What's the big deal about the bibblegonk, that part I figured out -
looked it up on ebay and got some at a discount... But then I tried desperately
to agitate the mixture, and couldn't find anything to say that it truly found
insulting!
Again, this conversation about modeling minds is weirdly
What settings did you use at the adobe site? It wasn't very clear to
me what they all meant! And my first visit ended up having the
settings program go nuts and I had to kill it.
In the bigger picture, Javascript (including the flash libraries) is
part of the evolution of the browser
Glen 'n all,
Another example: I had to work out (and I am not entirely sure, even now)
what Marcus had in mind by subject in subject neutral: subject = the
person who is speaking, as in a subjective utterance; or subject = the
thing the person is talking about, as in the subject of the
Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 09/16/2009 08:35 AM:
Again, this conversation about modeling minds is weirdly high-end.
Even the most trivial understanding of the words in context (e.g.,
agitate) requires something of a model of the writer.
Well, Marcus' point is well taken to the extent that
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Another example: I had to work out (and I am not entirely sure, even now)
what Marcus had in mind by subject in subject neutral: subject = the
person who is speaking, as in a subjective utterance; or subject = the
thing the person is talking about, as in the subject of
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
I say go ahead and extend the model despite your ignorance, but be
vigilant in the caveats that the uncertainty in the extended model is
unbounded and your model is totally invalid (invalid in simulation
jargon or unsound in logic/philosophy jargon).
I'm not denying
I would put it more strongly and say that it is entirely not subject
neutral. I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that
we can drill into that has ultimate reality. I'm not being cute, or
deep, or nihilistic, ;) but I really don't think that this is simply a
matter of
Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09-09-16 10:39 AM:
If the symbols of a model
aren't anywhere close to grounded, almost any proposition could be true
or false. It could be that some things are more or less likely, but
figuring that out soon becomes a huge computational/cognitive load.
Miles Parker wrote:
I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that we can
drill into that has ultimate reality.
But there are a lot of things that can be controlled very effectively
and with predictable failure rates.
I'm not being [...] nihilistic
Are they arresting people
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Well, the symbols in such a model _are_ grounded to the person
constructing and using the model. So, as a thinking tool, there's no
danger at all. The danger comes in when that person makes the mistake
of believing that what they think is somehow real.
It's real
Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09-09-16 11:22 AM:
Miles Parker wrote:
I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that we can
drill into that has ultimate reality.
But there are a lot of things that can be controlled very effectively
and with predictable failure rates.
On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Miles Parker wrote:
I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that we can
drill into that has ultimate reality.
But there are a lot of things that can be controlled very
effectively and with predictable failure rates.
On Sep 16, 2009, at 12:11 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
But the question is How are they controlled? I think the answer is
with
multiple models, by parallax. A single model is never valid
(sound), as
Miles points out. Multiple models are required for validity and,
hence,
control and
Miles: I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that we can
drill into that has ultimate reality.
Marcks: But there are a lot of things that can be controlled very effectively
and with predictable failure rates.
Miles: Good [we agree]... [but] I'm not sure how many people --
Thus spake Miles Parker circa 09-09-16 12:49 PM:
I would heartily agree -- and as the name of this group is Applied
Complexity -- that that is sound practical advice. Curious if you are
also arguing that *in general*, say
validity(M1) validity(M2)
where M1 and M2 are sets of models and
Isn't that the postmodernist position?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Miles Parker
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was
Well, now I can't resist.
Eric, you said,
When people on this list talk about ... etc., don't most of them think they
are talking about something real?
Since you used the word would you mind clarifying what distinction you are
making between what is real and what people only believe is real.
Hi Frank!
On Sep 16, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Isn't that the postmodernist position?
It does happen to coincide -- which is why I suggested that litcrit
would be a good thing to teach to future scientists-- I'm not claiming
it's original. :) In fact, the basic point of
On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
It's funny, I have the general notion that scientists shouldn't
know better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I
think it is much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff
they do, and they do it better, if they
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-16 03:29 PM:
I guess you too Glen.
Just a note about these sorts of forums... you don't need to call out
each person. If you post a question to the list, you're implicitly
(perhaps unintentionally) inviting answers from everyone on the list.
It seems to have
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
I guess you too Glenn.
It seems to have become fashionable to act disparagingly toward the notion
of real. What do you intend to substitute for it?
-- Russ
I too, am in the camp that cannot fathom what real could possibly
Not the friendliest control panel is it? I ended up turning off local
storage (under Global Storage Settings) and setting other sites use of my
cam and mic to Always Ask (under Global Privacy and Global Security
Settings)
-- R
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net
.. will meet at downtown subscription, thursday, at 4pm to discuss McLaughlin's
Rise and Fall of British Emergentism. Anybody is welcome to sit in, but if you
havent read the article, you cant talk for the first 45 minutes.
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and
Meaning is definitely there. From the meaning that humans give the the
biological world: ever noticed how there are many words for some
species (eg dogs or horses), but hardly any covering other major groups of
species (eg ants or beetles). Where there are explicit distinctions
made, there tends
Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of
real mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I
wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't
believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive
Have you ever hit your thumb with a hammer? I don't mean just taking a
little girlie swipe at it, I mean NAILING the sucker.
That's real, man.
Even little brains can wrap themselves around the reality of This *really*
hurts.
Ok, back to deep discussions of phenomenology, ontology, and
On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the
disparagement of real mainly by talking about phenomenology,
ontology, and epistemology. I wasn't asking about any of those. I
was asking whether you really don't believe there is
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-16 04:32 PM:
Both RussS and GlennR
I can't take it anymore! ;-) ... only a single n. I posit that you
miss that sort of thing because you have two S's and two T's at the ends
of your names.
responded to my question about the disparagement of
real mainly by
.. and if you'd like to talk and don't have the book, here's the
chapter:
http://backspaces.net/temp/BritEmergentism.pdf
-- Owen
On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
... will meet at downtown subscription, thursday, at 4pm to discuss
McLaughlin's Rise and Fall of
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Yet, I also have the feeling that if they for one moment thought as I
did, that they were (at best) just playing a strange prediction game,
the whole enterprise would suddenly grind to a halt. Ah, the time and
money that would be saved.
If it were easy to make reliable
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of
real mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I
wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't
believe
What's really going on is a good question. It presumes that something is
going on, which is my point.
I raised the issue to begin with because of what seemed to me to be a
disparagement of the notion of reality.
I find it hard to believe that GlenR (one n. Sorry) doesn't care whether
there's a
The construction sounds nice, but what's with that whole glob of keys
on the right side, making you reach several inches further to get to
the mouse? You know, the ones with numbers on them? I ain't no
freekin' accountant, I want my numbers on the top row, above the Q W
E R T Y keys just
Gary Schiltz wrote:
And CAPS LOCK to the left of the pinkie? Puhleeze! Enough to give an
Emacs junkie pinkie tendonitis.
Yeah, creating a new frame (C-x 52) involves arm muscles, but it does
demonstrate touch typing. I mean the real number row, not the glob of
keys on the right side!
Hey, folks. I am trying to keep this thread for discussions of
MacLaughlin's chapter.
You want to talk about realism/idealism, get your own damn thread.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand the
connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God, if
there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is. And
I
Just because someone uses a word nonsensically, does that make the word
nonsense?
I still don't get it. Why are so many people so anxious to dismiss the word
*reality *-- and with it the corresponding notion?
-- Russ_A
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM, russell standish
37 matches
Mail list logo
