Re: Aspirin

Consequence1 (C1) — introduce the chemical complex we label 'aspirin' into a 
defined biochemical "stew" = some biochemical reactions among components of 
that stew.

Consequence2 (C2) — the specific biochemical reactions of C1 cause a state 
change, i.e. the state of the stew is X instead of Y, or a set of biochemical 
reactions are taking place because of C1 that would not have taken place absent 
C1.

InterpretationA (IA) — an EGO (that pesky self-awareness / self-consciousness) 
detects C2 (is able to differentiate between the stew being in state X instead 
of state Y) and interprets C2 as the absence of pain. This interpretation 
infers a causal link between the taking of aspirin and the absence of pain. 
NOTE: the original inference was that chewing the bark of a certain tree 
alleviated pain.

InterpretationB (IB) — EGO is unable to differentiate thin from thick blood, 
the system being in State P instead of state Q. Hence IB is null.

InterpretationC (IC) — PHYSICIAN, via measurement, is able to differentiate 
between thick and thin blood AND, along with a host of other "known things," 
interprets the state of the system, G, to be "better" than states H, I, J, and 
K. (There are multiple permutations / states, because so many discrete factors 
play a role in making the differentiation. The PHYSICIAN makes an inference 
that taking aspirin leads to a system in a "better" state.

No epiphenomena here, unless you want to assert that the 'causal inferences of 
EGO' are epiphenomena of an ability to differentiate between two (or more) 
states of a system "observed" by EGO.

This will not work with the dove, because you will not allow the dove an EGO, 
nor will you allow "Nature" to be a PHYSICIAN.

davew


On Thu, Aug 13, 2020, at 10:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Dear Friammers,

>  

> This diagram is pursuant to last week’s discussion of the device I called he 
> Sober Epiphenomenator.  You will recall that, in it’s simplest form, the 
> epiphenomenator is a device that sorts spheres into colors, but only because 
> each of the different colors of sphere is of a different size, and the device 
> sorts for sphere size.  The idea is that the color of the balls, while 
> salient to the human eye, is an epiphenomenon of the machine’s sorting 
> system.  My suggestion is that this model can be used to clarify many 
> concepts that are kicking around in our discussions. 

>  

> I think of an epiphenomenon as a side effect.  It is a consequence of an 
> action that is not part of the causal chain that brings that action into 
> being.  Allow, for instance, that aspirin was initially developed because of 
> it’s effects on pain.  Later it was found that aspirin is a blood thinner.  
> Thinned blood was, at that point, a side effect of aspirin, whose main effect 
> was the easing of pain.  Thinned blood was an epiphenomenon in that it was 
> not part of the causal chain that led to the development of aspirin.

>  

> Already we can see that there is something screwy here.  Painkilling and 
> blood-thinning are both consequences of taking aspirin.  How consequence can 
> play a part in their own causal history is not immediately evident, unless 
> there is some iterative process that involves a feedback loop from 
> consequences of a decision of some sort to the decision process itself.  So 
> any time we are talking about epiphenomena, we are, of necessity, talking 
> about feedback loops.  An epiphenomenon is a consequence of some sort of 
> decision-process that has not feed back on the development of the process 
> itself. 

> But even in the aspirin case, simple as it is, we can begin to see a 
> complication.  Many of us take aspirin for its bloodthinning properties.  So 
> while these properties might have been epiphenomenal for the purpose of the 
> development of the product, it is not epiphenomenal for my taking of it.  And 
> to the extent that the tablet I take has been modified for its blood-thinning 
> purpose – it is smaller – the blood thinning properties are no longer 
> epiphenomenal with respect to the tablet I take. 

>                                                                               
>                                                          

> I am running out of time so I better get to the explication of the attached 
> diagram.  My working intuition is that the notion of epiphenomenon lurks in 
> many of the domains we regularly discuss.  The first I want to explore is the 
> one most familiar to me, *The Law of Short Sighted Striving*.  The law states 
> that in animal behavior generally, that which the animal strives to attain is 
> not that which the behavior has been selected for.  Rather the animals strive 
> to attain some other end which when attained, because of the nature of the 
> animal’s environment, provides the consequence for which nature selects.  In 
> the diagram attached, the particulars filled in may be fanciful at best.  
> They arise from a paper I read decades ago by the Rutgers behavioral 
> endocrinologist Danial Lehrman, about the origins of incubation behavior in 
> ring doves.  Given the length of time that has passed, it would be 
> extraordinary if any of the facts asserted are still regarded as true. 

>  

> Nevertheless, the facts asserted are that hormonal changes in the dove raise 
> a painful patch on the underside of the dove which is soothed by placing the 
> patch on the egg.  Through a process of learning , the dove comes therefore 
> to incubate the eggs.  Note that such a dove would not care a whit for any of 
> the things that biologists care for in this situation, including the fact 
> that incubating the eggs leads to their hatching, which has, presumably, led 
> to the evolution of the brooding patch.  So, from the point of view of the 
> dove, the hatching of the eggs is an epiphenomenon.

>  

> But shifting our attention to the origins of the relation between cool eggs 
> and dove incubation, we find that the warming of eggs is not epiphenomenal to 
> that causal loop. 

>  

> Thus, what is, or is not, an epiphenomenal is a matter of point of view, a 
> conclusion that suggests that any further consideration of the matter is 
> likely to both fraught and interesting.

>  

> If I had had more time, I could have written a shorter exposition.

>  

> Nick

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> *Attachments:*
>  * EpidiagramPDF.pdf
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Reply via email to