on a gene, anyway? Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Glen is right. I was quoting McKibbon writing about Weintrobe. Of course I did that because I thought that see made an important point. Here's the extract again. "Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” ... I found this interesting because it related back to our earlier discussion of reciprocity. If it is in our nature to have these two warring parts of our psyches, there is probably no hope that the "caring part" will ever fully triumph over the "uncaring part" and reliably hold the uncaring part in check. Presumably, this has to do with evolution and the need for both parts for successful long-term survival of a species. If you buy that, and I think it's right, then what kind of society can be constructed of organisms with these two components that drive their behavior? That's the question we've been struggling with both in this discussion and over the ages. The answer presumably has to do with as much freedom as possible but freedom reigned in by enforced rules that prevent our uncaring parts from destroying that society. The neoliberalism discussion has to do with the observation that our society has been moving in the direction of giving the uncaring parts too much power. -- Russ Abbott On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 6:42 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote: Thank you DaveW, I support this! On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 04:53, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: What started the problem (at least in the West)" "Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” [Christian Bible] Potential way out: Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far... [Sir Francis Bacon] davew On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: Sorry. I admire your memory. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative. On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Did I already post this here? > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent> > --- -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Very good Nick. You didn't cite any evidence for the assertions in the copy of the paper you included. What is there along those lines -- not that I'm doubting it. Would you elaborate on the following. You said that you "understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field." In what sense do organisms play to play the game of natural selection--other than that they can't avoid it? Why doesn't your extract already explain when organisms pay for a level playing field? -- Russ Abbott On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 2:27 PM <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks, Pieter, I still like it, but it’s a bit too dawkinsian form my modern eye. How one isolates benefits to collective action from any of the pleiotropic consequences of a “genefur” collective action is a problem that baffles. I understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field. N Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp Thanks Nick, your theory resonates with me. On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 20:54, <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Russ, Nothing worse than the elderly citing themselves, but what alternatives do I have?
By the way, in this case “genetic out come” refers neither to “the genes” in general or to “benefits to the species” but to the specific competition between the “genefur” supporting collective action and the “genefur” individually directed action. Thus, for the article to make sense to you, you already have to believe in “genesfur”. As you know, I have worried with increasing frequency about the possibility of “genesfur”. How do you get fur on a gene, anyway? Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Glen is right. I was quoting McKibbon writing about Weintrobe. Of course I did that because I thought that see made an important point. Here's the extract again. "Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” ... I found this interesting because it related back to our earlier discussion of reciprocity. If it is in our nature to have these two warring parts of our psyches, there is probably no hope that the "caring part" will ever fully triumph over the "uncaring part" and reliably hold the uncaring part in check. Presumably, this has to do with evolution and the need for both parts for successful long-term survival of a species. If you buy that, and I think it's right, then what kind of society can be constructed of organisms with these two components that drive their behavior? That's the question we've been struggling with both in this discussion and over the ages. The answer presumably has to do with as much freedom as possible but freedom reigned in by enforced rules that prevent our uncaring parts from destroying that society. The neoliberalism discussion has to do with the observation that our society has been moving in the direction of giving the uncaring parts too much power. -- Russ Abbott On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 6:42 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote: Thank you DaveW, I support this! On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 04:53, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: What started the problem (at least in the West)" "Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” [Christian Bible] Potential way out: Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far... [Sir Francis Bacon] davew On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: Sorry. I admire your memory. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative. On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Did I already post this here? > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent> > --- -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Very good Nick. You didn't cite any evidence for the assertions in the copy of the paper you included. What is there along those lines -- not that I'm doubting it. Would you elaborate on the following. You said that you "understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection; what I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field." In what sense do organisms play to play the game of natural selection--other than that they can't avoid it? Why doesn't your extract already explain when organisms pay for a level playing field? -- Russ Abbott On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 2:27 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |