Eric, This is an important point -- and I disagree with you about it.
>From my perspective action precedes conceptualization; from yours conceptualization precedes action. You say "To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if it was the case'." The implication of that perspective is that one determines what is the case, i.e., one conceptualizes, and then one acts. I don't think most people spend most of their time like that. For the most part we just do whatever we do without first devoting much effort to deciding what is the case. By deciding something, I mean expressing it in predicates that have true/false values. We don't tend to do that very much. It's only after we act and when we step back and look at ourselves and attempt to explain ourselves, that we come up with the notion of induction. We say, this is what the term (scientific or naive) *induction *means. And by golly, it looks like we act that way. But that's very different from saying that we explicitly invoke the framework of induction whenever we act. To turn it around would be similar to saying that nature acts according to evolution, i.e., that nature consults the theory of evolution to decide what it should do next. Of course that's not true. Nature does not consult a theory to see what it should do next. It just does what it does. We are clever enough to have developed a theory of evolution that seems to encompass much of what happens in nature. And that's true for most everything most of us do or expect. We don't consult the theory of induction to decide what to do next or what to expect next. We do or expect whatever we do or expect Induction is a good way of explaining how we got to that result. The way you want to put it suggests that we are programmed to follow certain rules -- where by programmed I mean that there is some actual *symbolic *software that executes when we act. (I don't mean by programmed that we are biologically set up in a certain way. I'm taking the notion of programming seriously because I'm a programmer and a program is a symbolically expressed recipe for behavior.) Only very rarely do any of us consult a symbolic recipe before acting. And when we do, it's generally not the recipe for induction. We consult symbolic recipes when we want guidance for what to do next when the decisions is far more complex than normal naive induction. *-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ *_____________________________________________* On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> wrote: > But Russ, come on now. To 'have faith' is nothing other than 'to act as if > it was the case'. > > Thus, if we act as if induction is the case, we have faith in induction. > If I see that someone routinely relies on induction when trying to figure > things out, and I have seen that he acts with confidence once the inductive > process is complete, then I have seen his faith. If we act as if the world > will be here tomorrow, then we have faith that the world will be here > tomorrow. If we act as if the bible is true, then we have faith in the > bible. > > The issue of self-consciousness, or people's ability to verbalize basic > principles, is a different issue. I am afraid I do not have the same faith > in people's abilities to accurately talk about themselves that you seem to > have. At the least, I have trouble acting as if it were the case ;- ) > > Eric > > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 03:50 PM, *Russ Abbott <[email protected]>* wrote: > > Nick, > > As far as I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily) > induction and faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate > whereas faith is an imported belief. > > You don't need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the > case. That's simply how we evolved to be in the world. I don't use explicit > induction to conclude that one second from now the world will be pretty > much as it is now -- at least at the macro level, which is what I tend to > care most about. The principle of induction simply explicates that way of > behaving. > > In contrast, faith is an imported belief system that one appeals to > explicitly for answers. > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > *_____________________________________________* > > > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote: > >> Hi doug, and Bruce**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose >> email message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I >> am curious about your response. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in >> induction]* >> >> *is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all >> the way back * >> >> *into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.***** >> >> ** ** >> >> Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on >> induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe >> things. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Nick **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> >> [mailto:[email protected]] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> *On Behalf Of >> *Douglas >> Roberts >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. >> It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive >> their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --Doug**** >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **** >> >> Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if >> somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question >> or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I >> WOULD find interesting if I knew it. **** >> >> **** >> >> I was asking you to expand my experience. **** >> >> **** >> >> Or not. **** >> >> **** >> >> Nick **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> [mailto: >> [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_>] *On Behalf Of *Douglas >> Roberts >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM**** >> >> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** >> >> **** >> >> <Lilke>**** >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood >> <[email protected]<#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> >> wrote:**** >> >> Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am >> -- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we >> inhabit as is possible. >> >> To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the >> definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively >> uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There >> are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement. >> >> Bruce**** >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson >> <[email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_>> wrote: >> > I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these >> fantasies >> > INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my >> > imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe >> that >> > NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an >> > interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our >> thinking >> > that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these >> > fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is >> interesting. >> > The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting >> off >> > being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the >> > Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where >> THEIR >> > noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming >> > >> > >> > >> > Nick**** >> >> ============================================================ >> 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**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts >> [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> >> [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_>**** >> >> 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**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts >> [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_> >> [email protected] <#13693cc0c4186d0d_>**** >> >> 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 > > 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
