[FRIAM] On old question

[Eric Smith]

Hi Nick,

Thank you for this.  There have been many things crossing my mind in reading the exchanges on the thread, but I have been run ragged on a trip and am behind on things due, so I gave up intenting to engage.

There was one thing in one of the very earliest posts that seemed relevant to topics raised.  I forget who exactly related the definition (by Rosen) of function as defined in terms of the difference in a system’s structure or dynamics (or something) with vs. without a particular component.  

This seems to me like a general approach to a definition that could be formalized in many ways depending on what “laws of the universe” your system obeys, and what you want to highlight.  In the world of game theory (which allows one to strip out many specifications and work with only a few distinctions), something that seems to me like one such formalization is the Shapley value in the context of coalitional-form solution concepts (also termed “cooperative game theory”, but I avoid that term because people who don’t work in the area often think “cooperative” means something different than this usage intends):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value
Martin Shubik used to prefer to call this just “the Value”, since he and Shapley were working together at the time, and the Value was the basis for a measure of an agent’s power in a system known as the Shapley-Shubik power index:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley%E2%80%93Shubik_power_index

I don’t know if this is interesting or makes a contribution to the discussion you want to pursue, but in case so….

The concepts you mention also make sense together to me, though I probably think of Serendipity in its common-language sense and do not know how it is used as a term of art, Spandrel I am fairly familiar with as established by the Gould paper, and Scaffolding is again a term I could see using in many ways.  The way you used it in your description of Origin of Life is quite close to one usage that I also like.

I know this doesn’t add anything to what you have already said.  I will continue to follow, and if I think I can say anything small and specific, will try.

Best,

Eric


> On Oct 26, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Eric, 
>  
> Interesting. 
>  
> When I saw your message, I was excited because I thought you might comment on the role of serendipity in evolution.  There are three ideas rattling around in my head right now chafing against one another: Serendipity, Spandrel, andScaffolding.  All of which seem to describe ways in which one form of organization can affect a subsequent one.  Any thoughts?  
>  
> I will not say more lest I overly … um … structure your response. 
>  
> Nick 
>  
> Scaffolding.
>  
>  
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 5:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: 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 design – the appropriateness of a domestic species to the needs of the breeder -- is what is explained by artificial selection, what is explained by natural selection?  What precisely is natural design?  In the absence of a God to tell us what s/he wants, how do we read off of nature itself the demands to which her/his  creatures are adapted?  
>  
> In reading Dave’s note it seemed to me that his distinction of natural from artificial was much like the one meant by Simon in Sciences of the Artificial, somewhat like — with respect to any particular discussion frame — some things can be “organic” in the sense of inherited by that conversation, while others are “built” within the frame of the conversation.
>  
> https://www.amazon.co.jp/Sciences-Artificial-MIT-Press/dp/0262691914
>  
>  
>  
> ============================================================
> 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