[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Eric Charles]

Glen,
Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking
*something
like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I recalled Nick telling
me at some point that he didn't like that way of thinking, and I'm
surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on it. All metaphors are
imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like that way of talking a lot.
While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an arrangement
of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of cells
arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
inter-cellular structures.... organs are a bunch of tissues
arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various inter-tissue
structures, etc.

At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your preferred
sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is thinking:

Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment
matrix.

As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to
emphasize, it is true that there are many ways the behavior-by-environment
matrix can be constructed and arranged. Some of those ways will reveal the
relevant pattern in some instances, others will not. The particular pattern
is one in which the behavior vary across circumstances so as to stay
directed towards the production of a particular outcome. This sounds very
similar to "One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components
can be organized in multiple ways" but if I understood the prior discussion
of "heterarchy", I take it that concept is about a flexibility in
control/leadership, whereas no control is implied here (control being a
different pattern in a different matrix). The cause of the pattern is a
different matter entirely from the existence of the pattern - which is
expressly part of the point of Nick's way of approaching it, i.e.,that a
"motive" must be identifiable independent of a particular cause.



-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echarles at american.edu>


On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:02 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK.  I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard.  But if what you say, here, can
> imply that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of
> organization, then perhaps that's progress.
>
> Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell,
> molecule set.  The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level"
> hierarchy with words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us)
> can pinpoint the tissue organizing logic [†].  While it's a useful fiction
> to suggest that tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just
> as well* say tissue is organized by cellular behavior collectively.
>
> So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}.  But in
> another hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}.  If you set
> your email client to monospace:
>
>    tissue
>      |
>    cells
>      |
>  molecules
>
> versus:
>
>      cells
>      |  |
> tissue  molecules
>
> One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be
> organized in multiple ways.  So, again, I apologize if my attempts are
> irritating.  But it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're
> saying if you used words that allowed for more complete statements.  I've
> tried to suggest "layer" and "order" as a replacement for "level".  Some
> suggestions for replacing your statement about motives might be:
>
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a
> goal.
>
> I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized
> at a higher level".  To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint
> at your "if you stand next to me, you will see what I see."  That's because
> each one of my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency.  Your
> "organized at a higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion
> ... that this hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature
> of, say, silicon based life on Alpha Centauri.
>
> All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.
>
>
> [†] Is it in the cells?  Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might
> obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents?  I would argue that
> "it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ...
> further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this
> discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a
> more complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it
> further.
>
>
> On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> > incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> > incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> > hierarchically organized is a silly argument.  What is not a silly
> argument
> > is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of
> > view, P.  So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object,
> interpretant.
> > Is this relativism?  No, not in the ordinary sense.  Because the
> pragmatist
> > asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see.  Or, to
> put
> > it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.
> > So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred
> present
> > hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us
> > wrong.
>
> --
> ∄ 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/20190107/38750bcb/attachment.html>