Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Steven A Smith]

Marcus -

Thanks for that deep dive into the (lack of) structure of Trump's 
bombast.   I'm not sure that the 39% (number varies) of his base are 
simply deplorable breadth-never parsers, though it would seem they would 
have to be to not trip over his rhetoric.   Some (maybe even members of 
this list?) may support him as "the Great Disruptor" while seeing 
entirely through his very poorly crafted rhetoric?


More importantly to me, is the effect it has on the larger population, 
on the norms and expectations of voters/citizens and other political 
operators.    I'd like to think of Trump as one big fat ugly dose of 
live-vaccine which has put the country into a harsh reaction which will 
ultimately leave it with some immunity to his particular style of 
whackadoodlery.   On the other hand, we may sustain systemic damage that 
leaves this country lamed until our eventual and inevitable demise (as a 
country/culture/???).


- Steve

PS  does anyone know what this rough 39% figure is *of*?  Is it 39% of 
citizens, eligible voters, voters in the last election, poll 
subjects(whose?)?   I'm not even sure where I get the number, it seems 
to be the most common number thrown around in many situations  
Sometimes it is a round 40% and I think sometimes more like 37%... but 
it doesn't seem to have varied much for quite a while.  Seems like it 
may be more apocryphal than real?



On 1/9/19 12:49 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


Steve writes:

< I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he 
operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% 
stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to 
match his.  It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most 
significant for helping us understand how much of our government 
operates on norms and a shared vocabulary.   He de(re?)constructs 
those with virtually every tweet. >


Deconstructing a complex predicate involves taking out sub-predicates 
and sub-sub predicates and examining all of the facts that cause each 
predicate to hold or not.    Trump’s `leadership’ involves ripping out 
the top level predicates and simply defining sub-predicates to hold or 
not depending on his impulses at that minute of the day.   Yes, it is 
his correct recognition that humans, especially the deplorables, 
aren’t very good with depth first search.   He’s got a depth cutoff of 
about 1, as do they.


Marcus



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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Who knew a good Coors head could make this shutdown hillarius

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

Thanks for the GoogleFu help/instruction.   You have a good kit of go-to 
sources that I'm only hit or miss with, like OpenSecrets.org.


Tugging the threads you offered a little further, I was surprised to 
find that he is on the board of the World Affairs Council of America and 
former chairman of the San Antonio Branch.  I had never even heard of 
them, and the little bit of continued tugging suggests they are pretty 
neutral/non-partisan and *seem* to be honest players.   Unfortunately 
lots of people in this contemporary media-savvy culture seem to be able 
to present as non-partisan when they really aren't even close.   For 
example, I'd heard of Prager University before they started polluting my 
YouTube experience with their high production quality, seemingly 
progressive or at least not radical-right messaging which always 
devolves into some kind of devious right-wingnut twisting of the ideas 
being presented.   It doesn't take much searching around for find 
criticism of them, however, I could not find any description of this 
World Affairs Council that addressed how well they act out their 
non-partisanship.


I'm wondering if anyone here is familiar with them?   It is a mostly 
casual curiosity on my part, lead there by my maunderings about whether 
I'm supporting right-wing whackos with my beer $$ (when I buy Shiner).


- Steve

On 1/9/19 12:37 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

Just a little googly:

   http://www.gambrinus.com/brands.html
   https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?employ=Gambrinus
   https://www.frostbank.com/leadership/carlos-alvarez

FWIW, I drink Bridgeport all the time, regardless that I'm sending my money to 
TX.  (I'm also sending some of that money to the few employees here in Portland 
that I know work there.)  And I don't think Alvarez is a virulent type of 
Republican.  So, there's that, I guess.

On 1/9/19 11:05 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Thanks a LOT Gil/Glen, NOW I'm thirsty for beer, and have been since I read it 
soon after you posted.

Good writing & delivery as you noted, would we call this some kind of Beer 
Rebus?

I do love the craft brew movement, but have to admit that my fridge has the 
remnants of a Shiner variety pack in it.  I do love me the Alien Amber, but 
only on tap... with Shiner Bock being my best substitute in a bottle.  I feel a 
tad guilty every time I buy a 12 of Shiner, what being it a product of the 
nominally uber-conservative state of Texas.  Of course, I have not a clue of 
the politics of the people making money from it's sale.  I do try to align my 
purchases (especially luxury goods) with my belief systems (if not outright 
politics) but it is surprising how often I realize I've lapsed in that 
awareness.



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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Steve Smith wrote:

 

I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics 
of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated 
(but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   It seems that in the attempt 
to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject 
that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we 
roam, colliding occasionally here and there.

Right, Steve.

 

I wouldn’t have it any other way.  It is one of the few places on earth where, 
fwiw, people are struggling with the problem.  Fighting the good fight against 
semantic hegemony.

 

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 





Nick writes:

 

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

 

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again.  
 (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)Doing so 
constrains what can even be said.   It puts the skeptic in the position of 
having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like  

 smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the 
definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto 
definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) 
expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having 
some power base, or safe space, to work from.  

I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from 
his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his 
seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his.   That seems to 
be roughly Kellyanne's and Sarah's only role (and skill?), helping those who 
want to keep their dictionaries up to date with his shifting use of terms and 
concepts up to date.   

It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping 
us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared 
vocabulary.   He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet.   While I 
find it quite disturbing on many levels, I also find it fascinating.   I've 
never been one to take the media or politicians very seriously, but he has 
demonstrated quite thoroughly why one not only shouldn't but ultimately *can't*.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that 
distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that (accused / 
implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a 
credible set.  Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill 
and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other 
co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization 
you are suggesting.

I took Nick's point to be that the Metaphors that those among us who spend a 
significant amount of time writing (or desiging) computer systems is alien to 
him, and that despite making an attempt when he first came here to develop the 
skills (and therefore the culture), he feels he has failed and the lingua 
franca of computer (types, geeks, ???) is foreign to him.   Here on FriAM, I 
feel we speak a very rough Pidgen (not quite developed enough to be a proper 
Creole?) admixture of computer-geek, physics, sociology, psychology, 
linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, hard-science-other-than physics, etc. 

I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics 
of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated 
(but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   It seems that in the attempt 
to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject 
that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we 
roam, colliding occasionally here and there.

- Sieve

 






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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


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
archives back to 2003: 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Ha!  Unless you consider all that philosophy he's polluted his mind with. >8^D  
(JK, of course.)

On 1/9/19 3:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Good news, your mind hasn’t been damaged by the popular programming languages.
> 
> http://learnyouahaskell.com/

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Good news, your mind hasn’t been damaged by the popular programming languages.

http://learnyouahaskell.com/

From: Friam  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 3:56 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Hi, Marcus,

This is the kind of comment that makes me which I knew more about … um … what 
it is you do.  I get these intimations that your experience might be very 
useful to philosophical cogitations if only I could share it.

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something 
is real into a three valued assertion including point of view.  >

Confounding variables, like your example with Simpson’s Paradox.   In 
functional programming, the life history of said person’s evolving point of 
view might live in a monad (a big object).   Every assertion could be bind 
inside the monad and access private information.   Sometimes the assertions 
would fail, but it would fail in a subjective way.

Marcus

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Marcus, 

 

This is the kind of comment that makes me which I knew more about … um … what 
it is you do.  I get these intimations that your experience might be very 
useful to philosophical cogitations if only I could share it. 

 

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Nick writes:

 

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something 
is real into a three valued assertion including point of view.  >

 

Confounding variables, like your example with Simpson’s Paradox.   In 
functional programming, the life history of said person’s evolving point of 
view might live in a monad (a big object).   Every assertion could be bind 
inside the monad and access private information.   Sometimes the assertions 
would fail, but it would fail in a subjective way.  

 

Marcus 


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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

What famous philosopher once said:

 

“It depends on what the definition of “is” is.”

 

N

 

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:31 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

 

Nick, no so much ...

