[FRIAM] Tornados: vORTEX 2

[Nicholas Thompson]

http://www.f5tornadovideos.com/Part-2-Twc-Vortex2-S-First-Tornado-6-5-Video-
Id-u6WBFIJkLpA.html 

 

This a more technical video with  excellent continuity.   There is a comic
aspect to this:  It becomes clear as the video develops, "Dr. Forbes " is
clearly somewhere safe and warm and dry.  "We'll be packing up, now, Dr.
Forbes."   

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.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] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

[glen e. p. ropella]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


As with any M&S project, one must start with the use cases.  If you
don't start with your use cases, then you'll end up wandering around,
mixing things up and forgetting what you're doing.  As they say "if you
don't know where you're going, you'll never get there."

Hussein's "story" implies a use case, except it's got too many
mechanistic details.  You want the use case to be phenomenal, not
mechanistic.  So, the second (implied) story works better: "How can we
undo it?"  What would you _do_ with this model?  Can you perform any
experiments ("in vitro" upon a room full of participants - or "in vivo"
on an actual government) against which to validate?  If so, what would
those experiments look like and what data would they generate?

Those are the questions you have to ask first, before you get all
mechanical on each other. ;-)  Worst case, if you don't ask these
questions _first_, you'll inscribe your conclusions into the model.
You'll create a model that's nothing more than a justificationist
tautology.  You'll probably _still_ commit inscription error even if you
do start with the use cases, depending on the complicatedness of the
experiments or type of validation; but your inscription be easier to
spot and correct as you go along.


Hussein Abbass wrote circa 11-05-08 06:36 PM:
> Let me put this in a simple story. Prof. Clever is the dean of
> Faculty of Idiots. Prof Clever would like to be a dictator in a
> democratic society. He appoints 3 other Professors to form a strategy
> committee. He believes in separating strategy from execution, thanks
> to all the wonderful literature in management on that topic. Prof.
> Clever cancelled most Faculty public meetings and created many
> committees. These committees seek people opinion to have a truly
> democratic environment. He told the people we are a civilized
> society. We should not confront each other in public. Issues can be
> solved smoothly in a better environment and within a small group.
> Public meetings are now to simply give presentations that no
> controversial issue is discussed; their information content is 0 to
> anyone attending them. But they demonstrate democracy and support the
> members of the Faculty of Idiots’ right for dissemination of
> information. Prof. Clever promotes good values. Important values that
> Prof. Clever is promoting are trust and confidentiality. In meetings,
> people need to trust each other to facilitate exchange of
> information. But this requires confidentiality; otherwise problems
> will emerge. Obviously, meetings are called by management, members of
> the meetings are engineered by management, the whole social network
> is well-engineered such that different type of information do not get
> crossed from one sub-graph to another. The faculty of Idiots is the
> happiest faculty on earth. No public confrontation means no fights, a
> well-engineered civilized society. Small group meetings are dominated
> with Prof. Clever or simply take place to tick a box in a report.
> There is only one person in the Faculty of Idiots who knows
> everything, Prof. Clever. No one else knows more than anyone else to
> the extent that everyone simply knows nothing. But everyone is happy,
> everyone feels important because he/she is trusted and everyone feels
> they are well-informed of the task they are performing! Prof. Clever
> eliminated competition, no leader can emerge in this social system
> that he does not approve. Prof. Clever is the nice guy that everyone
> loves and respect. He listens, he is socially friendly, and after all
> is indeed Clever!
> 
> [...]
> 
> The harder question for me is, how can we undo it if it is engineered
> as above?


- -- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFNyCMGpVJZMHoGoM8RAm/ZAJ4icZ3Ylbs2yoQokOs3wOSMWl3RQgCcDsp5
NdUELcufvpKuZKncjbWb4XY=
=lr0D
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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] Tornado article

[Nicholas Thompson]

http://kkd.ou.edu/METR4433_Spring_2011/DaviesJonesEtal2001.pdf 

This link courtesy of this wondrous information-gathering institution we
call FRIAM.  This is a summary of What Was Known about tornados, as of about
yr 2000.  I can't claim to have read every word at this point, but it seems
very clear, and straightforward, and just technical enough to be convincing
and not so technical to be daunting.   I am sending it along so you will all
help me understand it.  

Apparently, Larger tornados form when the rear flank down draft gets wrapped
around the center of mesoscale rotation of a very large thunderstorm.
Smaller tornadoes can form from a horizontal roll that gets tipped.  So
everybody is right.  

The article is 13 years out of date, as of now, so if anybody knows of more
recent stuff of equivalent quality, please let me know. 

Let's keep this thread for comments by people who have at least read IN the
article.  

Thanks to the lurker who provided me (us) with the link.  You KNOW who you
are and that we are grateful to you.  

Nick 


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] Terrorosity and it's Fruits

[siddharth]

epilogue :
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

(- no fake quotes here!)

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:

> I urge the angry to ask why. Too often storming away from a table is
> exactly why we never break ground.
>
> As to the topic of Complexity , this is one component you never inquired
> of, Why do sensible people become IDIOTS. How does society create idiots out
> of men?
>
> That was my reason to join long ago. The fact that IDIOTS are convinced
> that they are correct Fascinates me.
>
> How can any of us  trust the words coming out of our mouths, if we were to
> discover we have been blindly lead by a Narrative into a cul de sac of
> Idiocy.
>
>
>
>
>
> The story of binLaden was writen long ago Tolstoy. The short story, Hadji
> Murat,  describes much of the same atmosphere.
>
> The killing was easy , the understanding is difficult.
>
>
>
> It takes no great skill to kill, any brute can do it, it is a much greater
> challenge  to keep something alive.
>
>
>
> How do we model stupifaction of real people?
>
>
>
> Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD
>
>
>
>
>
> vbur...@shaw.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
>
> Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2
>
> Canada
>
>  (204) 2548321 Land
>
> (204) 8016064  Cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
> *Sent:* May-06-11 7:37 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Terrorosity and it's Fruits
>
>
>
> Salaam Mohammed,
>
>
>
> Speaking as an American, I'm afraid that I can assert with a fair degree of
> accuracy that percentage-wise, very few Americans are aware of the
> historical/current events vis-a-vis US interactions with
> mid-eastern political entities that you so accurately denote below.  For
> reasons that I fail to comprehend, we have truly become a nation of idiots.
>  Nearly as discouraging, if I may suggest, is the clear emergence of
> multiple nations of Islamic idiots which seem to comprise the majority of
> mid eastern countries these days. Perhaps the real issue here is that we are
> a planet of idiots.
>
>
>
> Several evolutions later the answer to all of this become apparent, I'm
> sure, if biological life is still possible on this planet then.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mohammed El-Beltagy 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve and Peggy, you give me more praise than I deserve.
>
> I naturally see terrorism as abhorrent and I regret that Russel read
> my few lines as an attempt to be an apologists for those who attack
> the US and Israel. I am against any form of violence being exercised
> against any human being, and that also happens to includes
> Palestinians, Iraqis, and Afghans.
>
> I just wonder how many Americans aware of the following:
> 1. The US supported and trained Bin Laden and a host of other groups
> with unsavory ideologies during the cold war.
> 2. The US supported and continues to support dictators in the middle
> east. They have been propping up Mubark for 30 years.
> 3. Official civilian deaths in Iraq are now in excess of 100K. Many
> Iraqi refuges in Cairo tell me that life was MUCH better under
> Saddam!!!
> 4. The US actively supports Saudi Arabia and does not seem to mind
> their proselytizing Wahhabism in the middle east and South East Asia.
> That ideology justifies and absolute rule of the Saudi Royal
> family hence cheep oil.. but also the side effect of terrorism.
>
> I agree with Peggy that it would be wrong to lay the blame fully on
> any one country (I would also add religion,and race). But, to say that
> it is down to some group of human beings who are simply evil and
> hateful is equally mindless. They US played a significant part in this
> monster creation. To my mind, the processes of monster creation is
> still active. That worries me. That must stop.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mohammed
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:
> > Mohammed -
> >
> > I want to second Peggy's thanks for your thoughts and would like to add
> the
> > following to hers:
> >
> > I agree with Peggy on most points.  Terrorism is always horrific (it is
> > designed to be so) and we should seek to avoid provoking it and prevent
> it's
> > occurrence and mitigate it's effects as best we can.   The apprehension
> (by
> > death) of Osama bin Laden was perhaps a neccesary act but as your poem
> (and
> > Peggy's response) suggests, we should use this moment to reflect on our
> own
> > part in having created the monster we finally destroyed, and in how we
> are
> > surely continuing to create the conditions that lead to all this in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Where I might diverge from Peggy's description is in the implication that
> we
> > are "becoming" more predatory.  I do believe that in our greed and fear
> we
> > continue to develop more *leverage* for ourselves, economic, military,
> even
> > popular culture.   And

[FRIAM] Chomsky was: Terrorosity and it's Fruits

[Steve Smith]

Siddarth -

   http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Noam Chomsky... I love that man's clarity and directness.   I can only 
imagine the conversations in the White House whenever he speaks up...


   Bush/Cheney:  "Can't we just disappear him?  I *am* the decider, and
   that is what I decide!"
   Obama:  "Shit, he's right... shit...   did he really have to say
   that?  shit."
   Clinton/Clinton/Gore: "He's a really bright man, I wish he would
   just come over to our side!"

I've wondered for decades if a man like Chomsky could ever have a role 
in a US administration (aside from the inconvenient academic gadfly I 
presume most administrations dismiss him as).


Imagine what the US's posture in the world might look like if the 
sitting president always had someone as clear and direct as Noam Chomsky 
sitting next to her.   Imagine if every evening they sat down to review 
the day's events and Noam did that quiet, level, clear, (almost?) 
non-blaming analysis of the (clearly intentional?) fuckups going on in 
our government *every day*!


I hope that after Obama is out of office that his memoirs will include 
what he was thinking every time Chomsky quietly pointed out his (and 
other's) glaring errors in action.


In reviewing his Wikipedia entry, I found reference to him being the 8th 
most cited author of all time and *most* cited living author.   It does 
not bear directly onto the "Mapping Scientific Output" symposium 
tomorrow at the Hilton but onto a much larger domain of "Mapping the 
Contemporary Evolution of Human Knowledge" perhaps.


- Steve

PS.  I'm sure there are those here who do not hold Chomsky in as high of 
esteem as I do (it started when I first studied his work in 
Linguistics), and while I'm not interested in the (usually right-wing?) 
ad hominem attacks I'm already too familiar with, I *would* appreciate 
any useful criticism of the man and his political opinions.   He is one 
purveyor of "inconvenient truths" to a great many people.





epilogue :
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

(- no fake quotes here!)

...


The killing was easy , the understanding is difficult.

It takes no great skill to kill, any brute can do it, it is a much
greater challenge  to keep something alive.

How do we model stupifaction of real people?

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD





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] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

[Steve Smith]

Looking all the way back to Mohammed's original question which was 
nicely concise:


   /Can we model/simulate how in a democracy that is inherently open (as/

   /stated in the constitution: for the people, by the people etc..) there/

   /emerges "decision masking  structures" emerge that actively obfuscate/

   /the participatory nature of the democratic decision making for their/

   /ends?/

I challenge us (at Glen's urging) to come up with /Use Case Scenarios/ 
that would help move us toward even the simplest of toy models.  So far, 
our brainstorming has yield some very interesting ideas/observations:


We've already begun discussing possible parts of a model:

1) Hussein has proposed at least part of a model, which I believe is an 
attempt to model specific agents who are actively seeking to cause 
Isolation and Localization for their own purposes.


2) Ivan has proposed ( I think?) that we consider modeling simple 
motivations (emotions) of (at least) two classes of Agents (Prof. 
Clevers and Gullibles)?  He also has proposed (I think?) building on top 
of models of unconscious narration generation and fitting (like 
overfitting a model to data?).


3) Eric has outlined an intuitive set of features for an Agent Model:

   You need 1) agents with different agendas, 2) the ability to assess
   and usurp rules created by other agents, 3) the ability to force
   other agents to adopt your rules. Note, also, that in this
   particular case, the corruption is accomplished by stacking
   contradictory rules on top of each other. Thus you need 4) an
   ability to implement contradictory rules, or at least choose between
   so-called rules.

4) Mohammed contributed (along with the original question) the idea that 
an intermediate mechanism of "Information Hiding" might be at play.


5) Jan Hauser (lost to the list but included in one of my missives) 
contributed the possibility that Ken Arrow's Impossibility Theorem may 
have a play here.  From Wikipedia:


   /In social choice theory
   , *Arrow’s
   impossibility theorem*, the *General Possibility Theorem*, or
   *Arrow’s paradox*, states that, when voters have three or more
   distinct alternatives (options), no voting system can convert the
   *ranked preferences* of individuals into a community-wide (complete
   and transitive) ranking while also meeting a certain set of
   criteria. These criteria are called //unrestricted domain
   ,
   //non-dictatorship ,
   //Pareto efficiency
   , and //independence
   of irrelevant alternatives
   ./

I'm not sure it is responsive to Mohammed's original question as stated, 
but may be very important in a more general question implied.


I may have missed some other contributions in this discussion so far, 
but I hope this summary helps if some of us are interested in actually 
pulling a simple  model or partial answer together.


I'm all for idle speculation, I spend most of my waking hours (and some 
of my sleeping ones) in that state, but I heard here what felt like some 
momentum.


Glen seems the most formal of us in his approach to model building, 
perhaps he can continue to lead us out of the morass we often find 
ourselves in (I can only think of the mythical character of Sambo 
(apologies for the use of a possibly inappropriate racial slur from the 
late 19th century)  arranging for Tigers chasing eachother around a tree 
until they turn to butter).


Carry on!
 - Steve

Glen -

I think your point is well articulated.  And I think if we are trying 
to build (or even discover) such a model, your arguments for starting 
with use cases are valid.


But I think Hussein's "Story" contains his belief about the mechanisms 
of how a particular institutional dynamic works.  I believe Hussein 
already *has* a model of this phenomenon and he just (tried to?) 
explain it to us through the basic requirements: (Isolation and 
Localization) and an anecdotal explanation of mechanisms that could 
give rise to them.


Unfortunately, I don't hear us proposing to build a model we can use 
(much less verify) and therefore I don't see us building use cases 
anytime soon.  Who would use this model?


I suggest (without negative judgment) that this is why a lot of our 
(FRIAM) discussions fit this description to a tee:


/then you'll end up wandering around,
mixing things up and forgetting what you're doing.  As they say "if you
don't know where you're going, you'll never get there."/

Among those of us who have been roughly discussing this, I'd like to 
raise your challenge and ask the question... what do we want to do 
with such a model if we can build it (or discover it)?


   1. Provide it to powerful decision makers so they can make better
  de

Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky was: Terrorosity and it's Fruits

[Pamela McCorduck]

Steve, to reply to your question about Chomsky. In 1970, I went to a  
meeting of the AAAS where Chomsky spoke. I was very eager to hear him,  
because, as you might remember, he was one of the leading, if not  
loudest, critics of the Vietnam War, and I agreed with that criticism.


After he'd spoken, somebody from the audience asked: But Professor  
Chomsky--don't you take money from the Defense Department in the form  
of contracts or grants? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?


Professor Chomsky squirmed only a little, and then dismissed his  
questioner with a what-do-I-care? answer.  I was much younger then,  
and hadn't often run into that kind of cynicism. Sad to say, I have  
since. He may have been right with everything else he ever said or did  
(though I don't think so) but that raised my skepticism about the man  
to the utmost, and I've never got over it.



On May 9, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Steve Smith wrote:


Siddarth -
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
Noam Chomsky... I love that man's clarity and directness.   I can  
only imagine the conversations in the White House whenever he speaks  
up...


Bush/Cheney:  "Can't we just disappear him?  I *am* the decider, and  
that is what I decide!"
Obama:  "Shit, he's right... shit...   did he really have to say  
that?  shit."
Clinton/Clinton/Gore: "He's a really bright man, I wish he would  
just come over to our side!"
I've wondered for decades if a man like Chomsky could ever have a  
role in a US administration (aside from the inconvenient academic  
gadfly I presume most administrations dismiss him as).


Imagine what the US's posture in the world might look like if the  
sitting president always had someone as clear and direct as Noam  
Chomsky sitting next to her.   Imagine if every evening they sat  
down to review the day's events and Noam did that quiet, level,  
clear, (almost?) non-blaming analysis of the (clearly intentional?)  
fuckups going on in our government *every day*!


I hope that after Obama is out of office that his memoirs will  
include what he was thinking every time Chomsky quietly pointed out  
his (and other's) glaring errors in action.


In reviewing his Wikipedia entry, I found reference to him being the  
8th most cited author of all time and *most* cited living author.
It does not bear directly onto the "Mapping Scientific Output"  
symposium tomorrow at the Hilton but onto a much larger domain of  
"Mapping the Contemporary Evolution of Human Knowledge" perhaps.


- Steve

PS.  I'm sure there are those here who do not hold Chomsky in as  
high of esteem as I do (it started when I first studied his work in  
Linguistics), and while I'm not interested in the (usually right- 
wing?) ad hominem attacks I'm already too familiar with, I *would*  
appreciate any useful criticism of the man and his political  
opinions.   He is one purveyor of "inconvenient truths" to a great  
many people.





epilogue :
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

(- no fake quotes here!)

...

The killing was easy , the understanding is difficult.


It takes no great skill to kill, any brute can do it, it is a much  
greater challenge  to keep something alive.



How do we model stupifaction of real people?


Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD





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


"Her passage through her early years was a negotiation between her  
unruliness and society's tamings."


Molly Peacock


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] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

The outline Steve has provided is very helpful. Much of Eric’s ideas governing 
a group of agents is what I imagine happens within a single agent. The 
Narrative then is constructed to eliminate the memory of discord. The winning 
subagent ( perhaps Hussein’s Dr.Clever) rewrites the experience to mollify 
other internals (maintaining his rank). I think this can be extended to explain 
Mohammed’s view of obfuscation.

 

If my view is correct what we see as atrocious  behaviour between people seems 
also  to occur within individuals. These crimes are simply exported to the real 
world. Threat and fear seem important for internal decisions and so it is 
natural to assume they would continue to be employed externally.

 

Gullibility is like an open window letting in Narratives  that can distort all 
the internal workings of the individual. So intelligent individuals always need 
to be unguard against gullibility.

Which seems always to appeal to particular emotions.

 

Pamela’s dismay with Chomsky suggests, that she assumes that his criticism of 
US policy should be reflected by a particular world view. I think Chomsky may 
be an honest observer but in his dispassionate honesty he is less than a good 
drinking partner. Honesty and collegiality are not necessarily linked.

 

Vlad,

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of 
Steve Smith
Sent: May-09-11 2:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

 

Looking all the way back to Mohammed's original question which was nicely 
concise:

Can we model/simulate how in a democracy that is inherently open (as
stated in the constitution: for the people, by the people etc..) there
emerges "decision masking  structures" emerge that actively obfuscate
the participatory nature of the democratic decision making for their
ends?

I challenge us (at Glen's urging) to come up with Use Case Scenarios that would 
help move us toward even the simplest of toy models.  So far, our brainstorming 
has yield some very interesting ideas/observations:

We've already begun discussing possible parts of a model:

1) Hussein has proposed at least part of a model, which I believe is an attempt 
to model specific agents who are actively seeking to cause Isolation and 
Localization for their own purposes.

2) Ivan has proposed ( I think?) that we consider modeling simple motivations 
(emotions) of (at least) two classes of Agents (Prof. Clevers and Gullibles)?  
He also has proposed (I think?) building on top of models of unconscious 
narration generation and fitting (like overfitting a model to data?).

3) Eric has outlined an intuitive set of features for an Agent Model:

You need 1) agents with different agendas, 2) the ability to assess and usurp 
rules created by other agents, 3) the ability to force other agents to adopt 
your rules. Note, also, that in this particular case, the corruption is 
accomplished by stacking contradictory rules on top of each other. Thus you 
need 4) an ability to implement contradictory rules, or at least choose between 
so-called rules. 

4) Mohammed contributed (along with the original question) the idea that an 
intermediate mechanism of "Information Hiding" might be at play.

5) Jan Hauser (lost to the list but included in one of my missives) contributed 
the possibility that Ken Arrow's Impossibility Theorem may have a play here.  
From Wikipedia:

In social choice theory  , 
Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem, or Arrow’s 
paradox, states that, when voters have three or more distinct alternatives 
(options), no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals 
into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a 
certain set of criteria. These criteria are called unrestricted domain 
 , non-dictatorship 
 , Pareto efficiency 
 , and independence of 
irrelevant alternatives 
 .

I'm not sure it is responsive to Mohammed's original question as stated, but 
may be very important in a more general question implied.   

I may have missed some other contributions in this discussion so far, but I 
hope this summary helps if some of us are interested in actually pulling a 
simple  model or partial answer together.   

I'm all for idle speculation, I spend most of my waking hours (and some of my 
sleeping ones) in that state, but I heard here what felt like some momentum.  

Glen seems the most formal of us in his approach to model building, perhaps he 
can continue to lead us out of the morass we often find ourselves in (I can 
only think of the mythical character of Sambo (apologies for the use of

Re: [FRIAM] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

[Steve Smith]

Vlad (what internal narrative of mine has me repeatedly saluting you as 
Ivan?) -


I understand your point about Narrative better now with this post.

As I understand your point, the obfuscation in a group is like the 
narrative in an individual.   Some collective set of actions occurs over 
time which we may or may not have complete knowledge of but which are 
presumably in the interest of one or two general sets of goals 
(political agendas, war on terror, etc.) which are themselves 
characterized as narratives.  These actions as observed (usually through 
reporting by others) taken as a whole yield some consonance and some 
dissonance.  The narrative-keepers (political parties, etc.) then craft 
a new narrative which matches the impedance of those observables with 
their own preferred (evolving) narratives.   This may include denying or 
treating as disinformation some of the observables (see Creationism v. 
Evolution).


Mohammed's original question assumes that "decision masking structures" 
emerge.  I think (as I mentioned once before) that this modeling problem 
is a meta-modeling problem.  We are, in fact, modeling how people model 
things intuitively and how those models play together in the context of 
a (more) formal model (system of rules or laws).


The rabbit hole gets deeper.   Once again, I appeal to those with more 
formal theories of modeling to keep us from falling down it too fast.


- Steve


The outline Steve has provided is very helpful. Much of Eric’s ideas 
governing a group of agents is what I imagine happens within a single 
agent. The Narrative then is constructed to eliminate the memory of 
discord. The winning subagent ( perhaps Hussein’s Dr.Clever) rewrites 
the experience to mollify other internals (maintaining his rank). I 
think this can be extended to explain Mohammed’s view of obfuscation.


If my view is correct what we see as atrocious  behaviour between 
people seems also  to occur within individuals. These crimes are 
simply exported to the real world. Threat and fear seem important for 
internal decisions and so it is natural to assume they would continue 
to be employed externally.


Gullibility is like an open window letting in Narratives  that can 
distort all the internal workings of the individual. So intelligent 
individuals always need to be unguard against gullibility.


Which seems always to appeal to particular emotions.

Pamela’s dismay with Chomsky suggests, that she assumes that his 
criticism of US policy should be reflected by a particular world view. 
I think Chomsky may be an honest observer but in his dispassionate 
honesty he is less than a good drinking partner. Honesty and 
collegiality are not necessarily linked.


Vlad,

*From:*friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] 
*On Behalf Of *Steve Smith

*Sent:* May-09-11 2:17 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and 
it's Fruits)


Looking all the way back to Mohammed's original question which was 
nicely concise:


/Can we model/simulate how in a democracy that is inherently open (as/
/stated in the constitution: for the people, by the people etc..) there/
/emerges "decision masking  structures" emerge that actively obfuscate/
/the participatory nature of the democratic decision making for their/
/ends?/

I challenge us (at Glen's urging) to come up with /Use Case Scenarios/ 
that would help move us toward even the simplest of toy models.  So 
far, our brainstorming has yield some very interesting ideas/observations:


We've already begun discussing possible parts of a model:

1) Hussein has proposed at least part of a model, which I believe is 
an attempt to model specific agents who are actively seeking to cause 
Isolation and Localization for their own purposes.


2) Ivan has proposed ( I think?) that we consider modeling simple 
motivations (emotions) of (at least) two classes of Agents (Prof. 
Clevers and Gullibles)?  He also has proposed (I think?) building on 
top of models of unconscious narration generation and fitting (like 
overfitting a model to data?).


3) Eric has outlined an intuitive set of features for an Agent Model:

You need 1) agents with different agendas, 2) the ability to assess 
and usurp rules created by other agents, 3) the ability to force other 
agents to adopt your rules. Note, also, that in this particular case, 
the corruption is accomplished by stacking contradictory rules on top 
of each other. Thus you need 4) an ability to implement contradictory 
rules, or at least choose between so-called rules.


4) Mohammed contributed (along with the original question) the idea 
that an intermediate mechanism of "Information Hiding" might be at play.


5) Jan Hauser (lost to the list but included in one of my missives) 
contributed the possibility that Ken Arrow's Impossibility Theorem may 
have a play here.  From Wikipedia:


/In social choice theory 

Re: [FRIAM] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

[glen e. p. ropella]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Steve Smith wrote circa 11-05-09 12:16 PM:
> I challenge us (at Glen's urging) to come up with /Use Case Scenarios/

I _hate_ that word: "scenarios".  It's jargonal and off-putting to me,
which perhaps relates to the accusation that I have more formal methods
at hand. ;-)

I think it's best to focus on what/how we could measure what we care
about.  To model is very closely related to "to measure" ... and in my
formality, if you can't measure something, you can't model it.  So, the
real question goes back to those of us who were stimulated by Mohammed's
question.

We'll have to formulate some measures for openness, participation, and
obfuscation.  Now, before Vlad hits me again with his argument that
circumscription begets conclusion, I can mitigate it by saying that the
measures should be parallax.  There have to be _enough_ variation in the
measures so that the interested parties can champion at least one of
them as their own.  For example, when I brought up the initiative
process, that is a form of participation.  If we included that mechanism
in our democracy, I'd be forced to say that it is participatory, even if
Obama had inherited the throne, all the legislators were cronies, and
the court were kangaroo.  But the initiative process isn't the only
participatory mechanism.  And a measure that ... measures that type of
participation would be fundamentally different from a measure of
"representativeness" of, say, the electoral system, the parliamentary
system, etc.

Similarly, we should come up with a suite of measures for openness.
Obama's execution of bin Laden, interviews on 60 minutes, and keeping
the pictures secret is a good example.  We should pick measures that
evaluate Obama's disclosure as "closed" and some as "open".

In the end, what we have is a opportunity for abduction.  We have at
least 3 predicates (open/closed, [non]participatory, and
transparent/opaque).  Ideally, we have several predicates in each category.

The number of solutions that satisfy those predicates should be infinite
and explorable.  We should then be able to come up with several
mechanisms, including the families implied by the stories outlined by
Eric, Mohammed, Hussein, and Vlad.  In the end, a model capable of
instantiating even _some_ of those satisficing mechanisms should help us
be more open-minded about how obfuscation arises in democracy.

- -- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFNyFjZpVJZMHoGoM8RAgKsAJsH4BF8gFLpmS5ea0pci4LeBIrNGACdGqXC
A19hw9ZuONMFJK8dJiPkrrk=
=vr1R
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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] What evolves?

[Russ Abbott]

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

When we use the term *evolution*, we have something in mind that we all seem
to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

We generally mean more by *evolution *than just that change occurs--although
that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of
a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's
not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species.
Besides, the very notion of species is
controversial.
(But that's a different discussion.)

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that
evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm
willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to
expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably
clear referent for its subject?

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really
"evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since
the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than
that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change.
But can we characterize it more clearly?

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in
what biologists have to say about this.

*-- Russ *

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] Old thread recycled... Anne Coulter, "your work is sh*t" and the Green Dot project

[Steve Smith]

I must have skipped this post when it first came by, but upon reading it 
I wanted to alert folks here to an interesting project at NYU called the 
Green Dot project.

 http://movement.nyu.edu/GreenDot/

My posting here is in response to  Vlad's references to Anne Coulter's 
(apparently) highly effective body language.


I met Green Dot project member Peggy Hackney of the Integrated Movement 
Studies ( http://www.imsmovement.com/index.php/faculty/ ) program when I 
was seeking to understand how to analyze human posture for collaborative 
decision making systems.  She is an expert in Bartlieneff and Laban 
Motion Analysis.


What is interesting (or at least relevant) to Vlad's analysis of Anne 
Coulter here is that the Green Dot system might very well be trainable 
on the mannerisms Anne Coulter (apparently, as I don't know I've ever 
seen her in action) uses to say that someone's work or words is "a piece 
of shit" and perhaps find more of the same.


In my general interest in what kinds of tools might let the unwashed 
masses (like myself) see through the charades of politicians and pundits 
alike, I'm intrigued.


 - Steve

On 10/15/10 2:06 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:

To the Group and Glen,
"Saying someone's work is a piece of shit..."

Very profound I think, let me explain. Lately I have been watching a lot of
American News and one character seems to show up repeatedly for unknown
reasons. Anne Coulter.

I find her discussions and arguments illogical and without any point that
makes sense. She often fails to complete a sentence. I am however fascinated
with the character she portrays.
I muted my television one evening for whatever reason and focused on the
scrolling banner. Then I noticed Miss Coulter and her animated body
language. She would repeat certain gestures in highly structured manner.
Inevitably she would make a "Stinky Face" whenever the opposition stopped
talking.(For that matter she made them regularly while the opposition was
talking) The Camera moved quickly to capture the "Stinky Face" then a flip
of the hair and a down ward eye cast and a bit of a snear. I was fascinated.
She defeated her opponent in a debate simply by making "Stinky Faces" and
never making sense verbally. She would drown out her opponents at other
times when the camera was focused on the opposition, so they could not be
heard and then with a coup de grace she would make that "Stinky face" again
followed by the Haughty aristocratic look of contempt. She debates with body
gestures to control the camera angle.That is all that represents a
victory.Simply to have the camera aimed at her.

Anne Coulter wins debates before a camera by Body gestures. Indeed she is
repeatedly "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" without uttering a
word. It works! You can defeat any statement by "Saying someone's work is a
piece of shit" It is not a last resort but the first tool and now that I
watch political debates without sound, I realize why Americans are acting
like idiots. Everyone one debates sub vocally by condemning eachother
"Saying someone's work is a piece of shit"

Television has ruined discourse, thank god for the mute button. I love
watching Anne Coulter I swear we could analyze her body gestures and come to
some fascinating conclusions about the superior communication style she is
hailed as representing. "Saying someone's work is a piece of shit" is the
new standard.

So in the realm of this chat group we are devoid of the "Stinky Face Weapon"
so we are left with actually writing it down for everyone to see what we
mean. If someone handed me a piece of meat on the veldt and another made
that face I might not actually enjoy the gift.
Debates are becoming increasingly unruly and that women's show the Veiw is
simply the lowest form of human discourse I have ever witnessed. I just mute
it and have a great chuckle at what is really becoming the defining
attribute of modern communication skills.

I have been fascinated by a similarity of body gestures of Muslim clerics
versus American fundamentalist preachers. I have not worked out those
details but will let you know what I learn.

So just what does it mean to be "Credible" when it can be dismantled as
easily as making a "Stinky Face" or "Saying someone's work is a piece of
shit"? Credibility is very fragile and delicate.






Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax
vbur...@shaw.ca



-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: October 14, 2010 4:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Case for a Literary Education (re 10 Best...)

lrudo...@meganet.net wrote  circa 10/14/2010 10:31 AM:

Having
myself come to the conclusion that _The American
Scholar_ was a piece of shit (during at least
part of Epstein's tenure

Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Russ, 
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little, and
get more specific if he does not. 

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions enter
the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know what they
are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of what they are
asserting. The three most common options are that "the species evolves", "the
trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular
option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the course of
the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the genes", with Williams
solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and Dawkins taking it to its logical
extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism)
gives you great quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more
eggs." Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems. 

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you don't
like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people and saying
that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but thinking in that
way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let
you say.  

Eric

On Mon, May  9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:
>>
I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.>
>
>When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem to
understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

>
>
>We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although
that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of a
thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's not
quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species. Besides,
the very notion of species is .
(But that's a different discussion.)  

>
>
>Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that
evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm willing
to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to expect
that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear referent
for its subject?

>
>
>An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really "evolution
occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since the question
then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than that change
happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change. But can we
characterize it more clearly?

>
>
>
I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in what
biologists have to say about this.
>>
> >-- Russ 



>



Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601



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] Modeling obfuscation (was - Terrorosity and it's Fruits)

[glen e. p. ropella]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

glen e. p. ropella wrote circa 11-05-09 02:12 PM:
> Similarly, we should come up with a suite of measures for openness.
> Obama's execution of bin Laden, interviews on 60 minutes, and keeping
> the pictures secret is a good example.  We should pick measures that
> evaluate Obama's disclosure as "closed" and some as "open".

I just had the thought that FOIA responses might be one measure of openness:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a788007182
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xepera/5705434466/in/photostream

I'm sure others could be derived from places like the OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/

Of course, if we wanted to capture the co-evolution of obfuscation for
individual _privacy_ in response to intrusive devices like credit card
databases or traffic cameras, we'd have to examine something like the
rates of "spoofed" registration/login data or light scattering license
plate covers in relation to the rates of usage for the intrusive tech.

I'm sure the EFF and white hacker sites could help there:
http://www.eff.org/

- -- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFNyIIWpVJZMHoGoM8RAnAQAJ4kvCaonjSqVhZzCeYl3golIzvu4QCfUGuS
7G/T4g/rojm0aqxDGAMoz4E=
=Qt9H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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] What evolves?

[Nicholas Thompson]

Russ, 

 

I hope has been clear to everybody from the start that I am not a proper
biologist.  My degree is in psychology and my postdoctoral year was as an
ethologist.  I will leave it to Eric to tell you the same thing about
himself.  

 

If you ask me on my  best days, I will say that what evolves are taxa.
Nothing individual can evolve.  To me, evolution is just the flexing of taxa
to match the circumstances of their time.  It is this that natural selection
explains..  

 

Nick 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

  http://www.cusf.org

 

 

 

 

From: Russ Abbott [mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:25 PM
To: FRIAM
Cc: Thompson, Nick; Eric Charles
Subject: What evolves?

 

I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

 

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem
to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

 

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although
that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally think in terms of
a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that evolves. Of course that's
not quite right since evolution also involves the creation of new species.
Besides, the very notion of species is controversial
 . (But that's a different
discussion.)  

 

Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity, that
evolves? The question is not just limited to biological evolution. I'm
willing to consider broader answers. But in any context, is it reasonable to
expect that the sentence "X evolves" will generally have a reasonably clear
referent for its subject?

 

An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really
"evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it does since
the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution occurs" other than
that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a specific kind of change.
But can we characterize it more clearly?

 

I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially interested in
what biologists have to say about this.


 

-- Russ 

 


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] What evolves?

[Victoria Hughes]

A couple of other questions then:
What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if  
not why not, etc

and
Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a  
different word for it?

ie:
If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what  
is positive and sustainable?


One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have  
'evolved' a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic  
or flawed design. The internal conflicts between different areas of  
the brain, often in direct opposition to each other and leading to  
personal and large-scale destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc
Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does  
that mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must  
be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper  
limit to the life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only  
perspective that holds up in the long term.


This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the  
intangible.  We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into  
something new in doing this. I am changed for the better by reading  
and occasionally chiming in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing  
skills in this brilliant and eclectic context.

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill?

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the  
great phrase, NIck-


Victoria


On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:


Russ,
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a  
little, and get more specific if he does not.


This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual  
confusions enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people  
do not quite know what they are asserting, or at least they do not  
know the implications of what they are asserting. The three most  
common options are that "the species evolves", "the trait evolves",  
or "the genes evolve". A less common, but increasingly popular  
option is that "the organism-environment system evolves". Over the  
course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought it was "the  
genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s, and  
Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene.  
Dawkins (now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great  
quotes like "An chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs."  
Alas, this introduces all sorts of devious problems.


I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve.  
If you don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level  
selection people and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is  
certainly accurate, but thinking in that way makes it hard to say  
somethings you'd think a theory of evolution would let you say.


Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott   
wrote:
I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple  
question.


When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we  
all seem to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is  
it that evolves?


We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs-- 
although that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We normally  
think in terms of a thing, perhaps abstract, e.g,. a species, that  
evolves. Of course that's not quite right since evolution also  
involves the creation of new species. Besides, the very notion of  
species is controversial. (But that's a different discussion.)


Is it appropriate to say that there is generally a thing, an entity,  
that evolves? The question is not just limited to biological  
evolution. I'm willing to consider broader answers. But in any  
context, is it reasonable to expect that the sentence "X evolves"  
will generally have a reasonably clear referent for its subject?


An alternative is to say that what we mean by "X evolves" is really  
"evolution occurs." Does that help? It's not clear to me that it  
does since the question then becomes what do we means by "evolution  
occurs" other than that change happens. Evolution is (intuitively) a  
specific kind of change. But can we characterize it more clearly?


I'm copying Nick and Eric explicitly because I'm especially  
interested in what biologists have to say about this.


-- Russ 


Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601



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 ht

Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

[Nicholas Thompson]

Dear Victoria, 

 

The word "evolution" has a history before biologists made off with it, but I
can't speak to those uses.  I think it first came into use in biology to
refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The one
use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social  or
political change the speaker happens to  approve of.  As in, "society is
evolving."  The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation.  One of
the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical
structure and predictable order.  The development of the British empire
would have been, to those people, a case of evolution.  Thus, when
parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern
Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.

 

Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize
that the use of the term, "evolution", implies a values stance of some sort
and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values,
if we hope to have a "highly evolved" discussion (};-])*

 

Nick Thompson

 

*-old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

  http://www.cusf.org

 

 

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

 

 

A couple of other questions then: 

What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not why
not, etc

and 

Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different
word for it?

ie: 

If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is
positive and sustainable? 

 

One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved'
a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed
design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often
in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale
destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc

Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that
mean it is good?

There is often a confusion between description and purpose.  

 

I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must be "the
organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to the
life-span of a particular trait. Holism is the only perspective that holds
up in the long term. 

 

This is another one of those FRIAM chats that brush against the intangible.
We sure do sort by population here, and we evolve into something new in
doing this. I am changed for the better by reading and occasionally chiming
in, sharpening my vocabulary and writing skills in this brilliant and
eclectic context. 

I determined evolution there. Does a radish get the same thrill? 

 

Oh, my taxa are so flexed I have to send this off. Thanks for the great
phrase, NIck-

 

Victoria

 

 

On May 9, 2011, at 5:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:





Russ, 
Good questions. I'm hoping Nick will speak up, but I'll hand wave a little,
and get more specific if he does not. 

This is one of the points by which a whole host of conceptual confusions
enter the discussion of evolutionary theory. Often people do not quite know
what they are asserting, or at least they do not know the implications of
what they are asserting. The three most common options are that "the species
evolves", "the trait evolves", or "the genes evolve". A less common, but
increasingly popular option is that "the organism-environment system
evolves". Over the course of the 20th century, people increasingly thought
it was "the genes", with Williams solidifying the notion in the 50s and 60s,
and Dawkins taking it to its logical extreme in The Selfish Gene. Dawkins
(now the face of overly-abrasive-atheism) gives you great quotes like "An
chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." Alas, this introduces all
sorts of devious problems. 

I would argue that it makes more sense to say that species evolve. If you
don't like that, you are best going with the multi-level selection people
and saying that the systems evolve. The latter is certainly accurate, but
thinking in that way makes it hard to say somethings you'd think a theory of
evolution would let you say.  

Eric

On Mon, May 9, 2011 06:25 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:



I'm hoping you will help me think through this apparently simple question.

 

When we use the term evolution, we have something in mind that we all seem
to understand. But I'd like to ask this question: what is it that evolves?

 

We generally mean more by evolution than just that change occurs--although
that is one of the looser meaning of the term. We 

Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?

[Russ Abbott]

You made me look. A taxon is apparently an animal or plant group having
natural 
relations.
Or any formally named taxonomic group of
organisms.
In other words, a taxon is a node in a taxonomy, which itself is a tree
structure that (presumably) has some coherent justification for its
organization.

What concerns me about that perspective (taken broadly or narrowly) is that
it still doesn't tell me what evolves. Saying that a node in a taxonomy
evolves--from having a certain collection of properties at one time to
having some other collection of properties at another time--doesn't seem to
tell me much. Besides, don't we limit the use of evolve to biological or
social entities?

One could say that the letter "A" has evolved from a pictogram of an ox head
to the letter we know today . But I wouldn't
consider that evolution in the sense that I want to use the term. It's not
unheard of to say that the solar system evolved from a cloud of space dust
to a sun, planets, moons, etc. But I'd rather exclude that sense of evolve
also. On the other hand, I don't want to exclude its use when talking about
societies. The Internet has been a major factor in the evolution of
civilization over the past two decades.  I think that use is consistent with
how I want to use the term "evolution."

My tentative thought at this point is that what evolves are designs of
entities that require energy to survive. I would limit the use of the
term *evolution
*to refer to the design of things -- and only of things that persist in a
far-from-equilibrium state.

Of course by design I don't mean intentional design but the mechanism(s) by
which something operates. This again limits the use of the term to things
that require energy to persist. Anything that "operates" consumes energy. I
wouldn't want to say, though, that something like automobile designs evolve.
Automobiles don't have to operate to persist. I want to limit the term to
things that cease to exist if they cease to operate--like
biological/societal organisms/groups.

What do you think of that?


*-- Russ*



On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Dear Victoria,
>
>
>
> The word “evolution” has a history before biologists made off with it, but
> I can’t speak to those uses.  I think it first came into use in biology to
> refer to development and referred to the unfolding of a flower.   The one
> use I cannot tolerate gracefully is to refer to whatever social  or
> political change the speaker happens to  approve of.  As in, “society is
> evolving.”  The term devolution comes out of that misappropriation.  One of
> the properties that some people approve of is increasing hierarchical
> structure and predictable order.  The development of the British empire
> would have been, to those people, a case of evolution.  Thus, when
> parliaments were formed and government functions taken over by Northern
> Ireland and Scotland, this was called Devolution.
>
>
>
> Perhaps most important in any discussion along these lines is to recognize
> that the use of the term, “evolution”, implies a values stance of some sort
> and that we should NOT take for granted that we all share the same values,
>  if we hope to have a “highly evolved” discussion (};-])*
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
>
>
> *—old bald guy with big eyebrows and a wry smirk on his face.
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> http://www.cusf.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Victoria Hughes
> *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2011 8:26 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
>
>
>
>
>
> A couple of other questions then:
>
> What is devolution? Is that a legitimate word in this discussion, if not
> why not, etc
>
> and
>
> Does evolution really just mean change, and if so why is there a different
> word for it?
>
> ie:
>
> If evolution means 'positive sustainable change' who is deciding what is
> positive and sustainable?
>
>
>
> One could argue that aspects of human neurological evolution have 'evolved'
> a less-sustainable organism, or at least a very problematic or flawed
> design. The internal conflicts between different areas of the brain, often
> in direct opposition to each other and leading to personal and large-scale
> destruction: is that evolution? if so why, etc
>
> Just because we can find out where in our genes this is written, does that
> mean it is good?
>
> There is often a confusion between description and purpose.
>
>
>
> I'd vote for option C, in Eric's paragraph below: ultimately it must
> be "the organism-environment system evolves" or there is an upper limit to

[FRIAM] Peter Lissaman's "Meaning of Lift"

[Stephen Guerin]

Peter shared his papers below but the attachments were flagged based on
size. They are now posted at:
  http://www.redfish.com/friam/uploads/Lissaman_MeaningOfLift.pdf
  http://www.redfish.com/friam/uploads/Lissaman_FigParafoil.doc

Thank you, Peter!

-Steve


-- Forwarded message --
From: plissa...@comcast.net
To: friam@redfish.com
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:34:52 + (UTC)
Subject: Meaning of Lift

In response to requests, I truly diffidently attach *The Meaning of Lift*.  I
had wanted to spare Friam this stuff.   It’s specialized, but just Newton
and algebra, which I have often claimed folks need more of.  But, but, but,
I vehemently disclaim that I am a theoretician, or a scholar.   Most
Friamers know a lot more than I. They simply don’t do this stuff.  I’m just
a very practical designer who recognizes that a little learning is a
dangerous thing.   My work is simple-minded and functional, not words, but
machines; operating on land, sea and air in a world where verbose BS quickly
gets you eliminated, oftentimes “with prejudice”!

To make up for the equations, please enjoy the glorious photo.  Taken some
time ago, it is claimed to be the Lissaman 7808 airfoil, showing a SEAL
floating into a perfect point touchdown.  We developed these for extreme
performance for Special Forces.  Gratifying to meet satisfied customers!  The
paper states so, but I am not sure if this *actually* is my airfoil.  Very
hard to tell from this angle.


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,USA
tel:(505)983-7728

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