Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

By the way, there is a lively debate going on about the Sabine Hossenfelder
article How Popper killed Particle Physics

posted
just yesterday.  It could make a good thread, as a few of you on the list
seem to agree with her rant and it would be good to hear as to why that is
so ... I am guessing this sentiment has something to do with Thomas Kuhn in
Nick's case at least.

Kuhn's criticism of Popper seems to be saying that logical positivism
(verificationism ... looking for ways to prove we are right ... instead of
wrong) dominates science ... still ... and not in a good way.  I think that
is right (e.g., LHC), but it doesn't undermine what Popper is saying about
how to be sure and honest about what we really know ... lest we backslide
into epistemological relativism or intellectual totalitarianism (e.g., a
leading paradigm doesn't shift until its authors die off ... something like
that).

Sabine seems to be backing off the rant a bit, I think; she says she is not
criticizing Popper, only saying that falsification is not enough ... and it
should not halt any theory development.  I would have to believe that even
Popper might agree with some of this with some clarifications.  I thought
the reply comment about "mathematicism" was interesting and kind of funny.

Looking back over this particular thread, it turns out that I did not
mention String Theory per se. I did mention that Smolin's "Genesis" theory
is claimed to be testable.  Perhaps this is what prompted Carl's insertion
of Sabine's rant.

Good to see Smolin getting a shout-out in the comments along with Lisa
Randall. Kum ba ya.

[image: Inline image 1]

Cheers

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:20 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣  wrote:

> Excellent!  Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between
> the ideas than compete, I think.  Thanks.
>
> On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with
> Mareletto's.  That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in
> the same space with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one
> that operates on the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to
> initial conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory
> proposes a physical universe at the microscale that could start here and
> unfold with new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones.  I see the
> heavier elements (e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later
> generation suns as a possible example of this. England seems to take this
> history into the abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic
> homeostasis with the production of dissipative systems being a likely
> outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should have used the term "complements"
> versus "competes."
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Excellent!  Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between the 
ideas than compete, I think.  Thanks.

On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
> 
> Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's.  
> That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space 
> with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on 
> the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial conditions 
> (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a physical 
> universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with new 
> constraints "evolving" from earlier ones.  I see the heavier elements (e.g., 
> carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a possible 
> example of this. England seems to take this history into the abiogenesis by 
> appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the production of 
> dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should 
> have used the term "complements" versus "competes." 

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Glen, I think Carl is referring to my earlier remark about String Theory.
He is not alone in attacking Popper because Popper's idea concerning
falsifiability and a "true" scientific theory stand in the way of just
accepting a proposed theory base just on their mathematical elegance. I,
myself, hope that science doesn't go this way, as it will be difficult to
know where to draw the line between science and philosophy or even
religion. Too Platonic for my taste.

So, you are correct that this is not entirely relevant to the current area
of discussion.  Nonetheless, I happen to like Jerry Coyne's position on
this belief system, his being a lot less snippy than the Sabine one, IMHO:

Is falsifiability essential to science?



Sorry for the delayed response; I am out of town, and so, not near my
library references.  But, let's me try to continue with my feeble
comparisons between the propositions of these three scientists:
Deutch|Marletto (bing one), England, and Smolin.

OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.


Yep; it was teleonomy under the looking glass in the context of biological
systems in particular ... with Nick leading the discussion with his 1987
paper on the topic, which I read with great interest.

In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned
> with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin
> seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is
> consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with
> Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to
> contradict Smolin.


Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's.
That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space
with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on
the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial
conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a
physical universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with
new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones.  I see the heavier elements
(e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a
possible example of this. England seems to take this history into the
abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the
production of dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe.
Anyway, I should have used the term "complements" versus "competes."

