Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[┣glen┫]

I think I anticipated your backhanded strike. >8^D  I did this with my (badly 
mangled) reference to (and skepticism about) the holographic principle ... or 
behaviorism in psychology ... or hidden markov models ... or state space 
reconstruction methods ... or by any of a huge number of other symbols.

A many to one projection from a complicated space to a simple space 
_facilitates_ shared delusion because it makes the complicated things _seem_ 
similar even though they're not.  That is what explains your shared delusions 
like Shazaam.  It's a mistake to infer that the complicated spaces (the deluded 
people's minds/brains/bodies/culture) are the same just because their 
projections (the things they say and do) are the same.

Although you're invocation of Occam's razor seems appropriate, your assertion 
(similarities in the low dimension space are caused by similarities in the high 
dimension space) is not the simplest explanation at all.  The simplest 
explanation is the one identified in that paper about the fractal dimension of 
Rorcshach blots (still on topic!) and that identified by Lakoff about Trump's 
language.  A medium with low dimension allows the high dimension participants 
to "fill in the gaps".


On 02/23/2017 06:58 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
> I think Robert Wall is nudging close to an idea that he failed to adequately 
> clarify but you may have nailed it while trying to deny it (this I call a 
> backhanded strike). Last week there was a strange article about groups of 
> people having the same memory that have no contact with each other. That 
> shared memory was in fact  demonstrably false. It was regarding a 
> misperceived memory of a TV show called Shazaam and some comedian called 
> Sinbad... My mind retains utter garbage sometimes.
> 
> I never saw it but then it never actually happened. The investigators 
> explained that so many of the false memory components overlapped reality
> that the subjects truly believed some occurrence that was categorically 
> disproved. So a society may well share memories of fictional events and act 
> on delusions ie mobs.

-- 
␦glen?


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Wow! He did Good!

[Gillian Densmore]

So in other words "unducmented workers" People running from Countery X to
State/City Here illegally, working (mostly) for cash doing the burn out
crappy jobs no sane life form should do?
If  Njrodic History serves they did (roughly) the same stuff, and were bad
ass at it.  Correction ARE bad ass at it.
They were their mining making ships, clothes and what have you, one
suposedly was insperation for Rosy the Riviter.

Better question: Why are people acting surprised that treating people
without honor  sooner or later they'll say they've had enough aholery and
jerkness.? oO  Many people on this list were around durring one moment of
that, I here they damn neer burned most, if not all of Los Angeles
California down,
Some of you remember a giant dick who was (justifiably...sort of) frightned
of a  large Slavic nation called russia. His name was McCarthy.  Look how
THAT turned out.

I really hope people got the memo by now: a certain kind of aholery does
unite entire nations...problem for the leaders is tends to be agains them.

Now where's Obiwan and Senator Organa and a beeping android when we need
them.
In my simple mind three things will get us through this flare up of drama
-Joy
-Hope
-Beer
-And being simple.
BY THE FORCE!

As a  (real) concrete example a club I help manage they've made it
abundantly clear many MANY times. Do not make issues, and issue. For
example: do you REALLY care if the dude helping correct a logo or make beer
has a clay colored skin?
If you don't make an issue about that kind of thing, and just enjoy the
beer, food or what ever this kind of crap won't be an issue in the first
place!
By the Force!

Yes some spunky fun people have earth toned skin, many are geeks just like
most of this list, yes some of them roll R's, have lispy, accents, an
american accent is probably just as strange and hard to understand to them,
,,, who cares!.
Some folk you get along others not. Ultimatly were all on the same large
rock with beutiful blue sky and shows only nature can do.
Some folk you click with more than others.
. It's that simple

Now enjoy your day, and contimplate deep profound notions like: Is Energy
theory right that we'll come back? Will the universe explode tomorrow?
Where did I put my clean socks and underwhere? why do my Car keys disopear
just as a robodialer calls?
How many yummy flavors of beer are there?
Can that OTHER Galing densmore make more typos in one email to a list of
retired clever smart geeks?
Well he learn how to type right?
Deer god how many bad jokes can he make?

UFDA!
I sincerly hope everyone has a wonderful and gloriusly fun day!








On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Tom Johnson  wrote:

> "Wider community support" could mean, "Are you prepared to hide people in
> your basement for an extended period of time?"
>
>
> 
> Tom Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> 505.577.6482 <(505)%20577-6482>(c)
> 505.473.9646 <(505)%20473-9646>(h)
> Society of Professional Journalists 
> *Check out It's The People's Data
> *
> http://www.jtjohnson.com   t...@jtjohnson.com
> 
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Merle Lefkoff 
> wrote:
>
>> Nick, I'm not sure what you mean by a "wider community."  Do you mean
>> those who just blah blah and sit on their asses and not take action to
>> respond to what's happening?  The Council chambers were packed last
>> night--standing room only, and hundreds of people standing for hours
>> outside the Council watching on t.v. what was going on inside.  The wider
>> activist community were all there.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Merle,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hence my suggestion that the City may need support from a wider
>>> community sometime in the near future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Merle
>>> Lefkoff
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:19 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Wow! He did Good!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep.  He's a comer.  Check all the boxes:  young, handsome, Hispanic,
>>> gay, ambitious.  I was at the City Council meeting last night about the
>>> Sanctuary City resolutions.  "Sanctuary City" doesn't protect anyone--it's
>>> just a bandaid to make people feel better and less helpless.  ICE can move
>>> in as soon as they have a name.  But what DOES help protect immigrants is
>>> directly connected to the policing issue.  As soon as an undocumented
>>> immigrant is arrested and booked-- there is no way to stop I

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[glen ☣]

Thanks for the link, Jon.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/battlecode-releases-2017/releases/specs-1.6.2.html
> In a race to be the most benevolent, factions must either donate the most to 
> the cause, or destroy anyone more altruistic than they are.

That last part is hilarious.  It reminded me of the libertarian nonsense of 
"effective altruism": http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Effective_altruism ... an 
N-entendre for the word "gaming".

On 02/23/2017 10:29 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> ​Thank you, those responsible for the
> discussion regarding simulation​ and
> the real. Here is a competition currently
> sponsored by MIT where competitors write
> AI to perform automated war: BattleCode .


-- 
☣ glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

>
> It's a mistake to infer that the complicated spaces (the deluded people's
> minds/brains/bodies/culture) are the same just because their projections
> (the things they say and do) are the same.


Yeah, and that is not the same as what I meant for a society being *in the
zone* as a whole, though Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi does initiate his talk
with examples of a kind of mass hysteria brought about by cataclysmic
events when introducing a topic he calls the Optimal Experience.
Presumably, he used mass hysteria for contrast, but I think clumsily
because he doesn't relate an Optimal Experience at the level of society.
The examples of folks who demonstrate the phenomenon he is relating are
individuals like Albert Einstein.  So what is he talking about?  What am I
talking about?  What are y' all talking about?  The symbols seem the same,
but we seem to be talking past one another. It happens ...

Trying to be a bit clearer here and not at all retaliating with any
backhand strike😊, the idea I am nudging forth is one that seems to be rare
even among individuals, nevermind societies. We recognize its occurrence in
the works of others we often describe as geniuses, but that may belie its
true rate of occurrence. It is metaphorically called "Flow."  It's a *positive
*effect and not a hysterical one, which perhaps is the opposite of the
"flow" that Vladimyr describes through historical accounts. I see Flow as
the place to find wisdom, understanding, craft, art, poetry ... not
mayhem.  In his essay *The Question Concerning Technology*, Martin
Heidegger effectively sees Flow as the way to save us from what he calls
technological enframement ... the ultimate sociological delivery system of
debilitating symbolic references. [not saying technology is bad, but that
enframement is a danger].

In a recent discussion about Henri Bergson, the preeminent French
philosopher of the early twentieth century, I came to dwell on some writing
about Bergson's comparing intuition to intellect:

Science promises us well-being, or, at the most, pleasure, but philosophy,
through the Intuition to which it leads us, is capable of bestowing upon us
Joy. The future belongs to such an intuitive philosophy, Bergson holds, for
he considers that the whole progress of Evolution is towards the creation
of a type of being whose Intuition will be equal to his Intelligence.
Finally, by Intuition we shall find ourselves in—to invent a
word—"intunation" with the *élan vital*, with the Evolution of the whole
universe, and this absolute feeling of "at- one-ment" with the universe
will result in that emotional synthesis which is deep Joy, which Wordsworth
* [* *Lines "composed above Tintern Abbey, 1798.**]* describes as:

"that blessed mood
In which the burthen of the mystery,
In which the heavy and the weary weight
Of all this unintelligible world,
Is lightened:—that serene and blessed mood,
In which the affections gently lead us on,—
Until, the breath of this corporeal frame
And even the motion of our human blood
Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
In body, and become a living soul:
While with an eye made quiet by the power
Of harmony and the deep power of joy
We see into the life of things."

"... a type of being whose Intuition will be equal to his Intelligence."
 This is Heidegger with his *Dasein *.
Is it also Nietzsche with his *Übermensch*?

Is the problem with societies that they cannot behold the world intuitively
... without symbols? This *may *be impossible even ... because we humans
are led by the rational ... tainted, of course, by self-interest.  The
rational perspective ultimately leads to the conclusion that the universe
is nothing but a bunch of particles, as it has Steven Weinberg. We relate
to each other mostly symbolically.  To relate on an intuitive level, well
that's called empathy, sympathy, understanding, ... love. None of these
properties can be embraced rationally. They are beyond language.

Bergson insists as well, and correctly I think, that we are often misled by
the imprecision of language, something he doesn't trust as getting things
adequately conveyed to others because language is loaded with, well, *symbolic
reference*. And this leads to a "Tower of Babel" phenomenon at the level of
society as manifest in all social media. The quote I used at the beginning
of this post by Glen is tantamount to saying the same thing ... *complicated
spaces* presumed to be the imperfectly shared sets of symbolic references
we would call worldviews.  Islamaphobia, for one, is not a what I would
call an Optimal Experience. Nor does it approach wisdom on any level.

*A parable*: In concert with the roots of this thread--is *being in the
zone* delusional?--Bergsonian view of this situation may see society as
multiple billion organic simulators crawling the planet, who have evolved
far enough to loosely self-organized into tribes and set up a system of
patterned utterances to communicate within tribal sets 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[glen ☣]

Perhaps you did not see my previous response where I outlined what I think 
exhibit societal states (yes, at the societal layer, as a whole) of being in 
the zone.  If so, could you explain whether you agree or disagree that those 
are examples of what you discuss below?  If you didn't get the email, which 
happens to me often enough, the response is here:

  http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-February/048807.html

To be clear, my refutation of the claim that low-D spaces are similar because 
high-D space are similar was not intended as a referent for your society in the 
zone as a whole.  But I did proffer the examples listed above (e.g. stigmergy) 
as referents.

And when you say "/complicated spaces/ presumed to be the imperfectly shared 
sets of symbolic references we would call worldviews", that is definitely not 
tantamount to the same as what I said.  My refutation was about the 
_presumption_.  The assertion is if P then Q, where P = lowD spaces are similar 
and Q = highD spaces are similar.  I'm not really trying to say anything other 
than not(P=>Q).  If the complicated internal spaces of people do match up or 
are shared in some way, then we need a different way of showing that they are 
shared (perhaps fMRI?).

And to be clear that we're still on topic, whether or not the fractality of 
birds' songs is or can be related to the fractality of their landscapes is a 
question about the soundness of P=>Q and how/whether the similarity of bird 
brains can be established.


On 02/24/2017 10:45 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
> It's a mistake to infer that the complicated spaces (the deluded people's 
> minds/brains/bodies/culture) are the same just because their projections (the 
> things they say and do) are the same.
> 
> 
> Yeah, and that is not the same as what I meant for a society being /in the 
> zone/ as a whole, though Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi does initiate his talk with 
> examples of a kind of mass hysteria brought about by cataclysmic events when 
> introducing a topic he calls the Optimal Experience.  Presumably, he used 
> mass hysteria for contrast, but I think clumsily because he doesn't relate an 
> Optimal Experience at the level of society. The examples of folks who 
> demonstrate the phenomenon he is relating are individuals like Albert 
> Einstein.  So what is he talking about?  What am I talking about?  What are 
> y' all talking about?  The symbols seem the same, but we seem to be talking 
> past one another. It happens ...
> 
> Trying to be a bit clearer here and not at all retaliating with any backhand 
> strike😊, the idea I am nudging forth is one that seems to be rare even among 
> individuals, nevermind societies. We recognize its occurrence in the works of 
> others we often describe as geniuses, but that may belie its true rate of 
> occurrence. It is metaphorically called "Flow."  It's a /positive /effect and 
> not a hysterical one, which perhaps is the opposite of the "flow" that 
> Vladimyr describes through historical accounts. I see Flow as the place to 
> find wisdom, understanding, craft, art, poetry ... not mayhem.  In his essay 
> /The Question Concerning Technology/, Martin Heidegger effectively sees Flow 
> as the way to save us from what he calls technological enframement ... the 
> ultimate sociological delivery system of debilitating symbolic references. 
> [not saying technology is bad, but that enframement is a danger]. 
> 
> In a recent discussion about Henri Bergson, the preeminent French philosopher 
> of the early twentieth century, I came to dwell on some writing about 
> Bergson's comparing intuition to intellect:
> 
> Science promises us well-being, or, at the most, pleasure, but 
> philosophy, through the Intuition to which it leads us, is capable of 
> bestowing upon us Joy. The future belongs to such an intuitive philosophy, 
> Bergson holds, for he considers that the whole progress of Evolution is 
> towards the creation of a type of being whose Intuition will be equal to his 
> Intelligence. Finally, by Intuition we shall find ourselves in—to invent a 
> word—"intunation" with the /élan vital/, with the Evolution of the whole 
> universe, and this absolute feeling of "at- one-ment" with the universe will 
> result in that emotional synthesis which is deep Joy, which Wordsworth* [* 
> /Lines "composed above Tintern Abbey, 1798./*]* describes as:
> 
> "that blessed mood
> In which the burthen of the mystery,
> In which the heavy and the weary weight
> Of all this unintelligible world,
> Is lightened:—that serene and blessed mood,
> In which the affections gently lead us on,—
> Until, the breath of this corporeal frame
> And even the motion of our human blood
> Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
> In body, and become a living soul:
> While with an eye made quiet by the power
> Of harmony and the deep power of joy
> We see into the life of things."
> 
> "... a type of being whose Intuition will be equal to his Intelligence."  
> 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

>
> Anyway, so I disagree with the idea that society, as a group, can't be "in
> the zone". But I believe that the thoughts inside the members of the
> society are not really _shared_ thoughts. The societal groove does not
> depend on isomorphic relationships between the insides of the members'
> heads. (holography again) And the extent to which individuals' grooves map
> to societal grooves is unclear (and probably complex).


I did get your email, and my takeaway of what you said seems to be
summarized in your concluding paragraph above from that post.  Then, to be
constructive at seeking understanding, couple that with the quote I used to
introduce my last post and perhaps we can examine where there is a better
meeting of the minds on the topic of* being in the groove* at the level of
a society.

It's a mistake to infer that the complicated spaces (the deluded people's
> minds/brains/bodies/culture) are the same just because their projections
> (the things they say and do) are the same.


The last quote, to me, says that a group acting toward a common goal in,
say the way an individual in that group would, does *not *imply that the
"symbolic references" used to act rationaly in the world are all in align
or even perhaps in synchopation under an fMRI. YES! I can agree with this.
And I don't think that I disagreed.  Our symbolic references are only how
we have objectified the world since birth.  Even if aligned--highly
unlikely--we have individual free will and intentionality to determine out
behavior.  This can explain how folks sometimes come across knowing how to
appear moral and how to game morality at the same time toward less moral
goals. The Pope recently implied it is better to be an atheist than a a
crappy Christian .
I think he was referring to being committed in mind and action. Apparently,
in his view, this doesn't seem to be happening at the level of society as a
whole.

And I do even agree with you that there are examples of goups that do act
as if with "one mind" and even benevolently.  Market-oriented co-ops are
such a phenomenon, which I discussed in another thread, especially with
Marcus who seemed to see these as an bane to society as unmanaged
enterprises, which they are not. Perspective is sharpened by exposure.  My
company transitionsed to an ESOP, but the intended economic benefit was
eventually corrupted by the management team that used this preferred
organizational form to basically enrich themselves at the expense of what
the ERISA originally intended--cooperative, community-oriented corprorate
behavior.  Stakeholders in the welfare of the community. At the grassroots,
it was enything but a co-operative.  It was a vehicle to enrich the
corporate management. But where it works, it is beautiful.

But I do kind of see where a "meeting of the minds" between us may have
been derailed here about what we each mean concerning *being in the zone*"
at a level of society.  And I fault myself for this in joining the
underlying threaded thoughts late, perhaps, and not being more clear in the
distinctions. It has to do with the phrase "as a whole."  I will use
market-oriented co-ops again as a useful example to make my point a bit
more clear. Cooperatives cannot seem to take root here in this country
[e.g., public banks] because of another blocking cultural, Hayekian meme:
"a free market under capitalism will save us all." This meme has been
forcefully in play for the last thirty-five years with it's high priest
being Milton Friedman and the Chicgo School of Economics.  What have been
the results?

Which of these memes could be equivalent to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's [and
I don't mean to push this guy forward, but only this idea] Optimal
Experience at the level of society as a whole: (1) profit-driven
coorporatism or (2) community-oriented cooperatism?  First off, I am
exclusively talking about the behavioral end that leans toward what is good
for society--the whole tribe, such that the tribe benefits in an
egalitarian sense. Arguably, as a tribe we are not moving in any such
direction. But there are pockets of co-operative behavior like we saw at
Standing Rock.  But, what happened?  The pipe got laid anyway and the
planet weeps. Your take on "effective altruism" is another example, I
think, of how we as a society would rather game the moral landscape to give
the illusion of being "for the people." I really do not mean to be so
pessimistic and my analysis will hopefully bear this out.

What this comes down to is this. To be *in the zone* at the level of a
society as a whole in a similar way as could happen at the level of an
individual--such that we would say there is a Flow characterized as an
Optimal Experience, we would NOT expect there to be an alignment of
symbolic references.  Precisely the opposite, if we are to regard the
thoughts of the many philosophers and linguists on this topic to be wise.
What we would expect instead is th

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[glen ☣]

OK.  Yes, thanks, that helps.  But I do think you disagree with me, only I may 
not have made myself clear enough for you to realize we disagree.  I'll 
interleave in the hopes of making my objections in context.

On 02/24/2017 01:44 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> The last quote, to me, says that a group acting toward a common goal in, say 
> the way an individual in that group would, does *not *imply that the 
> "symbolic references" used to act rationaly in the world are all in align or 
> even perhaps in synchopation under an fMRI. YES! I can agree with this. And I 
> don't think that I disagreed.

