I've only read your message once, Eric, but it made me recall that over 10 years ago my then teenage daughter answered my statement that I might want to move back to California by saying, "I'm down for that." As an annoying person who says, "It is I" I had to ask her what she meant by that. As you know, it meant that she was up for that.
Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Mar 4, 2022, 4:28 AM David Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > Marcus’s comment below is a fun and insightful angle for the > analogy-mongers. > > An area nobody gets angry about is the evolution of the genetic code (the > assignment of amino acids to nuclease triplets by the translation system). > In modern life, coding is heavily heavily conventionalized and translation > has very low error rates in complex organisms. Since that can be presumed, > vast complexity has developed that presumes and makes use of those > predictabilities. Hence, there are very very few ways a code can change, > because touching anything in that tiny finite assignment table breaks an > indefinitely large list of critical infrastructure. > > So the Origins question turns to: in what kind of a world could coding > ever have been an evolvable feature? The general belief is: in a world > where much much less is standardized in genomes, and “translation” is a > stochastic enough process that, if one tried to describe it in terms of > “reliability”, it would be rated very unreliable. In such a world, the > notion of memory -> function cannot be one of sequence -> structure, and > must be more like cloud-of-sequences -> > moment-of-distribution-of-structures. There are fewer distinctions that > can be made in such a world robustly, and by that categorization “less” > that one can do. But the restriction of what can be done that makes a > system at all robust also makes it tolerant of evolution of the code. All > this, on a sliding scale. > > The second case is language change, and the people who get angry over that > are people nobody cares about or listens to anyway. Languages can change > by shift of the semantic scope of lexical roots, by phoneme scope and > values, and by aspects of grammar ranging from morphology to phrase > structure. The only redundancies that put limits on semantic shift within > a functioning language are at higher levels of composition or pragmatics. > Since those are pretty fluid anyway, semantic shift is probably the most > atomic of all the shifts, and the one most amenable to simple (meaning, not > requiring typological priors) comparative modeling. Phoneme and > phonological shift are more constrained, because their roles are massively > redundant, so they can only change “within tracks” if intelligibility of > words is to be preserved. Along those tracks the movement is still fairly > frictionless, but you need to correctly characterize the tracks to make > valid interpretations from comparative data. The aspects of “grammar” > (morphology to phrase structure) are the worst-accreted into interdependent > systems. So they are resistant to change, when they do change they tend to > “shatter” and re-arrange (or so I have been told by a colleague who is > professional in this area), and the allowed changes are very hard to > predict and thus to use in forward Monte Carlo modeling. > > If we believe the yeast biologists most-fully understand The True Nature > of Life, and that isolation is the default, and the relinquishment of > isolation is a hazardous and fraught negotiation, then Marcus’s teams > probably grow up in the shade of a difficult and long-standing negotiation > of how it is possible to have a manageable life in society. For there to > be difficulties in changing many things within those systems would then be > the zero-knowledge prior. > > Eric > > > > > On Mar 3, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > > > > I guess I'd approach it by trying to see what gender means to people > decoupled from society and decoupled from sex. To the laity, I think it > probably has something to do what team you are on, and the implicit rules > of the teams and whether one respects them or disrespects them. Changing > rules is one thing that can get people this wound up. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen > > Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:51 PM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom > > > > Biologists are NOT held to a higher standard. But when they do just go > on speaking without ever listening, then they deserve some pushback. In > this particular context, there was no bad faith on either side. But one of > the biologists is accusing bad faith on the part of the non-cis people. > > > > As for a symbol being used without introduction, that's nearly > impossible with "male" and "female" ... in English, anyway, which was the > language we were all speaking. It would be like using pi to mean e in a > paper. You *already* know that's a bad idea. So if you do it, and the > readers don't know what the hell you're saying, it's your fault, not > theirs. It's not a higher standard ... it's a standard standard. > > > > On 3/3/22 13:26, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> It seems to me it is like a paper where some symbol is used without > introduction, but it becomes clear from context and reflection. > >> Not clear why a biologist should be held to a higher standard for > explaining themselves when speaking to the laity. I mean their reality > feels real to them so it must be true. ;-) FEELING is everything! It > seems evil to me to limit "ordinary conversation" to a restricted, banal > vocabulary. That's how people like Trump get their claws in. People > should be able to listen and not just speak, to imagine the possible and > not just what is right in front of them. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen > >> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:14 PM > >> To: friam@redfish.com > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom > >> > >> The jargon being used by the biologist came in the form of "male", > "female", "gametes", and such. "Male" and "female", when used by the > biologists means something very different from what it means to the laity. > And the biologists should know that. If they don't, they're stupid. If they > do, but they don't dial down their jargonal use, then they're evil. And the > use of "gamete" in an ordinary conversation is just Scientismist > confabulation. > >> > >> On 3/3/22 13:10, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>> The distinction I'd make is between talking about identity in > principle and talking about the details of my identity. That's not a > question of jargon, but of detachment. Jargon is a tool for detachment. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:04 PM > >>> To: friam@redfish.com > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom > >>> > >>> Maybe. But I don't think it's generosity that's required. I think it's > humility that's required. Anyone who both engages a group of strangers > about identity *and* identifies in a non-standard way is already > demonstrating that they're not too damaged. Or, I'd turn the tables and say > that the snowflakes in this conversation (the Scientismists) are too > damaged for the conversation ... damaged by their entrenched, enculturation > into, Scientism. The one guy's exclamation "Gametes are real" was obviously > an indicator that the other participants would either have to play by *his* > nutty rules or wait for him to dial down his jargon-laced gobbledygook and > have a real conversation with ordinary people. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/3/22 12:56, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>>> Glen writes: > >>>> > >>>> < I think they're just defense mechanisms they've learned over years > of abuse. > > >>>> > >>>> The defense mechanisms could be more like acquired allergies and do > harm. Once one is dealing with reflexive mechanisms, I start to worry > that a conversation is not possible. Because they would 1) need to learn > to control those mechanisms (and who wants to take the time for them to do > that) or 2) claim "You [the man] made me this may, now live with it." (and > then adapt to their nutty rules). > >>>> > >>>> There seems to be a need for some generosity to help people cope, but > it seems plausible to me some people are just too damaged. Does the > absence of generosity make one a snowflake? > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen > >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 12:47 PM > >>>> To: friam@redfish.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom > >>>> > >>>> Yeah, that's a good take. It also helps in distinguishing between > reflexive defense mechanisms and cryptic character traits. Where me and the > biologist who felt shut down disagree is in the interpretation of the > non-cis participants word and body language choices. He thinks they're > reflections of character traits. I think they're just defense mechanisms > they've learned over years of abuse. In the non-binary person's case, they > have an entire non-estranged, continually engaged, family that rejects > their identity. So their body and word language is probably an example of > them saying to the white cis biologists "pull yourselves together and we'll > try again later." But I'm willing to be shown wrong if that's the case. > >>>> > >>>> On 3/3/22 12:36, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>>>> Hmm. Another experience I have had while deconstructing someone > with "charged feelings" is coming to the ought-to-be-obvious recognition > that neither of us care about the other, but nonetheless the counterparty > who feels compelled to share their boring feelings believes it is my job to > patiently listen to them work through their issues (even though they would > never do the same for me). Canceling could just mean "Pull yourself > together and we'll try again next week." > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 12:28 PM > >>>>> To: friam@redfish.com > >>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom > >>>>> > >>>>> Ha! No, I was making a point about freedom of speech, in > particularly "academic" speech, and canceling or shutting down others. > Sorry if my anecdote got in the way. I pared it down for you below. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 3/3/22 12:16, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyway, I guess you were making some point about people getting > riled up at a pub, and that it being informative somehow. (Or at least > entertaining?) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 3/3/22 11:02, glen wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nobody was actively trying to shut anyone down. But the more > conservative biologist actively claims the non-binary and queer > participants *were* trying to shut down the biologists and had clearly shut > down their reasoning. I disagree completely. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > glen > > When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. > > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - > . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,4tOyymAr-CG-YMAgr5ejiu6lmV7JFsO3bSGAbtY3FgQcTGrzQzbNfVt1ARdfPrz8xuc-67QsZGO9Jax5BsqylJJmGUhrZ_H7UP53A2tEj0S_w2YTmixw4Q,,&typo=1 > > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,I9K4CHnu9yfEwP36Og_7Ir8QAfX9u4L0Tz_0t3D3Xqmcw0bVNaa9Po1shvdheQrgiQYN_Z6u6OFNkj_5n4mGDmks0iZjQyUE1pPsBUlwyRYiwJ2Rig,,&typo=1 > > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lGjpedLpYHZZZvl-EBuUNSwefgHCjJqN3HjOrgNAWBfUCUeih7GCMN_KkRBgvdmetzzQ_RYMP-PbH1YdANC-1KwlO71KC4wZ8dZlIEFw35Nre74olBKZ-U-VB6lc&typo=1 > > archives: > > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,g10v1XKFHjSQmkr48ChgE4278gPaEiXpBf4m-nemQQjNcuN2bLd4spH5sJThTBKpY8X-ebxiS55xac_KbtKig1ovvdkTaQb0l1_ClJ0-cg,,&typo=1 > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - > . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,cvb5yJhIE0BTi5oj1nxEnsv7XAyXkfGocbdZZ8Rsz_o4HTvW83111gWWL7PRgFt6xcHu8jUA6eP5R5-KXVFLexQ7B1qOBhrGCLGUSO-vRNdhjylD73VM4w,,&typo=1 > > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1v3icKY3bnn_bsYFApAvBkGK9XWGlRB8G4rJ8wwdtEtjB8oFG6NK96zEQNRJMWFT7N4bJtXGGmy6sGrCODpVjv_3eAWABFBcUjqPTl8On3Tc3xASLKaJbAOqWc8X&typo=1 > > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,EoD1epXJuS4Uc4A7gakwQ1Wao0d-a30feDdCqKJT9B7cLRQA3NBnNrvT3JRkAqNmZnY2pfH_-GoEuEdMetnjGhmNoYr5YKVW3zh95fexTDZ95sDnk8VcCPY,&typo=1 > > archives: > > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,CIaH5rBNGcLdyK2r3Jr6pw-0_7kkyzTg_95KtJGWwum3QimS-oYpNbHC9t5HMV77tb-cwJ_AihBcUHc36nP3Y21xeywZG-gXEx9lfPVjRrlNG7t8dedg97RYYGc,&typo=1 > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
