N. No.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:30 PM Nick Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > M., > > > > Is that like “nudge”? > > > > N. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Merle > Lefkoff > *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:04 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we > behave?) > > > > For whatever it's worth, Nick, I'm now using this thread in the work we're > doing on the adjacent possible. > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:29 PM Nick Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Steve, > > > > We were doing SO WELL until we got to … oh, see my “HORSEFEATHERS!” below. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steven A > Smith > *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2019 9:39 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we > behave?) > > > > > > On 3/28/19 1:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Steve, ‘n all, > > > > Just to be cranky, I want to remind everybody that ALL language use, > except perhaps tautological expressions, is metaphorical. > > I ascribe to this idea as well, following Lakoff and Johnson in their 1980 > _Metaphors we Live by_ . > > So then, the question is not, “Is this a metaphor”, but what kind of a > metaphor is it and is it pernicious. > > I believe that ultimately conceptual metaphor is no more nor less than the > intuitive application of a model, and as is often mentioned "all models are > wrong, some are useful". You use the term pernicious which suggests > *harmful*, I presume either intentionally so or more from sloppiness or > ignorance. > > My own view is that in any “tense” conversation – one in which the parties > feel the words really matter – it behooves a metaphor-user to define the > limits of the metaphor. > > I agree that "tense" conversations are different than "casual" ones if > that is your distinction. Unfortunately, outside of Science/Engineering > contexts, I find that "tense" conversations are at their root political or > at least rhetorical. One or both sides are really *serious* about being > believed. If not believed in fact ("I believe what you just said") then > in principle ("I believe that you believe what you just said"). > > I think that political/rhetorical dialog would *benefit* by careful > disclosure of all metaphors being used, but one mode of such dialog is for > one or both sides to attempt to interject equivocal meanings... to use a > term (or in this case set of terms belonging to a metaphorical domain) to > weave an *apparently* logical argument, which is only superficially logical > but falls apart when the "correct" meaning of the term(s) are applied. > > So, for instance, much mischief has arisen in evolutionary biology from a > failure of theorists to define the limits of their use of such metaphors as > “natural selection” and “ adaptation”. When limits are defined, the > surplus meaning of a metaphor is separated into two parts, initially, that > which the metaphor-user embraces and that which s/he disclaims. The > embraced part goes on to become the positive heuristic of the metaphor, the > “wet edge” along which science develops. > > From this line of discussion, I take you to be on the branch of the > fault-tree I implied above as a Scientific dialog where *both* sides of the > discussion are honestly trying to come to mutual understanding and perhaps > advance understanding by combining differing perspectives on the same > phenomena. > > The disclaimed part, must be further divided into that which was > legitimately [logically] disclaimed and that which was disclaimed > fraudulently. For instance, when sociobiologists use the notion of selfish > gene, they may legitimately disclaim the idea that genes consciously choose > between self-regarding and other-regarding options, but they cannot > legitimately disclaim the idea that a gene has the power to make any choice > but the self-regarding one. > > When Dawkins coined "Selfish Gene", I felt that the *value* of the > metaphor invoked was in the challenge it presents: > > And that idea is patently false. Genes do not make choices > > Patently Genes do not make choices in the sense that we usually mean "make > choices", yet the strong implication is that the phenomena functions *as > if* they do, in "all other ways". There may be (useful) hairsplitting > between "all other ways" and "many other ways" which is an important aspect > of analogical thinking. > > , they ARE choices and the choice is made at the level of the phenotype or > at the level of the population, depending on how one thinks about the > matter. So the metaphor ‘selfish gene’ is pernicious in evolutionary > biology, because it creates confusion on the very point that it purports to > clarify – the level at which differential replication operates to generate > long term phenotypic change in a population. > > I would challenge this as I think my verbage above outlines. I do not > believe that the metaphor *purports* to clarify what you say it does. > > *[NST==>* *HORSEFEATHERS!