But that's not what I'm saying.  Perhaps you're making what I'm saying much 
stronger.  Or perhaps what you're saying is entirely different.  I can't tell 
because you're leaping too far.  I'm only saying that if the stuff that causes 
our behavior is aligned, we need something _other_ than our behavior to 
demonstrate that alignment.  I'm trying to focus on the difference between 
thought and action.  You seem to be conflating that with the difference between 
individuals and groups.

The thought vs. action dichotomy is critical to my rhetoric about individuals 
vs. groups.  But it's more fundamental and must be made before (independently) 
of any rhetoric about individual vs. group.

> And I do even agree with you that there are examples of goups that do act as 
> if with "one mind" and even benevolently.

Again, I don't think I said that.  I don't think even an individual's thoughts 
matter.  (This is why Csikszentmihalyi's concept of "flow" is useless and 
annoying to me.)  It's pure nonsense to talk of mind at all.  So, it's nonsense 
to say that societies act as if with one mind.  But that does not mean they 
can't be "in the zone", because being in the zone has nothing to do with one's 
mind.

> Market-oriented co-ops are such a phenomenon, which I discussed in another 
> thread, especially with Marcus who seemed to see these as an bane to society 
> as unmanaged enterprises, which they are not. Perspective is sharpened by 
> exposure.  My company transitionsed to an ESOP, but the intended economic 
> benefit was eventually corrupted by the management team that used this 
> preferred organizational form to basically enrich themselves at the expense 
> of what the ERISA originally intended--cooperative, community-oriented 
> corprorate behavior.  Stakeholders in the welfare of the community. At the 
> grassroots, it was enything but a co-operative.  It was a vehicle to enrich 
> the corporate management. But where it works, it is beautiful.

If you see these co-ops as technological innovations, then I'd argue that their 
use and ABUSE can both be examples of society being "in the zone".  The same is 
true of the cell phone and space travel.  It's totally irrelevant whether the 
co-ops relate to the beliefs, desires, and intentions of the humans involved 
(if such things exist).  What would matter is the society's beliefs, desires, 
and intentions (if such exists).  The only stakeholder is society.  The 
individuals are as expendable as sand, or fossil fuel, or bacteria.

> But I do kind of see where a "meeting of the minds" between us may have been 
> derailed here about what we each mean concerning /being in the zone/" at a 
> level of society.  And I fault myself for this in joining the underlying 
> threaded thoughts late, perhaps, and not being more clear in the 
> distinctions. It has to do with the phrase "as a whole."  I will use 
> market-oriented co-ops again as a useful example to make my point a bit more 
> clear. Cooperatives cannot seem to take root here in this country [e.g., 
> public banks] because of another blocking cultural, Hayekian meme: "a free 
> market under capitalism will save us all." This meme has been forcefully in 
> play for the last thirty-five years with it's high priest being Milton 
> Friedman and the Chicgo School of Economics.  What have been the results?

No worries about joining late or miscomm. or anything.  That's why we're here.  
But I disagree about _why_ co-ops can't take root.  A) They have taken root ... 
at least up here in the PacNW.  But B) any inability to take root has nothing 
to do with shared ideologies like that from Hayek or whoever.  They fail to 
take root because of _behavior_, not thought/ideas.

> Which of these memes could be equivalent to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's [and I 
> don't mean to push this guy forward, but only this idea] Optimal Experience 
> at the level of society as a whole: (1) profit-driven coorporatism or (2) 
> community-oriented cooperatism?  First off, I am exclusively talking about 
> the behavioral end that leans toward what is good for society--the whole 
> tribe, such that the tribe benefits in an egalitarian sense. Arguably, as a 
> tribe we are not moving in any such direction. But there are pockets of 
> co-operative behavior like we saw at Standing Rock.  But, what happened?  The 
> pipe got laid anyway and the planet w

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Gentlemen and audience,

The tempest ( Glen) and the captain of a small vessel (Robert) lashed to the 
mast. Are not in any form of disagreement by their own admissions.
OK, from my vantage point in the cold inhospitable North Lands , I sense a 
salient exchange of cannon fire.

Let's look at events Robert Wall introduced a novel idea Flow affecting 
individuals.
Vladimyr suggested that the description of Flow might be extended to Society or 
Social Groups. And that multiple low dimensional view points could recover 
higher dimensional realities.

Glen strongly protests this assertion.
Robert got backhanded when Glen denied that  Flow could be extended from the 
original individual to a group of individuals. I don't think Robert knew it was 
coming. If I am asked to judge this I will 
accuse Vladimyr of Meddling give points to Glen and a yellow flag for bending 
the rules of discourse. The two remain at the same point score and Vladimyr was 
told to leave the arena or shut up and just watch.
So complying with the judges warning...

he goes into the recesses of the internet and presents a coup against one of 
Glen's points about low and high dimensionality. 
This was a past attempt to compile two or more complex ideas into his personal 
self study device having no external value until Glen's position was declared.
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkxz3QBcDOoGZ2Lop
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237&id=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212460&parId=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212223&o=OneUp
both links to same site. It demonstrates Geometric Projection as a tool 
developed by early Renaissance Artists.


