[FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Sun Oct 15 17:23:53 EDT 2017

Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.  

Thank 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-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Steven writes:

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

Nick responds to Steven with:

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and found this version of that "truth"-- 

National Geographic: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic building blocks <http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/16/jellyfish-and-human-eyes-assembled-using-similar-genetic-building-blocks/>  (2008).

The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important innovations, such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes are used, rather than adding new ones to the mix.

This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent with Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and in addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot of time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to consider along with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like Marcus' programmer with a discernable personality: 

According to this analysis ( <http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp> Nautilus 2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit, there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping) to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this would be absurd. 

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit, called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don’t need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of possible circuits is more than 10700. That’s a lot, lot more than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or “human” traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?

So, it seems that nature's methodology seems more akin to design engineering <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_engineer>  than development from scratch (subgenomic?); that is, creating new applications (biological inventions) from a rearrangement of the parts (e.g., atoms, molecules, genes) of existing parts.  This also seems consistent with Nick (something is conserved|reused--genes, including regulatory ones that seem to quicken adaptation), Marcus (seeing this Hox gene circuit as the preference of the programmer), Dave [Heraclitus, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead] ("Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible."), Steven ("What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently. " e.g., jellyfish eye versus the human eye.), and  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_England> Jeremy England:

If [Jeremy] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,”

  ---

Scientific America:  <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/> A New Physics Theory of Life [2014]

.

This theory of England's seems to resonate with Dave's "Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated- ‘truths’ are possible." 

But is there any "truth" to be found in physics, chemistry, or biology then?  Is it all context dependent?  Postmodern like?  For example, we live in this universe with these initial conditions and so these possible resulting laws, so, all ultimate truth is to be reducible to physics ...  

>From his books I have read, American theoretical physicist Lee Smolin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin> , I think, would say that even these laws are ephemeral.  Time (measured or psychological?) is the only fundamental truth.  Everything else is emergent, even space.  With this realization, Smolin asserts, physics takes on a new and interesting paradigm that seem to converge to testable hypotheses with a more conceptual economy--Occam's Razor.

But maybe this is why Nick says "For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. " 

Perhaps, observed physical phenomena and theories about those phenomena based on those instrumented human observers converge only in human consciousness ... and in statistical experiments ... allowing Nick's "Philosopher Stone" to be so predictive the more we observe and measure. 😊  Surely, reality does not care what we think it is ... but we have a desperate need to see consistency to at least feel in control. Our axiom-borne theories and  models are monuments to this "affliction."

Dave writes:

That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

Anyway, for what it is worth, I find this thread intriguing and will be interested where it goes from here ...  I really do not think that this will converge to a simple, single truth.  As Frank contributes:

Nick, David: you are both correct.

How can that be?!  What would pragmatic Peirce say ...? 😊

Cheers,

Robert

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net> > wrote:

Hi Steven, 

As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like your “eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over the long haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul. 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.   

For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments.  

And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually matter.  He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the form of a convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long run.  

N

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-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM

To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of "Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures they describe/explain themselves.

Dave writes:

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs. 

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products.

Marcus

  _____  

From: Friam  <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West  <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm> <profwest at fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David, 
> 
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.  
> 
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random. 
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  
> 
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any. 
> 
> Come back.  We miss you. 
> 
> Nick 
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>  <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
> 
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
> 
> There can be no Truth.

> n       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
> n       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
> 
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> n       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
> 
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> n       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
> n       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said

> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
> 
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
> 
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
> 
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
> 
> 
> ============================================================
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171015/62574876/attachment-0001.html>