Friam

better simulating actual FriAM

Classic

List

Threaded

58 messages Options

123

gepr

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

Excellent! Thanks. It's not clear to me why I get so confused. Every time I think about uncertainty and information, I have to Google concepts like entropy and negentropy and re-orient myself. I suppose I just don't do enough hands-on work with it to develop a tacit memory.

On 7/20/20 5:18 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> But if one did want to keep track of signs, I think in several sentences below where Glen is talking about the presence of limitations’ reducing the allowed variability in some distribution, we could say we use one or another _entropy_ measure to quantify the reduction in likely variability. To the extent that one tries to characterize _information_ as Shannon did — a measure of how much ambiguity in a sample is reduced by having some bit of knowledge that rules out variations — then the reductions in entropy of the constrained ensemble relative to its prior would be called a gain of information in moving to the posterior from the prior. So without worrying about the zero-point for either of these measures, or their resulting absolute signs, in many settings one would talk of the change of information’s being positive when the change of the corresponding entropy is negative.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

Heuristic:

What a mess. High entropy.

Everything in its place. Low entropy.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 8:57 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Excellent! Thanks. It's not clear to me why I get so confused. Every time I think about uncertainty and information, I have to Google concepts like entropy and negentropy and re-orient myself. I suppose I just don't do enough hands-on work with it to develop a tacit memory.

On 7/20/20 5:18 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> But if one did want to keep track of signs, I think in several sentences below where Glen is talking about the presence of limitations’ reducing the allowed variability in some distribution, we could say we use one or another _entropy_ measure to quantify the reduction in likely variability. To the extent that one tries to characterize _information_ as Shannon did — a measure of how much ambiguity in a sample is reduced by having some bit of knowledge that rules out variations — then the reductions in entropy of the constrained ensemble relative to its prior would be called a gain of information in moving to the posterior from the prior. So without worrying about the zero-point for either of these measures, or their resulting absolute signs, in many settings one would talk of the change of information’s being positive when the change of the corresponding entropy is negative.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? But do we want to say that I believe z
BECAUSE I believed x and y? Entailment never "entails" belief unless I
believe in the laws of logic, right? For some reason I want to reserve
"cause" for the situation which believing y and believing that x+y entails
z, I came to believe z because I came to believe x.

I am plainly out of my depth, here. I mean, even more than usual. We need
a logician, or 4 years at St. Johns, or both. I think that a logician
consultant would say -- wearily -- that Nick wants to limit the word cause
to "efficient" causes, that experimental psychologists tend to do that, etc.
So then the question becomes, is the causality asserted when I say that the
snifter broke because I left it on the table when I went to bed AND the cat
knocked it off the table while eating the dip from last night's party the
same causality as I might assert if I said that the snifter broke BECAUSE it
was brittle. And is the causality that we assert when we assert sidewise
causality -- a sequence of events -- in any way related to the causality
that we assert when we assert upward or downward causality.

Glen has offered, and EricS has endorsed, a work-around for all this mess
which I have yet to understand. Really, I shouldn't speak to this issue any
more before I have another go at their messages, which I attach.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

What about something being believably prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

DownwardCausationDiscussion.docx (26K) Download Attachment

The perils of confusing nesting with chaining in psychologic.pdf (211K) Download Attachment

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

I believe that one can believe a, b, and c independently even if a and b entail (or cause) c.

Also, in the definition of causation I reported earlier I carefully said "a cause" rather than "the cause".

I taught resolution theorem proving in the AI course that I taught. That's a lot of logic.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:37 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? But do we want to say that I believe z
BECAUSE I believed x and y? Entailment never "entails" belief unless I
believe in the laws of logic, right? For some reason I want to reserve
"cause" for the situation which believing y and believing that x+y entails
z, I came to believe z because I came to believe x.

I am plainly out of my depth, here. I mean, even more than usual. We need
a logician, or 4 years at St. Johns, or both. I think that a logician
consultant would say -- wearily -- that Nick wants to limit the word cause
to "efficient" causes, that experimental psychologists tend to do that, etc.
So then the question becomes, is the causality asserted when I say that the
snifter broke because I left it on the table when I went to bed AND the cat
knocked it off the table while eating the dip from last night's party the
same causality as I might assert if I said that the snifter broke BECAUSE it
was brittle. And is the causality that we assert when we assert sidewise
causality -- a sequence of events -- in any way related to the causality
that we assert when we assert upward or downward causality.

Glen has offered, and EricS has endorsed, a work-around for all this mess
which I have yet to understand. Really, I shouldn't speak to this issue any
more before I have another go at their messages, which I attach.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

What about something being believably prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

What about something being permissibly prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

doug carmichael

Re: causality east and west

A causes B western view, straight arrow.

The eastern view is look at the context of A and the context of B in widening circles of effects at some point the circles will intersect. In the western view secondary effects are discardedin the astern view secondary effect are primary.

interesting

doug

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What about something being permissibly prior rather than just temporally
> prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

What about something being alethically prior, epistemically prior,
doxastically prior, deontically prior? Is there a word that satisfies
these more generally, satisfying modally prior?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

J
By "permissibly", do you mean, A is necessary for B but not sufficient?
I really should stop writing about this. My write/read ratio is way out of
whack.
N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

What about something being permissibly prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: causality east and west

In reply to this post by doug carmichael

Doug,

And Eastern philosophy has a whole different understanding of "argument", I
would suppose, and how one goes about convincing someone of something, if
one does at all.

Back in the village where I should be this summer, I would never "argue for
" a position or directly try to "convince" my neighbors of anything
directly. I would get my porch light sot out. In a village, we try to
"bring people along". Is that what Eastern "argument" is like?

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] causality east and west

A causes B western view, straight arrow.

The eastern view is look at the context of A and the context of B in
widening circles of effects at some point the circles will intersect. In
the western view secondary effects are discardedin the astern view secondary
effect are primary.

interesting

doug

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What about something being permissibly prior rather than just
> temporally prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

N

I am having fun seeing to what extent I can make snowclones of the
temporality-causation pattern, and thinking about how the concept of
entailment corresponds to these various modal logical notions. Please do not
feel compelled to respond.

J

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: causality east and west

In reply to this post by doug carmichael

Great point! There's always a mesh. Isolating off a single, abstracted, delusionally unitary region of the mesh is, I think, a natural tendency. Even if, as in some Eastern sense, one buys into something like positive feedback (impact of secondary effects over immediate effects) or even Utilitarianism (where many small bads/goods can sum to be greater than any acute bads/goods), those are *still* violent CUTS of the mesh into regions.

What interests me most is the origins of this seemingly natural, contrasting, tendency. My favorite candidate is arrogance, temporal arrogance in thinking other times are somehow worse than ours, spatial arrogance in thinking wherever we are is somehow better than elsewhere, etc. It evokes "looking for one's keys under the lamp post" (of which Firestein gives a pretty good defense in "Ignorance", by the way).

On 7/21/20 9:04 AM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:
> A causes B western view, straight arrow.
>
> The eastern view is look at the context of A and the context of B in widening circles of effects at some point the circles will intersect. In the western view secondary effects are discardedin the astern view secondary effect are primary.
>
> interesting

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

'
.
.
.
.
.
<glub>

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:18 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

N

I am having fun seeing to what extent I can make snowclones of the
temporality-causation pattern, and thinking about how the concept of
entailment corresponds to these various modal logical notions. Please do not
feel compelled to respond.

J

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Then it's a proposition. Logic applies.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 6:07 AM Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

What about something being believably prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Not right. As I said, you may believe or not x, y, and/or z independently whether or not you know logic. In the meantime x and y imply z.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:37 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? But do we want to say that I believe z
BECAUSE I believed x and y? Entailment never "entails" belief unless I
believe in the laws of logic, right? For some reason I want to reserve
"cause" for the situation which believing y and believing that x+y entails
z, I came to believe z because I came to believe x.

I am plainly out of my depth, here. I mean, even more than usual. We need
a logician, or 4 years at St. Johns, or both. I think that a logician
consultant would say -- wearily -- that Nick wants to limit the word cause
to "efficient" causes, that experimental psychologists tend to do that, etc.
So then the question becomes, is the causality asserted when I say that the
snifter broke because I left it on the table when I went to bed AND the cat
knocked it off the table while eating the dip from last night's party the
same causality as I might assert if I said that the snifter broke BECAUSE it
was brittle. And is the causality that we assert when we assert sidewise
causality -- a sequence of events -- in any way related to the causality
that we assert when we assert upward or downward causality.

Glen has offered, and EricS has endorsed, a work-around for all this mess
which I have yet to understand. Really, I shouldn't speak to this issue any
more before I have another go at their messages, which I attach.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

What about something being believably prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

Nick wrote;

OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? … Entailment …"entails" belief [if] I
believe in the laws of logic, right?

Frank Wrote:

Not right. As I said, you may believe or not x, y, and/or z independently whether or not you know logic. In the meantime x and y imply z.

Not if I believe logic, right? If not, please say why. To believe something is to act as if it were the case. To believe logically is to behave as if logic were the case. Or is the problem in our understanding of belief. You hold that belief is an inner state that entails nothing whatsoever in your behavior, past or present?

Ok, in that case, I see why you said what you said.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:57 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

Not right. As I said, you may believe or not x, y, and/or z independently whether or not you know logic. In the meantime x and y imply z.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:37 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? But do we want to say that I believe z
BECAUSE I believed x and y? Entailment never "entails" belief unless I
believe in the laws of logic, right? For some reason I want to reserve
"cause" for the situation which believing y and believing that x+y entails
z, I came to believe z because I came to believe x.

I am plainly out of my depth, here. I mean, even more than usual. We need
a logician, or 4 years at St. Johns, or both. I think that a logician
consultant would say -- wearily -- that Nick wants to limit the word cause
to "efficient" causes, that experimental psychologists tend to do that, etc.
So then the question becomes, is the causality asserted when I say that the
snifter broke because I left it on the table when I went to bed AND the cat
knocked it off the table while eating the dip from last night's party the
same causality as I might assert if I said that the snifter broke BECAUSE it
was brittle. And is the causality that we assert when we assert sidewise
causality -- a sequence of events -- in any way related to the causality
that we assert when we assert upward or downward causality.

Glen has offered, and EricS has endorsed, a work-around for all this mess
which I have yet to understand. Really, I shouldn't speak to this issue any
more before I have another go at their messages, which I attach.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

What about something being believably prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: better simulating actual FriAM

That's better and probably correct. I believe that the rules of logic are a model of human reasoning but not a perfect one. According to the rules of logic the following is true:

If the moon is green cheese then seven is greater than five.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:34 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick wrote;

OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? … Entailment …"entails" belief [if] I
believe in the laws of logic, right?

Frank Wrote:

Not right. As I said, you may believe or not x, y, and/or z independently whether or not you know logic. In the meantime x and y imply z.

Not if I believe logic, right? If not, please say why. To believe something is to act as if it were the case. To believe logically is to behave as if logic were the case. Or is the problem in our understanding of belief. You hold that belief is an inner state that entails nothing whatsoever in your behavior, past or present?

Ok, in that case, I see why you said what you said.

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:57 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

Not right. As I said, you may believe or not x, y, and/or z independently whether or not you know logic. In the meantime x and y imply z.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 9:37 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK, so what if I believe x, and I believe y and I believe that beliefs x+y
entail z? Then I believe z, right? But do we want to say that I believe z
BECAUSE I believed x and y? Entailment never "entails" belief unless I
believe in the laws of logic, right? For some reason I want to reserve
"cause" for the situation which believing y and believing that x+y entails
z, I came to believe z because I came to believe x.

I am plainly out of my depth, here. I mean, even more than usual. We need
a logician, or 4 years at St. Johns, or both. I think that a logician
consultant would say -- wearily -- that Nick wants to limit the word cause
to "efficient" causes, that experimental psychologists tend to do that, etc.
So then the question becomes, is the causality asserted when I say that the
snifter broke because I left it on the table when I went to bed AND the cat
knocked it off the table while eating the dip from last night's party the
same causality as I might assert if I said that the snifter broke BECAUSE it
was brittle. And is the causality that we assert when we assert sidewise
causality -- a sequence of events -- in any way related to the causality
that we assert when we assert upward or downward causality.

Glen has offered, and EricS has endorsed, a work-around for all this mess
which I have yet to understand. Really, I shouldn't speak to this issue any
more before I have another go at their messages, which I attach.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 6:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] better simulating actual FriAM

What about something being believably prior rather than just temporally
prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

doug carmichael

Re: causality east and west

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

“bring people along is too direct, too pushy. Confucius said “If I show someone one corner of a rectangle and they don’t come back with the other three I drop the conversation.” The irrationality of the request, because not enough is given, is intentional.

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:17 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> And Eastern philosophy has a whole different understanding of "argument", I
> would suppose, and how one goes about convincing someone of something, if
> one does at all.
>
> Back in the village where I should be this summer, I would never "argue for
> " a position or directly try to "convince" my neighbors of anything
> directly. I would get my porch light sot out. In a village, we try to
> "bring people along". Is that what Eastern "argument" is like?
>
> n
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:04 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] causality east and west
>
> A causes B western view, straight arrow.
>
> The eastern view is look at the context of A and the context of B in
> widening circles of effects at some point the circles will intersect. In
> the western view secondary effects are discardedin the astern view secondary
> effect are primary.
>
> interesting
>
> doug
>
>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> What about something being permissibly prior rather than just
>> temporally prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
>> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: causality east and west

Doug,

Hmmm! I am wondering if we are about to discover why no women have ever stuck with FRIAM.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] causality east and west

“bring people along is too direct, too pushy. Confucius said “If I show someone one corner of a rectangle and they don’t come back with the other three I drop the conversation.” The irrationality of the request, because not enough is given, is intentional.

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:17 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> And Eastern philosophy has a whole different understanding of
> "argument", I would suppose, and how one goes about convincing someone
> of something, if one does at all.
>
> Back in the village where I should be this summer, I would never
> "argue for " a position or directly try to "convince" my neighbors of
> anything directly. I would get my porch light sot out. In a village,
> we try to "bring people along". Is that what Eastern "argument" is like?
>
> n
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
> [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:04 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] causality east and west
>
> A causes B western view, straight arrow.
>
> The eastern view is look at the context of A and the context of B in
> widening circles of effects at some point the circles will intersect. In
> the western view secondary effects are discardedin the astern view secondary
> effect are primary.
>
> interesting
>
> doug
>
>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> What about something being permissibly prior rather than just
>> temporally prior? Perhaps, we would use a different word than cause?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
>> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

123