On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 09:40:01 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: : On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 07:30:10 -0700 (PDT), Leonard Matusik wrote
>> Number 4* begged some clarification, so (..for better or worse) I >> started doing it myself. I began thinking how people tend to claim >> allegiences.. I'm chinese, I'm male, I'm for the RedSox, etc. .. >> and in doing so create a corporate entity.. a group of people who >> behave (somewhat) as an individual. >I'm not sure you're using a proper meaning for attractor states. They are >repeating, stable or recurring configurations of nodes in a network system... >which are almost in opposition, or at least orthogonal, to the idea of >individuals being attracted to each other via similiarity. A simple Boolean >network gives rise to attractor states, but there can be no notion of >similarity between nodes -- they are either identical or opposite. >Nick Well, the context was roughly *culture evolution* and the statement was Dr. David Brins, not mine. You sound like a computer guy (I'm not), would you (or anyone else,) like to guess what Dr. Brin meant by the statement? "4* the notion of attractor states which will reliably pull groups of humans in, given certain kinds of circumstances." -brin Thanks it'd help me out. Leonard Matusik [EMAIL PROTECTED] (It's phylogeny.) -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voicemail: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l --------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l