[FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce
Robert Wall
wallrobert7 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 29 15:57:36 EDT 2017
Hi Nick, Glen, Frank, et al.,
Here are some more burrs ... 😴
Included here are links to that discussion paper and the associated handout
I put together for that *Santa Fe Philosophical Society* session titled
*Purpose*.
Does The Universe have a Purpose
<http://files.meetup.com/119715/Does%20The%20Universe%20have%20a%20Purpose.pdf>
Does the Universe Have a Purpose - HANDOUT
<http://files.meetup.com/119715/Does%20the%20Universe%20Have%20a%20Purpose%20-%20HANDOUT.pdf>
I think it is a fun piece that indeed did lead to a very interesting
two-hour discussion in the style of a Socrates Cafe. All "burrs, are
volunteered and most welcomed in this forum. 😎
*Is Smolin’s thesis within easy reach, anywhere on the web?*
The gist of Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection thesis can be
gleaned at these links:
*Scientific American*: The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural
Selection
<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-logic-and-beauty-of-cosmological-natural-selection/>
(June 10, 2014).
*YouTube*: Lee Smolin: Cosmological Natural Selection (YouTube Geek Week!)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbYLTqvo774> (August 3, 2013). [3.5
minutes].
and more fully in his 1997 book The Life of the Cosmos
<https://www.amazon.com/Life-Cosmos-Lee-Smolin/dp/019510837X/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&dpID=41mIdNIlpAL&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=detail>
.
I find this theory of Smolin's the most compelling "Genesis story" we have
so far probably because of its appeal to the powerful Evolution paradigm at
the level of the cosmos. As you will read, Smolin appears in my discussion
of Purpose ... explaining the *apparentness *of purpose (or design) in a
cosmological context seems like a natural extension from the biological
context. Smolin does a decent job in explaining this extension, IMHO.
BTW, I also liked Smolin's 2013 book *Time Reborn*. It is a re-analysis of
Time in a way that channels Henri Bergson (links both criticism and praise
in this discussion about the book)
<https://social-epistemology.com/2013/06/06/world-enough-and-time-steve-fuller/>.
If you are not up on Henri Bergson, this short piece
<https://social-epistemology.com/2015/06/19/bergson-and-bergsonism-a-reply-to-riggio-melanie-white/>
would be an interesting primer in the context of Bergson's famous 1922
public debate with Albert Einstein on the concept of Time. After that
debate, the Science establishment kind of closed ranks against Bergson ...
until, perhaps, Lee Smolin took another look. This treatment is both
interesting and tragic for Bergson who was among the most respected natural
philosophers of his day. Alfred North Whitehead was influenced by Bergson
with his Process Philosophy
<https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/> (that goes way
back to Greek theoretician Heraclitus of Ephesus--compare Parmenides of Elea
<https://philosophynow.org/issues/111/Reality_and_Stability_From_Parmenides_to_Einstein>
).
And for both thinkers [*Heraclitus and Parmenides*], the real was
accessible to reason because reality itself was rational. In seeking
reality we must, therefore, follow reason and ignore the testimony of our
senses. Mathematics is the most transparently reason-driven mode of
thought, and so we must follow the mathematics where it takes us. Hence the
(possibly apocryphal) sign over the entrance to Plato’s Academy: ‘Let
no-one ignorant of geometry enter here’.
Anyway, sorry for all the links. I can get carried away with this stuff. 😕
In the context of *information *being another physically fundamental entity
in the universe along with *energy *and *matter*, I brought up David Deutsch
<https://www.edge.org/video/constructor-theory>'s Constructor Theory
<https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-riddle-of-life> 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
<https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/>
(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 ...
Possible future "burr": Appealing to the idea of a wave function containing
complete information about 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 <nickthompson at 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-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 5:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at 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 its initial state to fit within the
> moving niche (as I think Kim would put it)?
>
> *[NST==>I am uneasy about the notion of niche. It implies a stable set of
> ways of making a living in an environment that have nothing with the
> organisms that make them. This the whole issue of the Baldwin effect in
> which an organism determines its niche by its behavioral choices. I think
> “the niche”, like “the species”, can survive this sort of attack, but only
> through a long and careful statistical and mathematical analysis of the
> concept of design. <==nst] *
>
> Maybe the selection process *is *like information transmission, but
> through a gene expression process where an irrelevant message becomes
> relevant (functional) in the new context. With moving niches, time can be
> the enemy, which is why the process cannot be random (fair?) because the
> probability math does not work out, and which is why bacteria populations
> do so well as moving into new niches. Bacteria use short reproduction
> cycles (change the organism); humans use technology (change the
> environment, which is not natural selection, but changing our tolerance to
> niche movements), as was pointed out today.
>
>
>
> Then again, this may all be a nonsensical (fair?) grope to an explanation
> (a solution) that will satisfy (fit) ... 🤔 (again, no pun intended). 😊
>
> *[NST==>Yeah. Sorry. I really screwed this up. It’s the
> genetic/developmental system that has to be “fair”; natural selection is
> patently Unfair. Please see later message. <==nst] *
>
>
>
> Anyway. Let me know where you would like for me to send the discussion
> paper and I will. It *could *serve as the basis for a new thread, but it
> might also be way too much material for such a use.
>
> *[NST==>If you put it up in the cloud somewhere, we will find it! <==nst]
> *
>
>
>
> BTW, from what I learned from Frank this morning about the group dynamics
> is that the group interaction works more coherently--like it
> did today--when seeded with an interesting question or proposition.
>
> *[NST==> I agree, people who come to a meeting with a burr under their
> saddle are a great resource. By the way, Frank, the effect of a burr under
> the saddle is on the HORSE, right? So, the metaphor is to somebody who is
> riding a horse he cannot altogether control. <==nst] *
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> 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&qid=1509073028&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=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-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at 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 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 <nickthompson at 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-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at 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&rv=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
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20171029/26d90ab8/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list