Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the
past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a
lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of
assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am
making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only
ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating
or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of
discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Dave writes:

"Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible."

This is why imperative programming is a bad idea.   Identify all possible dependencies, even if they don't seem relevant.   Those extra bits with name the different local situations.  

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:01:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the
past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a
lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of
assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am
making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only
ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating
or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of
discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

David,

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come back so I can administer cold compresses.  

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be if there ever were any.

Come back.  We miss you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.  
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nick writes:

"Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal."

You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have your own `truths'.
It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one that can see and hear.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:50:17 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

David,

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come back so I can administer cold compresses. 

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be if there ever were any.

Come back.  We miss you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Natural Designs - EarthLink home.earthlink.net Natural Theologists were a group of scientist/christians who believed that the best way to know God was to study nature. If only I believed in God ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Nick, David: you are both correct.

Frank

On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Gary Schiltz-4]

And that's the God's Honest Truth :-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick, David: you are both correct.

Frank

On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism. So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help clarify any disagreements. I think his conception of reality relies on a principle of plenitude where his conception of existence does not.  So I think it's a mistake to limit the conversation to truth/reality.


On October 14, 2017 11:59:08 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he
>is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have
>your own `truths'.
>It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one
>that can see and hear.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Dave writes:

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Marcus, you are correct re: the program itself and the theory of how the program is supposed to work and even the personalities / style of the coders.

I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair of the world and how the program would deal with it. This is quite different from the idea of theory ala Brooks which was only of how the machine was operating and moving from state to state - i.e. the succession of states and the congruence of source code to executing compiled code.

davew

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".  

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...  

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.

Dave writes:

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

Marcus

---

From: Friam [hidden email] on behalf of Prof David West [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Dave writes:

"I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair of the world and how the program would deal with it."

I had a discussion with a manager the other day where the question was raised "What is the function of this project?"  (In other words, how does it change how the machine moves from state to state or how does it improve life for users.)   I replied, "It is to change how developers feel about the project."  In fact, the project serves no other purpose but to address frustration and stated complaints (valid or not) about their daily work.  To make them feel that their theory of the world is valid, so that perhaps they will engage in the way that is needed.    I suppose it also has a more subtle purpose too, to show these same managers, that once these individuals feel validated, they will soon find something else to complain about, such as, say, the resolution to their first set of complaints.   ;-)

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:57:17 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Marcus, you are correct re: the program itself and the theory of how the program is supposed to work and even the personalities / style of the coders.

I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair of the world and how the program would deal with it. This is quite different from the idea of theory ala Brooks which was only of how the machine was operating and moving from state to state - i.e. the succession of states and the congruence of source code to executing compiled code.

davew

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Steve writes:

<A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.>..

So if we exclude the compelling argument that evolution has invented the same kinds of solutions over and over -- there are objective, universal constraints to optimize around and a relatively constrained solution space that would nonetheless take decades of engineering effort for skilled humans -- then, why should we take the alternative formal systems that humans use as evidence of the possibility different Truths and not just a bunch of psychobabble?   In some sense our meta-patterns we arrogantly upgrade to Theory aren't so impressive compared to the diversity of life on earth.  

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:41:52 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".  

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...  

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.

Dave writes:

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

Marcus

---

From: Friam [hidden email] on behalf of Prof David West [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Naw.  Come on Dave.  You're just picking a fight!  I don't meed the "rational man" at all.  All I need is that people either will, or will not, share an opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by definition, if shared, is what we mean by truth.  And the edge I am talking about here is emotional.  I  am not pressing this view with the ferocity that you take me for.  Persistence, perhaps, but not ferocity.  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First, you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  
> Please come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of
> edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine
> that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I
> say, the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that
> the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1
> hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the
> measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is
> not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample
> is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's
> that way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is
> random, and no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man
> that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  
> It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the
> midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything
> at all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what
> truth would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the
> past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in
> a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of
> assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I
> am making no such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only
> ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating
> or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program
> was the expression of a consensual theory share among those that
> developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the
> humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be
> reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be
> transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would
> be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be
> an intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for
> establishing orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is
> that the ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global
> – every living person at once – and therefore can only result in a
> consensus of the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second
> reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed at the
> conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

The measurements, by different means, either will or will not converge on a common opinion.  Science does that all the time.  That’s how bridges get built, no?  The great majority of bridges actually carry weight.  And so we continue, never certain, but making a winning bet almost every time we get on an airplane to Vienna.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:59 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

 

Nick writes:

 

"Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal."

