Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Sorry for the late response, Russ, but thank you for your sanity. In these days of despising The Other, good manners are much appreciated. A Jesuit wrote a book about interviews he had with silicon valley engineers/scientists about religion and their attitudes towards it. (Talk about the lion's den!) In it he talks about The Litany. Not one used in a mass, but the flood of I can't believe you believe/did XX. He learned to stay quiet for the several minutes it took for the flood to abate. (As the Vatican Astronomer, he's used to it, 1/2 the year in Flagstaff, the other just south of Rome where pretty good small body astronomy is done) Then at the end, very gently, he had to explain: I really don't care about these things, I only care about what I can control/be and do that the best I can. It was the most liberating realization of its kind for me because it was true for me as well. So thanks again! -- Owen On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. *-- Russ* 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Dear Doug, I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think . The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?' And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction. The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his The New Riddle of Induction. So let's say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, Look in the Bible. I am sure it's in there somewhere.' My atheist buddy says, nonsense, go out and look at the grass. I'm an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. All you have is evidence that grass is grue. Grue!? I say. What's Grue? Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, I dunno. What's Grue with you? my religious buddy simply says, It's the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. Nonsense, I reply. What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn't HAVE properties like that. Perhaps that's been true, he replies, but only up till now! In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is: o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy. A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid: o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws. No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it. So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of any physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified. I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory. Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM: There's also an interesting dark matter inference that has found its way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their stars off ages ago. --Doug On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but: Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system. Take dark energy as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived. But, without
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll probably believe it. If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I sent you earlier). As to religion: for me it's a big No thank you to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon hieroglyph-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a *miracle* to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there. In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector. --Doug On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear Doug, ** ** I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think . The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction. The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his *The New Riddle of Induction *. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?” ** ** Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “ “Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t HAVE properties like that. ** ** “Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, *but only up till now*!” ** ** In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. ** ** Nick ** ** ** ** -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way ** ** ** ** This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is: ** ** o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy. ** ** A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid: ** ** o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws. ** ** No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it. So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think the argument is inductive. My sample
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Doug wrote In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector Well, why not. it's always worked in the past .. . Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll probably believe it. If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I sent you earlier). As to religion: for me it's a big No thank you to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon hieroglyph-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a miracle to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there. In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector. --Doug On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear Doug, I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think . The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?' And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction. The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his The New Riddle of Induction. So let's say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, Look in the Bible. I am sure it's in there somewhere.' My atheist buddy says, nonsense, go out and look at the grass. I'm an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. All you have is evidence that grass is grue. Grue!? I say. What's Grue? Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, I dunno. What's Grue with you? my religious buddy simply says, It's the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. Nonsense, I reply. What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn't HAVE properties like that. Perhaps that's been true, he replies, but only up till now! In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is: o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy. A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid: o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws. No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete is more testable than
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Very clever. --Doug On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Doug wrote ** ** In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector ** ** Well, why not. it’s always worked in the past …. . ** ** Nick ** ** *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way ** ** Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. ** ** Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll probably believe it. ** ** If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I sent you earlier). ** ** As to religion: for me it's a big No thank you to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon hieroglyph-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a *miracle* to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there. ** ** In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector. ** ** --Doug ** ** On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear Doug, I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think . The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction. The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his *The New Riddle of Induction *. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?” Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “ “Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t HAVE properties like that. “Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, *but only up till now*!” In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is: o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy. A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Nice gloss of Goodman. But it also suggests a problem with philosophy: the need to make *demonstrably true* statements. Induction in mathematics is a proof technique. When applied to reality it doesn't work because the axiom of induction isn't available for reality. But then notion of a *true statement* as applied to *reality *is a bit of a stretch anyway. Yet philosophers keep insisting that it's important to make statements that can be shown to be *true*. But that's a cause lost before one even begins because there is no real connection between words and things -- only imagined connections. *-- Russ* On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Very clever. --Doug On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Doug wrote ** ** In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector ** ** Well, why not. it’s always worked in the past …. . ** ** Nick ** ** *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way ** ** Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. ** ** Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll probably believe it. ** ** If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I sent you earlier). ** ** As to religion: for me it's a big No thank you to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon hieroglyph-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a *miracle* to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there. ** ** In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector. ** ** --Doug ** ** On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear Doug, I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think . The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for induction. The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his *The New Riddle of Induction*. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?” Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “ “Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t HAVE properties like that. “Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, *but only up till now*!” In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. Nick -Original Message- From
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Dear Doug and Russ, Russ, I have been reading a lot of CS Peirce who defines truth as what will in the long run be agreed upon if we keep doing science about the world, and real as all that is true, as that upon which rational inquiry converges. Its a strange view, but it seems to have had a profound effect on the people who taught the people who taught us in graduate school. Even though Peirce and rorty have both been called pragmatists, he is about as far from Rorty as you can get. Peirces father was America;s first and foremost mathematical star, and Peirce took much of his inspiration from statistical mathematics of the time. He would say things like, what is true about humans is what an insurance company can make money betting on, in the long run. Doug, I didnt MEAN to be clever.(Accused of being flippant AND clever in the same correspondence, and I dont want to be either) It was just such a wonderful example of how faith plays a role in drawing any conclusion from experience, that I wanted to underline it. There is a great philosophical joke which philosophers use to make fun of psychologists: there once was a drunk who fell off a ten story building. And as it happened, there were psychologists with pencils and clipboards standing on each of the balconies to hear what he said as he went by. It was, So far, so good. Talebs Black Swan is another great example. The problem is how do we continue doing science given the problem of induction. What I am liking about Peirce is that he charts a reasonable course between sophomoric skepticism (eg Rorty, Fish, etc.) and naïve empiricism. He so values rational inquiry that he makes it the measure of all things, even meaning. Thanks to you both, Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way Nice gloss of Goodman. But it also suggests a problem with philosophy: the need to make demonstrably true statements. Induction in mathematics is a proof technique. When applied to reality it doesn't work because the axiom of induction isn't available for reality. But then notion of a true statement as applied to reality is a bit of a stretch anyway. Yet philosophers keep insisting that it's important to make statements that can be shown to be true. But that's a cause lost before one even begins because there is no real connection between words and things -- only imagined connections. -- Russ On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: Very clever. --Doug On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Doug wrote In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector Well, why not. its always worked in the past . . Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll probably believe it. If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I sent you earlier). As to religion: for me it's a big No thank you to any cult mindthink that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon hieroglyph-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a miracle to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there. In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector. --Doug On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear Doug, I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my walls and slaughtering you
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I like C D Broad's take on this: Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy. (1926, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon). I think there's a lot of truth in this... induction is simply not a problem for science and scientists. Scientists have used induction to give the most amazing, useful awe-inspiring descriptions of the universe and its contents. Sure, philosophers can hop around shouting You can't do that! It's not possible! but you know what? We just did. —R 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Russell Standish wrote circa 12-03-23 10:21 PM: In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, Here's a great example of how a belief in induction allows us to think in sloppy ways: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/25/attorney-zimmerman-used-term-of-endearment-before-killing-trayvon-martin/ As usual, the question of the validity of induction is ill-formed because it assumes the law of the excluded middle. Sentences are either valid or invalid and not allowed to be semi-valid or valid-in-context but invalid-out-of-context. The fact is that sometimes induction is valid and sometimes it's not, depending on what the sentence says and the context in which it's said. 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
This reminds me of a comment in the Physics vs. Chemistryhttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/timc/timc_20111219-1700a.mp3episode of the BBC's Infinite Monkey Cage: Chemistry is better than physics, because if something doesn't work you can't pretend that it does by sticking the word 'dark' in front of it. —R On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Nick, you misunderstood me: So-called dark matter is a very important example, in that until a deeper understanding of cosmological physics is developed, induction can provide little insight into the the referenced phenomenon. Please take up dark matter in your discourse on induction. If, however, for some reason you find the topic of dark matter an unsatisfactory vehicle for this discussion, I have another waiting in the wings. --Doug 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be inductive. The inductive form is: o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in some contexts .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy. A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid: o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the laws characterize everything we've encountered so far .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the laws. No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it. So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of any physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified. I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory. Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM: There's also an interesting dark matter inference that has found its way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their stars off ages ago. --Doug On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but: Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system. Take dark energy as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived. But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological magic dust, instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics. --Doug -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Glen, There is good reason to exclude the middle though. I am uncomfortable with the non-right-or-wrong options you have given. To me, it seems that an argument can only be correct if it specifies the circumstances under which it is correct (when the intended circumstances are always, we often don't explicitly specify, but that doesn't mean the circumstances are not part of the claim). For example, even the most esoteric conclusions in Euclidean geometry are understood to be correct in a world in which Euclid's 5 axioms hold; many current Republicans argue that individual mandates are a good idea, but only when the alternative is Hillary-care, a disparaging comment about a woman only evidences discrimination in a context that lacks an (roughly) equal number of disparaging comments about men, etc. Thus, rather than calling something valid-in-context, why not include the context in the thing, and then just call it valid? It seems to me that you are merely arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the many ways in which something can be invalid. I would agree with that. Eric On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 10:52 AM, glen e. p. ropella g...@tempusdictum.com wrote: Russell Standish wrote circa 12-03-23 10:21 PM: In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, Here's a great example of how a belief in induction allows us to think in sloppy ways: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/25/attorney-zimmerman-used-term-of-endearment-before-killing-trayvon-martin/ As usual, the question of the validity of induction is ill-formed because it assumes the law of the excluded middle. Sentences are either valid or invalid and not allowed to be semi-valid or valid-in-context but invalid-out-of-context. The fact is that sometimes induction is valid and sometimes it's not, depending on what the sentence says and the context in which it's said. 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 Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
or by working with examples so staightfoward and free of technical detail that the context is obvious to all participants without a whole lot of explication . -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 12:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 03/26/2012 11:01 AM: Thus, rather than calling something valid-in-context, why not include the context in the thing, and then just call it valid? Because that's difficult to do, as Dale's ongoing documentation of his actors indicates. Nick and Doug are both being flippant because a mailing list is not a conducive forum to rigorous conversation. They seemingly enjoy their lack of empathy toward the other, at least here ... probably not face-to-face. So, the likelihood either will assume the other has completely thought through the context in which they made their assertions is low. I.e. neither Doug nor Nick will assume the context is (adequately) included. (Indeed none of us are likely to assume that. That's one of the problems with e-mail and other online fora.) It seems to me that you are merely arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the many ways in which something can be invalid. I would agree with that. Yes, then we agree. But further, you can't get that nuance without either lots of text or densely packed terminology. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Thanks, I liked this other one too. http://www.naute.com/jokes/atheist.phtml On 3/24/12, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: Then there's the story of the Scottish atheist fishing in Lock Ness when suddenly his boat was tossed in the air. The fisherman gazed in fright at the Loch Ness Monster opening it's terrible jaws about to devour fisherman, boat and all. The fisherman cried out God help me!. God replied Why should I - you don't believe in me! Give me a break, I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster a moment ago either! Timing may be everything. Thanks Robert C 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word *induction* has many applications and connotations. Here are a few: In *biology and chemistry*: - Inductive effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds - - Induction period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect - - Regulation of gene expressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme - - Induction (birth) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_(birth), induction of childbirth - - Asymmetric inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center - - Inductive reasoning aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning_aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic - - Morphogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis - - Regulation of gene expressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression - - Cellular differentiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation - - Enzyme induction and inhibitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_induction_and_inhibition - In *mathematics*: - Mathematical inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics - Strong induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction - Transfinite inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_induction, a kind of mathematical induction - Epsilon-induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon-induction, a kind of transfinite induction - Structural inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_induction, a generalization of mathematical induction - Statistical inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference, also known as statistical inference. - induced representationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_representation, in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an object from one of its subobjects. - Parabolic inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_induction: a method of constructing group representations of a reductive grouphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductive_group from representations of its parabolic subgroupshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_subgroup . In *philosophy*, *logic*, and *computer science*: - Inductive reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning, a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning - Backward induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_induction in game theory and economics - Concept learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_learning is the induction of a concept (category) from observations In *physics*: - Electromagnetic inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction in physics and engineering - Induction heating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating, the process of heating an electrically conducting object - Induction cooker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooker, which uses induction heating for cooking. - Electrostatic inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_induction in physics - Forced induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_induction, with combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake So, you could perhaps pick which application of *induction* you are interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it. --Doug On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's not the point. I wanted to hear Doug;s Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter (spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks. It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the process, what I consider to be spam. In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's books where takes a swinging
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Robert, I think that's the best I've ever seen. Thanks, Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:14 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way Thanks, I liked this other one too. http://www.naute.com/jokes/atheist.phtml On 3/24/12, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: Then there's the story of the Scottish atheist fishing in Lock Ness when suddenly his boat was tossed in the air. The fisherman gazed in fright at the Loch Ness Monster opening it's terrible jaws about to devour fisherman, boat and all. The fisherman cried out God help me!. God replied Why should I - you don't believe in me! Give me a break, I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster a moment ago either! Timing may be everything. Thanks Robert C 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter (spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks. It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the process, what I consider to be spam. In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less. BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of induction? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140 IQ. I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence measure for the purpose of this discussion. I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process taking it as an article of faith when one of the irrational elements of their religion is brought into the spotlight. So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to believe religious bullshit? Working from my phone today... -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are looking like an omni-something being etc. Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? Would the jails be empty? Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell found the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About page). Noodle on. Thanks, Robert C PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but: Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system. Take dark energy as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived. But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological magic dust, instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics. --Doug On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion? ** ** *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts *Sent:* Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way ** ** So, NIck: after an hour long mountain bike ride to reflect upon induction, as the practice of inferring generalities from specifics, I'd have to conclude that it was overrated. In my opinion, of course. Aside from giving philosophers something to endlessly discuss, it'd say the practice is just a non-mathematical way of playing the odds. ** ** --Doug On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this... ** ** On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Doug, I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun. *From:* Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net] *Sent:* Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' *Subject:* RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way Of course. Sorry. Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts. Nick *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts *Sent:* Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more specific. The word *induction* has many applications and connotations. Here are a few: In *biology and chemistry*: § Inductive effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect is the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds § § Induction period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_period - the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first measurable effect § § Regulation of gene expressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression, a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme § § Induction (birth) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_(birth), induction of childbirth § § Asymmetric inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_induction is the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby chiral center § § Inductive reasoning aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning_aptitude, an aptitude or personality characteristic § § Morphogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis § § Regulation of gene expressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression § § Cellular differentiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation § § Enzyme induction and inhibitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_induction_and_inhibition § In *mathematics*: § Mathematical inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction, a method of proof in the field of mathematics § Strong induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_induction, or Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction § Transfinite inductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_induction, a kind of mathematical induction § Epsilon-induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon-induction
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Nick, I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun. FWIW, I also didn't get it then. Do you know Auden's Domesday Song? It begins, Jumbled in the common box Of their dumb mortality, Orchid, swan, and Caesar lie. Time that tires of everyone Has corroded all the locks, Thrown away the key for fun. Now, back to your (of course very standard) definition: Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from specific facts. I wish to use this discussion to give another brief push to a new item on my agenda, viz., plugging my new catchphrase evolutionary ontology (which is supposed to be part of a matched pair with the evolutionary epistemology that has been getting a bit of a run lately, and which was arguably presaged by Konrad Lorenz in that hard-to-find article on Kantian A-Priorism in the Light of Contemporary [i.e., c. 1944] Biology that I sent you--in the vain hope of eliciting a response--months and months ago). One of the traditional problems in justifying inductive reasoning (sometimes explicitly observed to be a problem, sometimes hidden under the rug) is that (seemingly) to have *any* hope of *validly* (even in the sense of it's a good bet) inferring general principles or rules from specific facts, the (necessarily, I think, several) specific facts have to be recognized (by the inferring agent) as specific facts that are 'of the same kind' (or 'about things of the same kind', or 'about events of the same kind', etc.). But it is very, very hard (which doesn't stop some philosophers and others from trying) to make serious sense of any notion of 'sameness of kind' (or 'kind' itself) that is at all independent of an observing/inferring agent. The simple-minded solution (which I am entitled to propose because I am *not* a philosopher, or even trying to do philosophy) is to embrace the observing/inferring agent and declare that 'kinds' (and 'sameness' or difference thereof) are properties, not of 'things' or 'events', but of a *system* that comprises 'things'/'events'/'environments' together with an observing/inferring agent. The evolutionary ontology slogan now comes in as a catchy way to summarize a hypothesis (which seems eminently reasonable to me) that, in an uncatchy and confused way, should run something like an organism recognizes [or tends to recognize] *as* 'things'/'events' that which it has evolved to so recognize; it recognizes *as* 'things'/'events' 'of the same kind' those collections of 'things'/'events' which it has evolved to so recognize; etc. In the William James version of pragmatism, this is a sort of converse to the notion that a difference that makes no difference is no difference--that is, it says differences are differences because they make differences. Theories of reasoning by induction then begin to look like, at worst, _post hoc_ rationalizations of the favorable outcomes of evolved behaviors, and, at best, as attempts to emulate (and if possible improve the ratio of favorable to unfavorable outcomes) such behavior in a (more or less) formal, or formalizable, way (that might possibly be performed by an artificial agent or algorithm). Coming back to Auden, orchid, swan, and Caesar lie jumbled in the common box of their dumb stupidity only because Auden (disguising himself, as he often did at that period in his poetic career, as Time) has put them their: they are not (absent his agency) members of a 'natural kind'; no one would apply inductive reasoning to them (until Auden has provided the prompt). Lee Rudolph 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Russ, your rant was conducted in the pure spirit of FRIAM; I would have been disappointed had I not received at least one. And I enjoyed it, thanks! --Doug On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. *-- Russ* On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Ramen. Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. -- Russ On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
The Vicar of Vermicelli approves. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 9:34 AM, Greg Sonnenfeld gsonn...@gmail.com wrote: Ramen. Greg Sonnenfeld “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. -- Russ On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful thatJoseph Cambell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell found the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about /'/ /we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion./' (see the About page). Noodle on. Thanks, Robert C PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. /-- Russ/ On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org mailto:drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 tel:505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 tel:505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbellfound the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about *'* *we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.*' (see the About page). Noodle on. Thanks, Robert C PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. *-- Russ* On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140 IQ. I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence measure for the purpose of this discussion. I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process taking it as an article of faith when one of the irrational elements of their religion is brought into the spotlight. So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to believe religious bullshit? Working from my phone today... -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are looking like an omni-something being etc. Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? Would the jails be empty? Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbellfound the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about *'* *we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.*' (see the About page). Noodle on. Thanks, Robert C PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. *-- Russ* On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I come at the whole I'm ordained so now I can marry folk thing from a different direction: in many states, *anyone* can be an officient at a wedding. No special documentation is required. In those places, any accrediting document for that purpose is a joke document. ~~The Reverend James Steiner, ULC, FSM, CotSG Amen, Ramen, Bob 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Indeed, and New Mexico is one of those states. Regardless, I am inordinately proud of my new ordination. :) -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 3:15 PM, James Steiner gregortr...@gmail.com wrote: I come at the whole I'm ordained so now I can marry folk thing from a different direction: in many states, *anyone* can be an officient at a wedding. No special documentation is required. In those places, any accrediting document for that purpose is a joke document. ~~The Reverend James Steiner, ULC, FSM, CotSG Amen, Ramen, Bob 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
It's possible that... - there may be a direct correlation between less intelligence and belief in what others will tell them (e.g. dogma and religious BS) - because neither knows any better. - and that may have nothing to do with whether a belief in the Divine is correlated with intelligence. - there may be a direct correlation between intelligence and the model of the Divine held by the believer. Those with little or no imagination may prefer the fatherly bearded figure on a throne or no-one/thing at all. - the more introspective may develop a model more subtle: e.g. 'existing' between the branes of the universes yet present 'everywhere' in one of 11 higher dimensions, fielding energies unforeseen that impact on the spiritually aware entities in the different universes under Its influence... or something completely different... perhaps it's metaphorically turtles all the way down (branes within branes within...) held together by... No evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence - even if our limited anthropocentric concept of existence applies here. We may be thinking about It all wrong. I've observed that the extent to which people take it as an article of faith depends on the school of teachings. Doubt - an antidote to fanaticism - healthily shows itself often, contrary to 'taking the article'. And as for the final interesting but loaded question... at least I'd like to think the BS quotient should fall. There's a discussion of the religiosity and intelligence studies in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence. Then there's the story of the Scottish atheist fishing in Lock Ness when suddenly his boat was tossed in the air. The fisherman gazed in fright at the Loch Ness Monster opening it's terrible jaws about to devour fisherman, boat and all. The fisherman cried out God help me!. God replied Why should I - you don't believe in me! Give me a break, I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster a moment ago either! Timing may be everything. Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 2:42 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140 IQ. I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence measure for the purpose of this discussion. I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process taking it as an article of faith when one of the irrational elements of their religion is brought into the spotlight. So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to believe religious bullshit? Working from my phone today... -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are looking like an omni-something being etc. Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? Would the jails be empty? Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful thatJoseph Cambell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell found the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Be interesting to hear why your ordination has meaning to you. That it does is obvious, and your willingness to engage in FRIAM about it implies there's an aspect of having it that you may not have mentioned. Yes? No? Maybe? Tory On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Indeed, and New Mexico is one of those states. Regardless, I am inordinately proud of my new ordination. :) -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 3:15 PM, James Steiner gregortr...@gmail.com wrote: I come at the whole I'm ordained so now I can marry folk thing from a different direction: in many states, *anyone* can be an officient at a wedding. No special documentation is required. In those places, any accrediting document for that purpose is a joke document. ~~The Reverend James Steiner, ULC, FSM, CotSG Amen, Ramen, Bob 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
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of induction? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140 IQ. I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence measure for the purpose of this discussion. I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process taking it as an article of faith when one of the irrational elements of their religion is brought into the spotlight. So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to believe religious bullshit? Working from my phone today... -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are looking like an omni-something being etc. Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? Would the jails be empty? Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell found the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About page). Noodle on. Thanks, Robert C PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. -- Russ On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter (spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks. It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the process, what I consider to be spam. In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less. BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of induction? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140 IQ. I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence measure for the purpose of this discussion. I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process taking it as an article of faith when one of the irrational elements of their religion is brought into the spotlight. So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to believe religious bullshit? Working from my phone today... -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are looking like an omni-something being etc. Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? Would the jails be empty? Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell found the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About page). Noodle on. Thanks, Robert C PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, that's not the point. I wanted to hear Doug;s Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter (spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks. It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the process, what I consider to be spam. In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to explain why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above (which also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, where such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, which I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less. BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of induction? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having a140 IQ. I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence measure for the purpose of this discussion. I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process taking it as an article of faith when one of the irrational elements of their religion is brought into the spotlight. So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to believe religious bullshit? Working from my phone today... -Doug Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are looking like an omni-something being etc. Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? Would the jails be empty? Thanks Robert C On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a reference for answering that one. Sent from Android. On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, Robert J. Cordingley rob...@cirrillian.com wrote: I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of insert your spiritual leader here. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell found the same core message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political or financial power - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in peace, can we knock it? Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the cloth at the CotFSM http://www.venganza.org/ and following in a long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About page
Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way
Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as indirect bullying. I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper sticker that reads A proud member of the religious left. Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. Sorry for the rant. *-- Russ* On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc. -Father Doug -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
