[FRIAM] The epiphenomenality relation

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Yes, that's the point. Thanks for stating it in yet another way. 

The word "epiphenomenon" is loaded with expectation/intention. It works quite well in artificial systems where we can simply assume it was designed for a purpose. But in "natural" systems (like the hyena case), if we use that concept, we've imputed a *model* onto the system.

I would go even further (encroaching on Marcus' example) and argue that even if someone *else* designed a system, you cannot reverse engineer that designer's intention from the system they built. The agnostic approach is to treat every system you did not build yourself, with your own hands, as a naturally occurring system. (This is the essence of hacking, including benign forms like circuit bending.) I would ... I want to ... but I can't take that further step without a preliminary understanding that "wild type" systems don't exhibit epiphenomena at all. They can't, by definition. If some effect *looks* like an epiphenomenon to you, it's because *you* imputed your model onto it. It's a clear cut case of reification.


On 11/29/21 8:49 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> glen wrote:
>> ... Purposefully designed systems have bugs (i.e. epiphenomena, unintended, side-, additional, secondary, effects). Biological evolution does not. There is no bug-feature distinction there.
> 
> In trying to normalize your terms/conceptions to my own, am I right that you are implying that intentionality is required for epiphenomena (reduces to tautology if "unintended" is key to "epi")?
> 
> This leads us back to the teleological debate I suppose.   The common (vulgar?)  "evolution" talk is laced with teleological implications...  but I think what Glen is saying here that outside the domain of human/sentient will/intentionality (which he might also call an illusion), everything simply *is what it is* so anything *we* might identify as epiphenomena is simply a natural consequence *we* failed to predict and/or which does not fit *our* intention/expectation.
> 
> We watch a rock balanced at the edge of a cliff begin to shift after a rain and before our very eyes, we see it tumble off the cliff edge and roll/slide/skid toward the bottom of the gradient but being humans, with intentions and preferences and ideas, *we* notice there is a human made structure (say a cabin) at the bottom of the cliff and we begin to take odds on how likely that rock is to slip/slide/roll into the cabin.   *we* give that event meaning that it does not have outside of our mind/system-of-values.   The rock doesn't care that it came to final rest (or not) because the cabin structure in it's (final) path was robust enough to absorb/reflect the remaining kinetic energy in the rock-system and the cabin doesn't care either!   We (because we are in the cabin, because we built the cabin, because we are paying a mortgage to the bank on the cabin, because we intend to inhabit the cabin, because we can imagine inhabiting the cabin before/during/after the collisions) put
> a lot of meaning and import into that rock coming to rest against/on-top-of/beyond the cabin, but the rock and the cabin *don't care*.   If instead of crushing the cabin, the rock grazes it on the side where there was a dilapidated porch you intended to demolish, carrying it away and crumbling it's bits to compostable splinters in the ravine *below* the cabin out of your site, you might want to refer to the epiphenomenal nature of rolling stones as clever demolition and removal crews?
> 
> I'm probably just muddying the water (at the bottom of the ravine, now filled with cabin-deck bits).

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