 

 ... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as charged. 
Everything is the fault of that pesky verb "to be," as Korzibski warned us.

 

davew

 

 

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Uh-Oh.  Dave’s on the case.  I am in DEEP trouble here.

 

Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things are 
“unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere matters of the 
mind.In other words, can one be a monist realist? 

 

I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position. 

 

However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on the notion 
of the real to challenge realism.  You assert that there is something that is 
the customs of that tribe, that there is some that those customs define as man 
and woman, and that those customs are so demanding … so real … that they 
require some men to adopt part of the role of women to serve other men.  Yes I 
am the pot calling the kettle black.

 

To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess.  One solution I am 
exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three 
valued assertion including point of view.  If you come stand where I am 
standing, you will see what I see. That you can see what I see from where I 
stand is The Real.   

 

I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me.   In his family 
resemblance model there needs only to be a network of associations but no 
constant in that network that anchors it and keeps it from drifting off. 

 

My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.

Why did she get mad?

Because she says the nails scratch the table.

So, why don’t you trim the nails?

Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled. 

Why do you call your shoes “dogs”?  I thought they were quite handsome.

Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and reliable and 
trustworthy.   Best shoes I ever had.

Dogged?

Right

Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?

Yeah, doggone it.

And so on. 

 

I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign theory, but I 
have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I might.  I am not even sure 
there is a there there.  I.e., not sure that there is a real thing called 
Peirce’s Sign Theory. 

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM
To: friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

 

Aww Nick,

 

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

 

Real? 

Real, as in dualist metaphysics?

Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to behave 
in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled category is real?

 

About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently struck down 
this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining state where this is 
true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer" was a minor felony. This 
despite the fact that universities in those states issued hundreds if not 
thousands of diplomas reading software engineering. The activities typically 
associated with 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were 
being practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was 
first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software engineering 
first coined in 1968.]]

 

Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of the 
FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux had a 
term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while providing 
sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex with spouse taboo. 
And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not afflicted with the need 
to disambiguate absolutely everything.]

 

Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not 
completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is not not 
constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am thinking here of 
biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of categories replaced with 
DNA-based categories, being 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Prof David West]

Nick, no so much ...

 ... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as
 charged. Everything is the fault of that pesky verb "to be," as
 Korzibski warned us.
davew


On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Uh-Oh.  Dave’s on the case.  I am in DEEP trouble here.


>  


> Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things
> are “unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere
> matters of the mind.In other words, can one be a monist realist?>  


> I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position. 


>  


> However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on
> the notion of the real to challenge realism.  You assert that there
> is something that is the customs of that tribe, that there is some
> that those customs define as man and woman, and that those customs
> are so demanding … so real … that they require some men to adopt part
> of the role of women to serve other men.  Yes I am the pot calling
> the kettle black.>  


> To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess.  One solution
> I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is
> real into a three valued assertion including point of view.  If you
> come stand where I am standing, you will see what I see. That you can
> see what I see from where I stand is The Real.>  


> I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me.   In his
> family resemblance model there needs only to be a network of
> associations but no constant in that network that anchors it and keeps
> it from drifting off.>  


> *My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.*


> *Why did she get mad?*


> *Because she says the nails scratch the table.*


> *So, why don’t you trim the nails?*


> *Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled. *


> *Why do you call your shoes “dogs”?  I thought they were quite
> handsome.*> *Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and 
> reliable
> and trustworthy.   Best shoes I ever had.*> *Dogged?*


> *Right*


> *Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?*


> *Yeah, doggone it.*


> And so on. 


>  


> I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign
> theory, but I have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I
> might.  I am not even sure there is a there there.  I.e., not sure
> that there is a real thing called Peirce’s Sign Theory.> 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 *Prof
> David West *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM *To:*
> friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction>  


>  


> Aww Nick,


>  


> Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."


>  


> Real? 


> Real, as in dualist metaphysics?


> Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to
> behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled
> category is real?>  


> About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently
> struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining
> state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software
> engineer" was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities
> in those states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading
> software engineering. The activities typically associated with
> 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were being
> practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering"
> was first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 -
> software engineering first coined in 1968.]]>  


> Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most
> of the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The
> Sioux had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women
> while providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-
> partum sex with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other
> cultures not afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely
> everything.]>  


> Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is
> not completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category
> that is not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information?
> (I am thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy
> of categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned
> and on the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA
> can be.)>  


> Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"


>  


> When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above
> being an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems
> to me that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised
> expression of xenophobia.>  


> 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

In my mind, the distinction is important between an assertion failing 
subjectively and objectively.   An assertion could fail for sound reasons in a 
subjective way, but not be transparent.  A Trump voter who wants to Cause harm 
to Washington might have some private theory of how the harm would unfold and 
why it would be a Good Thing.  Alternatively, they could just be acting in some 
vague emotional way based on feelings of alienation or humiliation or fear.
In contrast, an assertion could fail outside of the monad, amongst a set of 
types shared by many agents.   And by virtue of being instances of shared 
types, the utterances at some level are all self-consistent.I am skeptical 
that a point of view can be turned into an artifact and shared in all cases.   
It’s a best-effort thing even among willing participants, and many participants 
(maybe all) will not be able to accurately reflect on themselves.

From: Friam  on behalf of Marcus Daniels 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something 
is real into a three valued assertion including point of view.  >

Confounding variables, like your example with Simpson’s Paradox.   In 
functional programming, the life history of said person’s evolving point of 
view might live in a monad (a big object).   Every assertion could be bind 
inside the monad and access private information.   Sometimes the assertions 
would fail, but it would fail in a subjective way.

Marcus

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something 
is real into a three valued assertion including point of view.  >

Confounding variables, like your example with Simpson’s Paradox.   In 
functional programming, the life history of said person’s evolving point of 
view might live in a monad (a big object).   Every assertion could be bind 
inside the monad and access private information.   Sometimes the assertions 
would fail, but it would fail in a subjective way.

Marcus

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Uh-Oh.  Dave’s on the case.  I am in DEEP trouble here. 

 

Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things are 
“unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere matters of the 
mind.In other words, can one be a monist realist?  

 

I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position.  

 

However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on the notion 
of the real to challenge realism.  You assert that there is something that is 
the customs of that tribe, that there is some that those customs define as man 
and woman, and that those customs are so demanding … so real … that they 
require some men to adopt part of the role of women to serve other men.  Yes I 
am the pot calling the kettle black.

 

To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess.  One solution I am 
exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three 
valued assertion including point of view.  If you come stand where I am 
standing, you will see what I see. That you can see what I see from where I 
stand is The Real.   

 

I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me.   In his family 
resemblance model there needs only to be a network of associations but no 
constant in that network that anchors it and keeps it from drifting off.  

 

My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.

Why did she get mad?

Because she says the nails scratch the table.

So, why don’t you trim the nails?

Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled.  

Why do you call your shoes “dogs”?  I thought they were quite handsome.

Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and reliable and 
trustworthy.   Best shoes I ever had. 

Dogged?

Right

Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out? 

Yeah, doggone it. 

And so on.  

 

I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign theory, but I 
have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I might.  I am not even sure 
there is a there there.  I.e., not sure that there is a real thing called 
Peirce’s Sign Theory.  

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

 

Aww Nick,

 

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

 

Real? 

Real, as in dualist metaphysics?

Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to behave 
in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled category is real?

 

About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently struck down 
this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining state where this is 
true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer" was a minor felony. This 
despite the fact that universities in those states issued hundreds if not 
thousands of diplomas reading software engineering. The activities typically 
associated with 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were 
being practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was 
first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software engineering 
first coined in 1968.]]

 

Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of the 
FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux had a 
term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while providing 
sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex with spouse taboo. 
And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not afflicted with the need 
to disambiguate absolutely everything.]

 

Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not 
completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is not not 
constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am thinking here of 
biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of categories replaced with 
DNA-based categories, being questioned and on the verge of re-definition as we 
recognize how "muddled" DNA can be.)

 

Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

 

When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above being an 
expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems to me that 
categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised expression of 
xenophobia.

 

davew

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Nick writes:

 

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

 

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again.  
 (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)Doing so 
constrains what can even be said.   It puts the skeptic in the 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Steve writes:

< I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates 
from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of 
his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his.  It has been 
noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us 
understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared 
vocabulary.   He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet. >

Deconstructing a complex predicate involves taking out sub-predicates and 
sub-sub predicates and examining all of the facts that cause each predicate to 
hold or not.Trump’s `leadership’ involves ripping out the top level 
predicates and simply defining sub-predicates to hold or not depending on his 
impulses at that minute of the day.   Yes, it is his correct recognition that 
humans, especially the deplorables, aren’t very good with depth first search.   
He’s got a depth cutoff of about 1, as do they.

Marcus

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Who knew a good Coors head could make this shutdown hillarius

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Just a little googly:

  http://www.gambrinus.com/brands.html
  https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?employ=Gambrinus
  https://www.frostbank.com/leadership/carlos-alvarez

FWIW, I drink Bridgeport all the time, regardless that I'm sending my money to 
TX.  (I'm also sending some of that money to the few employees here in Portland 
that I know work there.)  And I don't think Alvarez is a virulent type of 
Republican.  So, there's that, I guess.

On 1/9/19 11:05 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Thanks a LOT Gil/Glen, NOW I'm thirsty for beer, and have been since I read 
> it soon after you posted.
> 
> Good writing & delivery as you noted, would we call this some kind of Beer 
> Rebus?
> 
> I do love the craft brew movement, but have to admit that my fridge has the 
> remnants of a Shiner variety pack in it.  I do love me the Alien Amber, but 
> only on tap... with Shiner Bock being my best substitute in a bottle.  I feel 
> a tad guilty every time I buy a 12 of Shiner, what being it a product of the 
> nominally uber-conservative state of Texas.  Of course, I have not a clue of 
> the politics of the people making money from it's sale.  I do try to align my 
> purchases (especially luxury goods) with my belief systems (if not outright 
> politics) but it is surprising how often I realize I've lapsed in that 
> awareness.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Thank you, Marcus, 

 

Good wrapup!

 

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Nick writes:

 

< Writing … taking positions and pushing them until they break … is for me just 
about the best part of being alive >

 

Terri Gross 

  contrasts the difference between “What do you do for work?” and “Tell me 
about yourself.”

The first question is an expectation of conformity, the second is open ended.  
(And that Glen has the presence of mind to redirect by choosing a generally 
ambiguous term, simulant and define it for them on the fly.)   People that pose 
questions like the first one, or go on to draw conclusions like that engineers 
are one way and poets are another, or that software engineers are non-existent 
(laugh), are being pushy, accusative, and in my view trying to assert a sort of 
social dominance.   Thus they may perceive some pushback from me resembling 
STFU.   Yes, as you say it is different when there is a reasonable expectation 
of good faith debate where everything is on the table, including dogs.   Things 
get more like fighting and less like playing when there is not good faith, as 
there is no obligation to declare intentions or to maintain any kind of 
continuity.   I’d argue the distinction between fighting and playing for dogs 
is not so categorical either, but somewhat quantifiable by the power diverted 
to the jaw.  This is the general case – the world is a political place.   

 

Marcus  


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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Steven A Smith]

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[)>

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public 
dictionary again.   (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go 
example.)    Doing so constrains what can even be *said*.   It puts 
the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single 
term, and thus be a called terms like smartass 
 
when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the 
definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of 
de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. 
racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question these 
expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work 
from.


I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he 
operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% 
stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to 
match his.   That seems to be roughly Kellyanne's and Sarah's only role 
(and skill?), helping those who want to keep their dictionaries up to 
date with his shifting use of terms and concepts up to date.


It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for 
helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a 
shared vocabulary.   He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every 
tweet.   While I find it quite disturbing on many levels, I also find it 
fascinating.   I've never been one to take the media or politicians very 
seriously, but he has demonstrated quite thoroughly why one not only 
shouldn't but ultimately *can't*.