Erwin Schrödinger, in his *What is Life* (1944) coined the term *negentropy*
to explain the process of such dissipative systems usurping negative
entropy from their environments (e.g., food, sunlight) and staying in
balance by expelling positive entropy back into their environments (heat or
enthalpy in thermodynamic terms).  Negentropy was later recognized (even by
Schrödinger) to be equivalent to Gibbs free energy (i.e., energy
available for work), especially because living systems exist in
environments that are relatively stable in terms of temperature and
pressure. Someone later than Schrödinger described this negentropy process
as the extraction of *information* from the environment, which fits well, I
think, with Constructor Theory. Gibbs (statistical) Entropy function
resembles Claude Shannon's Information Entropy function, which seems to
have motivated this concept.

Some think that entropy is better for analyzing just closed (isolated or
adiabatic) systems ... but this is a very complex topic, especially with
respect to systems operating far from equilibrium maintain structures with
few degrees of freedom or states. It's pretty amazing stuff, though ... but
I am not the best one to explain these processes ... and that's just what
they are: processes.

Yes, Smolin and England could be aligned but on different scales--macro and
micro respectively.  For Smolin we would need to understand black holes a
bit better in this context, I think. A fecund universe is one with a lot of
black holes ... cosmic eggs, if you will that have cosmic "genomes" that
resemble the parent universe, but with variations due to whatever. So see
these as new constraint generators, I suppose, in the context of
Constructor Theory.

Can any of this be brought back into the domain of *teleonomy*?  It is a
question of about how something can arise from nothing. In an earlier
thread with my philosophy group I brought this to a discussion on a similar
topic titled "The Bridge From Nowhere":

This might have something to do with the *Hard Problem of Consciousness* as
well.  Not sure.  But, it is fun to think about.  We have been discussing
the role or 

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Merle Lefkoff]

I agree.  High time, Nick.  I hope it's OK that I forwarded this to Stu
Kauffman.  I took out all the names.  He and Kate had dinner at my house
Saturday night with our speaker from Sweden, and I thought he might shed
some light for me.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to
> shoe-horn it in.
>
> Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to
> Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a
> reference to Kuhn,  I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
> Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you
> suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled
> falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for
> similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the
> light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that
> entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire
> space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?
>
>
> On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> >
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> > ysics.html?m=1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <geprope...@gmail.com  geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> >
> > But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept
> of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of
> possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and
> Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the
> proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set
> of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you
> posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but
> England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying
> much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with
> England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my
> stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> >
> > If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then
> all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> 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
> 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

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com <merlelef...@gmail.com>
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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Carl Tollander]

Yes, Nick, that.  Sorry to hijack the thread.  Carry on.

Carl


On Nov 6, 2017 10:30, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to
> shoe-horn it in.
>
> Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to
> Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a
> reference to Kuhn,  I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
> Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you
> suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled
> falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for
> similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the
> light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that
> entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire
> space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?
>
>
> On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> >
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> > ysics.html?m=1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <geprope...@gmail.com  geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> >
> > But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept
> of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of
> possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and
> Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the
> proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set
> of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you
> posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but
> England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying
> much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with
> England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my
> stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> >
> > If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then
> all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to 
shoe-horn it in.  

Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to Popper 
in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a reference to Kuhn,  
I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders 
Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you 
suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable 
noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 
models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp 
post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example 
of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, 
something Sabine would appreciate?


On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> ysics.html?m=1
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <geprope...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a 
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to 
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to 
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> 
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of 
> all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible 
> states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the 
> proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is 
> less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or 
> distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that Marletto 
> might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My 
> response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  
> So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be 
> consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not 
> seem to contradict Smolin.
> 
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 
> seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?


--
☣ gⅼеɳ


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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you 
suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable 
noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 
models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp 
post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example 
of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, 
something Sabine would appreciate?


On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫"  > wrote:
> 
> OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a 
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to 
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to 
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> 
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of 
> all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible 
> states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the 
> proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is 
> less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or 
> distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that Marletto 
> might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My 
> response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  
> So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be 
> consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not 
> seem to contradict Smolin.
> 
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 
> seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?


