Re: [FRIAM] On old question

I agree. Purpose imputation is fideistic. >8^D On October 26, 2018 12:24:39 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels wrote: >Call me old-fashioned. I don't think it means anything to claim >understanding of a system unless one can take it apart and put it back >together; it is what design requires. There are

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Call me old-fashioned. I don't think it means anything to claim understanding of a system unless one can take it apart and put it back together; it is what design requires. There are a lot of systems one can’t understand at that level, either because they don’t yield to reduction or because

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Well, to be fair, Nick launched the thread with the meaning of "function" that includes teleology. And Rosen's whole shtick is an attempt to address what it means to leave purpose out of science. But Rosen's formulation of anticipation does identify the temporal part of construction. And he

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

It seems like teleology has been introduced by the word scaffolding. I'm not sure how that is useful unless it is just an observation that there are components that tend to be introduced earlier in the development of an organism. 

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Hm. I'm probably a victim of my own skimming. Allowing metaphor to run rampant ... The scaffolding Nick linked to is definitely *supervised* in what seems a fairly biased (maybe in a good way) constraint system. Granted, the DGI stuff seems very constrained, too. But within the constraints,

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Glen writes: And FWIW, your "scaffolding" sounds a lot like "bootstrapping" to me. It sounds to me like the modularity and re-use of neural nets that Roger directed us to. Marcus

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

I think you have the "materialist but not mechanist" gist right. But it's worth a warning that Rosen's definition of mechanism isn't what most people mean by that word. And it's his hijacking of the word into jargon that caused so many, for so long, to accuse him of vitalism. Most people

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

s/ > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 5:30 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question > > > I

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 5:30 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

pplied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question Hi Nick, I'm thinking I should look at a newer book by Rosen and see if it seems. better than "Life Itself". Do you think that the book you ordered (I'm not certain what it was) would be good? Or, alternatively, what is

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

> I am not at all sure where this leaves us with “natural programming.” As you > point out, my concept of natural may be complete at odds with yours. Mine > grows out of the following analogy: Artificial selection : natural selection > : : artificial design : natural design. If artificial

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

“But serendipity by definition is a violation of design. The serendipitous structure is one that makes something happen without being designed to do so. Translating that into the CP domain, your problem is to write a program that somehow promotes serendipity given that the serendipity

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

? --John From: Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 3:38:32 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question Thanks, Marcus, I ordered the book. Time I revived old memory traces. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

esigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:10 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question I would like to introduce a bit of a zig or zag into the conversation by bring

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

I would like to introduce a bit of a zig or zag into the conversation by bringing up something a bit far afield and then relating it back to the thread. In a direct message to Nick I mentioned that I was doing a workshop (January, in Amsterdam, at Domain-Driven Design Europe) on ‘Natural System

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

On the contrary, the question can ONLY be answered by pointing at something. Your abstracted, essentialist, linguistic tendencies will fail us every time. I think I've mentioned Luc Steels' language games before. And you seem to be fond of semiotics. So why isn't the question best answered by

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

rsity http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:24 PM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question This might qualify: Bravemind: Virtual Reality Exposure Ther

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

This might qualify: Bravemind: Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy http://ict.usc.edu/prototypes/pts/ Of course, you'll probably go all sophist on my and claim that the 2 experiences (of the original traumatic experience and the simulation) are separate and unique. But ... well... sophistry

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

ckthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:06 PM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question On 10/24/18 2:58 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > First of all, the a prior

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

On 10/24/18 2:58 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > First of all, the a priori distinction between the real and the modeling > world is indefensible. As a person who *simulates* the real world for money, that's just plain offensive! 8^) Were I to go into, say, NASA or somewhere and claim that my

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 2:39 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question And BTW, the section in the paper linked on the topic of "the Modeling Relation" 1.1.3 The modeling relation: how we perceive The modeling relation is based on

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Oh! And I forgot to mention my other favorite *vein* of possible counter examples: Hewitt's "Inconsistency Robustness". I particularly like John Woods' contribution to attempts to formalize abduction. On 10/24/18 2:49 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > My opinion is probably the least credible. But here it

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

My opinion is probably the least credible. But here it is anyway. Rosen's achievement was just like every other theoretician's achievement. He formulated hypotheses that *may* be testable. The Mikulecky paper Steve posted states one of them fairly well: Mikulecky wrote: > The functional

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

e Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question Thanks, everybody, for your responses. Most of them are way above my pay-grade, but watching you all work together is inspiring, and I always, ALWAYS, get a rich harvest of crumbs off your table. B

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

someone with a more positive view of Rosen would try to explain what it is that Rosen achieved. --John From: Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:42:18 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FR

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:16 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question Glen, I was trying very hard to be metaphorical and general and avoid addressing details, like the one you raise, that would require

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

And BTW, the section in the paper linked on the topic of "the Modeling Relation" // /1.1.3 The modeling relation: how we perceive / // The modeling relation is based on the universally accepted belief that the world has some sort of order associated with it; it is not a hodge-podge of

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Glen/Nick/Marcus/Dave/et alia - For reasons I can't begin to enumerate here, I have been unable to keep up with this list beyond reading/skimming every day or three and each time I formulate a response or contribution to a thread, it sits for another cycle (1-3 days) and feels stale or

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

esigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:56 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group ; Roger Critchlow Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question Nick, It sounds like you are describing mutual infor

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Glen, I was trying very hard to be metaphorical and general and avoid addressing details, like the one you raise, that would require pages to discuss properly. But, I would definitely and immediately concede that Rosen, in particular, recognizes and deals with, sometimes more cleverly than

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

ompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:20 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question Nick, If your 'psychological' monism extends to a metaphysical monism, please don't hyperven

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

So ... Rosen's openness to material flow, closure to operational flow, allows *both* endo- and exothermic sub-systems. But his (M,R)-systems focus on maintaining organization using energy-material harvested from the gradient, ignoring sub-systems that produce energy-material? On 10/24/18 9:20

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Nick, If your 'psychological' monism extends to a metaphysical monism, please don't hyperventilate when I suggest a fundamental dualism — Entropy and Anentropy. I am suggesting a kind of Leibniz-ian model, "from zero (chaos) and one (God) comes everything. Substituting the

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

My comment may be addressed a bit by the 2nd paper Roger posted (DGI). But my 1st reaction to your comment was an attempt to reconstruct what Rosen *might* have intended re: function and organization. I'm running with my gestalt memory, but I'll challenge it against his text later. A

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Roger writes: “So mutual information between the whole and the part, the shared purpose as it were, where the residual information of the part -- modulo the mutual information with the whole -- would presumably be the 'function' of the part.” It sees incomplete. In the case of higher-order

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Mutual information turned up earlier this week in some articles about what Google AI does next, which could be read as an attempt on organization, too. https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-ponders-the-shortcomings-of-machine-learning/ this is the article that Google news pushed on me. The

Re: [FRIAM] On old question

Nick, It sounds like you are describing mutual information. This is ancient, but a nice overview of related topics: https://www.amazon.com/Information-Theory-Qualitative-Quantitative-Applications/dp/0803921322 Marcus From: Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson Reply-To: The Friday Morning