Re: [FRIAM] Are your skills obsolete?
Phil Henshaw wrote: I recognize much of your experience of a rush toward a vanishing point and sense of expectation about that. My question is how can you tell the difference between the usual kind and the unusual kind? I agree that this is the essential question. I vary, depending on mood and recent experience, as to how I answer this question. I also wanted to show the tension that I (and others?) feel of being completely grounded in the "old ways". For example, my saws and axes and woodstove can easily outlast me by another generation or more with only a modicum of care. Weve had exploding economic change for a couple hundred years, doubling in size every 20 years and radically transforming everything everywhere all the time. Yes, My grandfather was born before internal combustion, automobile and airplane, but lived to see the moon landing and more. Look at how vastly each generations life experience has been from the last, going back as many generations as we have any personal knowledge of. People have declared the sky is falling and the end is near endlessly it seems too. There are plenty of other times and places when the sky WAS/IS falling compared to today. I am usually in the position of arguing your point. I think when I set about to find the answer to that question, to see if I could validate some of feelings of expectation, I asked some of the useful questions and narrowed it down quite a bit. The question though, is what question would you ask to tell if a feeling of impending grand transformation was real or not? There are two key, qualitative differences having to do with human scale. One is that by having longer productive periods in life, under accelerated change, most adults have to endure several important changes in their lifetime. The other is that much of our technology is becoming life-extending and personal capability enhancing. There may be thresholds we have already crossed or on the verge of crossing which are pivotal. I dont think magic is what were talking about. One would not have any way of confirming a premonition of magic. I don't know that "magic" is relevant, if I understand your point. What I think is important is positive feedback loops and time constants dropping below certain thresholds. What I don't know I can agree with is the following: I do think quite sincerely and confidently that foresight about real complex system transformations, approaching water shed moments is very likely to be verifiable if theyre real. I think that precisely the opposite is true. I think the best we can do is avoid regimes where such change is likely to be precipitated, not precisely when the system will go through a phase transition or what the phase it is transitioning to looks like. - Steve 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] Computing Our Way Into The Collapse - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1117/044.html About says it in a nutshell, quants and all ( : ( : pete -- Peter Baston *IDEAS* /www.ideapete.com/ http://www.ideapete.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
Re: [FRIAM] Dictionary definitions
Your channel to God is excellent.
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows.
Yes, God IS speaking through me.
The closer one gets to the dictionary-making enterprise, the less one
is
inclined to use a dictionary to codify anything. Dictionary makers
are at
pains to capture usage, and usage is nothing if not ephemeral. The
kings
english does not, in general, come from listening to the King ... or
any
other authority ... speak.
When somebody says, I think we ought to keep close to the defnition
they
are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course,
is a
fairly silly claim.
These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with
respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether
we
are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how
swiftly
we are going to change it.
The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live
amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument
about
whether to call these arrangements marriages is a sign of magical
thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it
still
is magical thinking.
Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were
replaced by keys.
Or think about the strain in the language that has been produced by
feminism and the grammatical construction each {she/he/they).
Gloria Steinem suggested in the first issue of Ms Mag, that we
introduce
the neologism ter as a singular neuter possessive. Each man/woman
to
ter own opinion. I wish we had done it. Because we didnt have the
courage or discipline to do it, I still have to suffer, 40 years
later,
Each man to their own opinion.Their has ceased to become a
plural
possive and become a singular neuter possesive. I can hate it all I
like,
but it is still contemporary usage.
Once we fully accept gay couples into our communities, the language
will
just change.
Ok. That's all He told me to say.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: friam@redfish.com
Date: 11/11/2008 10:00:22 AM
Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13
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: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
2. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
3. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
4. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Scott R. Powell)
5. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
6. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
7. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
8. Are your skills obsolete? (Tom Johnson)
9. Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds (Jochen Fromm)
10. Obama, Proposition 8 (peggy miller)
11. Fewer subscription requireds (Robert Holmes)
12. Re: Obama, Proposition 8 (glen e. p. ropella)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:52 -0700
From: Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
friam@redfish.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly
good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?
One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into
account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not
mentioned in the popular books.
-- Owen
On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out
the
work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's
actual
significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already
got the
largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
volunteer
efforts.
Robert
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, Jack.
If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
field
of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do
work in
cosmology-related fields..
At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
George Smoot,
Re: [FRIAM] Dictionary definitions
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/11/2008 07:28 PM: When somebody says, I think we ought to keep close to the defnition they are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, is a fairly silly claim. These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether we are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how swiftly we are going to change it. The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument about whether to call these arrangements marriages is a sign of magical thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it still is magical thinking. I don't think arguments about the definition of marriage are a sign of magical thinking at all. Rather, it's a sign that the people doing the arguing are literate (and at least one half are literal). Literacy is a good thing and we should encourage it. The literate nature of the people on this list is the cause of the arguments about the surprising efficacy of mathematics. A mathematical proof is precisely an argument about definitions. Likewise, math, being a language, changes over time, albeit more slowly than natural language. To take your claim to its logical conclusion, that would mean mathematical proofs are evidence of magical thinking. (Indeed, non-platonists _do_ accuse platonists of magical thinking. And some very deep, considerate thinkers have even claimed that all positivist rhetoric is tautological. ;-) So claiming that these arguments that are based on definitions is a sign of magical thinking is either wrong or idealistic and impractical like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bare truth is that it is _very_ good to have right-wingers making definitional/legal distinctions in this way, because that means that they can _read_. Granted, they may not think very clearly. It's like when a child begins arguing about how their teacher teaches algebra. They may be wrong in their rhetoric; but at least they're literate enough to lay out their rhetoric. The more sophisticated truth is that the presence of these legal/definitional arguments in the household is evidence that we peons are actually getting involved in the rhetoric laid down by our legislators. I.e. law, once solely accessible to the very rich and very intelligent, is now becoming accessible to the masses. And that's a good thing, even if we still need to protect ourselves from premature populism. And the most sophisticated truth is that the people making legal/definitional arguments are seeking _precision_ in their language and their societal code. And that's a very good thing. Again, granted, precision is not a panacea; but it's evidence that people are seeking better, more expressive language with which to express the human condition. It is progressive. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, 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] Your Search Activity Predicts Flu Outbreaks - O'Reilly Radar
FTI http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/11/your-search-activity-predicts.html --- -- 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 == 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
Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8
I think that's actually very consistent with what I *intended* to say anyway. ;-)I think most married people I know thought the legally unbinding (formal spiritual) marriage was the real one, and I was just saying people should have the choice of what they think is the real symbol of their commitment, so long as they know if they want legal rights, obligations and recognitions from the government they need to pay $25 and sign a form too. Phil Henshaw From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of peggy miller Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:51 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 In response to Phil Henshaw, briefly, I believe there still remains a place for civil marriage -- that marriage has taken on a non-religious place in most people's hearts, sort of like Christmas trees and Christmas carols. It speaks of love, devotion, fidelity between two consenting adults, and should be something any two adults can partake in civilly. Love between two people should be able to celebrate and exist under a civil union, legally undertaken. ... and that union, historically, is called marriage. and I think gay male couples can also sort of choose the husband / wife roles to some degree -- though hopefully all couples, gay or straight, are beginning to edge into a shared mixture of both -- so does that mean that a straight couple who don't want to assume husband and wife roles are not able to be married -- maybe not under Webster .. So .. I have argued myself towards your position, rather than mine!! A new definition may be called for here. Peggy 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] A Modest Query
Does anyone know why Excel SOLVER gives unrepeatable (unspeakable) results for a simple variation problem? A high order wave equation. I'll give details if you e-mail me. Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 TEL: (505) 983-7728FAX: (505) 983-1694 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
Re: [FRIAM] Are your skills obsolete?