-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Carl Tollander]

Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1


On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫"  wrote:

> OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of
> all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible
> states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin),
> the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal
> is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states
> or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that
> Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra*
> Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing
> as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto
> might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that
> England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3
> seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> On 11/03/2017 01:27 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > Hi Glen, et al.,
> >
> > I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me
> refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain
> how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
> >
> >
> > I'll give it an equally feeble try.  Actually, I see these three
> scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can the
> /appearance /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics)
> universe?"  Well, something like that.  So, this joint concern seems (to
> me) to fall out naturally from the previous discussion concerning
> *teleonomy *or even *purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or
> description? See later discussion below.) or processes without *intention
> *and the later implying intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."
> >
> > *Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by
> Marletto, IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being
> emergent properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a
> physical system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws
> of motion--notwithstanding /how /it began. Through the interaction of
> emergent particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and
> interacted to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter
> did a pretty good job to help Marletto along with the explanation;
> Summarized:
> >
> > Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated
> and unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become
> ‘reality’
> > ​ ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple
> constraint to emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they
> start to force ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being
> equally spread across every possibility
> > ​ ...
> >
> >
> >
> >  Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’
> constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which
> having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously
> highly unlikely.  And each of these changes the probability curves,
> increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually
> emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing
> and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which
> will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to
> emerge.  Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such
> an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly
> inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead
> absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically
> changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new
> ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which
> > fundamentally changes how these organisms interact; complex life
> itself enables the development of specialised organs that provide sensory
> and motor and intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile
> life enables the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic
> consciousness; etc.
> > ​ ...​
> >
> >
> >
> > At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before -
> becomes possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8
> billion years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each
> successive major 

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[┣glen┫]

OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity 
in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a 
non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe 
teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.

But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 
is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states 
surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal 
is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less 
constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or 
distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that Marletto 
might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My 
response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  
So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be 
consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not 
seem to contradict Smolin.

If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem 
quite consistent.  What am I missing?


On 11/03/2017 01:27 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> Hi Glen, et al.,
> 
> I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine 
> my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, 
> England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
> 
> 
> I'll give it an equally feeble try.  Actually, I see these three scientists 
> as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can the /appearance 
> /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?"  Well, 
> something like that.  So, this joint concern seems (to me) to fall out 
> naturally from the previous discussion concerning *teleonomy *or even 
> *purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or description? See later 
> discussion below.) or processes without *intention *and the later implying 
> intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."
> 
> *Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by Marletto, 
> IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being emergent 
> properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a physical 
> system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws of 
> motion--notwithstanding /how /it began. Through the interaction of emergent 
> particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and interacted to 
> cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter did a pretty good 
> job to help Marletto along with the explanation; Summarized: 
> 
> Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated and 
> unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become 
> ‘reality’
> ​ ...
> 
>  
> 
> Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple constraint to 
> emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they start to force 
> ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being equally spread 
> across every possibility
> ​ ...
> 
>  
> 
>  Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’ 
> constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which 
> having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously highly 
> unlikely.  And each of these changes the probability curves, increasing the 
> likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually emerge, shaping and 
> ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing and channelling the 
> possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which will enable yet more 
> complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to emerge.  Eventually, these 
> constraints/constructors shape reality to such an extent that very highly 
> complex outcomes which “should” be utterly inconceivable in a 
> pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead absolutely inevitable. 
> We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically changing the behaviour 
> of molecular interactions; eventually a new ‘constructor’ emerges that 
> enables complex life, which
> fundamentally changes how these organisms interact; complex life itself 
> enables the development of specialised organs that provide sensory and motor 
> and intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile life 
> enables the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic 
> consciousness; etc.
> ​ ...​
> 
>  
> 
> At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before - becomes 
> possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8 billion years 
> into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each successive major 
> development step seems to accelerate the capability and complexity of the 
> emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it really does look as 
> though absolutely nothing is forever impossible 

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Hi Glen, et al.,

I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my
> thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin,
> England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!


I'll give it an equally feeble try.  Actually, I see these three
scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can
the *appearance
*of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?"
Well, something like that.  So, this joint concern seems (to me) to fall
out naturally from the previous discussion concerning *teleonomy *or even
*purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or description? See later
discussion below.) or processes without *intention *and the later implying
intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."

*Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by Marletto,
IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being emergent
properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a physical
system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws of
motion--notwithstanding *how *it began. Through the interaction of emergent
particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and interacted
to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter did a pretty
good job to help Marletto along with the explanation; Summarized:

Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated and
> unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become
> ‘reality’
> ​ ...
>


> Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple constraint to
> emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they start to force
> ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being equally spread
> across every possibility
> ​ ...
>


>  Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’
> constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which
> having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously
> highly unlikely.  And each of these changes the probability curves,
> increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually
> emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing
> and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which
> will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to
> emerge.  Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such
> an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly
> inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead
> absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically
> changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new
> ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which fundamentally
> changes how these organisms interact; complex life itself enables the
> development of specialised organs that provide sensory and motor and
> intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile life enables
> the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic
> consciousness; etc.
> ​ ...​
>


> At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before - becomes
> possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8 billion
> years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each
> successive major development step seems to accelerate the capability and
> complexity of the emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it
> really does look as though absolutely nothing is forever impossible (unless
> it contravenes the laws of physics, and even then … maybe we - or something
> down the line, at any rate - can eventually change them, creating another
> universe entirely?)"


*Jeremy England*'s *New Physics of Life* is really an attempt to explain
how life emerging from inert matter was inevitable. I have read the same
conclusion somewhere (?)

for the inevitability (and the remarkability) of the emergence of eukaryote
life from prokaryote life ... I think I remember Nick Lane as saying it was
a one-off (anyone?).  I seem to remember this because it caused
immediate cognizant dissonance within my own mind. Anyway, Constructor
Theory would say that it was certainly possible, which seems
tautological at this point.  England's Theory should resonate with students
of complexity science and anyone interested in Nobel-Prize-winning physical
chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics
and self-organizing dissipative structures (or physicist Erwin
Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is Life?").  All of these, including
Constructor Theory, are attempts at explaining the emergence of biological
entities from the perspective of physics and self-organizing systems. A
universal metabolism of sorts? Grand homeostasis?  Heraclitus' *Logos*?

*Lee Smolin*, if you follow all of his work, 

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Thanks for posting your intro materials to purpose of the universe.  I haven't 
looked at them, yet, but will (probably next week).

But since I'm making a feeble attempt to review the "living systems as entropy 
maximizers" theme for another meeting, the below paragraph of yours tweaked me. 
 It strikes me that Smolin's "maximal variety" (e.g. [⛤]) conception meshes 
well with England's conception of physical (non-living) adaptation, as well as 
Constructor Theory's "any non-impossible recipe".  The first two (Smolin and 
England) seem to be intuitionistic in that they imply a recipe (follow the path 
with the most options), whereas Deutsch/Marletto are (perhaps) more classical 
(in logic/math terms) by allowing any recipe that doesn't contradict known 
constraints.

I *think* it's a mistake to read Smolin's conception as implied by the Marletto 
quote, which was about Bohm and Wigner.  I'm ignorant of what Bohm and Wigner 
actually suggested.  But Smolin seems to propose that things like stars exhibit 
(some) similar properties to living systems, especially in their ability to 
"maintain themselves as constant source of light and heat", despite the high 
entropy bath in which they sit.  So, when considering things like cosmological 
constants and how they seem "tuned for life" (e.g. [⛧]), it's important to 
avoid putting the cart before the horse.  It's not that the universe is 
tailored to produce life.  It's that the universe is what it is and life-like 
systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this universe.

I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my 
thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, 
England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!


[⛤] http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/150602938.pdf
[⛧] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702115.pdf

On 10/29/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> 
> In the context of *information *being another physically fundamental entity 
> in the universe along with *energy *and *matter*, I brought up David Deutsch 
> 's Constructor Theory 
>  at 
> the FRIAM as a very recent contender to build a new physics based on this 
> uber-reductionist viewpoint. I haven't heard much more progress on this over 
> the last two years and I think Deutsch is relying on his postdoctoral 
> research associate, Chiara Marletto, to bring this into the domain of 
> biology.  Constructor Theory is to address this conclusion: "The conclusion 
> that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations 
> is amazingly erroneous."  So this theory would indeed compete with Smolin's 
> Cosmological Natural Selection Theory.  But, Constructor Theory might be very 
> much in line with Jeremy England's Physics Theory of Life
> 
>  (Note: this is from /QuantaMagazine/, which we also discussed) and, perhaps 
> with Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from 
> the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures.  
> Fun stuff to read about ...

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

 a system, is information conserved [Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics] like energy and matter? 

I have not been up to speed on the Baldwin Effect in the context of
phenotypic plasticity, learning, or development phenomena (e.g., language)
... and niches. Can you suggest some readings?  It seems to ask the
question as to what leads what: Genes or phenotypes?  Do epigenetics come
into play here
<https://aeon.co/essays/the-selfish-gene-is-a-great-meme-too-bad-it-s-so-wrong>
 (this was heavily debated here
<https://aeon.co/essays/dead-or-alive-an-expert-roundtable-on-the-selfish-gene>
)?

Thanks,

Robert

P.S., Glen, yeah, that is the same Chris Goad!  He came here from Oregon
but apparently grew up here in Santa Fe.  I think his father was pretty
well known at LANL.


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Dear Robert,
>
>
>
> It was great to see you at today’s meeting; hope you become a regular.
>
>
>
> I will “lard” your text below with my responses.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 5:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s *Chance and
> Necessity*. As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new
> copy.
>
>
>
> Your request:
>
>  ... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.
>
>
>
> What I do still have is the text I prepared for the *Santa Fe
> Philosophical Society* as "homework" for my 20-minute presentation.  So,
> if one reads my 20-page "Does the universe have a purpose for us?" before
> the presentation, they would be better prepared for the "lecture" and
> ensuing discussion.  So it is a primer of sorts.  And, it serves as a
> partial look at how, with the rise of Darwinism, teleonomic explanations
> historically and "successfully" pushed aside teleological explanations for
> the *apparent *goal directiveness of biological evolution.  But I see
> that your 1987 paper "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" would see this as
> no explanation at all.
>
> *[NST==>Well, I would need to read you papers and see how you characterize
> a “teloeonomic explanation.”  My suggested use of the term is descriptive.
> But the only real constraint is that a teloeonomic concept not be used as
> an explainer and as a describer in the same argument.  <==nst] *
>
> I shall read *that* paper to see why you say that, though, you are also
> saying that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line."
>
> *[NST==>Well, it was more that he beat Sean Carroll to the punch line.  If
> I had read Monod in graduate school (which was possible) I might not have
> been so amazed by Carroll in retirement.  And I might have not spent so
> much of my career beating back silly arguments about the nature-nurture
> “issue.”  <==nst] *
>
>  Need to re-read that one.   More to come ...
>
>
>
> I also had a two-page handout, summarizing the points in the paper.  Also,
> the title question was posed to the group (~ 20 persons) both before and
> after the session.  The final majority consensus was "no" but there were
> some minds changed as I recall.  I wonder if I had changed the question to
> "Does life have a purpose for us?" would the consensus been different.
> Friedrich Nietzsche clearly lamented "no," but warned us that we had better
> figure out a rational one we can all agree on pretty soon.  His warning
> seems to ask, "If we are so smart, why haven't we come up with a *rational
> *purpose (goal) for humanity?"  Humans are the only teleological *agents *in
> the universe that we know about.
>
> *[NST==>I wonder if I agree with this.  <==nst] *
>
> And, we are the only organisms that *can *imbue rational purpose for
> ourselves.
>
> *[NST==>I guess I agree that we are the only rationalizing organisms.
> <==nst] *
>
>
>
> Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it
> more "thought":
>
>
>
> Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural
> selection a *fair *process--for it must be so for it to work the way it
> does (careful to not say 'pro

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Robert, 

 

It was great to see you at today’s meeting; hope you become a regular. 

