[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[Marcus Daniels]

I think the point is that the relations or contingencies you mention can be cast as posterior probabilities from observed many-body correlations.  Distributional thinking works fine in that case too, it is just that some of those conditional probabilities get very close to 1.  Others relations are softer, only giving slightly favorable odds.   Still others can be modeled, having surprising<http://cds.cern.ch/record/154856/files/pre-27827.pdf> behavior.

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of "thompnickson2 at gmail.com" <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 9:07 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations

Jon,

Can you explain to me what in thunderation Eric’s comments on objects has to do with my comments on contingencies.  I am sure there IS a connection, but I just can’t see it.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 9:46 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anthropological observations

Eric,

Bravo. Sure, maybe TLDR, but a wonderful read anyway.

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200418/2152a180/attachment.html>