You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have your own `truths'.
It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one that can see and hear.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:50:17 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

David,

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come back so I can administer cold compresses. 

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be if there ever were any.

Come back.  We miss you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Natural Designs - EarthLink home.earthlink.net Natural Theologists were a group of scientist/christians who believed that the best way to know God was to study nature. If only I believed in God ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
n       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
n       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
n       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
n       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
n       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
n       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Hi glen,

This may be a late Peirce/Early Peirce thing.  I confess to not having much of a grip on the late Peirce, which seems to fade away into irrationalism, for me.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of gepr ?
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:08 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism. So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help clarify any disagreements. I think his conception of reality relies on a principle of plenitude where his conception of existence does not.  So I think it's a mistake to limit the conversation to truth/reality.


On October 14, 2017 11:59:08 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he
>is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have
>your own `truths'.
>It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one
>that can see and hear.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus,

 

In trying to explicate Peirce’s definition of truth, I am not talking about  short term group think..  Remember, if convergence, in the very long run of time, never occurs, then there is no Truth of the matter, by definition, and Dave is right.   My sense is that Dave is trying to turn a Pragmati[ci]st definition into a Cartesian one and then hang it around my neck like a road-killed skunk.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:39 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
> n       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> n       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> n       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
> n       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Steven,

 

As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like your “eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over the long haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul.

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

 

For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. 

 

And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually matter.  He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the form of a convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long run. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".  

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...  

 

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

---

From: Friam [hidden email] on behalf of Prof David West [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
> n       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> n       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> n       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
> n       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Robert Wall]

Steven writes:

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

Nick responds to Steven with:

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and found this version of that "truth"-- 

National Geographic: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic building blocks (2008).

The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important innovations, such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes are used, rather than adding new ones to the mix.

This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent with Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and in addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot of time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to consider along with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like Marcus' programmer with a discernable personality: 

According to this analysis (Nautilus 2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit, there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping) to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this would be absurd. 

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit, called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don’t need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of possible circuits is more than 10700. That’s a lot, lot more than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or “human” traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?

So, it seems that nature's methodology seems more akin to design engineering than development from scratch (subgenomic?); that is, creating new applications (biological inventions) from a rearrangement of the parts (e.g., atoms, molecules, genes) of existing parts.  This also seems consistent with Nick (something is conserved|reused--genes, including regulatory ones that seem to quicken adaptation), Marcus (seeing this Hox gene circuit as the preference of the programmer), Dave [Heraclitus, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead] ("Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible."), Steven ("What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently. " e.g., jellyfish eye versus the human eye.), and Jeremy England:

If [Jeremy] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,”

​  ---

Scientific America: A New Physics Theory of Life [2014]

​.​

This theory of England's seems to resonate with Dave's "Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated- ‘truths’ are possible." 

But is there any "truth" to be found in physics, chemistry, or biology then?  Is it all context dependent?  Postmodern like?  For example, we live in this universe with these initial conditions and so these possible resulting laws, so, all ultimate truth is to be reducible to physics ...  

From his books I have read, American theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, I think, would say that even these laws are ephemeral.  Time (measured or psychological?) is the only fundamental truth.  Everything else is emergent, even space.  With this realization, Smolin asserts, physics takes on a new and interesting paradigm that seem to converge to testable hypotheses with a more conceptual economy--Occam's Razor.

But maybe this is why Nick says "For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. " 

Perhaps, observed physical phenomena and theories about those phenomena based on those instrumented human observers converge only in human consciousness ... and in statistical experiments ... allowing Nick's "Philosopher Stone" to be so predictive the more we observe and measure. 😊  Surely, reality does not care what we think it is ... but we have a desperate need to see consistency to at least feel in control. Our axiom-borne theories and  models are monuments to this "affliction."

Dave writes:

That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

Anyway, for what it is worth, I find this thread intriguing and will be interested where it goes from here ...  I really do not think that this will converge to a simple, single truth.  As Frank contributes:

Nick, David: you are both correct.

How can that be?!  What would pragmatic Peirce say ...? 😊

Cheers,

Robert

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

 

As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like your “eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over the long haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul.

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

 

For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. 

 

And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually matter.  He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the form of a convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long run. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".  

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...  

 

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

---

From: Friam [hidden email] on behalf of Prof David West [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.

> n       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> n       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> n       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
> n       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said

> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull. 

 

Thank you,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Steven writes:

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Nick responds to Steven with:

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

 

I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and found this version of that "truth"-- 

 

National Geographic: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic building blocks (2008).

 

The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important innovations, such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes are used, rather than adding new ones to the mix.

 

This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent with Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and in addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot of time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to consider along with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like Marcus' programmer with a discernable personality: 

 

According to this analysis (Nautilus 2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit, there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping) to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this would be absurd. 

 

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit, called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don’t need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of possible circuits is more than 10700. That’s a lot, lot more than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or “human” traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?

 

So, it seems that nature's methodology seems more akin to design engineering than development from scratch (subgenomic?); that is, creating new applications (biological inventions) from a rearrangement of the parts (e.g., atoms, molecules, genes) of existing parts.  This also seems consistent with Nick (something is conserved|reused--genes, including regulatory ones that seem to quicken adaptation), Marcus (seeing this Hox gene circuit as the preference of the programmer), Dave [Heraclitus, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead] ("Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible."), Steven ("What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently. " e.g., jellyfish eye versus the human eye.), and Jeremy England:

 

If [Jeremy] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,”

​  ---

Scientific America: A New Physics Theory of Life [2014]

​.​

 

This theory of England's seems to resonate with Dave's "Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated- ‘truths’ are possible." 

 

But is there any "truth" to be found in physics, chemistry, or biology then?  Is it all context dependent?  Postmodern like?  For example, we live in this universe with these initial conditions and so these possible resulting laws, so, all ultimate truth is to be reducible to physics ...  

 

From his books I have read, American theoretical physicist Lee Smolin, I think, would say that even these laws are ephemeral.  Time (measured or psychological?) is the only fundamental truth.  Everything else is emergent, even space.  With this realization, Smolin asserts, physics takes on a new and interesting paradigm that seem to converge to testable hypotheses with a more conceptual economy--Occam's Razor.

 

But maybe this is why Nick says "For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. " 

 

Perhaps, observed physical phenomena and theories about those phenomena based on those instrumented human observers converge only in human consciousness ... and in statistical experiments ... allowing Nick's "Philosopher Stone" to be so predictive the more we observe and measure. 😊  Surely, reality does not care what we think it is ... but we have a desperate need to see consistency to at least feel in control. Our axiom-borne theories and  models are monuments to this "affliction."

 

Dave writes:

 

That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

 

Anyway, for what it is worth, I find this thread intriguing and will be interested where it goes from here ...  I really do not think that this will converge to a simple, single truth.  As Frank contributes:

 

Nick, David: you are both correct.

 

How can that be?!  What would pragmatic Peirce say ...? 😊

 

Cheers,

 

Robert

 

 

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Steven,

 

As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like your “eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over the long haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul.

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

 

For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. 

 

And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually matter.  He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the form of a convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long run. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM

To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".  

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...  

 

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

---

From: Friam [hidden email] on behalf of Prof David West [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses. 
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. 
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.

> n       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> n       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> n       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
> n       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said

> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove