Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Well... yes but of course we recognize that Mike is reading into the
student exactly the sophistication I did not give her, which makes his
version a much better dialog for illustrating certain points, at the
expense of me trying to gut-punch Nick by having him overhear a student
completely missing the point of what he tried to teach her.

Mike gives a "Hooray" for Nick not falling into a trap of thinking
philosophical materialism or anti-materialism is relevant to the activities
of the chemistry or psychology lab, and that might or might not be
warranted. But in my dialog, Nick's sophomoric sophomore student *is* making
that mistake, and is endangering people because of that. That student
thinks the lab tech is an idiot for approaching the world in a materialist
fashion, and further thinks she can dismiss a safety warning because the
person who gave the warning is an unsophisticated thinker.

So let me make this a bit more extreme *again.*

Let's say that instead of hearing this in a hallway, Nick is watching it
play out on a video recording. At some point, the video is paused, and Nick
is asked what he thinks. Nick replies back as he did to my initial post
(modified slightly, including changed to in present tense):

I am proud of the student, proud that she has carried anything from the
psych building to the chemistry building. I am also proud of her for
holding her ground with the lab tech, even when such heavy artillery is
brought to bear on her.



As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.
First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some
consequences are more… um… consequential than others” On that point, I
agree with him.



But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab
technique, as if they become more consequential when they are understood in
atomic terms.  As if their “dangerousness” is attached to their
“atomicness”.  This argument felt to me like some sort of creepy
essentialism, I and want no part of it.  I would have been even more proud
of the student if she had responded, “Respectfully, sir, that makes no
sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous here, what I must be
steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances under particular
circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though inattention,
find itself under those circumstances. True, atomic principles might help
me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the
explosion, not in the atoms."


The person playing the tape pauses, slightly stunned by this rather
academic reply, and solemnly says "I take it you did not hear about the
explosion in the psychology lab?"

Nick gasps and says "What?!? No I hadn't!" Then, looking around the room
more keenly, he realizes there are not just academic muckety-mucks who
might be here to critique his teaching, but also some people taking notes
who might well be law enforcement of some type.

The person playing the tape continues: "After all of those things you were
so *proud *to see her to say, things continued. If I keep playing the tape
you will see the student disregard all the warnings that were given,
complaining, just as you did, about how the lab tech is clearly an
essentialist-thinker, who doesn't appreciate how irrelevant atomic terms
are to human action. She said, verbatim *almost *all the things you just
said you would be proud to hear her say, and then more about how
materialism was a faulty basis for a philosophy, and something about how it
was all just inferences all the way down anyway. The only part she didn't
say was any indication she took his warnings seriously in any way. She
stopped at the part where she said she wanted no part in such a creepy
and stupid conversation. Then she refused to leave the lab and kept right
on doing what she was doing before the lab tech gave her the warning, and
the lab tech couldn't stop her fast enough. And the recording ends with
just a flash. They are both dead now, along with several other students and
faculty members who were in the building at the time."



The essential point of the initial dialog was that the student was exactly
*not* doing the extra bit of mental work Nick said he would have been
extra-proud of at the end, to understand that *whatever words the lab tech
was using*, the intent was to constrain action in accordance with known
risk. The student's obsession with the level-of-clarity of the thought
being expressed (which Mike emphasized) and with minutia about the words
being used (which Nick emphasized) *stopped* the smug and pretentious
student from heeding the warning. In the initial scenario, that refusal
simply led to the student being kicked out of the lab. Apparently her being
kicked out of the lab on those particular grounds made Nick proud of the
student, which presumably entails feeling good about himself as a teacher.
But surely 

Re: [FRIAM] Automata with FFT

[Steve Smith]

On 9/24/22 9:49 AM, glen wrote:
Such efforts seem so inherently metaphorical it's difficult for me to 
approach a concrete conversation. For example, I have a couple of 
biologist friends, one meso (bugs) and one macro (ungulates), who 
thought I was being contrarian when I challenged their assertion that 
biodiversity in urban areas was *obviously* lower than that of natural 
areas like forests. Of course, I admit my ignorance up front. Maybe 
they are. But it's just not obvious to me.


This may seem a little tangential but the realm of Permaculture Design 
has a suite of truisms on these topics, though they are articulated in 
their unique language which can be a little hard to translate 
sometimes.  I think the permaculture community represent a fertile 
laboratory for doing *some* experiments as implied by Glen's questions.


A good example which gestures toward the Chan work at least 
morphologically is maybe worth a scan if not a full read here:


   https://aflorestanova.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/zones-in-permaculture-design/

Permaculture's 5 zone quantization doesn't preclude a recognition of 
there being continuous gradients in many dimensions from a locus of 
"technological closed-loop" (zone 0) and "biological closed loop" (zone 5).


There is a *lot* of talk in the literature about the interfaces around 
zone 0, 1, 2 techno-structures creating localized ecozones that harbor 
diversity (desired and undesired == vermin) which I think provide some 
good anecdotal evidence about biodiversity in transition zones and acute 
technological interfaces (e.g. roofs, walls, corners, posts, fences, 
etc).  Permaculture is a domain of recognizing and exploiting "happy 
accidents".


It is also worth noting the diversity spike that happens in estuarial 
contexts...


A more formal study of Urban/Architectural design with an eye to 
*health* (human-centric view) is the domain of Biophilic Design 
.  
Nikos Salingaros is a hard-core Mathematician at UT-San Antonio who 
addresses abstractions of Complexity 
 and Pattern 
Languages  as well as 
Architecture and Urbanism.  He also has some interesting opinions 
 about post 
modernism as well as Dawkins Atheism.





Since then, they've presented (meso and macro) arguments that justify 
their position. It does seem obvious that urban areas trend to more 
adaptable animals like coyotes and raccoons and less so to, say, deer. 
The bugs are more interesting. Meso guy found some articles that show 
"species" diversity in urban areas is roughly the same as natural 
areas. But phylogenetic diversity is clearly lower in urban areas. 
That seems counter intuitive to me. It's a cool result.


My main point when I originally expressed skepticism, though, was 
about microbial diversity. Is it possible that bug-layer and 
microbe-layer (including what lives in/on large animals like rats and 
humans) diversity makes up for lower diversity in large-layers?


I *feel* that projects like Chan's could help with this question since 
it seems prohibitively expensive to sample and test enough microbial 
populations of urban and wild areas, especially if we include 
intra-animal populations. I'm just not sure *how* they could help.


On 9/24/22 03:38, David Eric Smith wrote:

It’s funny; I know Bert.

One of our colleagues played a role in bringing him out to work at 
Google in Tokyo.


A mathematician (Will Cavendish) who has part-time support at IAS
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish 

is also interested in the mathematical dimensions of this, though I 
have only a glancing exposure to how those two together are trying to 
frame the problems.  Because Bert has come at it more from the 
ALife/engineering approach, and Will’s interests run more in the 
direction of proving capabilities of broad classes of systems, often 
interested in their aggregation as categories  (and also about the 
role of simulation as a replacement for proof in systems that produce 
complicated enough state spaces), it should be a productive and 
interesting collaboration.  I don’t know how engaged others are in 
the Google group on this specific project, because I am too far 
outside that loop.


Eric

On Sep 23, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Jon Zingale > wrote:


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.05433.pdf 



-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present 

Re: [FRIAM] Automata with FFT

[glen]

Such efforts seem so inherently metaphorical it's difficult for me to approach 
a concrete conversation. For example, I have a couple of biologist friends, one 
meso (bugs) and one macro (ungulates), who thought I was being contrarian when 
I challenged their assertion that biodiversity in urban areas was *obviously* 
lower than that of natural areas like forests. Of course, I admit my ignorance 
up front. Maybe they are. But it's just not obvious to me.

Since then, they've presented (meso and macro) arguments that justify their position. It 
does seem obvious that urban areas trend to more adaptable animals like coyotes and 
raccoons and less so to, say, deer. The bugs are more interesting. Meso guy found some 
articles that show "species" diversity in urban areas is roughly the same as 
natural areas. But phylogenetic diversity is clearly lower in urban areas. That seems 
counter intuitive to me. It's a cool result.

My main point when I originally expressed skepticism, though, was about 
microbial diversity. Is it possible that bug-layer and microbe-layer (including 
what lives in/on large animals like rats and humans) diversity makes up for 
lower diversity in large-layers?

I *feel* that projects like Chan's could help with this question since it seems 
prohibitively expensive to sample and test enough microbial populations of 
urban and wild areas, especially if we include intra-animal populations. I'm 
just not sure *how* they could help.

On 9/24/22 03:38, David Eric Smith wrote:

It’s funny; I know Bert.

One of our colleagues played a role in bringing him out to work at Google in 
Tokyo.

A mathematician (Will Cavendish) who has part-time support at IAS
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish 

is also interested in the mathematical dimensions of this, though I have only a 
glancing exposure to how those two together are trying to frame the problems.  
Because Bert has come at it more from the ALife/engineering approach, and 
Will’s interests run more in the direction of proving capabilities of broad 
classes of systems, often interested in their aggregation as categories  (and 
also about the role of simulation as a replacement for proof in systems that 
produce complicated enough state spaces), it should be a productive and 
interesting collaboration.  I don’t know how engaged others are in the Google 
group on this specific project, because I am too far outside that loop.

Eric


On Sep 23, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Jon Zingale mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.05433.pdf 



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[glen]

And you dismissed my perfectly valid response as "churlish". EricC also replied 
with an extension of the dialog.

https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2022-September/093314.html

On 9/23/22 13:49, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Yes, and I sent you a brief description of freshman year at Carnegie Tech 
in1961-62.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:24 PM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Did you guys not get this?

__ __

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com 

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 


__ __

*From:* thompnicks...@gmail.com  
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 2:59 PM
*To:* 'Mike Bybee' mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net>>; 'Eric 
Charles' mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com>>; 
friam@redfish.com 
*Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick

__ __

I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism.  My 
response to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument, which 
he himself disavowed.  The attempt to identify a concept by a single operation 
or even by operations within a single paradigm is operationism, which I, as a 
pragmatist, condemn.  However, the sum of all conceivable operations is the 
pragmaticist “meaning” of the concept.  Now, in disavowing this “Quantitative” 
distinction between operationism and pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for 
some “essence” which is aside from all operations that might flow from adoption 
of the concept.  I wrote you both about this, and neither has replied. 

__ __

Now, as to the dialogue.  I would be proud of the student by the fact that 
she has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry building.  
Most students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass out into the 
quadrangle.  Finally, I would be proud of her holding her ground with the lab 
tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear on her. 

__ __

As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent.  
First he appears to ding her for her flat affect.  “Look, kid,  some 
consequences are more… um… consequential than others.  Don’t you feel the heat 
of that explosion?” On that point, I agree with him.  Emotional consequences 
are consequences.  We could do experiments on them. 

__ __

But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire 
consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as 
if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms.  As 
if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”.  This argument felt 
to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it.  I 
would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, 
“Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all.  What is truly dangerous 
here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances 
under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though 
inattention, find itself under those circumstances.   True, atomic principles 
might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the 
explosion, not in the atoms. 

! 

In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a chemistry 
experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an explosion.  The 
students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as it happened), on the 
ground that the two chemicals involved /could not have exploded! /The chemistry 
department agreed.  Nonetheless, the Dean threw they out, but with a Deanly 
wink encouraging application for re-admission in the following year. 

__ __

Have I answered your question?

__ __

n

__ __

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com 

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 


__ __

*From:* Mike Bybee mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net>>
*Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
*To:* 'Nicholas Thompson' mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>; 
'Eric Charles' mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com>>; 
friam@redfish.com 
*Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
*Importance:* High

__ __

__ __

__ __

     I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this. 

     Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin? 


     I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here. 

     First, it’s in the context of chemistry, 

Re: [FRIAM] Automata with FFT

[David Eric Smith]

It’s funny; I know Bert.  

One of our colleagues played a role in bringing him out to work at Google in 
Tokyo.  

A mathematician (Will Cavendish) who has part-time support at IAS 
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/will-cavendish
is also interested in the mathematical dimensions of this, though I have only a 
glancing exposure to how those two together are trying to frame the problems.  
Because Bert has come at it more from the ALife/engineering approach, and 
Will’s interests run more in the direction of proving capabilities of broad 
classes of systems, often interested in their aggregation as categories  (and 
also about the role of simulation as a replacement for proof in systems that 
produce complicated enough state spaces), it should be a productive and 
interesting collaboration.  I don’t know how engaged others are in the Google 
group on this specific project, because I am too far outside that loop.

Eric 

> On Sep 23, 2022, at 4:03 PM, Jon Zingale  wrote:
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.05433.pdf 
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam=E,1,0pWzNXXX_Raq1eysHKyZRDqVeCy2N9yFnpvE7ppkOw8ohyJkCG___HK8xiT75dOTEj2sLBnpc2yeHoHiCzLQd5fPbpnK8tXfJim_ca1E=1
> to (un)subscribe 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com=E,1,1fwzu0qXJcoPS0fEaZcwW56FTdFRep42N9rDBi91_G2-PvGVGW2HzuAVcOPxE4osJJNtfCcw2yx0zVVHx1RlKlemHECAf6q7SrlZk2KL72RfJOw,=1
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f=E,1,I4Gv708ZTI4rOSVpH5Ua680y6GPxPt_Q8fpOnaz7Ewno-4sRs7jmmEcuBBLI4m0DgDXAd1LL-fe9tS1ElomDHGuwLXwKbwNJgMUFGkfThmA,=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f=E,1,BpuhRd8UczAd-KUTPi2oL0WshLt3g6g8vXSP44WMywuXJOOFOcDRJdjP0KyqD5wpmQU0Xp10qw1i5sOdGvhB7DwhZAT1ZAYGqj0vhaEeXTKJC4XCsznLi7Y,=1
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/