Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Whew, Eric, that’s quite a hypothetical!  Will poor Glen every be allowed 
to go to a party again?

 

But you are exactly right that that is the sense in which I wanted to use the 
term. 

 

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 Eric Charles
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 3:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Glen said: " I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT 
(solely) at a higher level of organization.  I.e. motives consist of BOTH low 
level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors like how one 
feels about another person." And then a bit later Glen complained (rightly) 
that no one had followed up on his examples. I will attempt to fill that gap!

 

I suspect the first issue is here is what we call "higher level." Sometimes, 
when people reference "higher level behavior", they are envisioning something 
like a "ladder of life" with simpler beings lower down and more complex beings 
higher up. In that context, something like a saccade is low on the scale, 
because many "lower beings" do it, and throwing a baseball might be higher on 
the scale, because only a few non-human species are capable of such a thing. 
Based on how the above quote is phrased,  I believe that is what Glen 
very-understandably thinks Nick is be talking about.  However, Nick is invoking 
something else entirely, something like "levels of analysis" talk, in which 
meaningful "higher" things exist in the relations between lower-level things. 

 

The most common context in which people are exposed to this is in biology 
class, where we are told that at some level there are cells, and that many 
cells of similar type make tissue, tissue combines into organs, organs into 
organ systems, and systems into organisms. In some obvious sense, cells "make 
up" organs, but also one would not really come to understand organs by virtue 
of individually examining cells. There is something "higher-level" going on, 
something about the organization of the cells that we consider important, and 
worth talking about and studying in its own right, which is why organ-talk and 
organ-level science are things.  

 

When Nick says that " Motives ARE behavior.  Just at a higher level of 
organization.", he means "higher level" in that sense. We see that someone is 
motivated towards a certain goal when we witness them varying their behavior 
across circumstances in order to achieve that goal. If we want to measure how 
motivated someone is, we change the circumstances so that they are no longer 
directed at (what we assume to be) their goal, and then measure the strength of 
their effort to "return to course." That line of thought can be elaborated 
extensively, with other examples brought in from both scientific efforts and 
mundane life, and what you end up with is the conclusion that: Motives are an 
identifiable type of pattern that can exist between behavior and circumstances, 
specifically a pattern in which behavior changes such that the acts in question 
continue to be directed towards producing a particular outcome. 

 

Let us say that saccades (Glen's example) are relatively random (within a 
certain range of eye rotation), but that we notice Glen's saccades occur 
slightly more often towards the location of an attractive woman located 5 
degrees to the right of and 5 degrees up from the person he is talking to. From 
this, we may suspect Glen is motivated to look at the woman, but we must admit 
is quite possible that his eyes always saccade in that fashion, as we have 
never measured Glen's saccades before. Or maybe the bias is unusual, but is 
explained by an unrelated factor, such a slightly lighter bulb illuminating 
that part of the background. All fine and good, a hypothesis, but no way to 
test it. However, suppose that the woman starts moves around the room, and we 
notice that Glen's saccades, while still containing a fair amount of 
randomness, consistently bias towards the direction of the woman, wherever she 
happens to be. And let us also assume that Glen's position shifts in a wide 
variety of ways throughout the conversation, with the only notable consistency 
being that they position his head such that it reduces the size of the saccades 
necessary to bring the woman closer to the periphery of his vision. We might, 
from that, conclude/abduct/declare/assert that Glen "is motivated" to look at 
the woman. Let's say that Glen likes red heads in low cut dresses, and when 
this particular red-head--in-a-low-cut-dress leaves the room, the described 
pattern falls apart for a few minutes, but then re-appears, directed towards an 
auburn-haired woman with a slightly-less-but-still-dis

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[glen]

Unfortunately, that is the sense in which I thought you were using the term. 
Have I been strawmanned? 8^)

The packaging of a scalar vs the packaging of a matrix are "levels of 
analysis", if there ever was such a thing. 8^) To use Eric(C)'s words the 
organization of a set of numbers into a matrix isn't in the scalars of which 
it's composed.

My example was that higher-organized things like feeling hungry mix directly 
with lower-organized things like eyeball jittering. The organization of the low 
level stuff (e.g. tissues) isn't hygenically separated from the organization of 
the chemicals into a cell. I.e. tissue isn't strictly made up of cells, and 
cells aren't strictly made up of complex molecules, etc. Tissue is a 
cross-level operator. Tissue is made of molecules as well as cells (as well as 
other mixed-level things like lumens).

Hence, it's a fiction (oversimplification) to say that tissue is an 
organization of cells. Your hierarchy is fictitious (though perhaps useful for 
an entry into some subject matter). 

On January 5, 2019 2:49:16 PM PST, Nick Thompson  
wrote:
> 
>
>But you are exactly right that that is the sense in which I wanted to
>use the term. 
>
> 
>
>
>
>From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric
>Charles
>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 3:05 PM
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>
>Subject: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction
>
> 
>
>Glen said: " I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT
>(solely) at a higher level of organization.  I.e. motives consist of
>BOTH low level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors
>like how one feels about another person." And then a bit later Glen
>complained (rightly) that no one had followed up on his examples. I
>will attempt to fill that gap!
>
> 
>
>I suspect the first issue is here is what we call "higher level."
>Sometimes, when people reference "higher level behavior", they are
>envisioning something like a "ladder of life" with simpler beings lower
>down and more complex beings higher up. In that context, something like
>a saccade is low on the scale, because many "lower beings" do it, and
>throwing a baseball might be higher on the scale, because only a few
>non-human species are capable of such a thing. Based on how the above
>quote is phrased,  I believe that is what Glen very-understandably
>thinks Nick is be talking about.  However, Nick is invoking something
>else entirely, something like "levels of analysis" talk, in which
>meaningful "higher" things exist in the relations between lower-level
>things. 
>
> 
>
>The most common context in which people are exposed to this is in
>biology class, where we are told that at some level there are cells,
>and that many cells of similar type make tissue, tissue combines into
>organs, organs into organ systems, and systems into organisms. In some
>obvious sense, cells "make up" organs, but also one would not really
>come to understand organs by virtue of individually examining cells.
>There is something "higher-level" going on, something about the
>organization of the cells that we consider important, and worth talking
>about and studying in its own right, which is why organ-talk and
>organ-level science are things.  
>
> 
>
>When Nick says that " Motives ARE behavior.  Just at a higher level of
>organization.", he means "higher level" in that sense. We see that
>someone is motivated towards a certain goal when we witness them
>varying their behavior across circumstances in order to achieve that
>goal. If we want to measure how motivated someone is, we change the
>circumstances so that they are no longer directed at (what we assume to
>be) their goal, and then measure the strength of their effort to
>"return to course." That line of thought can be elaborated extensively,
>with other examples brought in from both scientific efforts and mundane
>life, and what you end up with is the conclusion that: Motives are an
>identifiable type of pattern that can exist between behavior and
>circumstances, specifically a pattern in which behavior changes such
>that the acts in question continue to be directed towards producing a
>particular outcome. 
-- 
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
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]

Glen,

Hum Bah Bug, 

In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
hierarchically organized is a silly argument.  What is not a silly argument
is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of
view, P.  So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object, interpretant.
Is this relativism?  No, not in the ordinary sense.  Because the pragmatist
asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see.  Or, to put
it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.
So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred present
hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us
wrong.   

But I love you like a brother

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 glen
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2019 4:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Unfortunately, that is the sense in which I thought you were using the term.
Have I been strawmanned? 8^)

The packaging of a scalar vs the packaging of a matrix are "levels of
analysis", if there ever was such a thing. 8^) To use Eric(C)'s words the
organization of a set of numbers into a matrix isn't in the scalars of which
it's composed.

My example was that higher-organized things like feeling hungry mix directly
with lower-organized things like eyeball jittering. The organization of the
low level stuff (e.g. tissues) isn't hygenically separated from the
organization of the chemicals into a cell. I.e. tissue isn't strictly made
up of cells, and cells aren't strictly made up of complex molecules, etc.
Tissue is a cross-level operator. Tissue is made of molecules as well as
cells (as well as other mixed-level things like lumens).

Hence, it's a fiction (oversimplification) to say that tissue is an
organization of cells. Your hierarchy is fictitious (though perhaps useful
for an entry into some subject matter). 

On January 5, 2019 2:49:16 PM PST, Nick Thompson
 wrote:
> 
>
>But you are exactly right that that is the sense in which I wanted to 
>use the term.
>
> 
>
>
>
>From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric 
>Charles
>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 3:05 PM
>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
>Subject: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction
>
> 
>
>Glen said: " I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT
>(solely) at a higher level of organization.  I.e. motives consist of 
>BOTH low level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors 
>like how one feels about another person." And then a bit later Glen 
>complained (rightly) that no one had followed up on his examples. I 
>will attempt to fill that gap!
>
> 
>
>I suspect the first issue is here is what we call "higher level."
>Sometimes, when people reference "higher level behavior", they are 
>envisioning something like a "ladder of life" with simpler beings lower 
>down and more complex beings higher up. In that context, something like 
>a saccade is low on the scale, because many "lower beings" do it, and 
>throwing a baseball might be higher on the scale, because only a few 
>non-human species are capable of such a thing. Based on how the above 
>quote is phrased,  I believe that is what Glen very-understandably 
>thinks Nick is be talking about.  However, Nick is invoking something 
>else entirely, something like "levels of analysis" talk, in which 
>meaningful "higher" things exist in the relations between lower-level 
>things.
>
> 
>
>The most common context in which people are exposed to this is in 
>biology class, where we are told that at some level there are cells, 
>and that many cells of similar type make tissue, tissue combines into 
>organs, organs into organ systems, and systems into organisms. In some 
>obvious sense, cells "make up" organs, but also one would not really 
>come to understand organs by virtue of individually examining cells.
>There is something "higher-level" going on, something about the 
>organization of the cells that we consider important, and worth talking 
>about and studying in its own right, which is why organ-talk and 
>organ-level science are things.
>
> 
>
>When Nick says that " Motives ARE behavior.  Just at a higher level of 
>organization.", he means "higher level" in that sense. We se

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

OK.  I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard.  But if what you say, here, can imply 
that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of organization, then 
perhaps that's progress.

Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell, molecule 
set.  The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level" hierarchy with 
words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us) can pinpoint the 
tissue organizing logic [†].  While it's a useful fiction to suggest that 
tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just as well* say tissue 
is organized by cellular behavior collectively.

So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}.  But in another 
hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}.  If you set your email 
client to monospace:

   tissue
 |
   cells
 |
 molecules

versus:

 cells
 |  |
tissue  molecules

One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be organized 
in multiple ways.  So, again, I apologize if my attempts are irritating.  But 
it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're saying if you used words 
that allowed for more complete statements.  I've tried to suggest "layer" and 
"order" as a replacement for "level".  Some suggestions for replacing your 
statement about motives might be:

  Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
  Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
  Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a goal.

I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized at a 
higher level".  To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint at your 
"if you stand next to me, you will see what I see."  That's because each one of 
my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency.  Your "organized at a 
higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion ... that this 
hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature of, say, silicon 
based life on Alpha Centauri.

All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.


[†] Is it in the cells?  Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might 
obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents?  I would argue that 
"it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ... 
further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this 
discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a more 
complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it further.


On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> hierarchically organized is a silly argument.  What is not a silly argument
> is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of
> view, P.  So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object, interpretant.
> Is this relativism?  No, not in the ordinary sense.  Because the pragmatist
> asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see.  Or, to put
> it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.
> So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred present
> hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us
> wrong.   

-- 
∄ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Frank Wimberly]

For a classic example of layers or levels and their interactions see

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Hearsay-I-Speech-Understanding-System%3A-An-of-Reddy-Erman/04ffb20cbfa502d3d2611dcfe027cfa94b45a629

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 7:02 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ  OK.  I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard.  But if what you say, here, can
> imply that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of
> organization, then perhaps that's progress.
>
> Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell,
> molecule set.  The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level"
> hierarchy with words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us)
> can pinpoint the tissue organizing logic [†].  While it's a useful fiction
> to suggest that tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just
> as well* say tissue is organized by cellular behavior collectively.
>
> So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}.  But in
> another hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}.  If you set
> your email client to monospace:
>
>tissue
>  |
>cells
>  |
>  molecules
>
> versus:
>
>  cells
>  |  |
> tissue  molecules
>
> One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be
> organized in multiple ways.  So, again, I apologize if my attempts are
> irritating.  But it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're
> saying if you used words that allowed for more complete statements.  I've
> tried to suggest "layer" and "order" as a replacement for "level".  Some
> suggestions for replacing your statement about motives might be:
>
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a
> goal.
>
> I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized
> at a higher level".  To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint
> at your "if you stand next to me, you will see what I see."  That's because
> each one of my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency.  Your
> "organized at a higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion
> ... that this hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature
> of, say, silicon based life on Alpha Centauri.
>
> All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.
>
>
> [†] Is it in the cells?  Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might
> obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents?  I would argue that
> "it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ...
> further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this
> discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a
> more complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it
> further.
>
>
> On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> > incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> > incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> > hierarchically organized is a silly argument.  What is not a silly
> argument
> > is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of
> > view, P.  So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object,
> interpretant.
> > Is this relativism?  No, not in the ordinary sense.  Because the
> pragmatist
> > asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see.  Or, to
> put
> > it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.
> > So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred
> present
> > hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us
> > wrong.
>
> --
> ∄ 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 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]

Frank, 

 

I can’t get in to see that paper!  Did you?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

For a classic example of layers or levels and their interactions see

 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Hearsay-I-Speech-Understanding-System%3A-An-of-Reddy-Erman/04ffb20cbfa502d3d2611dcfe027cfa94b45a629

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 7:02 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>  wrote:

OK.  I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard.  But if what you say, here, can imply 
that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of organization, then 
perhaps that's progress.

Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell, molecule 
set.  The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level" hierarchy with 
words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us) can pinpoint the 
tissue organizing logic [†].  While it's a useful fiction to suggest that 
tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just as well* say tissue 
is organized by cellular behavior collectively.

So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}.  But in another 
hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}.  If you set your email 
client to monospace:

   tissue
 |
   cells
 |
 molecules

versus:

 cells
 |  |
tissue  molecules

One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be organized 
in multiple ways.  So, again, I apologize if my attempts are irritating.  But 
it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're saying if you used words 
that allowed for more complete statements.  I've tried to suggest "layer" and 
"order" as a replacement for "level".  Some suggestions for replacing your 
statement about motives might be:

  Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
  Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
  Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a goal.

I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized at a 
higher level".  To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint at your 
"if you stand next to me, you will see what I see."  That's because each one of 
my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency.  Your "organized at a 
higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion ... that this 
hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature of, say, silicon 
based life on Alpha Centauri.

All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.


[†] Is it in the cells?  Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might 
obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents?  I would argue that 
"it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ... 
further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this 
discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a more 
complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it further.


On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> hierarchically organized is a silly argument.  What is not a silly argument
> is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of
> view, P.  So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object, interpretant.
> Is this relativism?  No, not in the ordinary sense.  Because the pragmatist
> asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see.  Or, to put
> it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.
> So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred present
> hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us
> wrong.   

-- 
∄ 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/ 
<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COM

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick et al

Try this link

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230875978_The_Hearsay_II_Speech_Understanding_System

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 9:44 AM Nick Thompson  Frank,
>
>
>
> I can’t get in to see that paper!  Did you?
>
>
>
> 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 *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Monday, January 07, 2019 8:02 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction
>
>
>
> For a classic example of layers or levels and their interactions see
>
>
>
>
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Hearsay-I-Speech-Understanding-System%3A-An-of-Reddy-Erman/04ffb20cbfa502d3d2611dcfe027cfa94b45a629
>
> ---
> Frank Wimberly
>
> My memoir:
> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>
> My scientific publications:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 7:02 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ 
> OK.  I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard.  But if what you say, here, can
> imply that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of
> organization, then perhaps that's progress.
>
> Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell,
> molecule set.  The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level"
> hierarchy with words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us)
> can pinpoint the tissue organizing logic [†].  While it's a useful fiction
> to suggest that tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just
> as well* say tissue is organized by cellular behavior collectively.
>
> So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}.  But in
> another hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}.  If you set
> your email client to monospace:
>
>tissue
>  |
>cells
>  |
>  molecules
>
> versus:
>
>  cells
>  |  |
> tissue  molecules
>
> One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be
> organized in multiple ways.  So, again, I apologize if my attempts are
> irritating.  But it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're
> saying if you used words that allowed for more complete statements.  I've
> tried to suggest "layer" and "order" as a replacement for "level".  Some
> suggestions for replacing your statement about motives might be:
>
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a
> goal.
>
> I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized
> at a higher level".  To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint
> at your "if you stand next to me, you will see what I see."  That's because
> each one of my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency.  Your
> "organized at a higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion
> ... that this hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature
> of, say, silicon based life on Alpha Centauri.
>
> All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.
>
>
> [†] Is it in the cells?  Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might
> obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents?  I would argue that
> "it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ...
> further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this
> discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a
> more complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it
> further.
>
>
> On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> > incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> > incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> > hierarchically organized is a silly argument.  What is not a silly
> argument
> > is that X is hierarchically organized for so

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Eric Charles]

Glen,
Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking
*something
like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I recalled Nick telling
me at some point that he didn't like that way of thinking, and I'm
surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on it. All metaphors are
imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like that way of talking a lot.
While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an arrangement
of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of cells
arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
inter-cellular structures organs are a bunch of tissues
arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various inter-tissue
structures, etc.

