I can't speak for anyone else. But for me, the Humpty Dumpty preference is for non-reduction, the idea that a hierarchy of languages (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology) is to some extent *real* and not merely convenient placeholders for ignorance and uncertainty.
I like to pretend that I'm agnostic to whether or not such layering is real. But my complexity ≠ complicatedness homunculus faces, every day, progress by the reductionists in dismantling some "higher order" language. So, I think it's Fine and Good to *entertain* the idea of fully closed logical abstraction floors and ceilings. But I think it's shaky metaphysics to rely on them. On 10/5/20 12:02 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > As I understand it the Humpty Dumpty position is that we may as well talk > about mental causation in the traditional ways until science advances on the > topic. And maybe even then? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
