Logorrhea (psychology) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_(psychology)>, a communication disorder resulting in incoherent talkativeness
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net>wrote: > Just out of idle curiosity, what's the '...ysics' or '...ology' word for > 'prefers to talk (incessantly) about it rather than doing it?' > > Unless, of course, that is an unsuitable question. The question emerged, > unbidden, you see... > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > >> Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being >> the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is >> Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an >> unsubtle one... >> >> >> I think this is metaphysics, no? **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com >> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<friam-boun...@redfish.com>] >> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Primeness... >> >> I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should >> listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a >> useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and >> presumably some attendant proofs as well). >> >> That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians >> didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime *prime >> *). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or >> tourette's that would be set off by such a construct? >> >> Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one >> vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a >> bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which >> mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a >> mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate >> because he is not a mathematician. I'd say his definition is not useful >> because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in >> particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and >> relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to >> utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa). Numerology, on the other hand >> uses all three! >> >> We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without >> knowing it or admitting to it. I am pretty sure a number of people here >> would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while >> others are drawn to them (self included). >> >> While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter >> (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical >> reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and >> more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be >> more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge >> itself? >> >> That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse >> of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into >> that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll >> bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a >> much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize >> the futility of opening that bag of worms. >> >> Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological >> questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what >> emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if >> the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of >> knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as >> emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly >> "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of >> statistical physics. >> >> I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering! >> >> Carry on! >> - Steve >> >> >> **** >> >> Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition >> needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can >> credibly agree on the definition. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an >> attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, >> because I'm not a mathematician.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> —R**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland < >> grant.holland...@gmail.com> wrote:**** >> >> George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much >> captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. >> The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so >> well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that >> definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You >> can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the >> consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists >> can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun! >> >> Grant **** >> >> >> On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote: **** >> >> Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *mathematician***** >> >> ** ** >> >> it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, >> like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural >> number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 >> and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *statistician***** >> >> ** ** >> >> do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of >> entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point >> of view usage says 1 is not prime**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *artist***** >> >> ** ** >> >> try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as >> prime. I didn't see any.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Cheers, Duncan**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <pam...@well.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it >> depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case. >> >> PMcC **** >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:**** >> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <r.stand...@unsw.edu.au> >> wrote:**** >> >> Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...**** >> >> >> Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk >> once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone: >> >> "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7" >> >> That's how I remember. >> >> Mark >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> George Duncan >> georgeduncanart.com**** >> >> (505) 983-6895 >> Represented by ViVO Contemporary**** >> >> 725 Canyon Road**** >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87501**** >> >> >> Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward. >> Soren Kierkegaard**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ============================================================**** >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College**** >> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ============================================================**** >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College**** >> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