Steve, [ph] So we see many of the same historic signs of explosive acceleration, it's just a fact, and how it's been accumulative (till last month anyway. :-) ) Look at how vastly each generations life experience has been from the last, going back as many generations as we have any personal knowledge of. People have declared the sky is falling and the end is near endlessly it seems too. There are plenty of other times and places when the sky WAS/IS falling compared to today. I am usually in the position of arguing your point. [ph] Oh, I'm not saying the 'sky isn't falling', but observe that when people thought so the real part of it just fell on the half the world that was replaced by the multiplications of the other. I think part of that persistent illusion was that it wasn't an illusion for the part of the world the rest of us stopped caring about. or something vaguely like that. I suppose we could now be being fooled the other way, by trusting that the appearance of danger isn't dangerous.In personal terms the continual acceleration of change has just seemed to mean excessive generation gaps and people with rich life experience not having much to teach the next generation.whizzing along in somewhat of a daze it seems. I think when I set about to find the answer to that question, to see if I could validate some of feelings of expectation, I asked some of the useful questions and narrowed it down quite a bit. The question though, is what question would you ask to tell if a feeling of impending grand transformation was real or not? There are two key, qualitative differences having to do with human scale. One is that by having longer productive periods in life, under accelerated change, most adults have to endure several important changes in their lifetime. The other is that much of our technology is becoming life-extending and personal capability enhancing. There may be thresholds we have already crossed or on the verge of crossing which are pivotal. I don't think magic is what we're talking about. One would not have any way of confirming a premonition of magic. I don't know that magic is relevant, if I understand your point. What I think is important is positive feedback loops and time constants dropping below certain thresholds. [ph] right, the time constants, or in my focus, the learning response lag times What I don't know I can agree with is the following: I do think quite sincerely and confidently that foresight about real complex system transformations, approaching 'water shed moments' is very likely to be verifiable if they're real. I think that precisely the opposite is true. I think the best we can do is avoid regimes where such change is likely to be precipitated, not precisely when the system will go through a phase transition or what the phase it is transitioning to looks like. [ph]I didn't mean to suggest that one can't be caught by surprise when crossing unobserved and unsuspected thresholds or 'trip wires' in a changing world. The main one of those may be psychological, being fixated on our stereotypes for things and not paying attention to the independently changing and behaving things of the world they represent. What I'm saying is that if you do feel something coming it should be possible, using my approach of identifying developmental continuities anyway, to tell whether you know enough about it to be referring to something real or not. At one point I felt that same general acceleration of change and saw how it gave us the power to decide things with ever more far reaching effects with ever less thought, and it seemed suspicious. I then did dig to the bottom of it I think, and found very substantial reason why acceleration would continue until we were blindsided by errors of judgment resulting in cascading failures due to faults no one would have thought to look for. I got it down to continuous growth being a direct violation of the conservation laws actually, because the complexity of it's response demands would naturally exceed the learning lag times of its unchanging parts, and instantaneous responses require infinite forces.That our world is now indeed collapsing for essentially that reason isn't what proves the theorem. It's examining the reasoning, perhaps aided by the example of in happening before our eyes, to see that there are no other options. It's a fascinating puzzle. Others have seen the same radical acceleration of change and imagined a sort of 'convergence' in other areas like in computing power, and imagined other previously unimaginable things must be quickly approaching, like the machines of the world gaining consciousness. In that case I'd just say, well point to it, and show me where it's developing. That's the *sign* of a valid premonition to me, being able to point to the substantial leading signs showing where it's actually happening, not just some projection or
Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8
Perhaps I can lend a little bit of perspective here. I was married in the Philippines; despite the rather extensive influence of the Catholic Church there, marriage consists of two separate and unrelated ceremonies. First there is what is called a civil ceremony, generally done before a judge, mayor or similar official. After this, if you so choose, you can then get married in a church; ironically, there is no marriage license requirement because you must have first completed the civil ceremony. In other words, the legal and religious components are completely separate. Once the civil ceremony is complete, the state has no further interest: get marrried in the church of your choice, or not. As others have mentioned, this seems to get to the actual root of our problem in this country: there is an unfortunate overlap between the civil and religious definitions of marriage. cjf Christopher J. Feola President nextPression, Inc. www.nextPression.com _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of peggy miller Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:51 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8 In response to Phil Henshaw, briefly, I believe there still remains a place for civil marriage -- that marriage has taken on a non-religious place in most people's hearts, sort of like Christmas trees and Christmas carols. It speaks of love, devotion, fidelity between two consenting adults, and should be something any two adults can partake in civilly. Love between two people should be able to celebrate and exist under a civil union, legally undertaken. ... and that union, historically, is called marriage. and I think gay male couples can also sort of choose the husband / wife roles to some degree -- though hopefully all couples, gay or straight, are beginning to edge into a shared mixture of both -- so does that mean that a straight couple who don't want to assume husband and wife roles are not able to be married -- maybe not under Webster .. So .. I have argued myself towards your position, rather than mine!! A new definition may be called for here. Peggy No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1783 - Release Date: 11/12/2008 10:01 AM 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
Re: [FRIAM] Forget the bailout, start over: the New American Bank Initiative - O'Reilly Radar
The url got scrambled: http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/11/new-american-bank-initiative-r.html .. or http://tinyurl.com/6g35mv -- Owen On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: OReilly has an interesting take on the bailout: http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/11/new-american n-bank-initiative- r.html .. just start over and build a better financial system from scratch! -- Owen 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
Re: [FRIAM] Obama/proposition 8
To return to the original question, I recall a discussion right after the election that said (as a previous writer pointed out) that the black community strongly supported Prop 8. The increased black vote for Obama helped Prop 8 as well. In fact--although I don't remember the exact statistics--the increased black vote in proportion to it's Yes on Prop 8 was essentially the difference in the overall result. Ironic, isn't it. With regard to getting rid of marriage, I would support that. The state can create civil unions, a legal status with certain rights and responsibilities, and let churches deal with marriage however they want to define it. -- Russ Abbott _ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: No, that is not what I was suggesting, Roger. Dissent within the LDS is a proven fact: witness the FLDS/LDS split. What I was trying to say was that if your suggestion that a monetary incentive be provided to create a schism within the LDS religion, where the intent is for one faction was to assume a more rational approach to societal diversification issues like same-sex marriages, the attempt would probably fail. The reason being that the LDS view of proper societal positions for men, women, and marriage aren't very rational to begin with, and they are fixed by an extremely rigid and ritualistic dogma. A dogma that succeeds to a very large extent of creating members for life. I was, however, mildly surprised to see the issue being discussed openly in the Salt Lake Tribune. A web page, BTW, that I can no longer access. Has it been taken down, of is there a more innocent explanation? Ten years ago you would not have seen bad LDS news of this type appearing in a Salt Lake paper. --Doug On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Critchlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug -- I'm not questioning your experience, but you seem to assert that dissent in the LDS is impossible. Yet Google found 37,500 results for a search on prop 8 lds dissent when I searched, after reading your first reply, to see if I had misundertood what I was talking about. -- rec -- On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hey, Roger. I lived up there near SLC for three years, right in the heart of Mormon country. I actually know quite a bit about their beliefs and practices -- both the good and the bad. For those interested in an excellent in-depth book on the history of the Mormon religion, I recommend Under The Banner of Heaven, A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer. During the three years that I lived in Pocatello, ID, I met a few former Mormons who had been successfully deprogrammed . Many of them had interesting, and sometimes dark stories to tell about the true inner social workings of their former faith. --Doug On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Roger Critchlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know, Doug, why don't you read this Salt Lake Tribune story about dissent within the LDS, and tell me who's making snap decisions based on doctrine. http://www.sltrib.cowasm/lds/ci_10797630http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_10797630 -- rec -- On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I don't know, Roger. The LDS indoctrination machine is one of the more efficient operations that exists these days. It seems to supply a fairy tale that is particularly beguiling to a certain type of personality. Once that vision of sugar plums and seven levels of heaven is planted, it seems nearly impossible to uproot. I'm sure they'd be happy to take your money, though. --Doug On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Roger Critchlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think someone should contribute $30,000,000 to foment a schism in the Church of the Latter Day Saints based on their internal conflicts on this issue. -- rec -- On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Orlando Leibovitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owen, In my opinion the word marriage should not be removed. I believe that civil marriage should be available to all consenting adults. Various religions can then do as they please. If, in fact, this is a civil rights (constitutional) issue then religions that violate civil liberties should, at the least, not have 501c3 status. I try to understand but am not sympathetic to religious angst about this as I would not be if you substituted black, jew, Christian, etc for the word gay. James, I am grateful to the Quakers for many of the positions they have taken. Orlando James Steiner wrote: Consider also the relligions that have.supported and do sanctify same-sex marriages, without regard for, indeed in spite of, the legal status of such unions, e.g. the Meetings of Friends (Quakers). On 11/9/08, Owen
