[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: A lot on my mind



Hey Judith,
 
    I didn't really expect a response to that post.  I was just sharing with you guys some of the things that are vying for attention in my own mind.  I'll try to respond to some of your questions and comments though.
 
Bayesian statistics
 
I know that there are some here that are better qualified to explain Bayes's Theorem than I am.  In fact, I won't even try.  I only dabble in the math as of now.  However this site, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/ seems to me to give a fairly decent overview of the subject.
 
The (M,R)-systems
 
I can't help but try to understand Robert in terms of things that I am already familiar with.  I'm not a blank slate.  Unfortunately this may mean that I have some things to unlearn, which seems more difficult to me than learning something anew.  So for instance I am still stuck on trying figure out how to visualize metabolism.  At this point I'm wanting to understand it in terms of transduction.  Transduction is defined in my dictionary as the transfer of energy from one system to another.
 
The three aspects of agency
 
I suppose there are many ways that I could go about developing this more.  Let me say from the beginning, however, that I don't know why only three.  It just seems like 'enough' (intuitively sufficient), and resonates with many other modes of analysis that involve living systems.  I, like others, use the word 'agency' because it's a relatively neutral term and isn't as loaded as the word 'life'.
 
Rasmussen and others are trying to induce (or maybe more like force or insure) emergence by coupling three functional aspects.  However, I will not employ their development here.  Nor will I point to Freud and his 1) id, 2) superego and 3) ego.  Nor will I point to the historian or social engineer trying to understand societies in terms of their 1) political, 2) economic and 3) military aspects.  Rather I will use a development that I picked up in a book some years ago entitled "The Principles of Seduction".  In that book the authors argued that when people fall in love it's because they have affirmed three aspects of each other's identity: 1) sexual, 2) ideal and 3) social identities.  They further discriminate as 1) male/female, 2) conventional/unconventional, and 3) intro/extrovert.  For instance I'd like to think of myself as an introverted, macho male who is fairly well balanced in terms of being conventional or unconventional.  (Be careful that none of you affirm this of me, for if you do then I may fall in love with you.)
 
I gave that book away, so I can't reference it right now.  However I believe that the authors were psychologists who interviewed many couples to find out why they had fallen in love with one another.  They found that the responses generally fell into one or more of the three categories.
 
entailment and conditional statements
 
I think that you're right. This is a huge area. Again it's just among the things that are vying for attention in my mind.  I don't feel that I am a particularly bright person, but I like to think that I have a nose for powerful ideas.  I gather from what you said that this subject line makes you want to launch.  I hope that you will.  If... it makes you want to then... I hope that you will.
 
Aristotelian analysis
 
Other than my momentary bafflement at formal causation, I think that I fairly well understand this.  I'll probably come back to formal causation at a later date.
 
analytic equations vs. algebraic relations
 
Tim has pointed this important distinction out to me.  When and if I become ready to tackle it, I know that Dr. Aloisius Louie is the man to go to.  (Tim told me that too. Thank you Tim.)  If I wish to understand Robert Rosen's work then I may not need to understand the math, but I may want to.  Incidentally, building a house often entails the use of a hammer.
 
the original emergence of life/induced emergence of life
 
I know that we can never be certain about all the details of life's original emergence (yes, I meant on Earth).  But we can and do form beliefs about how the event went down.  We can even state those beliefs directly and have those beliefs confirmed and disconfirmed over time as we gather more evidence.  For instance I believe (yes it's a belief) that life arose indigenously (as opposed to panspermia).  I even think that Dan may have a fairly decent outline of the thing only I believe that it happened at depth in the Earth's water soaked and circulating innards. I also believe that there has never been such a thing as a lonely organism on this our good Earth (though I don't subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis). 
 
I didn't expect to post this long.  As I said, I feel like all I really need to worry about this season is about what gifts I will be able to give to whom.  I'm still not done with all my shopping and this posting has entailed that I spend more time on it than I was anticipating.  I hope that all you guys get what you've been wanting.  I've not asked for anything so I'm certain to be pleased.  :) 
 
David