In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers 
and that distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that 
(accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that 
it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of 
such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as 
well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is 
already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.


I took Nick's point to be that the Metaphors that those among us who 
spend a significant amount of time writing (or desiging) computer 
systems is alien to him, and that despite making an attempt when he 
first came here to develop the skills (and therefore the culture), he 
feels he has failed and the lingua franca of computer (types, geeks, 
???) is foreign to him.   Here on FriAM, I feel we speak a very rough 
Pidgen (not quite developed enough to be a proper Creole?) admixture of 
computer-geek, physics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, philosophy, 
mathematics, hard-science-other-than physics, etc.


I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various 
topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our 
significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   
It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to make evident our 
own lexicons for a particular subject that we end up tangling our webs 
in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we roam, colliding 
occasionally here and there.


- Sieve




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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

< Writing … taking positions and pushing them until they break … is for me just 
about the best part of being alive >

Terri 
Gross
 contrasts the difference between “What do you do for work?” and “Tell me about 
yourself.”
The first question is an expectation of conformity, the second is open ended.  
(And that Glen has the presence of mind to redirect by choosing a generally 
ambiguous term, simulant and define it for them on the fly.)   People that pose 
questions like the first one, or go on to draw conclusions like that engineers 
are one way and poets are another, or that software engineers are non-existent 
(laugh), are being pushy, accusative, and in my view trying to assert a sort of 
social dominance.   Thus they may perceive some pushback from me resembling 
STFU.   Yes, as you say it is different when there is a reasonable expectation 
of good faith debate where everything is on the table, including dogs.   Things 
get more like fighting and less like playing when there is not good faith, as 
there is no obligation to declare intentions or to maintain any kind of 
continuity.   I’d argue the distinction between fighting and playing for dogs 
is not so categorical either, but somewhat quantifiable by the power diverted 
to the jaw.  This is the general case – the world is a political place.

Marcus

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Who knew a good Coors head could make this shutdown hillarius

[Steven A Smith]

Thanks a LOT Gil/Glen, NOW I'm thirsty for beer, and have been since I 
read it soon after you posted.


Good writing & delivery as you noted, would we call this some kind of 
Beer Rebus?


I do love the craft brew movement, but have to admit that my fridge has 
the remnants of a Shiner variety pack in it.  I do love me the Alien 
Amber, but only on tap... with Shiner Bock being my best substitute in a 
bottle.  I feel a tad guilty every time I buy a 12 of Shiner, what being 
it a product of the nominally uber-conservative state of Texas.  Of 
course, I have not a clue of the politics of the people making money 
from it's sale.  I do try to align my purchases (especially luxury 
goods) with my belief systems (if not outright politics) but it is 
surprising how often I realize I've lapsed in that awareness.


On 1/9/19 8:11 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:

The unfortunate part of this story is the apparent coincidence of right wingers 
and those who always drink the same beer, with the same label, that doesn't 
need new label approval from the government because the government approved of 
that label a million years ago.  It's only us hipster liberals that want to 
drink NEW beer that might require a new label.

But, as usual, the writers and Colbert's delivery are fantastic.

On 1/9/19 6:43 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:

Thanks Colbert

https://youtu.be/xizCOdu3_1E

Worth a watch...now i'll have to try to breath again from laughing at a
great anology that's disturbingly acurate and maybe find the Alian Amber
from wence  all this came from...it clearly has a Fat Tire.



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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Steven A Smith]

I think I want to be a Springbok!  I feel as if I've slipped sideways 
into the alternate reality presented in the movie _The Lobster_ .


   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK6i2Ivlphw



Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[)

You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without 
categories.  “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they 
call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with 
Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a 
sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure. 
Something about the category is real.


So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all 
categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against 
categories that do more violence than they do good. So, when I called 
you a gazelle, what violence did I do? Would I have done better to 
call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or less disappointed in my 
expectations had I called you a Springbok?


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 *Marcus 
Daniels

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2019 3:06 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Can you please stop labeling and categorizing things?   Your labels 
aren’t real.   I am a person that supports the lifestyle of two dogs.


*From: *Friam > on behalf of Nick Thompson 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
*Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>

*Date: *Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM
*To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>

*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Marcus,

Well, see that just proves the point.  Not only can I not speak your 
lion-language, I accuse you of being a gazelle.  I apologize to all 
you lions out there.  By the way, what DO you call yourselves?


N

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 *Marcus 
Daniels

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2019 2:20 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>

*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

**

*“*Much better, perhaps, than I understand software engineers.”

I would be surprised if anyone in this conversation identifies as a 
software engineer.
The complement of that to me seems weird:   It’s like declaring a 
person that can’t swim or drive a car, or would look in a manual to 
use a hammer?


Marcus



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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus,

 

Are we playing or fighting?  I can’t tell any more.  If we’re fighting, let’s 
stop.  Let me know.  

 

I apologize:  I was grabbing the word “realist” for a particular meaning; you 
were quite right.  I thought I was doing so humorously, hence the emoji.  But 
one man’s humor is another’s provocation, so let me just say, by way of 
clarification, that there is a discourse, quite a narrow one, in which 
“realist” means somebody who believes that only “generals” – i.e., abstractions 
– are real.  This is opposed to “nominalist” who believes that only individuals 
are real, and that abstractions are mere conveniences of the mind.  

 

You wrote: .   “That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize 
that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate”

 

I actually agree and then some.  I think that all terms are dynamic and subject 
to debate.  Yes, even “dog”.  My wife got mad at me last night because I put my 
dogs on the coffee table.  There is nothing particularly sacred about 
biological species.  

 

Can a realist, sensu supra, say the things I just said?  Probably not.  Am I 
confused?  Clearly. Why would I be writing, if I were not confused? 

Writing … taking positions and pushing them until they break … is for me just 
about the best part of being alive.  It’s my “Go”, except I ultimately play the 
game to lose, not to win.  Having to change one’s mind is a terrible thing.  I 
hate it. But worse still is having to wear the same mind, year after year after 
year.  

 

If you want to go on talking, let me know.  If you don’t want to go on talking, 
but want to wrap the conversation up, wrap it up AND let me know that that is 
what you are doing, and I will leave it there.  

 

Thanks for your help, in any case.

 

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 8:50 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Nick writes:

 

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

 

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again.  
 (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)Doing so 
constrains what can even be said.   It puts the skeptic in the position of 
having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like 
smartass 

  when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition 
doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto 
definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) 
expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having 
some power base, or safe space, to work from.  

 

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that 
distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that (accused / 
implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a 
credible set.  Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill 
and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other 
co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization 
you are suggesting.

 

< You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories.  
“person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is 
inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with Korgies, but they are 
actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some 
categories, yet the categories endure.  Something about the category is real.  >

 

Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular biological 
species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the meaning of a person 
or a dog?  Really?

 

< So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories 
do violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more 
violence than they do good.  So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did 
I do?  Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or 
less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok?  >

 

For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story a girl.  
 That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize that some terms 
are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html

 

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's 

[FRIAM] Zero Mass Water: solar panels that pull water out of the air

[Owen Densmore]

Another fascinating article from TLDR newsletter. One wonders about the
Down Sides, but even some large US cities have apparently turned off water
in schools!

   -- Owen

These $2,000 solar panels pull clean drinking water out of the air, and
they might be a solution to the global water crisis (3 minute read)

A startup backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos has built a solar panel that
can extract water out of moisture in the air. A single $2000 panel can
extract about 10 bottles worth of clean water per day. The company believes
this is a solution to the global water crisis, which has left 2 billion
people without clean drinking water.