** One or two generations of sociobiologists > were directed away from group level explanations by this pernicious > metaphor. <==nst] * > > It *strives* to provide a cognitive shortcut and to establish a fairly > strong metaphor which deserves careful dissection to understand the > particulars of the *target domain*. An important question in the target > domain becomes "why does the shortcut of thinking of genes as selfish > actually have some level of accuracy as a description of the phenomena when > in fact the mechanisms involved do not support that directly?" > > *[NST==>I don’t think it does. I think it’s a subtle and largely > successful attempt to import Spenserian ideology in to evolutionary > biology. <==nst] * > > For all I know, EB has entirely debunked the concept and there is NO > utility in the idea of a "selfish gene"... > > Bruce Sherwood likes to make the point that the analogy of hydraulic > systems for DC circuits is misleading. I forget the specifics of where he > shows that the analogy breaks down, but it is well below (or above?) the > level of "normal" DC circuit understanding and manipulation. For the > kinds of problems I work with using DC circuits, a "battery" is a "tank of > water at some height", the Voltage out of the battery is the water > Pressure, the amount of Current is the Volume of water, a Diode is a > one-way valve, a resistor is any hydraulic element which conserves water > but reduces pressure through what is nominally friction, etc. As you > point out, there is plenty of "excess meaning" around hydraulics as source > domain, and "insufficient meaning" around DC circuits as target domain, and > if one is to use the analogy effectively one must either understand those > over/under mappings, or be operating within only the smaller apt-portion of > the domains. For example, I don't know what the equivalent of an > anti-hammer stub (probably a little like a capacitor in parallel?) is but > that is no longer describing a simple DC circuit. > > *[NST==>I think I am back to heartily agreeing. <==nst] * > > A farmer buying his first tractor may try to understand it using the > source domain of "draft animal" and can't go particularly wrong by doing > things like "giving it a rest off and on to let it cool down", "planning to > feed it well before expecting it to work", "putting it away, out of the > elements when not in use", etc. your "excess meaning" would seem to be > things like the farmer going out and trying to top off the fuel every day > even when he was not using the tractor, or maybe taking it out for a spin > every day to keep it exercised and accustomed to being driven. The farmer > *might* understand "changing the oil" and "cleaning the plugs" and > "adjusting the points" vaguely like "deworming" and "cleaning the hooves" > but the analogy is pretty wide of the mark beyond the simple idea that > "things need attending to". > > *[NST==>OoooooH. I like the above! May I plaigiarise it some day? Do > you by any chance know Epamanondas from your childhood. Very politically > incorrect, now, I fear, but endlessly instructive on the perils of over > using metaphors. <==nst] * > > > > PS – Is anybody on this list (among the handful that have gotten this far > in this post) familiar with the work of Douglas Walton? > > I just took a look and his work does sound interesting (and relevant). > > He seems perhaps to have written a lot about misunderstandings in AI > systems … i.e., how does Siri know what we mean? > > By AI, it seems you mean (the subset of) Natural Language Understanding? > > I am also reminded by reading the Wikipedia article on his work that I > haven't responded to Glen's question about the "theorem dependency project". > > I came to this work through my interest in abduction, which may be > described as the process by which we identify (ascribe meaning to?) > experiences. Walton seems to suggest that you-guys are way ahead of the > rest of us on the process of meaning ascription, and we all should go to > school with you. Please tell me where and when you offer the class. > > I assume the "you-guys" referred to here are the hard core CS/Modeling > folks (e.g. Glen, Marcus, Dave, ...). I do think that the challenges of > "explaining things to a machine" do require some rigor, as does formal > mathematics and systems like the aforementioned "theorem dependency > project". > > - Steve > > PS. It has been noted that my long-winded explanation of my (poorly > adhered to) typographical conventions for around "reserved terms" and the > like was perhaps defensive. I didn't mean to sound defensive, I just > wanted to be more precise and complete to (possibly) reduce > misunderstandings. I don't imagine many read the entireity of my > missives, but as often as not, when people do read and respond, I sense > that some of my conventions are not recognized. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > -- > > Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. > President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy > emergentdiplomacy.org > > Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA > > [email protected] <[email protected]> > mobile: (303) 859-5609 > skype: merle.lelfkoff2 > > twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy emergentdiplomacy.org Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [email protected] <[email protected]> mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2 twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
