Glen.
I think I disagree with: They can't, by definition. If some effect *looks* like an epiphenomenon to you, it's because *you* imputed your model onto it. It's a clear cut case of reification. Just because it is your flashlight that illuminates an object does not mean that the structure is not a real property of the object. It goes with out saying that all structures are revealed by points of view. The game is discovering structures that endure across points of view. n Nick Thompson [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 11:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation Yes, that's the point. Thanks for stating it in yet another way. The word "epiphenomenon" is loaded with expectation/intention. It works quite well in artificial systems where we can simply assume it was designed for a purpose. But in "natural" systems (like the hyena case), if we use that concept, we've imputed a *model* onto the system. I would go even further (encroaching on Marcus' example) and argue that even if someone *else* designed a system, you cannot reverse engineer that designer's intention from the system they built. The agnostic approach is to treat every system you did not build yourself, with your own hands, as a naturally occurring system. (This is the essence of hacking, including benign forms like circuit bending.) I would ... I want to ... but I can't take that further step without a preliminary understanding that "wild type" systems don't exhibit epiphenomena at all. They can't, by definition. If some effect *looks* like an epiphenomenon to you, it's because *you* imputed your model onto it. It's a clear cut case of reification. On 11/29/21 8:49 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > glen wrote: >> ... Purposefully designed systems have bugs (i.e. epiphenomena, unintended, >> side-, additional, secondary, effects). Biological evolution does not. There >> is no bug-feature distinction there. > > In trying to normalize your terms/conceptions to my own, am I right that you > are implying that intentionality is required for epiphenomena (reduces to > tautology if "unintended" is key to "epi")? > > This leads us back to the teleological debate I suppose. The common > (vulgar?) "evolution" talk is laced with teleological implications... but I > think what Glen is saying here that outside the domain of human/sentient > will/intentionality (which he might also call an illusion), everything simply > *is what it is* so anything *we* might identify as epiphenomena is simply a > natural consequence *we* failed to predict and/or which does not fit *our* > intention/expectation. > > We watch a rock balanced at the edge of a cliff begin to shift after a > rain and before our very eyes, we see it tumble off the cliff edge and > roll/slide/skid toward the bottom of the gradient but being humans, with > intentions and preferences and ideas, *we* notice there is a human made > structure (say a cabin) at the bottom of the cliff and we begin to take odds > on how likely that rock is to slip/slide/roll into the cabin. *we* give > that event meaning that it does not have outside of our > mind/system-of-values. The rock doesn't care that it came to final rest (or > not) because the cabin structure in it's (final) path was robust enough to > absorb/reflect the remaining kinetic energy in the rock-system and the cabin > doesn't care either! We (because we are in the cabin, because we built the > cabin, because we are paying a mortgage to the bank on the cabin, because we > intend to inhabit the cabin, because we can imagine inhabiting the cabin > before/during/after the collisions) put a lot of meaning and import into that > rock coming to rest against/on-top-of/beyond the cabin, but the rock and the > cabin *don't care*. If instead of crushing the cabin, the rock grazes it on > the side where there was a dilapidated porch you intended to demolish, > carrying it away and crumbling it's bits to compostable splinters in the > ravine *below* the cabin out of your site, you might want to refer to the > epiphenomenal nature of rolling stones as clever demolition and removal crews? > > I'm probably just muddying the water (at the bottom of the ravine, now filled > with cabin-deck bits). -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