Next Vladimyr will demonstrate a complex system reduced to a lower dimension 
raising a point suggesting that complex ideas may be reduced to simple but 
dynamic neural structures and shared with other minds as memes.
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237&id=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212236&parId=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212223&o=OneUp
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkTzqvvk6JnRRFJX2
again both links to same display.
Vladimyr is trying to demonstrate the imminent feasibility of mapping complex 
ideas from higher dimensions  into lower dimensions that all humans do daily.
This process of mapping to neural networks is a new area of science. Currently 
being investigated by Dr. Kate Jeffery here is an essay from Aeon
https://aeon.co/essays/how-cognitive-maps-help-animals-navigate-the-world?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6652cf6dd1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6652cf6dd1-69341065

So complexity can be represented in lower dimensions as human beings do so all 
the time. Maps from lower dimensions can be re-constructed to display higher 
dimensionality admittedly subject to losses known or unknown depending on 
protocol.  Back and forth.
But Glen and all of us now must shift discussion to protocols and measures of 
veracity.

So where does this leave Robert Wall, relax sir , you may feel blasted but you 
are in a congregation and Flow is a useful symbol but needs more deliberation.
I have read your links for hours and rankle at the looseness of the pertinent 
details I wish for more at a neurological level. 
And just what does a detachment from moral restrictions mean when like many 
misanthropes ,  I think they never existed in the first place.

Perhaps society shapes our young brains and only the obstreperous, 
misanthropic, autotelic, defiant bewhiskered cranks  act as contradictory 
forces. Are we contributing to a renormalization of society? or simply amusing 
ourselves in our twilight years.
the next Bell clang starts a new round of intellectual pugilism 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_boxing
Well Robert do you actually think the Flow is always positive, melodious or 
beneficent...
Joy has taken on a kind of Christian mantle and now dissociates itself from the 
Joys of victory or triumph. I recall Obama's announcement of bin Laden's 
assassination and the explosion of unrestrained American Joy

Flow is probably best described with multiple orders of derivatives within the 
human minds. Let's work on this .



vib


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: February-24-17 4:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs


OK.  Yes, thanks, that helps.  But I do think you disagree with me, only I may 
not have made myself clear enough for you to realize we disagree.  I'll 
interleave in the hopes of making my objections in context.

On 02/24/2017 01:44 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> The last quote, to me, says that a group acting toward a common goal in, say 
> the way an individual in that group would, does *not *imply that the 
> "symbolic references" used to act rationaly in the world are all in align or 
> even perhaps in synchopation under an fMRI. YES! I can agree with this. And I 
> don't think that I disagreed.

But that's not what I'm saying.

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

>
>  (This is why Csikszentmihalyi's concept of "flow" is useless and annoying
> to me.)  It's pure nonsense to talk of mind at all.  So, it's nonsense to
> say that societies act as if with one mind.


Wow!  Try to be consistent at least.  Eh?  Who is saying that except you
with your previous groupthink examples?  Not me. That was my point.  They
can't.  The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral
manifestation. Yes?

And, you seem to be easily annoyed and this is just one example with this
latest load of shit you have dropped on my attempt to explain.  I notice
that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense" [usually with the
adjective *utter *] a lot when you post replies.  Not sure if you mean to
be insulting or annoying, but you achieved it here this time. Another
backhand strike? So, you lost me half way through this reply. A sense of
hopelessness set in very early.

In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually make
my point.  Thanks!  Language can be a problem.  Symbolic reference.
Imprecision. But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try
to) understand anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand
anything you have said in as much as I have tried.  And I am not sure it is
because of the imprecision of language, though. It is something else that
leads you to just find disagreement.  As often said, it is much easier to
sound smart by tearing something down than to constructively build on
something. Maybe that applies here.  Not sure. Hope not.

Just taking the example of my "superseding the animal," I am talking about
superseding our "animal nature" and not talking about our distinctiveness
with other animals in terms of accomplishments or anything else like that.
How did you come up with that?!  I thought the context would have made what
I was saying abundantly clear.

Actually, in this, humans are both the same and distinctive from other
animals, but not in the way you counter, which is arguably a non-sequitur.
This from* Psychology Today*: Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in
Animal Nature

 (2016):

The big take-home message is that the emotional drives and instincts of
> humans and other animals are remarkably similar. Where things become very
> different -- and we have to admit that modern humans live very differently
> than other animals -- is when those drives and instincts interact with the
> social environment  to
> create behavior. Since humans have an exceedingly complex cultural history
> that is additive over the generations, that is a very different social
> milieu in which our drives give rise to behaviors. But the drives
> themselves are not so different.


So my bringing other animals into the discussion could be considered an
insult to all other animals.  Yes, we are actually distinctive, but to my
point, in our behavioral differences with these other animals. Animals are
incapable of evilness in the same way that we say humans can be evil. I am
sure, for example, that the author of the article titled "Man's more
enlightened, Human Nature versus our "more animal than human nature
" would
have understood what I was talking about in the context of this discussion
(it's not difficult to find other examples of others wondering how to get
society to stop shitting in their nest, so to speak.  And, we are arguably
approaching a time where we need an answer.):

Why is the world in such a terrible state, with so much crime, corruption,
> violence, injustice, material and spiritual poverty, and in general such a
> shameful testament to man's capacity for evil, indifference and stupidity?
> Notwithstanding that many of us - for the moment, at least - lead such
> pleasant and privileged lives.
>


> Things were no better in the past either; in many ways they were even
> worse (not for the privileged few, perhaps, as now, but certainly for the
> majority). The history of "civilisation", from its very beginnings to the
> present, not withstanding its great achievements, has largely been the
> history of violent conflict, injustice and of man's inhumanity towards and
> exploitation of his fellow man.



>
> Having an answer to this most important (and vital) of questions is
> essential if we are to meet man's most pressing challenge: the creation of
> diverse, just, humane, peaceful and *sustainable* human societies on our
> finite and vulnerable planet, *Spaceship Earth*.



> The answer, in fact, has been staring us in the face for more than 100
> years: since the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and
> the scientific recognition of man's animal origins. Although lip service is
> paid to this most profound piece of scientific knowledge, for all
> practical, po

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Carl Tollander]

Hell hath no fury as those who presume to speak for another...

On Feb 23, 2017 11:29 PM, "Nick Thompson" 
wrote:

> All—
>
>
>
> If you want to find the Dylan Roof key on your own emotional piano, think
> about the last time you indulged yourself in road rage.  According to one
> kind of evolutionary psychology, road rage is an instance of "altruistic
> punishment".  Altruistic punishment is selected at the group level.  When
> in that groove, we are so possessed that we are *willing to risk our own
> lives to support the norms of our perceived in-group*.
>
>
>
> Altruistic rage is by far the most dangerous emotion we experience.  Not
> how Trump works tirelessly to create the conditions that will foster it.
> Every genocide is preceded by “conditioning” to suppose that it is our
> highest duty to defend our values against those who do not share them.
>
> Nick Thompson
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
> Burachynsky
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 7:59 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
>
>
> Glen,
>
>
>
> I think Robert Wall is nudging close to an idea that he failed to
> adequately clarify but you may have nailed it while trying to deny it (this
> I call a backhanded strike). Last week there was a strange article about
> groups of people having the same memory that have no contact with each
> other. That shared memory was in fact  demonstrably false. It was regarding
> a misperceived memory of a TV show called Shazaam and some comedian called
> Sinbad... My mind retains utter garbage sometimes.
>
>
>
> I never saw it but then it never actually happened. The investigators
> explained that so many of the false memory components overlapped reality
> that the subjects truly believed some occurrence that was categorically
> disproved. So a society may well share memories of fictional events and act
> on delusions ie mobs.
>
>
>
> If an individual may fall into a groove then how else can mass insanity be
> better explained. I always recall that in history strange things happen on
> mass scale. For instance during the heated animosity between the Greeks and
> Latins a feud broke out over religious icons. West was Iconophilic and the
> east was Iconoclastic. The Latins were so pissed they assembled an armada
> in Rimini or Ravenna and sailed this monstrosity down the Adriatic to
> defend the faith. Somewhere between Brindisi and Corfu the greatest
> historical storm destroyed the entire fleet of ships sparing Byzantium a
> certain defeat. So Leo made a few compromises and things sort of settled
> down but then another group of serious iconoclasts  made trouble the
> Paulicians. Then the Muslims came along and the world is still fractured in
> many ways. It always struck me as the height of insanity to go to war over
> Symbols and I think Monty Python once made a skit out of crusaders and
> muslims beating the crap out of each other with religious banners and
> gilded reliquaries. While the armed knights and Saracens looked on in
> amazement. Whether this ever happened , I do not know, but can guess.
> Perhaps " the groove" has a darkside a suicidal aspect, such as the Battle
> of Gallipoli, as well as the neutral individual features we love to discuss
> openly.
>
>
>
> I always suspected that Hatred is transmitted from mothers to children as
> is influenza propagation. I recall some very strange conversations between
> my German Mother and Ukrainian Aunt that bordered on the rabid hatred of
> mad dogs. Then they just continued serving Christmas dinner in total
> silence,  when the men returned to the dinner table. My Uncle a  devout
> Catholic and former Ukrainian Cavalry Officer would think nothing of
> Beheading Russians long after he was defeated in the 1920's. Indeed he was
> otherwise a rational Civil Engineer with a penchant for Botany but he hated
> anything that sounded affiliated with Russia or Eastern Orthodoxy. I could
> never tell the difference except for the slanted foot support on the
> crucifix. Hardly enough reason for bloodshed.
>
>
>
> But Dylan Rouffe and Alexandre Bisonette slaughtered  defenseless
> congregations and showed no shame nor regret. They may be said to have been
> proud  of what they did. Anders Brevijk may well have been in a dark trench
> at the time of his methodical depredations of children, again no shame. No
> one mentions that that slaughter by a single man exceeded anything in the
> Old Testament perhaps a Cuiness World Record. Populism may well be a filthy
> outpouring of bottled up hatred. And the perverted demagogues revel in the
> delusion that they can manipulate it to their personal benefits.
>
>
>
> It is not a welc

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Nick Thompson]

Speaking for the audience ... 

Or at least one member, thereof.   I have not understood a word any of you guys 
have said since I introduced the thread a week or so ago.  That's Ok.  That's 
great, in fact.  It's the nature of the FRIAM beast.  I love it when you 
experts go crazy on this list.

So long as you go NICE crazy.   If you are going to get grumpy, you can't do it 
on my thread.Ok? 

A point of this thread was to introduce  Alberto to FRIAM.  He should know we 
don't DO grumpy, here. (We really don't, A.)  No apologies necessary.   Just 
stop. 

As a fellow madman, I love you like brothers.  

Thanks, 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 7:49 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Gentlemen and audience,

The tempest ( Glen) and the captain of a small vessel (Robert) lashed to the 
mast. Are not in any form of disagreement by their own admissions.
OK, from my vantage point in the cold inhospitable North Lands , I sense a 
salient exchange of cannon fire.

Let's look at events Robert Wall introduced a novel idea Flow affecting 
individuals.
Vladimyr suggested that the description of Flow might be extended to Society or 
Social Groups. And that multiple low dimensional view points could recover 
higher dimensional realities.

Glen strongly protests this assertion.
Robert got backhanded when Glen denied that  Flow could be extended from the 
original individual to a group of individuals. I don't think Robert knew it was 
coming. If I am asked to judge this I will accuse Vladimyr of Meddling give 
points to Glen and a yellow flag for bending the rules of discourse. The two 
remain at the same point score and Vladimyr was told to leave the arena or shut 
up and just watch.
So complying with the judges warning...

he goes into the recesses of the internet and presents a coup against one of 
Glen's points about low and high dimensionality. 
This was a past attempt to compile two or more complex ideas into his personal 
self study device having no external value until Glen's position was declared.
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkxz3QBcDOoGZ2Lop
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237&id=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212460&parId=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212223&o=OneUp
both links to same site. It demonstrates Geometric Projection as a tool 
developed by early Renaissance Artists.


Next Vladimyr will demonstrate a complex system reduced to a lower dimension 
raising a point suggesting that complex ideas may be reduced to simple but 
dynamic neural structures and shared with other minds as memes.
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237&id=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212236&parId=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212223&o=OneUp
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkTzqvvk6JnRRFJX2
again both links to same display.
Vladimyr is trying to demonstrate the imminent feasibility of mapping complex 
ideas from higher dimensions  into lower dimensions that all humans do daily.
This process of mapping to neural networks is a new area of science. Currently 
being investigated by Dr. Kate Jeffery here is an essay from Aeon
https://aeon.co/essays/how-cognitive-maps-help-animals-navigate-the-world?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6652cf6dd1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6652cf6dd1-69341065

So complexity can be represented in lower dimensions as human beings do so all 
the time. Maps from lower dimensions can be re-constructed to display higher 
dimensionality admittedly subject to losses known or unknown depending on 
protocol.  Back and forth.
But Glen and all of us now must shift discussion to protocols and measures of 
veracity.

So where does this leave Robert Wall, relax sir , you may feel blasted but you 
are in a congregation and Flow is a useful symbol but needs more deliberation.
I have read your links for hours and rankle at the looseness of the pertinent 
details I wish for more at a neurological level. 
And just what does a detachment from moral restrictions mean when like many 
misanthropes ,  I think they never existed in the first place.

Perhaps society shapes our young brains and only the obstreperous, 
misanthropic, autotelic, defiant bewhiskered cranks  act as contradictory 
forces. Are we contributing to a renormalization of society? or simply amusing 
ourselves in our twilight years.
the next Bell clang starts a new round of intellectual pugilism 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_boxing
Well Robert do you actually think the Flow is always positive, melodious or 
beneficent...
Joy has taken on a kind of Christian mantle and now dissociates itself from the 
Joys of victory or triumph. I recall Obama's announcement of bin Laden's 
assassination and the