 

I will “lard” your text below with my responses. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders 
Peirce

 

Nick,

 

Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s Chance and Necessity. 
As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new copy. 

 

Your request: 

 ... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it. 

 

What I do still have is the text I prepared for the Santa Fe Philosophical 
Society as "homework" for my 20-minute presentation.  So, if one reads my 
20-page "Does the universe have a purpose for us?" before the presentation, 
they would be better prepared for the "lecture" and ensuing discussion.  So it 
is a primer of sorts.  And, it serves as a partial look at how, with the rise 
of Darwinism, teleonomic explanations historically and "successfully" pushed 
aside teleological explanations for the apparent goal directiveness of 
biological evolution.  But I see that your 1987 paper "The Misappropriation of 
Teleonomy" would see this as no explanation at all. 

[NST==>Well, I would need to read you papers and see how you characterize a 
“teloeonomic explanation.”  My suggested use of the term is descriptive.  But 
the only real constraint is that a teloeonomic concept not be used as an 
explainer and as a describer in the same argument.  <==nst] 

I shall read that paper to see why you say that, though, you are also saying 
that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line." 

[NST==>Well, it was more that he beat Sean Carroll to the punch line.  If I had 
read Monod in graduate school (which was possible) I might not have been so 
amazed by Carroll in retirement.  And I might have not spent so much of my 
career beating back silly arguments about the nature-nurture “issue.”  <==nst] 

 Need to re-read that one.   More to come ...

 

I also had a two-page handout, summarizing the points in the paper.  Also, the 
title question was posed to the group (~ 20 persons) both before and after the 
session.  The final majority consensus was "no" but there were some minds 
changed as I recall.  I wonder if I had changed the question to "Does life have 
a purpose for us?" would the consensus been different. Friedrich Nietzsche 
clearly lamented "no," but warned us that we had better figure out a rational 
one we can all agree on pretty soon.  His warning seems to ask, "If we are so 
smart, why haven't we come up with a rational purpose (goal) for humanity?"  
Humans are the only teleological agents in the universe that we know about. 

[NST==>I wonder if I agree with this.  <==nst] 

And, we are the only organisms that can imbue rational purpose for ourselves. 

[NST==>I guess I agree that we are the only rationalizing organisms.  <==nst] 

 

Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it more 
"thought": 

 

Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural selection 
a fair process--for it must be so for it to work the way it does (careful to 
not say 'progress' here)?'," you might find Lee Smolin's ("testable") 
Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis intriguing in the sense that your 
question may be applied cosmologically. Smolin's model refute's the (strong and 
weak) Anthropic Principle of Cosmology which is arguably teleological.  So, I 
wonder, if your idea of "fairness" would need to satisfy an anti-teleology 
filter ... no goal. That does seem reasonable, but does it work?

[NST==>Is Smolin’s thesis within easy reach, anywhere on the web?  <==nst] 

 

When existing life becomes environmentally stressed (the stimulus to change or 
die), evolution builds on what it already has through a (non-random) 
re-expression of the "parts" in a way that makes the organism more fit (e.g., 
the grasshopper to locust phenomenon).  This is also how the Hox gene circuit 
seems to work (and it makes the probability math work out). However, like 
others expressed, I do not see the word "fair" being the right selection among 
possible fit words ... pun not really intended, but it's curious in that, not 
any word will do.

