Glen, impute? or impune
I had a reputation once... for building complex structures. No matter what the object it started with much simpler components and complex emerged from many iterations. In my mind iterations only baffle the audience. Evolution is operating like a skinflint or miser rarely inventing something totally new. At least since cyanobacteria figured out oxygen usefulness. the rogue actor may be the primitive type, the opportunist. The honest resident of the commons is a defective rogue hampered by social morality or gullibility. A lesser creature , a domestic entity. However he does have one advantage , he can learn how to protect himself if he elects to make an effort. Extract simple parameters from to rogue and amplify only those while muting others and you may find they act in a different manner as another species. Yet they both contain the same code managed slightly differently. I recently wrote some code using Growth Factors that produced dramatically different Object appearance and behavior. But then they are unlike your creatures. I use simple functions currently linear and trig since I wish to examine them minutely. By keeping them simple they emulate genetic regulators. From what Owen and you seem to be doing , I find it very intriguing and should like to follow. When you think you are stuck have a drink and revisit your assumptions. My hunch is that human society has evolved in a haphazard manner till now and things will get better or worse again. Oh well my stay, is expected to be short. vib -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: April-18-17 10:58 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of socioeconomics, personal and public: was VPN server OK. Sorry. I mistook your message as suggesting an additional mechanism, rather than a plea for simpler models. In general, I agree that simpler models should be falsified before adding mechanisms like the modal one you suggested. But, as is obvious with the special sciences like biology, parsimony can be as much a bane as a boon. To unjustifiably impute simplicity can defeat the search for solutions. On 04/17/2017 04:41 PM, Vladimyr wrote: > Your models are so sophisticated that I barely grasp their intricacies. > I only offered a suggestion that could possibly reduce your work load. > In my opinion you ascribe overly complex behavior to very dumb characters. > > At the most primitive level living organisms are predominantly selfish > and have little time for the needs of others. Such brutally simplistic > organism should be easier to model than the tax-collector on the road to > Damascus. > > The Bull_frog is a simple enough creature that never considers consequences. > As a child I ate fried frog legs exploring the local forests as well as nuts > and berries. The compulsion to attack was easily manipulated to my benefit. > > Many other creatures also exhibit this type of simple forcing function. I > suppose sex is also a simple drive as well. Some creatures are more advanced > and will look about before accepting apparently unguarded sustenance. Trap > wary animals. Some creatures become trap happy over time. > > The majority of man kind seems appears little more advanced than > beasts. Even someone as notorious as Bernie Madoff can be > characterized as a simple creature taking advantage of an opportunity. > The type of crime is determined by environment of the occupant. So > transfer Madoff to a gulag and the crime might change but not the > offender's basic motives (which were ever self interest) > > Now take the Bull Frog and increase the population density and what > happens... They eat eachother. They will never develop a society. The > experiment will always fail. > > However if the experiment used a Madoff you will get a different > result Madoffs care what observers see and will not dine in the open. In a > manner like tiger beetle larvae that lurk in loose sand and wait for > footsteps overhead before striking and dining. Considering how predatory they > are they live in high densities but never form societies. > Evolution must find a method to mitigate the savagery of predators before > experimenting with socialization. My hunch is neonatany and gullibility. The > longer infant dependency , the longer the effects of gullibility. The greater > the opportunity for the Madaff's to harvest the herds. So Madoff's start like > everyone else but then they revert to something older . They apparently can > catalyze the same transformation in their living victims. > > So my impression is that all human beings can revert to lower states > throughout life. They just need the correct motivation. > > I used to play a few video games a while back and detected code flaws that > emulated the behavior of Bull-Frogs and they already exist to ease your > efforts. A gullible human being has little chance of survival without > parents. But if the parents are themselves gullible then the kid will have a > tough time. So perhaps parenthood triggers extreme caution specifically to > protect their gullible infants. > > I prefer to think in small steps before building large structures. > > Parenthood may be the first step toward building a simple commons or society, > the nest area. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
