Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

[Nicholas Thompson]

Thanks, Sarbajit,

One quibble: 

"a child is the genetic sum of its parents"

If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has half the
genes of each of its parents.  

N


-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

John,

wrt statement #2

IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN all
the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an information /
communication problem}

Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The information is
already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just downloading it onto our
genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster biological rate.

To clarify with an example.

In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code strings
would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy"
of another executable program (which may have already been infected by code
strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but perhaps also
inserted in the "middle"). The actual application software (say
"pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information strings
being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die".

Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them the
ancestors)  and information strings (via culture / television / parent et.al
) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes").

Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling
"religion" and "science".

Sarbajit

On 3/17/12, John Kennison  wrote:
>
> Sarbajit,
> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units
but
> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type.
How
> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors?
> --John
> 
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf 
> Of Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>
> Lets take those points 1 by 1
>
> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically".
>
> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series
> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a 
> chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being 
> "readable".
>
> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted 
> by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc.
>
> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments 
> by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed 
> nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup).
>
> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically 
> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does 
> using CMYK.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 3/16/12, John Kennison  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa 
>> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a 
>> battle between competing religions.
>>
>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes 
>> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even 
>> lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for 
>> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by 
>> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how  
>> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.)
>>
>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone 
>> explain them to me?
>>
>> --John
>> 
>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf 
>> Of Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>
>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel.
>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been 
>> invented.
>>
>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history 
>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html
>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which 
>> holds as follows:
>>
>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was 
>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove 
>> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we contain 
>> all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us # 4) 
>> Godhood of father."
>>
>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span 
>> many leading cultures separated by time and 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

[Sarbajit Roy]

John,

wrt statement #2

IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN
all the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an
information / communication problem}

Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The
information is already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just
downloading it onto our genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster
biological rate.

To clarify with an example.

In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code
strings would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy"
of another executable program (which may have already been infected by
code strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but
perhaps also inserted in the "middle"). The actual application
software (say "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing
information strings being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it
to "die".

Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them
the ancestors)  and information strings (via culture / television /
parent et.al ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes").

Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling
"religion" and "science".

Sarbajit

On 3/17/12, John Kennison  wrote:
>
> Sarbajit,
> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units but
> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type.   How
> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors?
> --John
> 
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
> Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>
> Lets take those points 1 by 1
>
> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically".
>
> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series
> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a
> chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being
> "readable".
>
> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted
> by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc.
>
> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments
> by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed
> nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup).
>
> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically
> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does
> using CMYK.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 3/16/12, John Kennison  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and
>> sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between
>> competing religions.
>>
>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find
>> that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures
>> but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not
>> the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our
>> culture, our education etc. (I don't see how  statement (2) could have
>> been
>> "proven" in the nineteenth century.)
>>
>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain
>> them
>> to me?
>>
>> --John
>> 
>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
>> Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>
>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel.
>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been
>> invented.
>>
>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history
>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html
>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which
>> holds as follows:
>>
>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was
>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today)
>> # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors
>> # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and
>> within us
>> # 4) Godhood of father."
>>
>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span
>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a
>> device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" .
>>
>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal
>> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation"
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
>>> Hi, everybody,
>>>
>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting

Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

[John Kennison]

Sarbajit,
Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units but I 
guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type.   How 
about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors?
--John

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of 
Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

Lets take those points 1 by 1

1) "Information is transmitted genetically".

a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series
(string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a
chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being
"readable".

b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted
by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc.

c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments
by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed
nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup).

d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically
onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does
using CMYK.

Sarbajit

On 3/16/12, John Kennison  wrote:
>
>
> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and
> sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between
> competing religions.
>
> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find
> that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures
> but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not
> the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our
> culture, our education etc. (I don't see how  statement (2) could have been
> "proven" in the nineteenth century.)
>
> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain them
> to me?
>
> --John
> 
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
> Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>
> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel.
> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been
> invented.
>
> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history
> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html
> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which
> holds as follows:
>
> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was
> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today)
> # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors
> # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and
> within us
> # 4) Godhood of father."
>
> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span
> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a
> device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" .
>
> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal
> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation"
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 3/16/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
>> Hi, everybody,
>>
>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting
>> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview.
>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the
>> FRIAM archive.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM
>>
>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>
>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for writing, John.
>>
>>
>>
>> You missed the most important objection.  Genes are not the object of
>> greed.
>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse.   With a nickel, it makes a
>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine.  With genes, it only
>> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there.
>> Genes
>> are all about type, not token.
>>
>>
>>
>> Comments on your specific points below:
>>
>>
>>
>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am
>> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible
>> reasons:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1)  Genes are not capable of being greedy.
>>
>>
>>
>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern.  An individual genes just makes a
>> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein.  Gene's can't vary
>> their behavior in telic ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> JK:(2)  Genetic greed suggests that evolution is la

Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

I agree that "winner-take-all" system highly reinforces a 
(superficially) polarized 2-party circumstance...


Gil -

I used to be pro-Technocracy, but as a Technologist myself, I don't 
trust/believe in my own peers any more than than I do the *rest* of the 
unwashed masses.  While I find the *irrational* nature of many who are 
not trained/educated in *some* rational system difficult to communicate 
with, I am perhaps even *more* frustrated/disappointed with those whose 
education/training *includes* a good grounding in a rational system yet 
still manage to transgress against that perspective at the drop of a 
hat.I'm not *sure* technical literacy is necessary but it *is* 
definitely *not* sufficient!  In fact many of the biggest boneheads I 
know have PhDs in science or engineering!  The Fascists of Hitler's and 
Mussolini's regimes were significantly Technocratic, totally in love 
with the technology of the time (who brought us the Blitzkreig and the 
V2, etc. ?)


I'm sure there is an apt quote, but my made up version for the moment is 
that as sad as it is to have a heart without a head, it is much sadder 
to have a head without a heart...


All -

The 2-party system and big money has certainly kept me in the silent 
minority camp... voting only in 76, 80, 00, 04, 06, 08, 10 .I didn't 
*like* (trust?) many if any of the candidates during my 20 year hiatus 
and it wasn't until 00 that I came to *dislike* anyone enough to try to 
vote against them.  By 04 I was ready to raise both hands (cast multiple 
votes?) if that was what it took...   to no avail.


I'm not sure what the money problem is exactly.   I do believe we have 
one, and I see it manifest itself in the huge amount of campaign 
advertising, including nasty mudslingery... but I am sure it also 
finances some much dirtier tricks as well.


Obama's campaign having drawn out the long tail of campaign (lots and 
lots of small contributors) seems in principle to help, or at least be a 
good start.I'd like to believe that if he kept his campaigning this 
round to participating in debates, he'd do fine against the opposition 
as it has exposed itself to be fairly lame.  *someone* would take it 
upon themselves to recycle the mud-slinging generated by the primary 
candidates against their ultimately "least undesirable" candidate.


 I'm sure there are folks here who like Romney or Gingritch or even 
Santorum... I frankly don't get it, but I know others who either *do* 
like them or at least resent/fear Obama & Co enough to give it back to 
the same party that brought us the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. crowd.
I'm guessing this number come November will show itself to be somewhat 
less than 50% of the voting public.  A landslide *for* a sitting 
President who has barely been able to wade halfway out of a half of the 
swamps he volunteered to drain is a strong vote *against* his opponents.


I'm probably *most* interested in what "we, the people" can do... what 
is *our* (mis)play in this ongoing debacle?


Yes, a change in voting system (away from winner-takes-all) is probably 
critical, but *we* probably need to make that happen... the "powers that 
be" have little or no incentive to do so.


Yes, money translates to political power too easily and perhaps too 
invisibly... but how do we contribute to that?  How do we undermine or 
find alternatives to that?


Yes, our media amplifies and distorts signals and participates in 
(unhealthy) feedback loops and plays into the polarization and the 
big-money-influence problems..  But how do *we the people* help change 
that?


My first line of defense, which I'm not always proud of, was reflected 
in my lack of voting for 20 years.  "don't encourage the bastards!" was 
my refrain.   But a softer and maybe more effective version is "don't 
reinforce the divisive hyperbole and rhetoric".


Sure it feels good to nail the whole problem in one swift blow of our 
hammer-like intellect (wit?), but does it actually help solve the 
problem?   Is our hyperbolic solution du-jour actually *doable*?  Is 
there a path from here to there, or is it just some Utopian fantasy we 
have contrived to  match our equally Dystopian fears?  Is there even a 
*there* there? (apologies to fans and haters of Gertrude Stein).


Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in the canoe who knows that when 
it is rocking wildly, the best thing you can do if you don't want it to 
tip is go "low and to the center" while everyone else is hanging wildly 
out to either side screaming at the others to "quit tipping the 
boat!".   It would be nice to get back to actually paddling and steering!


I'm guardedly hopeful to hear Diamandis'/Kotler's "Abundance" message 
and while it does fit into the Technocratic or more Techno-Utopian 
scenarios I suppose it is only *one* ingredient in the recipe...   
If magically our technical systems catch up with themselves and quit 
just "pushing forward" a series of unintended consequence

Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[Gillian Densmore]

I feer the only way to 'get things' done is to convert to a
technocracyand possible a
parimenatarian one at that-but short of that--yeah my issue
with AECorp is it isn't transparent-not that the democracts/repubs are but
that'd be a start if possible-i'm also a little wary of having to supply my
social to "be involved" it's bad enough that the JC wants my social for
virtualy everything. But yeah- what happend to the promise by AE to be a
better process and be a direct election etc. oO ?

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  I share your (various) doubts about the people behind the AE process, but
> I *do* welcome the concept of a more open and engaged and egalitarian
> process for supporting existing politicians who are not insiders at the big
> show (e.g. Kucenich, Gary Johnson) and for maybe
> finding/exposing/supporting people who *don't* already play in politics (or
> at least not nationally).
>
> I'm not particulary deluded (or misiguided?) by the AE folks into
> believing they have my best interests at heart... I suspect they recognized
> that this was an inevitable development and wanted to be in control of
> whatever part of it they could.  That alone is a little nefarious.
>
> But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better
> process/circumstance for all of this?"   Who *could* foster/muster
> something like this.   I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were
> GoogleZon doing it... like
> Vote.Google.com ?   Maybe someone like EFF could do something less
> muddied by conventional money and politics?
>
> Certainly not FRIAM or TED or ???...
>
> It is an interesting "experiment" even if it is openly flawed in some (not
> so?) obvious ways...   I'm less interested in believing this will lead to
> first-order useful/meaningful results for the next election than I am in
> understanding what this class of "meddling" can mean for our whole process.
>
> As for Doug's article.. I'm not very inclined to like anything I hear from
> big-money traders about politics, if just on principle.
>
> I think the concept that putting oneself (and career) on the line by going
> on the ballot and risk being voted out of the process "by the process" is
> interesting but probably both not very thought through and hyperbolic at
> the same time.
>
> I'm hoping that this election year brings some qualitatively new things,
> and ideally ones I am more impressed with than the 2000 and 2004
> elections.  The "draw" of 2000 and the *re-election* of Bush in 04 were
> both fairly big things in politics in my opinion (not ones I welcome,
> especially in retrospect, but big things nevertheless).
>
>  I think our only viable option at this point is to give Obama 4 more
> years to unlimber the rest of his skills and experience now that he's had
> time to settle in, learn some ropes, lay some foundations.  Maybe the
> public are tired of their obstructionist congresspeople and will elect some
> more who are interested in getting things done.  Or maybe the divisiveness
> will continue and expose itself yet more?
>
> Meanwhile, 2016 is sure to be a hoot.   I predict things will have changed
> as radically by then as we could wish, if not neccesarily in an appealing
> direction.
>
> - Steve
>
> This article sums up my feelings on the subject:
>
>  http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982
>
>  --Doug
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen  wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think it would help me.  An e-mail directly to me might make me
>> feel like one of the cool kids.  But my main concern is the sense that
>> Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process.  Don't get
>> me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
>> But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me.  If I were pressed to be concrete
>> about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
>> investigate the clique members involved.  And when I do find some new
>> piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
>> largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.
>>
>> I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.
>>
>> Not that that's a big deal.  The Demopublicans don't have my best
>> interests in mind, either.  But at least they admit that they're
>> political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
>> stay) elected as long as they tow the party line.  That seems more
>> authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
>> funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.
>>
>> These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
>> have to hunt for.  And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
>> and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
>> website so anyone could see it immediately.
>>
>> Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:
>> > That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about 

Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[glen e. p. ropella]

Steve Smith wrote at 03/16/2012 10:54 AM:
> But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better
> process/circumstance for all of this?"   Who *could* foster/muster
> something like this.   I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were
> GoogleZon doing it... like
> Vote.Google.com ?   Maybe someone like EFF could do something less
> muddied by conventional money and politics?

Personally, I think the 2-party lock-in is ensured by winner-take-all
competitions.  If we could move to another voting system, we'd see more
3rd party viability and more multi-dimensional choices.  That would even
fix, to some extent, the money problem because more bins for the money
implies more distributed money.  I also think it would solve some of the
vitriol problem.  It would be more difficult to make ad hominem attacks
if there are more people to attack.  Even morons like me would be forced
to discuss the issues more and the icons less ... again because there
are more icons.

It doesn't matter where a 3rd party or lone candidate comes from, as
long as our elections are winner-take-all, there will always be only 2
viable parties.  You can see this to some extent in the states who
allocate their delegates by percentage, rather than maximum percentage.

-- 
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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

[Sarbajit Roy]

Lets take those points 1 by 1

1) "Information is transmitted genetically".

a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series
(string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a
chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being
"readable".

b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted
by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc.

c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments
by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed
nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup).

d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically
onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does
using CMYK.

Sarbajit

On 3/16/12, John Kennison  wrote:
>
>
> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and
> sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between
> competing religions.
>
> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find
> that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures
> but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not
> the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our
> culture, our education etc. (I don't see how  statement (2) could have been
> "proven" in the nineteenth century.)
>
> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain them
> to me?
>
> --John
> 
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
> Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>
> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel.
> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been
> invented.
>
> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history
> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html
> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which
> holds as follows:
>
> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was
> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today)
> # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors
> # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and
> within us
> # 4) Godhood of father."
>
> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span
> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a
> device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" .
>
> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal
> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation"
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 3/16/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
>> Hi, everybody,
>>
>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting
>> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview.
>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the
>> FRIAM archive.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM
>>
>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>
>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for writing, John.
>>
>>
>>
>> You missed the most important objection.  Genes are not the object of
>> greed.
>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse.   With a nickel, it makes a
>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine.  With genes, it only
>> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there.
>> Genes
>> are all about type, not token.
>>
>>
>>
>> Comments on your specific points below:
>>
>>
>>
>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am
>> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible
>> reasons:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1)  Genes are not capable of being greedy.
>>
>>
>>
>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern.  An individual genes just makes a
>> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein.  Gene's can't vary
>> their behavior in telic ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> JK:(2)  Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a
>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition  between
>> groups.
>>
>>
>>
>> [NST ==>]  Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers
>> focus on the INDIVIDUAL.  To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember
>> that gold is not  greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold.  Genetic
>> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their"
>> genes.
>>
>>
>>
>> (3)  Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing
>> cooperative attitu

Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[Steve Smith]

I share your (various) doubts about the people behind the AE process, 
but I *do* welcome the concept of a more open and engaged and 
egalitarian process for supporting existing politicians who are not 
insiders at the big show (e.g. Kucenich, Gary Johnson) and for maybe 
finding/exposing/supporting people who *don't* already play in politics 
(or at least not nationally).


I'm not particulary deluded (or misiguided?) by the AE folks into 
believing they have my best interests at heart... I suspect they 
recognized that this was an inevitable development and wanted to be in 
control of whatever part of it they could.  That alone is a little 
nefarious.


But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better 
process/circumstance for all of this?"   Who *could* foster/muster 
something like this.   I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were 
GoogleZon doing it... like
Vote.Google.com ?   Maybe someone like EFF could do something less 
muddied by conventional money and politics?


Certainly not FRIAM or TED or ???...

It is an interesting "experiment" even if it is openly flawed in some 
(not so?) obvious ways...   I'm less interested in believing this will 
lead to first-order useful/meaningful results for the next election than 
I am in understanding what this class of "meddling" can mean for our 
whole process.


As for Doug's article.. I'm not very inclined to like anything I hear 
from big-money traders about politics, if just on principle.


I think the concept that putting oneself (and career) on the line by 
going on the ballot and risk being voted out of the process "by the 
process" is interesting but probably both not very thought through and 
hyperbolic at the same time.


I'm hoping that this election year brings some qualitatively new things, 
and ideally ones I am more impressed with than the 2000 and 2004 
elections.  The "draw" of 2000 and the *re-election* of Bush in 04 were 
both fairly big things in politics in my opinion (not ones I welcome, 
especially in retrospect, but big things nevertheless).


 I think our only viable option at this point is to give Obama 4 more 
years to unlimber the rest of his skills and experience now that he's 
had time to settle in, learn some ropes, lay some foundations.  Maybe 
the public are tired of their obstructionist congresspeople and will 
elect some more who are interested in getting things done.  Or maybe the 
divisiveness will continue and expose itself yet more?


Meanwhile, 2016 is sure to be a hoot.   I predict things will have 
changed as radically by then as we could wish, if not neccesarily in an 
appealing direction.


- Steve

This article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen > wrote:



I don't think it would help me.  An e-mail directly to me might
make me
feel like one of the cool kids.  But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process.  Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me.  If I were pressed to be
concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved.  And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities
of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal.  The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either.  But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line.  That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political
players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for.  And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:
> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly
about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on
my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to
somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala
FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld
mailto:gsonn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you
guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.


 

Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[Nicholas Thompson]

Bad as things are, now, I fear that a third "party", by any name, would
further divide the non crazy vote. 

 

N

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

 

This article sums up my feelings on the subject:  

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

 

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen  wrote:


I don't think it would help me.  An e-mail directly to me might make me
feel like one of the cool kids.  But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process.  Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me.  If I were pressed to be concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved.  And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal.  The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either.  But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line.  That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for.  And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:

> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld  > wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.



--
glen


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] FW: See this?

[John Kennison]

Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and 
sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between 
competing religions. 

I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find that 
knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures but none 
of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not the sum of our 
ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our culture, our education 
etc. (I don't see how  statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth 
century.)

As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain them to 
me? 

--John 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of 
Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?

W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel.
It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been invented.

Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history
http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html
There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which
holds as follows:

"# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was
experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today)
# 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors
# 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us
# 4) Godhood of father."

What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span
many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a
device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" .

I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal
manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation"

Sarbajit

On 3/16/12, Nicholas  Thompson  wrote:
> Hi, everybody,
>
> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of?
>
>
>
> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting
> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview.
> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the
> FRIAM archive.
>
>
>
> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it.
>
>
>
> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM
>
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>
>
>
> Thanks for writing, John.
>
>
>
> You missed the most important objection.  Genes are not the object of greed.
> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse.   With a nickel, it makes a
> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine.  With genes, it only
> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there.  Genes
> are all about type, not token.
>
>
>
> Comments on your specific points below:
>
>
>
> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am
> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons:
>
>
>
> (1)  Genes are not capable of being greedy.
>
>
>
> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern.  An individual genes just makes a
> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein.  Gene's can't vary
> their behavior in telic ways.
>
>
>
> JK:(2)  Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a
> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition  between groups.
>
>
>
> [NST ==>]  Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers
> focus on the INDIVIDUAL.  To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember
> that gold is not  greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold.  Genetic
> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their"
> genes.
>
>
>
> (3)  Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing
> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones.
>
>
>
> [NST ==>]  I will agree with that position so long as you record my
> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes about.
> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see how
> it happens.  I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of
> evolution, as much as the basis for it.
>
>
>
> (4)  You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not
> operate to benefit the group".
>
>
>
> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false.  Groups have evolved.  The
> author confuses natural selection with evolution.  And I do agree that
> natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the
> current version - sorry.]
>
>
>
> (5)  You disagree with Hamilton's equation.
>
>
>
> [NST ==>]
>
>
>
> Hard to disagree with an equation.  Full stop.
>
>
>
> (6)  You think that sociobiology sucks.
>
>
>
> [NST ==>]  Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psych

Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[Douglas Roberts]

This article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen  wrote:

>
> I don't think it would help me.  An e-mail directly to me might make me
> feel like one of the cool kids.  But my main concern is the sense that
> Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process.  Don't get
> me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
> But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me.  If I were pressed to be concrete
> about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
> investigate the clique members involved.  And when I do find some new
> piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
> largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.
>
> I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.
>
> Not that that's a big deal.  The Demopublicans don't have my best
> interests in mind, either.  But at least they admit that they're
> political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
> stay) elected as long as they tow the party line.  That seems more
> authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
> funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.
>
> These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
> have to hunt for.  And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
> and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
> website so anyone could see it immediately.
>
> Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:
> > That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> > to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> > is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> > I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> > would(V) helped at least in my case.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld  > > wrote:
> >
> > If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> > e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.
>
>
> --
> glen
>
> 
> 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] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

[glen]

I don't think it would help me.  An e-mail directly to me might make me
feel like one of the cool kids.  But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process.  Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me.  If I were pressed to be concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved.  And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal.  The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either.  But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line.  That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for.  And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:
> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld  > wrote:
> 
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.


-- 
glen


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