[NST==>I truly garbled this argument, today.  Got really tongue-tied.  I will 
try to straighten it out in a subsequent email.  <==nst] 

 

Can a new organism be re-made from it

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

ly so I can get a seat in the middle (hearing problems), but that might
> not be a factor for you, so come any time.  The group is very eclectic –
> sometimes we do old fart stuff, and sometimes we do really interesting
> stuff.  We have several mathematicians, and when they get going, I just
> have to Sit In Wonder.
>
> I note your interest in teleonomy.  Through a weird coincidence, I ran
> into a blog  run by some middle eastern folks who made me read Jacques
> Monod’s CHANCE AND NECESSITY.
> <https://www.amazon.com/Chance-Necessity-Natural-Philosophy-Biology/dp/0394718259/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8=1509073028=8-1-spell=Chance+and+necesssity>
> (I have a PDF, if you would like to read it.)  I was astounded because
> “Teleonomy” is the key term of Monod’s  exposition, and I had written some
> papers on it in the eighties (e.g. The Misappropriation of Teleonomy
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302329059_The_Misappropriation_of_Teleonomy>)
> without ever finding his book.  Anyway, if you have a text of your
> presentation, I would love to read it.
>
>
>
> I have been trying to write something on Peirce for months now but need a
> collaborator to keep me honest.  Perhaps the group has one.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for getting in touch.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>
>
> No worries.  I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the *Santa Fe
> Philosophical Society* that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have
> been a member of the *SFPS* for about four years and joined about a year
> after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett
> Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet
> at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of
> the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of
> some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will
> provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated
> discussion.  I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics
> like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and
> teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is
> older, very friendly, and philosophically curious.  Many are ex-pats from
> LANL, but not all ... like me.
>
>
>
> If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just
> add you as my guest to the sign-up list.  Then, if you like what you see
> and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to
> these meetings.  The member headcount determines the dues that are paid
> annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources.
> Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take
> a lot of money to run this Meetup group.  Mim has a very large
> accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions
> to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a
> problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D.
> graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of
> the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years
> now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea
> are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer.   Many
> times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared,
> linked material from the website.
>
>
>
> Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups
> that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other
> time(s).  I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel
> Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward
> discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early
> sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 
>
>
>
> BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years
> ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a
> percolating interest of mine.  Steven replied that *that *made six now
> who read the

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Robert, 

 

Friam starts a little earlier than 9.30; closer to 9.10.  I like to come early 
so I can get a seat in the middle (hearing problems), but that might not be a 
factor for you, so come any time.  The group is very eclectic – sometimes we do 
old fart stuff, and sometimes we do really interesting stuff.  We have several 
mathematicians, and when they get going, I just have to Sit In Wonder.  

I note your interest in teleonomy.  Through a weird coincidence, I ran into a 
blog  run by some middle eastern folks who made me read Jacques Monod’s CHANCE 
AND NECESSITY. 
<https://www.amazon.com/Chance-Necessity-Natural-Philosophy-Biology/dp/0394718259/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8=1509073028=8-1-spell=Chance+and+necesssity>
   (I have a PDF, if you would like to read it.)  I was astounded because 
“Teleonomy” is the key term of Monod’s  exposition, and I had written some 
papers on it in the eighties (e.g. The Misappropriation of Teleonomy 
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302329059_The_Misappropriation_of_Teleonomy>
 ) without ever finding his book.  Anyway, if you have a text of your 
presentation, I would love to read it.  

 

I have been trying to write something on Peirce for months now but need a 
collaborator to keep me honest.  Perhaps the group has one. 

 

Thanks again for getting in touch. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders 
Peirce

 

Hi Nick,

 

No worries.  I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the Santa Fe 
Philosophical Society that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have been a 
member of the SFPS for about four years and joined about a year after we moved 
to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett Packard as a 
performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet at a particular 
member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of the month for a 
discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of some philosopher that 
has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will provide a 30 to 40-minute 
introduction to the group followed by a moderated discussion.  I have given two 
or three presentations to the group on topics like Martin Heidegger's 1954 
essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and teleonomy versus teleology, to 
give you some quick examples. The group is older, very friendly, and 
philosophically curious.  Many are ex-pats from LANL, but not all ... like me.

