[FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design

Mon Oct 29 12:54:54 EDT 2018

Hi Nick,

I would like to grapple with your challenge to mathematicians, but I need a clearer idea of what the challenge is. Here are some possibilities:

(1) Recently, I have been trying to find some kind of mathematical entity that produces a "chronicle" (i.e. a sequence of outcomes in response to various stimuli) but is not equivalent to a sequential machine. Is this search for such an entity a reasonable response (or a partial response) to your challenge?

(2) Are you specifically interested in a mathematical model of motives?

(3) Or would you like a mathematical discussion of what Rosen was searching for and what he accomplished?

(4) Or are you looking for something else?

--John

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:50:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design

My silence is due to my attempts to unplug on the weekends. I think examples abound. So my next question was to ask what type of example would you care about? I can't give an example in "natural design" because I don't know what that phrase means. But Marcus has already mentioned ADFs in genetic programming. We've just mentioned social (high order) and physiological (low order) influences on sexual behavior. Intercellular "communication" can happen via molecule diffusion and extracellular vesicles. Etc.

It seems similar to that aphorism: "Nonlinear systems is like non-elephant zoology" ... or somesuch, misquoted from somebody somewhere. 8^)

On October 28, 2018 11:20:52 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hi, Glen,
>
>
>
>I am continuing to think about what you say below.  I guess, in my
>defense, I would say that this a statement about what natural designs
>means, not a claim that all animals behave in this highly schematized
>way.  After all, even in the course of orgiastic sex, the organism
>continues to breath (well mostly) so the different activities can be
>simultaneous as well as switched between.   For real examples, have a
>look at some of the diagrams in Tinbergen’s Study of Instinct.  See
>below
>
>
>
>I just reread Rosen's chapter on epistemology:  God what a hot mess!
>But exciting, still.  I wish somebody would sit down and read it with
>me.
>
>Nick
>
>
>
>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 ? u???
>Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 4:53 AM
>To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design
>
>
>
>This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're
>assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate
>over whole components from the lower order.  I.e. the gun's algorithm
>1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then
>uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm.
>
>
>
>And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect
>biology does NOT use strict hierarchies.  A higher order function can
>operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher
>order and some from the lower orders.  E.g. if the gun's higher order
>selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but
>also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he
>same sub-algorithm for both air and water.  So, it takes both high
>order constructs and low order constructs as its operands.
>
>
>
>You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you
>say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social.  What do you
>mean by "essentially"?  Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all
>the social animals is, in part, social?  ... including following others
>to the water hole?  So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey
>a strict hierarchy.
>
>
>
>On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>> But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in
>the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different
>sorts of motion from an aerial target.
>
>> [...]
>
>> So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that
>relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the
>lower level design to target type.
>
>> [...]
>
>> This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful
>
>
>> way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and
>
>> socio-biologists are required to explain. …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>∄ uǝʃƃ
>
>
>
>============================================================
>
>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>
>http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
>http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--
glen

============================================================
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/20181029/ce32ea54/attachment.html>