Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Ha! Yeah, the conference I went to a few months ago was _ripe_ (no, not rife, RIPE) with this stuff ... mostly in the context of automatic cars. I really appreciated one attendee trashing the Trolley Problem as so ideal as to be useless. I heard an interview with the creator of Wolverine the

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Glen writes: "Which course corrections can I make that still lead to a satisficing objective (like crashing my bike without brain damage), which lead to failure (brain damage), which lead to optimal outcome (dodging the left-turning old lady completely), etc." In one universe there's brain

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

My answer to Roger's question is "both", FWIW. But my concern seems slightly different from both Marcus' and Nick's answers. I'm more concerned with the granularity of the updates/iota. Nick's 70/30-clean/scramble is pretty fscking coarse. As I said early on, my beliefs/skepticism is

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Glen writes: < I'd be interested to hear how you (and others) answer Roger's question: "So when the actor believes in a probabilistic network of possible futures, updates those expectations according to each iota of evidence as it is received, and acts accordingly, is that belief or

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

] On Behalf Of ?glen? Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 10:56 AM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia On 09/22/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic. And that's not true, either. 8^) You

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

On 09/22/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic. And that's not true, either. 8^) You know more about logic than an overwhelming majority of people. The trick is you're convinced of the unitarity and hegemony of some particular

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

f in a non-material mind? >> >> Not non-material. But at least one of the reasons to have a mind is to >> simulate many more actions than one can take. I guess I would say that >> concepts like belief refer to very materially instantiated patterns in >> those contexts of

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

mpson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen? Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 6:17 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > */[NST==> Is ther

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

gt; Eric > > > > > > All the best, > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > -O

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

ric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:14:01 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia Thanks Nick, Yes, I understand the distinctions below. I am glad I opened with “Some how I imagine that…”, giving me enou

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > */[NST==> Is there any logic in which, “Let X be Y; therefore X is Y” is not > entailed. If a belief is defined as that upon which one is prepared to act, > is there any logic in which acting does not imply belief? <==nst] /* Of course. E.g.

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

rsity > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:44 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group &

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

t; > > > > > 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

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

, September 21, 2017 8:01 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia On 09/21/2017 04:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Well, answering in the sophistic manner, because logically speaking, acting > tentatively affirms tentativeness. You se

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

On 09/21/2017 04:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Well, answering in the sophistic manner, because logically speaking, acting > tentatively affirms tentativeness. You seem to forget that there are many types of logic, paraconsistent, defeasible, higher order, etc. > Is it possible (can you

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

??? ? Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 5:29 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia If you, as a non-dualist, allow for tentative action, why not allow for tentative belief? On 09/21/2017 02:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Peirce defined belief as

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

You should get back to talking to your television! From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipe

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

rod and was ruined!) >> >> >> >> And I never just hop out of bed without looking because the dog could be >> there. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick >> Thompson >> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:4

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

If you, as a non-dualist, allow for tentative action, why not allow for tentative belief? On 09/21/2017 02:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Peirce defined belief as that upon which we act and doubt as the absence of > belief. It follows logically that anything we act on affirms some belief >

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

s Daniels Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:54 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia There is nothing that infuriates me more than trying to solve a problem with/

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

<friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia Somehow I imagine that Nick means to say there are costly signals in this game — that motor action is thicker than conversation or reflection. If I am walking across a snowfield that I know to be filled with crevasses, and I

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

> > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > > > Ok. Self-reflection time. > > 1. Ah! Perhaps we ARE just quibbling about meanings. To what > e

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Of Nick Thompson Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:46 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia Ok. Self-reflection time. 1. Ah! Perhaps we ARE just quibbling about meanings. To what extent does

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Excellent digestion! I'll fully admit that my body has a kind of momentum. The running example is perfect. For the 1st mile (for certain), every breath and every step seems equivalently doubted, ungainly, awkward. As I literally force myself into the 2nd mile, I suspect my body changes. I

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson > *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:48 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

roup' <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia Dear Glen, I don't know why I am so pissed at Feynman right now but this quote: "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt, and un

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Somehow I imagine that Nick means to say there are costly signals in this game — that motor action is thicker than conversation or reflection. If I am walking across a snowfield that I know to be filled with crevasses, and I know I can’t tell which snow holds weight and which doesn’t, my

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

21, 2017 2:32 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia No regrets or apology are needed. And even if we are about to "argue about words" ... I forget what famous dead white guy said that ... it's still useful to me. You say: "if one

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

No regrets or apology are needed. And even if we are about to "argue about words" ... I forget what famous dead white guy said that ... it's still useful to me. You say: "if one acts in the assurance that some fact is the case, one cannot be said to really doubt it" The answer is clarified

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

; http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:39 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@r

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

e or not vague.. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:32 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <mikeby...@earthlink.net>

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

..@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:58 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia It's strange. You speak about the way _you_ think and behave as if that's the way _I_ think and behave. Can we all say "vainglo

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

It's strange. You speak about the way _you_ think and behave as if that's the way _I_ think and behave. Can we all say "vainglorously" together? 8^) I can tell you unflinchingly and honestly that I DO doubt that the floor is still under my feet when I put my legs out of the bed in the

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a BBC interview: "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

iAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a BBC interview: "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowi

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

age- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:32 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <mikeby...@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - W

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

OK, you got me..  (as usual). I suppose I was speaking of how this particular Feynman Quote is (mis)used vs how the Dyson quote is (mis)used.   I wasn't responding to your elaboration in this case, nor presuming to know what either of them actually *meant*.   How is that for weasely? Thanks

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Heh, I'm on the side of people who refuse to take aphorisms seriously, no matter who coins them, repeats them, etc. Otto's reading Nietzsche is the perfect example. Attempts to be pithy only appeal to sloppy thinkers. I admit that inside jokes can be good and comforting, but ONLY when you're

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

m [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:28 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia It's definitely sage. But the sagacity doesn't hinge on the word "science", it hinges on the word _useful_. S

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Bah! Do you actually think Dyson's aphorism is in stark juxtaposition to Feynman's? I thought, by including so much of what Feynman said, it would be less likely anyone would read it wrong. But if you think Feynman was saying being vague is better than being wrong, you TOTALLY misunderstood

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

, 2017 12:09 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia Glen - in stark juxtaposition, we have Freeman Dyson saying:     "it is better to be wrong than vague" I think I know what he meant and g

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Glen - in stark juxtaposition, we have Freeman Dyson saying:     "it is better to be wrong than vague" I think I know what he meant and generally support not getting frozen in inaction or muddying/qualifying a statement to the point of losing meaning. On the other hand, I find this quote

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a BBC interview: "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

It's definitely sage. But the sagacity doesn't hinge on the word "science", it hinges on the word _useful_. Science is often thought to be a body of knowledge. But there's a huge swath of people, me included, who think science is not knowledge, but a method/behavior for formulating and

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

As a well-known philosopher once said, any one who criticizes philosophy is a fellow philosopher. I can cite the reference if anyone cares. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sep 20, 2017 9:27 PM, "Nick Thompson" wrote: > Peirce’s Pragmati[ci]sm is

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

Peirce’s Pragmati[ci]sm is actually a generalization of the logic of experimental science to all of philosophy. Quite splendid, actually. By the way, the Feynman quote is really dumb, and it’s annoying that people keep trotting it out as if it was sage. The reason birds can’t make use of

Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

In a design, I think it is useful to tolerate confusion about some things (e.g. not identifying some types or their domains, or whether certain propositions are true) even though other parts are clear. It involves ratcheting things down in a breadth-first or depth-first way, depending on the