 

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just add 
you as my guest to the sign-up list.  Then, if you like what you see and hear, 
you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to these meetings.  
The member headcount determines the dues that are paid annually to the Meetup 
organization that maintains the web resources. Members, or anyone, can donate a 
few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take a lot of money to run this Meetup 
group.  Mim has a very large accommodating living room for these meetings, but 
we try to limit sessions to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). 
Parking has never been a problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical 
mathematician Ph.D. graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a 
huge proponent of the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for 
nearly four years now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. 
Coffee and tea are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer.   
Many times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the 
prepared, linked material from the website.

 

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups that 
will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other time(s).  I 
have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel Bug for a few 
hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward discussions in 
neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early sessions on 
consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 

 

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago 
after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating 
interest of mine.  Steven replied that that made six now who read the paper, or 
something like that.  Even as a perhaps too infrequent contributor--but 
frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many thoughtful contributors 
that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. 
Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a similar de

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to meeting you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
>> Wall
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
>> Sanders Peirce
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI.
>>
>>
>>
>> The* Santa Fe Philosophical Society* is offering a discussion session
>> on Charles Sanders Peirce
>> <https://www.meetup.com/SantaFe-Philosophers/events/244523385/?fromEmail=244523385=ea1>
>> on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your
>> attendance ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Hi Nick,

No worries.  I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the *Santa Fe
Philosophical Society* that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have
been a member of the *SFPS* for about four years and joined about a year
after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett
Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet
at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of
the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of
some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will
provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated
discussion.  I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics
like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and
teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is
older, very friendly, and philosophically curious.  Many are ex-pats from
LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just
add you as my guest to the sign-up list.  Then, if you like what you see
and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to
these meetings.  The member headcount determines the dues that are paid
annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources.
Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take
a lot of money to run this Meetup group.  Mim has a very large
accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions
to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a
problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D.
graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of
the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years
now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea
are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer.   Many
times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared,
linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups
that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other
time(s).  I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel
Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward
discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early
sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago
after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating
interest of mine.  Steven replied that *that *made six now who read the
paper, or something like that.  Even as a perhaps too infrequent
contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many
thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I
imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a
similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the
FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have
the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet
at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or
something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having
enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about
explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu
at the *SFPS* and it has finally arrived. William James, another
pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey?  Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers.  I didn’t
> see the link (as a link).
>
>
>
> I will make every effort to be there.  Sunday night is my cooking night
> for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to
> finesse it.
>
>
>
> I always imagined that you were from some far distant place!  Like
> Australia, or something.  Have you been here the whole time?  Have you ever
> come to FRIAM?
>
>
>
> I look forward to meeting you.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Opportunit

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Robert, 

 

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers.  I didn’t see the 
link (as a link).  

 

I will make every effort to be there.  Sunday night is my cooking night for the 
extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.  

 

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place!  Like Australia, 
or something.  Have you been here the whole time?  Have you ever come to FRIAM? 
 

 

I look forward to meeting you. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

 

FYI.

 

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on 
<https://www.meetup.com/SantaFe-Philosophers/events/244523385/?fromEmail=244523385=ea1>
  Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

 

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your 
attendance ...

 

Robert

 

 

 

 


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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Robert,

 

I have informed some other folks, as well. 

 

Can you say a few words about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society?  I’ve been 
here a dozen years and this is the first I have known of it.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

 

FYI.

 

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on 
<https://www.meetup.com/SantaFe-Philosophers/events/244523385/?fromEmail=244523385=ea1>
  Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

 

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your 
attendance ...

 

Robert

 

 

 

 


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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

FYI.

The* Santa Fe Philosophical Society* is offering a discussion session
on Charles Sanders Peirce

on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your
attendance ...

Robert

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove