Sorry everybody. This was an attempt to join Glen in a discussion of what it means to speak of something as "inside" a person or "inside" his or her mind.
I failed to post it with a proper subject line. Nick Glen, Thanks for being willing to talk this out with me. Here is what I think. Because I am (believe it or not!) a scientist, and because I believe that all science ... and certainly all science that jumps ahead ... is based in metaphor, and because I believe it's hard to talk about anything without revealing a metaphor, the language we choose to talk about things becomes really important to me. So once we recognize that "in" in all its uses with respect to the mean really refers to something quite different from what is usually called to "mind" by that word, should we choose another. I know half the list is now fuming, "What is the matter with that Thompson fellow; WE all know what you mean!" But, on the contrary. I bet that I can show you that you DON'T each know what the other means. In fact, part of our use of such terminological conventions is just to bypass the tremendous work that would be involved in trying to figure out and articulate our different meanings. I want to do that work. I believe in that work. In fact, I believe that UNTIL we do that work, we can't make much empirical progress because we don't know what data to look for. I will carry on below at ===> Nicholas Thompson wrote: > So, either the self is material, > > Or, "in" is understood in some way other than that it occupies a > container. Yes, by "inner self", I was talking about Mikhail's latter "me". Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > [second me] is the product of thinking of the first one (me as I > think about me) So, I do not intend "inner" to mean "inside a container". I mean "inner" in the sense of the mental constructs we build when thinking about our selves. A model of our selves as viewed from within. Both "me"s are part of the self, which is exactly the point I was trying to argue with Mikhail, neither the physical self nor this endo-self are less real than the other. ==> OK. I would, if I could, deny you both "endo" and "within" because they have the same meaning as "in". But this passage -- "when thinking about ourselves"-- calls into play the notion of reflexivity. Isn't this Meade? the Self as thinking (the I ) as distinguished by the Self as the object of thought (the "me":). Now HERE is a question I have wanted to ask a group of people like the FRIAM list. If you were to go about programming a computer to think about itself, how would you do it? What would be the imputs from what? My suspicion has always been that the notion of "the self thinking about the self" is incoherent. That no matter how hard you guys try, you could not agree on a computer routine that would literally fill the bill for genuine, literal, reflexivity. I may make a thread of this in the Noodlers Corner, when I get back. . Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <friam@redfish.com> > Date: 7/19/2008 10:00:25 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 20 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam@redfish.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Confessions of a Mathemechanic. (Ken Lloyd) > 2. A Grateful Dead Analysis... (Marko A. Rodriguez) > 3. philosophy of science for bounded rationality (Roger Critchlow) > 4. Re: Agent Based Modeling and Biomimicry (Ann Racuya-Robbins) > 5. MIT tech talk videos (Tom Johnson) > 6. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 18 (Nicholas Thompson) > 7. Re: Mathematics and Music (Mikhail Gorelkin) > 8. Santa Fe Complex: Dinosaurs on the Loose (Don Begley) > 9. Re: Mathematics and Music (Mikhail Gorelkin) > 10. Re: Mathematics and Music (Mikhail Gorelkin) > 11. Re: Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity (Phil Henshaw) > 12. inner self and discovery: Ann Racuya-Robbins: "inner voice" > as mutifaceted experiencable interface between usual awareness > and subtle identity as vaster awareness: Rich Murray 2008.07.18 > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 13. Re: inner self and discovery: Ann Racuya-Robbins: "inner > voice" as mutifaceted experiencable interface between usual > awareness and subtle identity as vaster awareness: Rich Murray > 2008.07.18 (Marcus G. Daniels) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:20:25 -0600 > From: "Ken Lloyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Confessions of a Mathemechanic. > To: " 'G?nther Greindl' " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > G?nther, > > I have admitted my ignorance of your domain: a philosophy of science. > Apparently, this knowledge is required in FRIAM discussions. Perhaps there > is a path between the philosophy behind of, and the science I use in my > complexity research. > > A hint of this path is illustrated in Robert Bishop and Harald Altspacher's > "Contextual Emergence in the Description of Properties". > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002934/ > > Among other issues of description, they state: > > "The description of properties at a particular level of description > (including its laws) offers both necessary and sufficient conditions to > rigorously derive the description of properties at a higher level. This is > the strictest possible form of reduction. As mentioned above, it was most > popular under the influence of positivist thinking in the mid-20th century." > > The positivist paradigm is inadequate in my opinion. > > Models can be represented by hybrids of thermodynamic network graphs and > neural networks. > > The point I tried to make in G?del is that models that are incomplete may be > proven, what I call true in some sense is actually more not-false, and > models that are unproven may be true. Models are superpositions of other > models that may be refuted as demonstrably false and removed from the > superposition, otherwise allowed to remain. Therefore, models exhibit > uncertainty. Axioms are not models, and models cannot represent axioms. If > a model is complete, the ensembles of entangled paths through the > superposition will collapse to a trajectory. In my domain, a model may be > considered in two types of equilibrium, both where no energy is exchanged > with the context. 1) A cold dark model, thermodynamically just above 0 K > where no thermodynamic coupling exists between elements - thus entropy is > not generated), and 2) a dark model where the model is at thermodynamic > equilibrium with its environmental context, but exchanges internal and > external couplings. A dark model does generate entropy at its minimal level > according to various ambient temperatures. > > The upshot of the general description above is that perturbations of the > model can realize non-analytical solutions (of which there may be infinitely > many) - which are impossible with, and completely different than, solving a > problem analytically. > > Re: completeness your propositional calculus, I am ignorant of the concept. > > Ken > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: G?nther Greindl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:05 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Confessions of a Mathemechanic. > > > > Ken, > > > > > proven as true in a formal axiomatic system. Thus, "truth" is an > > > underdetermined state when it comes to the application of enumerable > > > > It is always important to say here that "truth" in respect to > > G?del is a mathematical notion (relationship structure/model > > and formal system), it is often wrongly invoked in > > philosophical discussion ("G?del said there can be no truth > > .. therefor crazy idea etc") > > > > > > > G?del's second theorem states that a formal axiomatic system is > > > complete if and only if it is inconsistent. > > > > There are perfectly complete and and consistent axiomatic systems. > > (propositional calculus); heck, even the mega-expressive > > first order logic (see the completeness theorem). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_theorem > > > > Incompleteness arises when you introduce arithmetic (robinson > > arithmetic suffices, presburger arithmetic not; in short: you > > need addition and multiplication in your arithmetic -> with > > this you can construct g?del numbers, define recursion, and > > get your (first) incompleteness theorem, from which second > > follows easily. > > > > Cheers, > > G?nther > > > > -- > > G?nther Greindl > > Department of Philosophy of Science > > University of Vienna > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ > > Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:23:39 -0600 (MDT) > From: "Marko A. Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] A Grateful Dead Analysis... > To: "Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hi everyone, > > This might be an enjoyable read for those that like the Grateful Dead... > > http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2466 > > Enjoy! > Marko. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:26:40 -0600 > From: "Roger Critchlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] philosophy of science for bounded rationality > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <Friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Here's an interesting book review in today's issue of Science: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5887/344 > > *Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings* > Piecewise Approximations to Reality > *by William C. Wimsatt* > Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007. 468 pp. $49.95, ?32.95, > ?37.50. ISBN 9780674015456. > > The world is messy. We are fallible and bounded. Yet science progresses > with great reliability. Wimsatt's conception of science is organized around > these three facts. > > -- rec -- > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/5ddead27 /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:11:44 -0600 > From: "Ann Racuya-Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Agent Based Modeling and Biomimicry > To: "'Steve Smith'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: friam@redfish.com > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Thank you for your email and your generous offer. I have looked at Tim > Weaver?s website http://primamateria.org/index.html and feel a kinship and > resonance with his work. I would be delighted to be a complementary speaker. > > It is because I think the internet coupled with technological innovations > and the human capacity for good can change the world for the better that I > have dedicated my life to doing what I can to make sure systems using these > capacities serves life to its fullest. After spending a lifetime of > studying, thinking and now my-shoulder-to-the-wheel putting what I have > learned and know to work in the creation a just system I call the World > Knowledge Bank?, I welcome each conversation as it arises. I don?t mean to > imply that I have all the answers but rather to declare openly and > unabashedly that our purpose, myself and the WKBank, is to create and help > others create a more just, humane and joyful world that values each and > every life, human and otherwise. A system that is dedicated to giving voice > to the voiceless that loves life and others? lives as I love my own. I am > prepared learn, to sacrifice, to listen and to speak. I am not prepared to > give up on life on earth?each and every life. > > Crazy or not I think I have found a solid, practical and joyful way to do > this. > > I would like to give you a way to measure the work of the WKBank, in > addition to any other measure you would like to use, to judge this work. > ?The way in which individual self interest and the interests of others is > bound together is at every level, a measure of the strength, the integrity > and the beauty of this work.? > > > > In turn I would like to invite you and others who might be interested to > join a discussion at the Mission Caf?, Carolyn Stephenson proprietor, on > the World Knowledge Bank? and in general ?Freedom and the Internet?, > Saturday July 26th at 1pm. 239 E De Vargas St, Santa Fe, NM 87501 (505) > 983-3033, or 505-310-8950. > > > > Thank you again Steve, for your generosity towards me. I know I will become > a better communicator as I listen to and learn from you and all at Friam and > the Santa Fe Complex. > > > > Ann Racuya-Robbins > > Founder and CEO > > World Knowledge Bank? > > https://www.wkbank.com <https://www.wkbank.com/> > > > > > > From: Steve Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Agent Based Modeling and Biomimicry > > > > Ann - > > I am trying to arrange a visit talk by Tim Weaver > http://primamateria.org/index.html and think you might be a good > complement/opposite speaker to him. Read his "Statement" to see the > connection with what I perceive to be your position. > > Forgive me if I have mis-identified you, but I am assuming you are the woman > who has spoken out (most recently at the Industrial Strength Networks talk > last night) only to be (mostly) dismissed/ignored or at-best defended-from. > If that is the case, I wanted to commend you on your patience with this > "Boy's club". There are elements among us who are truly interested in a > broader participation and view than might be evident than from the > conversations I've been around when you have spoken up. > > You must know better than I, that these are hard things for people to think > about. I, for one, think that the issues you raise are valid ones. I tried > to interject into one phase of the conversation last night (again assuming > you are who I think you are) that *we* (the technophilic community in > general and the Complex & friends in particular) are inherently naive about > the *effects* and *implications* of our technology. We have a lot of good > stories about how complexity thinking explains/alerts-us-to the ever-present > "unintended consequences" but it is rare that we actually apply it to our > own work. > > I think this needs to be part of every discussion, yet I understand that it > is going to take some practice and "training" for us to be able to address > this in all that we do *without* going to either a blameful or a defensive > position. We currently tend toward dismissive, as you have experienced at > least twice. This may be endemic to all "clubs" and "boys clubs" being > worse? > > I would like to help sponsor a discussion, not just about "ethics" in > technology, but how can we think (or learn to think) about the implications > of our work without going to one of the many extremes? How can we leave > ourselves open to being questioned about our motives, our goals, our true > level of awareness of our work? I have no answers except the few hard > knocks I've gathered along the way myself... and I'm not expecting anyone > else to have answers much larger or deeper than that, though I would welcome > anyone who has honest and deep perspective in this way of being. > > - Steve > PS... my response to your original post inline below.... > > > > I have noticed that often more men are interested in Agent Based Modeling > than women while more women are interested in Biomimicry than men. I am > wondering why this is? I would like to put out this question to others. > > I have not noticed this myself, but this may be a deficiency in my > noticing/experience. For this conversation I will grant that your > observations may reflect the statistics accurately. I wonder if it is not > that more women are interested in B and more men in A, but rather that men > are *more interested* in A than in B and women more in B than in A? > > > > Both ABM and Biomimicry have much to offer. To me Agent Based Modeling takes > a very distant view of dynamic processes, like a five mile high view. > > I would add that characterizing life (the universe and everything) as a > "dynamic process" is also a bit distant with ABMs being a simplification > beyond that of "dynamic process". > > > > This allows a broader view and greater scope. Individual behavior becomes a > matter of probabilities. Biomimicry on the other hand is a whole mind body > empathic, sympathic, compathic relationship with living beings as species > and individuals. > > Unfortunately, much biomimickry is again low-fidelity. Many ABMs are said > to bio-mimicking... This is not to say that the concept of biomimickry > cannot be as rich as we choose to make it (allow it?). > > > > By copying or mimicking living beings, probabilities are not required > because copying existing life behavior and physical properties is highly > specific in design. While vast, the number of possible design solutions is > bounded by what can live. > > Certainly the biosphere (the one(s) we live in) is vast compared to the > engineered and even biomimicing technologies we have created ourselves (in a > hundred or even thousands of years). > > > > What can live also contains an ethical dimension that grounds and precepts > possibilities. > > I'm not sure I know what you mean by ethical in this case? I think of > ethics as being a consequence of choice and that the world of possibilities > is much larger than what is "ethical". It is possible that I can think of > "ethics" as an organizing principle for all-possibilities, but I have to > admit to a bias from my culture that says some (many) possibilities simply > are "not ethical" in the sense of being "unethical" and even more > possibilities are somehow outside of the bounds of ethics (neutral?). > > > > In Agent Based Modeling the death of individuals or groups is abstracted to > be expressed as parameters emerge and recede within the model. To a large > extent, in Biomimicry the death of a species or individual life is the > ultimate determinant of which biological qualities to mimic. > > I'm not sure I see the distinction. I think of ABMs as relatively simple > computational structures which are most often used to embody simple > biomimetic models (or sociomimetic?). > > > > I sense that the Agent Based Modeling approach with its roots in western > mathematics carries forward some of the difficulties and even cul de sacs of > western intellectual life and philosophy. > > I think of all computing models to be based in western mathematics (and > philosophy). Do you know of others? > > > > Like imposing platonic solid forms on the world, there are important > similarities that are revealed?a common language developed for qualities of > the physical world. But no individual contains or expresses these qualities > except in often large and varying degrees of approximation. It can be said > that these entities like platonic solids and other mathematical systems such > as Agent Based Modeling are not alive nor more importantly cannot live. Of > course to this extent they cannot die either which has its benefits. > > Yes, I think you have touched on the centrality of idealization... it raises > things to a plane of abstraction which often increases it's > utility/effectiveness though often at the cost of it's meaning/relevance... > > > > It seems to me that we need a deeper integration of approaches that are > outside the body but return to reside in the living and in the living body. > > I work in Virtual Reality for this very reason. I believe that the many > things we have moved entirely into the plane of abstraction can benefit from > returning to the embodied experience... there are fundamental and probably > subtle risks in this concept... and I think maybe you are one of the few in > this mix able/willing to think deeply about such ideas without needing to > judge or jump to a conclusion (pro or con). > > > > I would like to propose a SapphoSocratic approach. But I will leave this for > another message since this one has become rather long already. > > I will try to follow up on this term... I can project into it all kinds of > interpretations but I assume there is a body of extant knowledge under that > label and that your use of the term is related to the same. > > - Steve > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/357e44a7 /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:41:41 -0600 > From: "Tom Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] MIT tech talk videos > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] com" <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Surely of interest to some of us: > > > > *MIT TechTv [Macromedia Flash Player]* > > http://techtv.mit.edu/ > Some people out there might be thinking: "What will MIT think up next?" > Well, they've probably thought up a number of things in the time it takes > just to read this sentence, but one of their latest endeavors is MIT TechTv. > It's a partnership between the MIT School of Engineering and MIT Libraries > Academic Media Production services, and it basically allows various members > of the MIT community (and others) to locate high-quality science and > engineering related videos on the web. It's pretty easy to get started, as > visitors can just click on the "View" button to watch some of the latest > content. Recent highlights have included Brian Chan's origami > demonstrations, debates on the gas tax, and physics demonstrations. Visitors > should check back frequently, as new content is added quite regularly. > > -tj > > -- > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/23d885f5 /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:53:47 -0600 > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 18 > To: friam@redfish.com > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Glen, > > Thanks for being willing to talk this out with me. Here is what I think. > Because I am (believe it or not!) a scientist, and because I believe that > all science ... and certainly all science that jumps ahead ... is based in > metaphor, and because I believe it's hard to talk about anything without > revealing a metaphor, the language we choose to talk about things becomes > really important to me. So once we recognize that "in" in all its uses > with respect to the mean really refers to something quite different from > what is usually called to "mind" by that word, should we choose another. I > know half the list is now fuming, "What is the matter with that Thompson > fellow; WE all know what you mean!" But, on the contrary. I bet that I > can show you that you DON'T each know what the other means. In fact, part > of our use of such terminological conventions is just to bypass the > tremendous work that would be involved in trying to figure out and > articulate our different meanings. > > I want to do that work. I believe in that work. In fact, I believe that > UNTIL we do that work, we can't make much empirical progress because we > don't know what data to look for. I will carry on below at ===> > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > So, either the self is material, > > > > Or, "in" is understood in some way other than that it occupies a > > container. > > Yes, by "inner self", I was talking about Mikhail's latter "me". > > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > > [second me] is the product of thinking of the first one (me as I > > think about me) > > So, I do not intend "inner" to mean "inside a container". I mean > "inner" in the sense of the mental constructs we build when thinking > about our selves. A model of our selves as viewed from within. > > Both "me"s are part of the self, which is exactly the point I was trying > to argue with Mikhail, neither the physical self nor this endo-self are > less real than the other. > > ==> OK. I would, if I could, deny you both "endo" and "within" because > they have the same meaning as "in". > > But this passage -- "when thinking about ourselves"-- calls into play the > notion of reflexivity. Isn't this Meade? the Self as thinking (the I ) as > distinguished by the Self as the object of thought (the "me":). > > Now HERE is a question I have wanted to ask a group of people like the > FRIAM list. > > If you were to go about programming a computer to think about itself, how > would you do it? > > What would be the imputs from what? > > My suspicion has always been that the notion of "the self thinking about > the self" is incoherent. That no matter how hard you guys try, you could > not agree on a computer routine that would literally fill the bill for > genuine, literal, reflexivity. > > I may make a thread of this in the Noodlers Corner, when I get back. . > > Nick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:33:50 -0400 > From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > We can *refer* to mathematics as seeking (by God) the universal language and a set of the universal rules to express the essence of > the world and write the universal program to get "correctly" the rest as its output (like in Wolfram's A New Kind of > Science). --Mikhail > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/df15b2fc /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:40:39 -0600 > From: Don Begley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Santa Fe Complex: Dinosaurs on the Loose > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > PRESS RELEASE > July 17, 2008 > > For Immediate Release > Contact: > Don Begley > 505-216-7562 > Santa Fe Complex > > > Dinosaurs Capture Santa Fe Youth > Uly Youngblood Joins Smithsonian Paleontologists > for Santa Fe Complex Blender > Wednesday, July 23 > 6-8 pm > Admission free (donations welcome) > Click here for directions. > > Blenders are a Wednesday night feature at Santa Fe Complex, located at > 632 Agua Fria St. Entrance is on Romero St. Admission is free. Light > refreshments will be served; donations to defray their costs are > welcome. > > Please note addition of date & time info. > > Dinosaurs have a magical grip on the imaginations of young and old so > we begin this blender with the perspective of a paleontologist in the > making, six-year-old Ulysses Youngblood. Uly, as he is known, admits > to confusing the Jurassic and Triassic eras upon occasion but he is > not confused about his passion for the ancient creatures known to us > today only by the fossil remnants they left behind. > > Paleontologist Ralph Chapman follows with an insider's guide to the > technology scientists use to study dinosaurs or, as Ralph puts it, > "21st century technology to study 65 million-year-old creatures." The > former director of the National Museum of Natural History's Applied > Morphometrics Laboratory and the former director of the Idaho > Virtualization Laboratory (Uly assure us he's read about Ralph and > Ralph knows what he's talking about), Ralph will demonstrate how > scientists use fossil fragments and computer programs to recreate the > thunder lizards of old (now known to be bird ancestors, of course.) > > Linda Deck, Bradbury Science Museum director, will relate Ralph's > comments to her work at the Smithsonian and other institutions where > she has created paleontology exhibits and overseen the use and care of > one-of-a-kind specimens for public displays. Dealing with the > original, the virtual, the replica and sometimes the "especially > durable prototype," as Linda calls them, is all part of her work as a > museum expert, including 20 years as senior exhibit developer at the > Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, where she met and > married Ralph, and five years as director of the Idaho Museum of > Natural History. > > Blenders are a Wednesday night feature from 6-8 pm at Santa Fe > Complex, located at 632 Agua Fria St. Entrance is on Romero St. > Admission is free. Light refreshments will be served; donations to > defray their costs are welcome. > > --30-- > > About Santa Fe Complex Santa Fe Complex is a nonprofit, community > studio creating connections in science, technology and art. Our studio > stands on three core activities: Collaboration to address real-world > problems, encourage cooperation and create economic opportunities in > applied complexity, urban planning and simulation, and computational > arts. > Communication with local, national and international communities about > our work in Santa Fe and elsewhere. Whether it's a live feed or > published reports, we broadcast our work - and the role Santa Fe plays > in this important effort - to all interested parties. > > Education through the principle of learning-by-doing in active > projects that lets students be part of, and contribute to, their > project team. We offer formal classes, scientific and technology > lectures, and internships. > > Santa Fe Complex is located next to the Railyard Art District and > within walking distance of the hotels, restaurants and shops at the > plaza downtown. We're housed in two facilities, the conference area at > 624 Agua Fria and the project space at 632 Agua Fria. > > The conference area contains meeting rooms and facilities for short- > term use associated with on-going complex projects. The project space > houses the great room, where we hold events and offer working > facilities for laptop users, coffee lounge and work carrels. > > While there is parking at 624 Agua Fria, the Romero Street parking lot > is more conveniently located for the 632 facility. Romero St. is an > old-style Santa Fe ox-cart road just east of the 624 driveway. Follow > it until it opens up to two lanes and turn hard right into the parking > lot for 632. > > Here's a map to our location, a representative shot showing the > Railyard District and a sketchup drawing of the facility at 632: For > more information, call 505/216.7562 or click here. > > # # # > > Santa Fe Complex supports the open source and GNU public license > philosophies. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim > copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. Please credit > our work. > Forward email > > This email was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | > Privacy Policy. > Email Marketing by > > Santa Fe Complex | 624 Agua Fria | Santa Fe | NM | 87501 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/ac2c804f /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:41:28 -0400 > From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Sorry, instead of "as its output", it should be "as it's running" --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mikhail Gorelkin > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 6:33 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > We can *refer* to mathematics as seeking (by God) the universal language and a set of the universal rules to express the essence > of the world and write the universal program to get "correctly" the rest as its output (like in Wolfram's A New Kind of > Science). --Mikhail > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > ============================================================ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/153e04ad /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:59:50 -0400 > From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I *feel* we need to add here ~Kurzweil's comments on Wolfram's results (to cope with Godel :-)). --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mikhail Gorelkin > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:41 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > Sorry, instead of "as its output", it should be "as it's running" --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mikhail Gorelkin > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 6:33 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > We can *refer* to mathematics as seeking (by God) the universal language and a set of the universal rules to express the essence > of the world and write the universal program to get "correctly" the rest as its output (like in Wolfram's A New Kind of > Science). --Mikhail > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ============================================================ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20080718/ccef7cf8 /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:17:04 -0400 > From: "Phil Henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > To: "FRIAM" <Friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Carl, > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when finding that > nature has a habit of changing the title of the course and the text shortly > before her exams, continues to study the wrong text because that's the > course they signed up for... > [ph] > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, > > We are surprised when nature pays our work no mind. > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our failure to go to the > > next > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When you do that > > you find > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and inspiring than > > anything > > > we can invent. > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing about our > > whole > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have > > inspired > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > > Live and > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to reach this > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth system he > > considered > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at continually > > > accelerating rates"( > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > > principle I > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The general > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with > > excellent > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > complications" > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look for > > the > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every > > turn! > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > >> > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > >> > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to progress > > >>>> in the science. > > >>>> > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises > > >>> > > >> mine. > > >> > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of "mathematics is a > > >>> > > >> better / > > >> > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > > languages > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > > properly > > >>> > > >> or > > >> > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > >>> > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so > > believe > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, say, > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > > sentence > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > > particular > > >> domain: plectics. > > >> > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the David's sentence. > > >> > > >> > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a majority of > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > > cannot > > >>> > > >> be > > >> > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > >>> > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known language for > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize every > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > >> mathematizing > > >> their field. > > >> > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using any > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, particularly the > > ones > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a high > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > >> > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are best studied > > with > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity tolerant > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language like > > >> math > > >> can be effectively used. > > >> > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > > >> languages > > >> become more effective than the more ambiguous languages. > > >> > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a simple case of > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a specialist > > uses > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used after the > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the domain. Neither is > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the whole > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more refined... > > more > > >> special. > > >> > > >> > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem from the uses of > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The premature rush to > > >>> > > >> abandon > > >> > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is the > > >>> > > >> real > > >> > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > >>> > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a coarse language > > when a > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a domain from > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > >> > > >> > > >> ============================================================ > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:41:28 +0000 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [FRIAM] inner self and discovery: Ann Racuya-Robbins: "inner > voice" as mutifaceted experiencable interface between usual > awareness > and subtle identity as vaster awareness: Rich Murray 2008.07.18 > To: friam@redfish.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ast.net> > > > inner self and discovery: Ann Racuya-Robbins: "inner voice" as mutifaceted experienced interface between usual awareness and subtle identity as vaster awareness: Rich Murray 2008.07.18 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/messages/82 > > As an analogy, after decades of viewing plays, TV, and movies, we often find ourselves attending to the reality that actors are following carefully evolved scripts, with skillful editing weaving together shots into complex narratives that entice the viewer to create their version of the story and its meanings. > > The show can be recorded into our computer and be reworked entirely, faster, slower, different background music, different languages, scenes switched about, or related shows added in a window. > > The "how" of the show invests the "now" of the "snow-job" of the show. > > Our awareness of this background reality deepens our appreciation and gives us more freedom of choice as to whether to be "sucked in" or indoctrinated into a loss of freedom, in dealing with such questionable elements as focus on sexuality, fear, violence, conflict, protecting the physical body, its tribe, its nation, or rather limited, stereotyped characterizations of death, or acceptance of addiction to tobacco or alcohol. > > "Inner voice" is a similar deepening awareness that reveals unlimited inner perspectives that intimately and radically illuminate the convincing dramas that arise as ordinary personal awareness. > > Our friendly network accommodates a remarkable, shared openness to cooperative dialogue among very different varieties of personal awareness. > > In mutual service, Rich Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-501-2298 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/messages/1 > Lively Communion: Invoking Mutual Meditative Exploration 2001.06.22 > > > > [FRIAM] inner self and discovery > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Ann Racuya-Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:06 PM > To: <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] inner self and discovery > > I feel confident that there is a whole world (science, art, mathematics, > visualization, unknown) of the inner self most particularly the inner voice. > The World Knowledge BankR currently has a call for knowledge out on > > What is the nature of the "inner voice"? How is it possible to hear the > "inner voice"? What is the physics, psycho acoustics of the inner voice? Can > the inner voice be amplified? How? > > The question of the nature of the inner voice is both physical and > metaphysical and very old indeed. In the Upanishads the inner voice is > described as the "ear of the ear" and each one of us has one.maybe many > species' individuals have one. I have a number of ideas and systems on this > subject myself and want to encourage this conversation. I think the > philosopher Suzanne K. Langer and her works Feeling and Form and Mind" an > Essay on Human Feeling are good groundings and starting points for this > discussion. Among her insights is that, I am paraphrasing, music in general > gives or is a form of time. A particular musical composition tells us, > informs us as to what time feels like. Other art forms tells us other > things, such as visual art tells us how space feels. This is a revolutionary > way to look at the world and brings the ambient and feeling world within our > human capacity to understand and discuss. My take on Langer is to see that > if there many ways to feel time and space, there are many kinds of sciences, > many kinds of mathematics. Rather than learning a pedagogy of science our > job is much more complex and rich, there is a plurality of possible sciences > emergent from human feeling (expressed through art). I feel that we have > seen over the last hundred years a slowing of fundamental insights emerging > from science. The voluminious literature focuses on smaller and thinner > nooks of (standard) science. The human spirit is often confined and > frustrated by minucia not able to explore freely and anew. So now we have > new dimensions emerging 3,4,15...? What? Isn't every dimension in a way a > new science. > ============================================================ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:59:03 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] inner self and discovery: Ann Racuya-Robbins: > "inner voice" as mutifaceted experiencable interface between usual > awareness and subtle identity as vaster awareness: Rich Murray > 2008.07.18 > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As an analogy, after decades of viewing plays, TV, and movies, we often find ourselves attending to the reality that actors are following carefully evolved scripts, with skillful editing weaving together shots into complex narratives that entice the viewer to create their version of the story and its meanings. > > > I agree. Images and information can be synthetic so our individual > models of the world are at least as important as what we can see, read > and hear. It's important to ask the question: Does this signal I'm > getting make sense? And it not, is it my cognitive failure or is the > signal fake? I think it is important to cross-reference our models on > public matters, since a model be convincing in context (even provably > correct) but fail in an another, and because of the possibility of > faulty reasoning or mental disease. > > Marcus > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam@redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 20 > ************************************* ============================================================ 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