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Prof David West]

Aww Nick,

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

Real? 
Real, as in dualist metaphysics?
Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to
behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled
category is real?
About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently
struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining
state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer"
was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities in those
states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading software
engineering. The activities typically associated with 'software
engineering', primary among them, programming, were being practiced for
nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was first
uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software
engineering first coined in 1968.]]
Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of
the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux
had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while
providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex
with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not
afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely everything.]
Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not
completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is
not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am
thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of
categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned and on
the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA can be.)
Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above being
an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems to me
that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised expression
of xenophobia.
davew




On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Nick writes:


>  


> < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >


>  


> There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public
> dictionary again.   (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go
> example.)Doing so constrains what can even be *said*.   It puts
> the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single
> term, and thus be a called terms like  smartass[1] when they force the
> terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.
> A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that
> steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist)
> expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations
> requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.>  


> In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers
> and that distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that
> (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that
> it is not even a credible set.  Another discussant says the activity
> of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as
> well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is
> already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.>  


> < You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without
> categories.  “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they
> call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with
> Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a
> sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure.
> Something about the category is real.  >>  


> Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular
> biological species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the
> meaning of a person or a dog?  Really?>  


> < So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all
> categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against
> categories that do more violence than they do good.  So, when I called
> you a gazelle, what violence did I do?  Would I have done better to
> call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or less disappointed in my
> expectations had I called you a Springbok?  >>  


> For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story
> a girl.   That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize
> that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.>  


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html>  


> Marcus


> 
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again.  
 (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)Doing so 
constrains what can even be said.   It puts the skeptic in the position of 
having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like 
smartass
 when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition 
doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto 
definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) 
expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having 
some power base, or safe space, to work from.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that 
distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that (accused / 
implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a 
credible set.  Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill 
and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other 
co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization 
you are suggesting.

< You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories.  
“person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is 
inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with Korgies, but they are 
actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some 
categories, yet the categories endure.  Something about the category is real.  >

Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular biological 
species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the meaning of a person 
or a dog?  Really?

< So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories 
do violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more 
violence than they do good.  So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did 
I do?  Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or 
less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok?  >

For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story a girl.  
 That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize that some terms 
are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html

Marcus

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Who knew a good Coors head could make this shutdown hillarius

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

The unfortunate part of this story is the apparent coincidence of right wingers 
and those who always drink the same beer, with the same label, that doesn't 
need new label approval from the government because the government approved of 
that label a million years ago.  It's only us hipster liberals that want to 
drink NEW beer that might require a new label.

But, as usual, the writers and Colbert's delivery are fantastic.

On 1/9/19 6:43 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> Thanks Colbert
> 
> https://youtu.be/xizCOdu3_1E
> 
> Worth a watch...now i'll have to try to breath again from laughing at a
> great anology that's disturbingly acurate and maybe find the Alian Amber
> from wence  all this came from...it clearly has a Fat Tire.

-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ


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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Who knew a good Coors head could make this shutdown hillarius

[Gillian Densmore]

Thanks Colbert

https://youtu.be/xizCOdu3_1E

Worth a watch...now i'll have to try to breath again from laughing at a
great anology that's disturbingly acurate and maybe find the Alian Amber
from wence  all this came from...it clearly has a Fat Tire.

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[)

 

You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories.  
“person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is 
inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with Korgies, but they are 
actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some 
categories, yet the categories endure.  Something about the category is real.  

 

So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories do 
violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more 
violence than they do good.  So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did 
I do?  Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or 
less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok?  

 

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Can you please stop labeling and categorizing things?   Your labels aren’t 
real.   I am a person that supports the lifestyle of two dogs.  

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Marcus, 

 

Well, see that just proves the point.  Not only can I not speak your 
lion-language, I accuse you of being a gazelle.  I apologize to all you lions 
out there.  By the way, what DO you call yourselves?  

 

N

 

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 2:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Nick writes:

 

“Much better, perhaps, than I understand software engineers.”

 

I would be surprised if anyone in this conversation identifies as a software 
engineer.
The complement of that to me seems weird:   It’s like declaring a person that 
can’t swim or drive a car, or would look in a manual to use a hammer?

 

Marcus


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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove