Friam

beyond reductionism twice

Classic

List

Threaded

44 messages Options

123

Roger Critchlow-2

beyond reductionism twice

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684

Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.

-- rec --

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

glen ep ropella

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Roger Critchlow wrote at 03/25/2013 07:55 AM:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684
>
> Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.

Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big
works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What
am I missing?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. --
Milton Friedman

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

Curt McNamara

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books.

Curt

On Mar 25, 2013 12:18 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger Critchlow wrote at 03/25/2013 07:55 AM:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684
>
> Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.

Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big
works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What
am I missing?

--
glen e. p. ropella, <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847">971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. --
Milton Friedman

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

Steve Smith

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books.

Curt

Glen wrote:

> Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.

Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big
works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What
am I missing?

Have you *met* Stu? My experience is that he does not reference his sources very thoroughly (even to dismiss them). He's a rock star (in his own mind)... does Mick Jagger acknowledge his influences (I actually don't know)?

I still think Kauffman is dead on with most of his ideas, even if he is not always honest (thorough) with is referencing/acknowledging.

Superficially it can make him look like a psuedo-scientific charlatan. Following Rich's recent post ( http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-real-meaning-behind-ted-controversy.html ) regarding the imminent demise of materialism seems relevant.

I think Kauffman is doing more to bring hardline materialism (appropriately) into question than the likes of Sheldrake ever will. Sheldrake's brand of psuedoscience seems to be very popular based primarily on it's "outsider" status. We love our conspiracy theories... and our perpetual motion machines... and our free energy... and grassy knolls... and Bush-binLadin secret marriages ... anyone who claims to debunk most of modern scientist is presumed to be the second coming of Galileo (by many).

I wonder what D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson would have to say about Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance? I'm guessing he would roll in the grave and release some dusty miasma in his general direction?

On the other hand, my (Virologist) daughter has pointed me to dozens of examples where mechanisms much like Lamarckian Evolution seems to be in play. So the old clear line between Darwin's and Lamarck's legacies is smearing a bit.

- Steve

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

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Quite a few of us on the list worked for Stu at BiosGroup a decade ago. I was just a software geek there (not a scientist), so I'm not qualified to criticize the veracity of his ideas, but I will say that he has an amazing charisma and made many of us True Believers. "Rock Star" doesn't seem quite right, but he did manage to inspire a lot of us with a cheerful but humble confidence. Maybe "demigod" would be more like it. Of course, the fact that it was a startup and we all had visions of IPOs (sadly never happened) dancing in our heads probably added to his appeal.

;; Gary

On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books.
Curt

Glen wrote:

> Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.

Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big
works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What
am I missing?

Have you *met* Stu? My experience is that he does not reference his sources very thoroughly (even to dismiss them). He's a rock star (in his own mind)... does Mick Jagger acknowledge his influences (I actually don't know)?

Pamela McCorduck

Re: beyond reductionism twice

I've been lucky enough to talk to Stu (last time in January; we've corresponded within the week) about some of these ideas. He *is* careless with references. But I'm sure I've heard him mention Prigogine as he talked. These ideas have been fermenting for several years, and I'm not surprised he overlooks precedents.

I say lucky enough, because he's inspiring, and often enough, persuasive. God knows I don't understand everything he says, and long to edit what I do understand. But he's an alpine point hisownself, an endlessly provocative thinker, and I'm happy to overlook some lapses for the privilege of listening.

Stu can be extremely generous. My first visit to the Santa Fe Institute was in 1991-92, and I can remember sitting alone in a room looking at stuff I'd never encountered before, and wondering WTF? But I could always knock on Stu's half-open door, and ask. He answered. Yes, it was very much part of the Institute ethos then, that you explained anything you could to anybody who asked, but that started a friendship I deeply value.

Pamela

On Mar 25, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

Quite a few of us on the list worked for Stu at BiosGroup a decade ago. I was just a software geek there (not a scientist), so I'm not qualified to criticize the veracity of his ideas, but I will say that he has an amazing charisma and made many of us True Believers. "Rock Star" doesn't seem quite right, but he did manage to inspire a lot of us with a cheerful but humble confidence. Maybe "demigod" would be more like it. Of course, the fact that it was a startup and we all had visions of IPOs (sadly never happened) dancing in our heads probably added to his appeal.

;; Gary

On Mar 25, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books.
Curt

Glen wrote:

> Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.

Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert Rosen's big
works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong? What
am I missing?

Have you *met* Stu? My experience is that he does not reference his sources very thoroughly (even to dismiss them). He's a rock star (in his own mind)... does Mick Jagger acknowledge his influences (I actually don't know)?

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

Steve Smith

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I
apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description
of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the
*honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a
rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who
are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I
actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care
for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling
Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any
references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article
including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I
suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe
the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly*
high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed
siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but
charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se,
though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to
describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he
*is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are
definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu
mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I
think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could
understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the
circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his
lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became
the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_
and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence
or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved
with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame)
_Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and
Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at
the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month
of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and
me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for
and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the
realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own.
There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to
put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits.
Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and
Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to
corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope
that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

Russ Abbott

Re: beyond reductionism twice

It seems strange to me that Kauffman would focus on cause. (I'll admit that I got that from just looking at the start of the paper. Perhaps he goes in a different direction.) Science really doesn't think in terms of causes. As I understand it science thinks in terms of forces, particles, etc., and equations that relate them, but not causes. This is especially noticeable when considering that the equations work forwards and backwards. If one wants to think in terms of a "forward" (in time) cause that implies a parallel "backward" (in time) cause, which makes the whole cause notion much less useful.

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: beyond reductionism twice

I know Stu pretty well because we share two groups who have met fairly regularly in the past: we are both Lindisfarne Fellows, and Stu brought me into a deep dialogue group in Ottawa, Canada, on "Complexity, Spirituality, and Reconciliation." Take a look at his new work on "adjacent possibilities", it's worth the trip.

Merle

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems strange to me that Kauffman would focus on cause. (I'll admit that I got that from just looking at the start of the paper. Perhaps he goes in a different direction.) Science really doesn't think in terms of causes. As I understand it science thinks in terms of forces, particles, etc., and equations that relate them, but not causes. This is especially noticeable when considering that the equations work forwards and backwards. If one wants to think in terms of a "forward" (in time) cause that implies a parallel "backward" (in time) cause, which makes the whole cause notion much less useful.

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

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

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

Pamela McCorduck

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve, I didn't see you as unduly critical. Stu's work raises many questions, small and large. By me, that's fine. Great work does that. He's trying to overthrow a paradigm. I hope Stu's work is great. It might not be. He's good--at least in intimate conversation--at saying, of course I may be full of shit.

You mention Chris Langton. He was also part of that small SFI group twenty years ago that would drop everything to answer your questions. To my utter delight, he showed up at a San Francisco party for one of my books a few years ago. I have great, great respect for him, and since nobody asked, I think the Institute in that part of its incarnation did not treat him well.

Fascinating that you're married to a hybrid of Kali and Loki. Wow.

P.

On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -
>
> I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.
>
> As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?
>
> I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.
>
> I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.
>
> My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.
>
> Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Steve Smith

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Pamela -

You mention Chris Langton. He was also part of that small SFI group twenty years ago that would drop everything to answer your questions. To my utter delight, he showed up at a San Francisco party for one of my books a few years ago. I have great, great respect for him, and since nobody asked, I think the Institute in that part of its incarnation did not treat him well.

I really valued Chris's acquaintanceship... I was peripheral in the early A-Life movement starting with the Cellular Automata and Evolution, Games, Life conferences at Los Alamos. I was sad when he dropped out. I understood that he was not treated well toward the end of his time at SFI as well. Last I heard (10 years ago?) he was living on a houseboat in Sausalito, enjoying life in the way only Chris can... glad to hear he showed at your party!

I'd still love to sort out whether I'm wrong about his appearing in Rolling Stone... in my book Chris was a Rock Star. I know we have more than a few Swarmers here as well!


Fascinating that you're married to a hybrid of Kali and Loki. Wow.

Fascinating that i'm still alive (and married to her) what with all the tendencies toward beheading or at least tricking men into self-revelation. I have to admit, however, that sometimes I use her and her family almost as literary devices like the fictional Sufi "Mullah Nasruddin".

- Steve

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

Nick Thompson

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

“ Science really doesn't think in terms of causes.”

Really, Russ? That’s quite a sweeper, isn’t it?

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

Image removed by sender.

Steve Smith

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ -

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

This was on a long drive from NM to OR last Thanksgiving... in the course of about 30 hours of driving we talked about a LOT of things.

I am pretty sure this first exmaple is merely "neo-Lamarckian" or "Lamarckianesque" as they only applied to the single next generation. The germline of the child does not carry the changes, although if the child experiences the same conditions the parent did, the same epigenetic mechanisms would be in effect in the subsequent generation. This example had to to do with Long Term Potentiation (a feature of neural connectivity). What surprised me most was that this particular example involved the female/mother/eggs which are not manufactured "on the fly". It seems more likely that the father/male/sperm would be prone to this type of effect? There may have been two sub-examples, one about memory and one about "bad mothering"?

A more Lamarckian example was, I think, in Roundworms and involved RNA interference. The result (minus the details) was something like hereditible immunity.

A parallel example I *can* remember was the case of Tasmanian Devils and what is known as DFTD for Devil Facial Tumor Disease. Apparently it is an *infectuous* cancer (non-viral, meaning it isn't about a virus transferring from one host to another, then causing cancer). A cancerous cell from one individual literally becomes part of the other individual's organism... like an accidental organ donation or skin graft. Apparently the Devils are prone to lots of scrapping with each other and when one with a tumor on it's face scraps with one without, a cancerous cell (or cells) can get transferred to from the skin of one to the other and it can in fact 'graft' right into the epithelial layer. I don't know if this is more common/likely because it is cancerous, or if Devils were already exchanging skin cells before this cancer emerged?

The point of this Tasmanian Devil example is that it is as unexpected (to me anyway) as examples of Lamarckian evolution would be.

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

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

Russ Abbott

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Nick,

You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and cause.

Do you think science organizes its theories in terms of causes? I see equations, entities, structures, geometries, and mechanisms, but I don't see causes. As I'm sure you know, the notion of "cause" is very slippery. I think science is better off without it.

But I'm interested in your perspective. What do you think?

[If this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am very interested in the subject, though.]

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ -

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

This was on a long drive from NM to OR last Thanksgiving... in the course of about 30 hours of driving we talked about a LOT of things.

I am pretty sure this first exmaple is merely "neo-Lamarckian" or "Lamarckianesque" as they only applied to the single next generation. The germline of the child does not carry the changes, although if the child experiences the same conditions the parent did, the same epigenetic mechanisms would be in effect in the subsequent generation. This example had to to do with Long Term Potentiation (a feature of neural connectivity). What surprised me most was that this particular example involved the female/mother/eggs which are not manufactured "on the fly". It seems more likely that the father/male/sperm would be prone to this type of effect? There may have been two sub-examples, one about memory and one about "bad mothering"?

A more Lamarckian example was, I think, in Roundworms and involved RNA interference. The result (minus the details) was something like hereditible immunity.

A parallel example I *can* remember was the case of Tasmanian Devils and what is known as DFTD for Devil Facial Tumor Disease. Apparently it is an *infectuous* cancer (non-viral, meaning it isn't about a virus transferring from one host to another, then causing cancer). A cancerous cell from one individual literally becomes part of the other individual's organism... like an accidental organ donation or skin graft. Apparently the Devils are prone to lots of scrapping with each other and when one with a tumor on it's face scraps with one without, a cancerous cell (or cells) can get transferred to from the skin of one to the other and it can in fact 'graft' right into the epithelial layer. I don't know if this is more common/likely because it is cancerous, or if Devils were already exchanging skin cells before this cancer emerged?

The point of this Tasmanian Devil example is that it is as unexpected (to me anyway) as examples of Lamarckian evolution would be.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

Nick Thompson

Re: beyond reductionism twice

Russ,

I don’t know wtf I am. I have always thought of myself as a scientist, but I am sure that many on this list have their doubts. I am certainly not a “hard” scientist.

I was hoping by my comment to lure you into a more lengthy explication of the idea that real scientists don’t think in terms of causes. But now you have smoked me out instead, so here goes.

Many of the philosophers I know, from time to time like to talk about causality as if it were a sophomoric illusion, citing Hume, or some sort of weird quantum theory. But that does not keep them from using causal reasoning freely in their everyday lives. I have never heard a philosopher who was reluctant to say things like “my car stalled because it ran out of gas”. I think what they mean when they deny causality is the denial of something that, as a behaviorist, I never thought to entertain: some deep gear-and-cog mechanism lurking behind experience. If one once concedes that all one means by causality is some forms of relation between previous and successive events such that a previous event makes a successive event more likely, then determining causality is just an exercise in experimentation. The sort of thing that all scientists do all the time. Thus, while “causality” may be unfounded in some fastidious philosophical sense, it is by no means empty. I’ll quote below from a footnote from a paper we just wrote which tries to preempt criticism our use of “causal” arguments in the paper. The footnote makes reference to work by a colleague and friend of mine, here in Santa Fe, Frank Wimberly. I will copy him here to try and get him to speak up. He tends to lurk, until I say something really foolish, which no doubt I have. The whole paper is at http://www.behavior.org/resource.php?id=675 . So, here is the footnote:

Some might argue that in falling back on a more vernacular understanding of causality we have paid too great a price in rigor. However, as our Seminar colleague Frank Wimberly pointed out, the vernacular understanding of casualty is potentially rigorous. Research investigating what aspects of the world lay people are sensitive to when assigning causality suggests people are sensitive to particular types of probabilistic relationships (Cheng, Novick, Liljeholm, & Ford, 2007) and that certain types of experiments are better than others at revealing such relationships (Glymour & Wimberly, 2007).

Frank?

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Nick,

You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and cause.

But I'm interested in your perspective. What do you think?

[If this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am very interested in the subject, though.]

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ -

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

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

Joshua Thorp

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

When I was in high school, someone gave me a photocopy of an article from OMNI magazine. It was an interview with Chris Langton about artificial life. I think I have been fascinated with these same twinkling lights ever since. It was pretty inspiring for me, having grown up in Santa Fe myself, it was so cool to see someone I could aspire to -- who could also be living in Santa Fe.

--joshua

Tried to find a copy of the article online but couldn't...

Interview
While most computer scientists are content to work on creating an
artificial intelligence, Chris Langton wants to create artificial
life in a computer. And he's succeeded
by Ed Regis

http://www.omnimagonline.com/1991_10omnimag.htm

On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pamela -
You mention Chris Langton. He was also part of that small SFI group twenty years ago that would drop everything to answer your questions. To my utter delight, he showed up at a San Francisco party for one of my books a few years ago. I have great, great respect for him, and since nobody asked, I think the Institute in that part of its incarnation did not treat him well. 
I really valued Chris's acquaintanceship... I was peripheral in the early A-Life movement starting with the Cellular Automata and Evolution, Games, Life conferences at Los Alamos. I was sad when he dropped out. I understood that he was not treated well toward the end of his time at SFI as well. Last I heard (10 years ago?) he was living on a houseboat in Sausalito, enjoying life in the way only Chris can... glad to hear he showed at your party!

I'd still love to sort out whether I'm wrong about his appearing in Rolling Stone... in my book Chris was a Rock Star. I know we have more than a few Swarmers here as well!
Fascinating that you're married to a hybrid of Kali and Loki. Wow.
Fascinating that i'm still alive (and married to her) what with all the tendencies toward beheading or at least tricking men into self-revelation. I have to admit, however, that sometimes I use her and her family almost as literary devices like the fictional Sufi "Mullah Nasruddin".

- Steve
============================================================
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

glen ep ropella

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve Smith wrote at 03/25/2013 03:42 PM:
> I prefer Pamela's description
> of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the
> *honest*.

He does cite Rosen in this paper:

Towards a Post Reductionist Science: The Open Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2492

which makes the absence of a citation in the later paper even more
conspicuous.

It reminds me of the answer Martin Davis gave me for not mentioning
Tarski in his "Engines of Logic". (Great book, by the way.) I can't
find the exact quote, but it was something like "He wasn't part of the
story I was trying to tell."

But it also reminds me of one of my favorite aphorisms:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence." -- attributed to Napolean Bonaparte

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully
is prepared to die at any time. -- Mark Twain

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

Nick Thompson

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ,

I was checking my email one last time before getting on plane to Houston (oh Joy, oh rapture!), when the weekly notice of talks at SFI came walking in the door. I thought as a kind of a test over everybody’s enthusiasm for the concept of causality, I might post the first few sentences of the abstract of the talk:

In this talk, I propose an approach to understanding the foundations of physics by considering the optimal inferences an intelligent agent can make about the universe in which he or she is embedded. Information acts to constrain an agent’s beliefs. However, at a fundamental level, any information is obtained from interactions where something influences something else.

And ask the question, How many references to causality do you see in this passage. I see two.

Have a great week.

Nick

Nick,

You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and cause.

But I'm interested in your perspective. What do you think?

[If this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am very interested in the subject, though.]

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ -

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Maybe it's better to say "Post-Newtonian science thinks rather in terms of the emergence of possibility."

Merle

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

“ Science really doesn't think in terms of causes.”

Really, Russ? That’s quite a sweeper, isn’t it?

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 4:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

It seems strange to me that Kauffman would focus on cause. (I'll admit that I got that from just looking at the start of the paper. Perhaps he goes in a different direction.) Science really doesn't think in terms of causes. As I understand it science thinks in terms of forces, particles, etc., and equations that relate them, but not causes. This is especially noticeable when considering that the equations work forwards and backwards. If one wants to think in terms of a "forward" (in time) cause that implies a parallel "backward" (in time) cause, which makes the whole cause notion much less useful.

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

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

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: <a href="tel:747-999-5105" value="+17479995105" target="_blank">747-999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: beyond reductionism twice

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick,

Here is the complete citation:

Glymour, C., and Wimberly, F.

Actual Causes and Thought Experiments,

in Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, Harry S. Silverstein (eds.),

Causation and Explanation: Topics in Contemporary Philosopy, MIT Press, Cambridge, July 2007.

I’ll buy a cup of coffee for anyone who reads the whole paper. The book contains a number of papers by luminaries in the area of philosophy of causation including Patrick Suppes, Nancy Cartwright, Christopher Hitchcock, etc. I was surprised to find that it’s available on Google books: http://tinyurl.com/d9l44jh

Frank

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email] [hidden email]

Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:57 PM
To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Russ,

I don’t know wtf I am. I have always thought of myself as a scientist, but I am sure that many on this list have their doubts. I am certainly not a “hard” scientist.

I was hoping by my comment to lure you into a more lengthy explication of the idea that real scientists don’t think in terms of causes. But now you have smoked me out instead, so here goes.

Frank?

Nick

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] beyond reductionism twice

Nick,

You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and cause.

But I'm interested in your perspective. What do you think?

[If this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am very interested in the subject, though.]

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ -

Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find out more about some of your daughter's examples.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

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

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) -

I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their music.

As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history?

I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think.

I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by Alexander and Kauffman equally.

My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on Science(tm) in their neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope that we will discuss them a bit?

- Steve

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

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

123