Owen Hmmm. I saw MOTH as working out the entailments of, what if one important and unnatural constraint of the PD game was removed? To what degree does our belief impossiblity of altruism arise from that unnatural constraint?
Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 7/12/2009 2:01:56 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science > > On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > Owen, > > > > Is the program we built together.... MOTH ..... a thing? > > Yes. > > > That's funny, because I have always thought of programs as extremely > > refined arguments. > > No. They are algorithms. And can be built upon. > > Ex: The probability based on population was new for us then and we've > used it many times since. > > > Programs and simulations show the entailments of an > > argument with a precision that no [other form of] philosophical > > argument > > could hope for. > > Indeed, that's our point, and the gist of Please God No. > > -- Owen ============================================================ 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
