gusl: (Default)
from Wikipedia: Liger
It is believed that this is because female lions transmit a growth-inhibiting gene to their descendants to balance the growth-promoting gene transmitted by male lions. (This gene is due to competitive mating strategies in lions.) A male lion needs to be large to successfully defend the pride from other roaming male lions and pass on his genes; also, in prides with multiple male adult lions, a male's cubs need to be bigger than the competing males for the best chance of survival. Thus, his genes favor larger offspring. A lioness, however, will have up to 5 cubs, and a cub is typically one of many being cared for in a pride with many other lions. As such, it has a relatively high survival rate, and need not be huge as it will not need to look after itself very quickly. Smaller cubs are more easily cared for and fed and are less strain on the pride; hence, the inhibiting gene developed.

This is very unsatisfactory! Since it's lacking references, I am including it here as an instance of psychoceramics. It exemplifies a common sort of confusion.

His argument basically says that male lions are predisposed to have large children, and female lions to have small children. The problem is that the article tries to explain this difference by talking about 100% Lion prides, in which these children are the same: each cub will be the child of exactly one male lion and one female lion! At each breeding instance (disregarding opportunity costs), the Darwinian score of the father due to this child is exactly the same as the Darwinian score of the mother due to this child. So if anything, natural selection should make them work in unison!

One could read the article as suggesting that the Darwinian score of male cubs would gain from a marginal increase in size, while female cubs would gain from a marginal decrease in size. This seems plausible, but this would be plain sexual dimorphism, and there's no reason why one parent should contribute more to it than the other.

Anyway, a related idea:
If X chromosomes promote smallness and Y promotes largeness,
then a lion's X + a tiger's X should make a female Liger whose size is between that is tiger and lion females.
gusl: (Default)
Kowalski, Toni (1996) - Abstract Argumentation

We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which
includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming,
non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular,
that the admissibility" semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation theoretic
interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal

Dung, Kowalski, Toni (2005) - Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation
We present a family of dialectic proof procedures for the admissibility semantics
of assumption-based argumentation. These proof procedures are defined for any
conventional logic formulated as a collection of inference rules and show how any
such logic can be extended to a dialectic argumentation system.
The proof procedures find a set of assumptions, to defend a given belief, by starting
from an initial set of assumptions that supports an argument for the belief
and adding defending assumptions incrementally to counter-attack all attacks.
The novelty of our
approach lies mainly in its use of backward reasoning to construct arguments
and potential arguments, and the fact that the proponent and opponent can
attack one another before an argument is completed. The definition of winning
strategy can be implemented directly as a non-deterministic program, whose
search strategy implements the search for defences.

In conventional logic, beliefs are derived from axioms, which are held to be beyond
dispute. In everyday argumentation, however, beliefs are based on assumptions, which
can be questioned and disputed...

The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism, humans use in
argumentation, and to explore ways to implement this mechanism on computers.
Roughly, the idea of argumentational reasoning is that a statement is believable if it can be
argued successfully against attacking arguments.

Panzarasa, Jennings, Norman - Formalizing Collaborative Decision-Making and Practical Reasoning in Multi-agent Systems

Kenneth Forbus - Exploring analogy in the large
Read more... )
gusl: (Default)

All the pieces finally fall into place:

Causal diagram of Chronic Rhinitis

Solid lines mean positive influence (+), i.e. more of the source tends to cause more of the target.
Dashed lines mean negative influence (-), i.e. more of the source tends to cause less of the target.

N.B.: I don't suffer from all causes or all symptoms above.

I could add a node for "vasoconstrictor" (e.g. Afrin) right next to "fluticasone", having a negative (e.g. health-positive) effect on "amount of blood in mucosa", but the problem is that vasoconstrictors have a short-term effect that rebound, becoming a positive (e.g. health-negative) effect.

Thanks WikiTex/Wikisophia, for providing me with a sandbox! Wiki code is behind the cut.

Fluticasone appears to be effective in the long run. But if I end up needing to use it for the rest of my life, then I'll go for a ~50% partial turbinectomy (under the knife, since laser seems to damage mucociliary function).

I am interested in the semantics of these diagrams, and how they relate to argument maps and formal proofs.

semantics of diagrams

* Say we want to instantiate a particular allergen and a particular individual: what kind of graph rewriting will we need to do?

* What about expressing the distinction between independent and dependent influences (e.g. conjunction, synergy)?

* What about tagging nodes with information about which leaves are controllable?

* Some effects have preconditions: snoring requires sleeping. Sleeping requires lying down. So we have an implicit relationship in the graph: the consequence is that turbinate enlargement will be worse during sleep. Could conclusions of the kind be drawn automatically, by simply adding to the implicit information to the current representation?

Read more... )
gusl: (Default)
Qualitative Reasoning seems to be about reasoning with abstract or vague knowledge (i.e. uncertainty). I think it's only needed because there would too many models (in the logic sense) for a probable worlds approach to be feasible (the same reason why non-monotonic reasoning might be necessary... I used to not like non-monotonic reasoning: you could say I was a Cheesemanian). from here:
This book presents, within a conceptually unified theoretical framework, a body of methods that have been developed over the past fifteen years for building and simulating qualitative models of physical systems (bathtubs, tea kettles, automobiles, the physiology of the body, chemical processing plants, control systems, electrical circuits, and the like) where knowledge of that system is incomplete. The primary tool for this work is the author's QSIM algorithm which is discussed in detail.

I like the idea of qualitative differential equations. Many of my intuitions and arguments about economics are based on such things.

For example, the principle of decreasing returns is one where the utility function 'U(w)' of the work 'w' satisfies:
U is always positive and
U' is always positive
but U'' is always negative

I find it really cool to be able to draw conclusions from such abstract principles. Maybe this is related to my liking of proofs that use fundamental constraints (e.g. symmetry, information theory) or abstract philosophical assumptions (e.g. the world is a computer).


gusl: (Default)

December 2016

18 192021222324


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags