Wow, Eric, thanks! Lovely gift this beautiful morning. And Nick, AFAIK, there is no such ThreadMagic software. But lets have a coffee over it. And in terms of the body and blood of Christ, that takes a bit and too can be done over coffee. But it basically has to do with The Wisdom of Metaphor and its place in both evolution of theology and religious belief.
All: Did no one discuss the mathematics of induction .. the inductive proof? Certainly that is accepted by us all, even tho anyone can make a sequence of a set of N numbers, who's generator can provide any number for its N+1th number. It is in the fact that the induction works by proving the N=1 case, assuming the Nth and proving the N+1th from that. -- Owen On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ok. So now it’s probably time for me to admit that as Faith goes, belief > in induction is pretty weak tea. **** > > ** ** > > Certainly doesn’t compare with the belief that ritual can change wine in > to blood. **** > > ** ** > > Now, I think it’s easy to show that even catholics don’t believe it, using > the pragmatic maxim that any thought is not a belief unless it can be > shown to guide behavior. **** > > ** ** > > Let us say that christ’s body is exhumed and that its perfectly > preserved. The priest comes to you with a cup and a plate and says > “thisis the blood and body. Etc.” I think your response, catholic or not, > would be OH YUCH!**** > > ** ** > > The logic goes**** > > ** ** > > Catholics will consume what they think is the blood and body of Christ**** > > This is the blood and body of Christ**** > > This catholic did not consume it. **** > > ** ** > > TILT!**** > > ** ** > > My apologies to any catholics on the list . this is one of the examples > in Peirce’s work and it is much on my mind at the moment. I hope I have > represented the facts of the ritiual more or less correctly and not been …. > Um …too flippant or clever. I am pretty tired and it is pretty late. **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:03 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Cc:* Owen Densmore > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Clarifying Induction Threads**** > > ** ** > > The inductive argument for induction [paraphrased from Eric]: The fact > that induction has been so successful in the past should convince of its > usefulness in the future. > **** > > **** > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________***** > > * Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * Google voice: 747-999-5105***** > > Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/**** > > * vita: > **http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/*<http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> > *_____________________________________________* **** > > > > **** > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:49 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> wrote:**** > > Owen, > As I understand it: > Doug announced his ordination. After a bit of banter, Doug made some > generalizations about religious and non-religious people based on his past > experience.... but... the ability to draw conclusions from past experience > is a bit philosophically mysterious. The seeming contradiction between > Doug's disavowal of faith and his drawing of conclusion based on induction > set off Nick. Nick attempted to draw Doug into an open admittance that he > accepted the truth of induction as an act of faith. But Nick never quite > got what he was looking for, and this lead to several somewhat confused > sub-threads. Eventually Nick just laid the problem out himself. However, > this also confused people because, 1) the term 'induction' is used in many > different contexts (e.g., to induce an electric current through a wire), > and 2) there is lots of past evidence supporting the effectiveness of > induction. > > The big, big, big problem of induction, however, is that point 2 has no > clear role in the discussion: If the problem of induction is accepted, then > no amount of past success provides any evidence that induction will > continue to work into the future. That is, just as the fact that I have > opened my eyes every day for the past many years is no guarantee that I > will open my eyes tomorrow, the fact that scientists have used induction > successfully the past many centuries is no guarantee that induction will > continue to work in the next century. > > These threads have now devolved into a few discussions centered around > accidentally or intentionally clever statements made in the course > conversation, as well as a discussion in which people can't understand why > we wouldn't simply accept induction based on its past success. The latter > are of the form "Doesn't the fact that induction is a common method in > such-and-such field of inquiry prove its worth?" > > Hope that helps, > > Eric > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 10:05 PM, *Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net>*wrote: > **** > > Could anyone summarize the recent several thread that originated with this > one? **** > > ** ** > > I'm sorry to have to ask, but we seem to have exploded upon an interesting > stunt, but with the multiple threads (I Am The Thread Fascist) and the > various twists and turns, I'd sorta like to know what's up!**** > > ** ** > > -- Owen**** > > ============================================================**** > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College**** > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > **** > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** > > ** ** > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