At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your preferred
sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is thinking:

Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment
matrix.

As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to
emphasize, it is true that there are many ways the behavior-by-environment
matrix can be constructed and arranged. Some of those ways will reveal the
relevant pattern in some instances, others will not. The particular pattern
is one in which the behavior vary across circumstances so as to stay
directed towards the production of a particular outcome. This sounds very
similar to "One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components
can be organized in multiple ways" but if I understood the prior discussion
of "heterarchy", I take it that concept is about a flexibility in
control/leadership, whereas no control is implied here (control being a
different pattern in a different matrix). The cause of the pattern is a
different matter entirely from the existence of the pattern - which is
expressly part of the point of Nick's way of approaching it, i.e.,that a
"motive" must be identifiable independent of a particular cause.



---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps



On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:02 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ  wrote:

> OK.  I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard.  But if what you say, here, can
> imply that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of
> organization, then perhaps that's progress.
>
> Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell,
> molecule set.  The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level"
> hierarchy with words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us)
> can pinpoint the tissue organizing logic [†].  While it's a useful fiction
> to suggest that tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just
> as well* say tissue is organized by cellular behavior collectively.
>
> So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}.  But in
> another hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}.  If you set
> your email client to monospace:
>
>tissue
>  |
>cells
>  |
>  molecules
>
> versus:
>
>  cells
>  |  |
> tissue  molecules
>
> One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be
> organized in multiple ways.  So, again, I apologize if my attempts are
> irritating.  But it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're
> saying if you used words that allowed for more complete statements.  I've
> tried to suggest "layer" and "order" as a replacement for "level".  Some
> suggestions for replacing your statement about motives might be:
>
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.
>   Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a
> goal.
>
> I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized
> at a higher level".  To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint
> at your "if you stand next to me, you will see what I see."  That's because
> each one of my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency.  Your
> "organized at a higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion
> ... that this hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature
> of, say, silicon based life on Alpha Centauri.
>
> All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.
>
>
> [†] Is it in the cells?  Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might
> obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents?  I would argue that
> "it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ...
> further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this
> discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a
> more complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it
> further.
>
>
> On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is
> > incomplete.  So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an
> > incomplete statement.  So an argument about whether anything IS JUST
> 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Excellent!  I like everything you've said below.  In fact, were we able to 
clearly talk about heterarchies as explicitly externalizing controls, where 
hierarchies leave the source(s) of control ambiguous, then we'd map nicely back 
to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a tree walkable 
by a single control pointer.  And we'd also be able to discuss Rosen's 
conception of separating a closure of agency from (an openness to) the other 
types of cause (material, formal, and final).

The concept of a heterarchy facilitates the discussion of systemic behaviors 
like motive as separable into sets of distinct causes and structures in a way 
the concept of hierarchy does not.

On 1/7/19 6:12 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking
> *something
> like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I recalled Nick telling
> me at some point that he didn't like that way of thinking, and I'm
> surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on it. All metaphors are
> imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like that way of talking a lot.
> While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an arrangement
> of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of cells
> arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
> inter-cellular structures organs are a bunch of tissues
> arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various inter-tissue
> structures, etc.
> 
> At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your preferred
> sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is thinking:
> 
> Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment
> matrix.
> 
> As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to
> emphasize, it is true that there are many ways the behavior-by-environment
> matrix can be constructed and arranged. Some of those ways will reveal the
> relevant pattern in some instances, others will not. The particular pattern
> is one in which the behavior vary across circumstances so as to stay
> directed towards the production of a particular outcome. This sounds very
> similar to "One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components
> can be organized in multiple ways" but if I understood the prior discussion
> of "heterarchy", I take it that concept is about a flexibility in
> control/leadership, whereas no control is implied here (control being a
> different pattern in a different matrix). The cause of the pattern is a
> different matter entirely from the existence of the pattern - which is
> expressly part of the point of Nick's way of approaching it, i.e.,that a
> "motive" must be identifiable independent of a particular cause.

-- 
∄ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Glen writes:
[..] then we'd map nicely back to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive 
function into a tree walkable by a single control pointer [..]

Maybe this wasn't the direction you were going, but I was thinking of the 
distinction between reducible vs. non-reducible loops.  Where one (a compiler) 
can collapse cycles into single nodes.   One could assert that certain programs 
could only be written using a GOTO spaghetti style but I don't think many 
people would believe that.  

http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/dragon/w06/lectures/dfa3.pdf

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

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Yes, it *sounds* like that's where I'd like to go with the conversation.  The 
original post Nick made was about propagating meaning through a nesting 
(objects, statements about objects, statements about statements about objects, 
...) as well as openness to material flow (river vs. the components of the 
river) while holding an attribute/pattern invariant.

The extent to which a binding ("d" in the slides, measured attributes/patterns 
in Nick's setup) can be reasoned over depends fundamentally on the reasoning 
graph used.  A generalization (or abstraction?) can only hold if the path from 
it's original binding to the block where you want to use it is "followable" in 
some sense.

I don't quite understand the reducibility being discussed in the slides, 
though.  So, I'm unable to map the idea of "invariance of an abstraction" onto 
reducibility of the loops in those graphs.  I'm also not clear on which 
direction we really want to go, FROM the concrete fact (d) TO the abstraction 
(block(s) of logic) *or* in reverse, FROM the abstraction TO the fact.

The extra sauce you add that some (loopy?) programs might only implementable 
with GOTO applies directly to the discussion of control vs. composition 
hierarchies.  My favorite example right now is the seratonin produced by gut 
microbes, which finds its way to the brain.  While it's convenient to suggest 
the brain (organ) is composed of brain tissues matrixed by inter-brain-tissue 
components like neuron-released seratonin, where in that hierarchy do we 
force-fit the gut?!?  8^)  It's like some sort of undeniable interrupt 
semaphore from outer space ... messages from the Dog Star.


On 1/8/19 7:57 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Maybe this wasn't the direction you were going, but I was thinking of the 
> distinction between reducible vs. non-reducible loops.  Where one (a 
> compiler) can collapse cycles into single nodes.   One could assert that 
> certain programs could only be written using a GOTO spaghetti style but I 
> don't think many people would believe that.  
> 
> http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/dragon/w06/lectures/dfa3.pdf


-- 
∄ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Once again, I am lost in my own thread.  

 

I will say this:  often it seems, with both Marcus, and Glen, and even Owen and 
Steve, and to a lesser extent Dave West, that their (your) thinking is rooted 
in models from coding and because I have never been a coder those models are 
utterly unavailable to me.   I have always ... since childhood ...believed that 
if I worked hard enough at something I could understand it.  And so, almost 14 
years ago, when I was cast loose in Santa Fe, and Steve and Owen and Carl and 
Frank took me into that jammed freezing cold office on Agua Fria.  They fed me 
when I was intellectually hungry and comforted me when I was intellectually 
lonely, and in gratitude, I was determined to understand their mindset.  But 
despite all that I have learned since that time, I have come to admit that 
there are probably chasms of thought too deep for people to reach across … or, 
at least, people like me, at this age.   I simply lack the models, the 
commonplace toys of thought, with which you guys so effortlessly play.  

 

I will keep trying, of course,  But I thought, perhaps, being the New Year and 
all, now was a moment to stop and thank FRIAM members for your patience, your 
indulgence, and your profound commitment to teaching that has kept me alert and 
engaged and alive these last 14 years. 

 

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 ? u???
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Excellent!  I like everything you've said below.  In fact, were we able to 
clearly talk about heterarchies as explicitly externalizing controls, where 
hierarchies leave the source(s) of control ambiguous, then we'd map nicely back 
to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a tree walkable 
by a single control pointer.  And we'd also be able to discuss Rosen's 
conception of separating a closure of agency from (an openness to) the other 
types of cause (material, formal, and final).

 

The concept of a heterarchy facilitates the discussion of systemic behaviors 
like motive as separable into sets of distinct causes and structures in a way 
the concept of hierarchy does not.

 

On 1/7/19 6:12 PM, Eric Charles wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking 

> *something like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I 

> recalled Nick telling me at some point that he didn't like that way of 

> thinking, and I'm surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on 

> it. All metaphors are imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like 

> that way of talking a lot.

> While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an 

> arrangement of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of 

> cells arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various 

> inter-cellular structures organs are a bunch of tissues 

> arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various 

> inter-tissue structures, etc.

> 

> At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your 

> preferred sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is thinking:

> 

> Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment 

> matrix.

> 

> As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to 

> emphasize, it is true that there are many ways the 

> behavior-by-environment matrix can be constructed and arranged. Some 

> of those ways will reveal the relevant pattern in some instances, 

> others will not. The particular pattern is one in which the behavior 

> vary across circumstances so as to stay directed towards the 

> production of a particular outcome. This sounds very similar to "One 

> of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be 

> organized in multiple ways" but if I understood the prior discussion 

> of "heterarchy", I take it that concept is about a flexibility in 

> control/leadership, whereas no control is implied here (control being 

> a different pattern in a different matrix). The cause of the pattern 

> is a different matter entirely from the existence of the pattern - 

> which is expressly part of the point of Nick's way of approaching it, 
> i.e.,that a "motive" must be identifiable independent of a particular cause.

 

--

∄ 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/fria

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Robert Holmes]

Nick,

This seems to be an issue of Wittgenstein's Lion
<http://existentialcomics.com/comic/245>

—R

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:04 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Once again, I am lost in my own thread.
>
>
>
> I will say this:  often it seems, with both Marcus, and Glen, and even
> Owen and Steve, and to a lesser extent Dave West, that their (your)
> thinking is rooted in models from coding and because I have never been a
> coder those models are utterly unavailable to me.   I have always ... since
> childhood ...believed that if I worked hard enough at something I could
> understand it.  And so, almost 14 years ago, when I was cast loose in Santa
> Fe, and Steve and Owen and Carl and Frank took me into that jammed freezing
> cold office on Agua Fria.  They fed me when I was intellectually hungry and
> comforted me when I was intellectually lonely, *and in gratitude, I was
> determined to understand their mindset.*  But despite all that I have
> learned since that time, I have come to admit that there are probably
> chasms of thought too deep for people to reach across … or, at least,
> people like me, at this age.   I simply lack the models, the commonplace
> toys of thought, with which you guys so effortlessly play.
>
>
>
> I will keep trying, of course,  But I thought, perhaps, being the New Year
> and all, now was a moment to stop and thank FRIAM members for your
> patience, your indulgence, and your profound commitment to *teaching *that
> has kept me alert and engaged *and alive *these last 14 years.
>
>
>
> 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 ? u???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction
>
>
>
> Excellent!  I like everything you've said below.  In fact, were we able to
> clearly talk about heterarchies as explicitly externalizing controls, where
> hierarchies leave the source(s) of control ambiguous, then we'd map nicely
> back to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a tree
> walkable by a single control pointer.  And we'd also be able to discuss
> Rosen's conception of separating a closure of agency from (an openness to)
> the other types of cause (material, formal, and final).
>
>
>
> The concept of a heterarchy facilitates the discussion of systemic
> behaviors like motive as separable into sets of distinct causes and
> structures in a way the concept of hierarchy does not.
>
>
>
> On 1/7/19 6:12 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking
>
> > *something like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I
>
> > recalled Nick telling me at some point that he didn't like that way of
>
> > thinking, and I'm surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on
>
> > it. All metaphors are imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like
>
> > that way of talking a lot.
>
> > While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an
>
> > arrangement of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of
>
> > cells arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
>
> > inter-cellular structures organs are a bunch of tissues
>
> > arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
>
> > inter-tissue structures, etc.
>
> >
>
> > At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your
>
> > preferred sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is
> thinking:
>
> >
>
> > Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment
>
> > matrix.
>
> >
>
> > As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to
>
> > emphasize, it is true that there are many ways the
>
> > behavior-by-environment matrix can be constructed and arranged. Some
>
> > of those ways will reveal the relevant pattern in some instances,
>
> > others will not. The particular pattern is one in which the behavior
>
> > vary across circumstances so as to stay directed towards the
>
> > production of a particular outcome. This sounds very similar to "One
>
> > of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be
>
> > organized in multiple ways" but if I understood the prior discussion
>
> > of "heterarchy", I take it t

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[uǝlƃ ☣]

But isn't this precisely what Nick and Eric's rendition of Peirce (NEP) is 
arguing *against*?  By analogy, if we take a schematic structure like "if p, 
then q", it literally does not matter what p or q is bound to, what values they 
may or may not take on.  (In NEP, we're talking more about statistical patterns 
than logical schema.  But that shouldn't matter.)

So, if a lion suddenly spoke logic and could say "if boogle, then pinkle", NEP 
tells us there is *something* in that expression we can expect to converge over 
time.  And the human, hearing it can be completely ignorant of what boogle and 
pinkle mean, yet still grok the implication.  If that's NOT the case, then the 
lion isn't actually speaking logic.

Now, if we take a stance that language is embodied-situated and is directly 
derived from human physiology, evo-devo, fingers/toes, bipedal locomotion, etc. 
Then a lion speaking English would, literally, imply that the lion was 
instantly transformed into a human, including all their semantic bindings ... 
so you'd simply have 2 humans speaking English together.

Another tack against the conclusion Wittgenstein draws lies in the (relative) 
success of Eddington typewriters like Deep Blue and Watson.  Based on the 
structure by which inferences are made, we can build machines that reason 
successfully, even though they have no semantic grounding (no concrete 
experience of the atoms boogle or pinkle, but definitely have concrete 
experience of *inferring* pinkle from boogle).

On 1/8/19 10:07 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> This seems to be an issue of Wittgenstein's Lion 
> 

-- 
☣ 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

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick,

I will find a more approachable presentation of the Hearsay system.  It's
use of levels is worth knowing about.  It's a speech understanding system.
The levels are something like phoneme, word, phrase, etc.  It has
"knowledge sources" which do segmentation (find where one phoneme ends and
the next starts), evaluates two hypothesized words to see which fits the
context better, revise hypotheses at lower levels based on results at a
higher level, and many other tasks.  I must have a hardcopy introductory
paper around here somewhere.

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 11:04 AM Nick Thompson  Once again, I am lost in my own thread.
>
>
>
> I will say this:  often it seems, with both Marcus, and Glen, and even
> Owen and Steve, and to a lesser extent Dave West, that their (your)
> thinking is rooted in models from coding and because I have never been a
> coder those models are utterly unavailable to me.   I have always ... since
> childhood ...believed that if I worked hard enough at something I could
> understand it.  And so, almost 14 years ago, when I was cast loose in Santa
> Fe, and Steve and Owen and Carl and Frank took me into that jammed freezing
> cold office on Agua Fria.  They fed me when I was intellectually hungry and
> comforted me when I was intellectually lonely, *and in gratitude, I was
> determined to understand their mindset.*  But despite all that I have
> learned since that time, I have come to admit that there are probably
> chasms of thought too deep for people to reach across … or, at least,
> people like me, at this age.   I simply lack the models, the commonplace
> toys of thought, with which you guys so effortlessly play.
>
>
>
> I will keep trying, of course,  But I thought, perhaps, being the New Year
> and all, now was a moment to stop and thank FRIAM members for your
> patience, your indulgence, and your profound commitment to *teaching *that
> has kept me alert and engaged *and alive *these last 14 years.
>
>
>
> 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 ? u???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction
>
>
>
> Excellent!  I like everything you've said below.  In fact, were we able to
> clearly talk about heterarchies as explicitly externalizing controls, where
> hierarchies leave the source(s) of control ambiguous, then we'd map nicely
> back to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a tree
> walkable by a single control pointer.  And we'd also be able to discuss
> Rosen's conception of separating a closure of agency from (an openness to)
> the other types of cause (material, formal, and final).
>
>
>
> The concept of a heterarchy facilitates the discussion of systemic
> behaviors like motive as separable into sets of distinct causes and
> structures in a way the concept of hierarchy does not.
>
>
>
> On 1/7/19 6:12 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking
>
> > *something like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I
>
> > recalled Nick telling me at some point that he didn't like that way of
>
> > thinking, and I'm surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on
>
> > it. All metaphors are imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like
>
> > that way of talking a lot.
>
> > While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an
>
> > arrangement of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of
>
> > cells arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
>
> > inter-cellular structures organs are a bunch of tissues
>
> > arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
>
> > inter-tissue structures, etc.
>
> >
>
> > At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your
>
> > preferred sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is
> thinking:
>
> >
>
> > Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment
>
> > matrix.
>
> >
>
> > As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to
>
> > emphasize, it is true that there are many w

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

Thank you Robert.  The cartoon is fun, but the text that accompanies it is 
☻MARVELOUS☻.  Just a gorgeous piece of writing.  I think it’s a tad too strong 
in places. Obviously the words “Nurse, scalpel” play SOME role in the making of 
an accurate incision; otherwise, “Nurse, bone saw” might do as well.  The words 
have particular relevance to me, since I spent most of my career trying to 
understand animal communication.  In the that context, W.’s hypothetical 
becomes bemusing because I am here to tell you that lions do speak, and that we 
do, to some extent, understand them.  Much better, perhaps, than I understand 
software engineers. (};-)] 

 

In case some might miss the text that went with the cartoon, I add it below: 

 

In Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein famously said that "if a lion 
could speak, we could not understand him". This seems contradictory, because of 
course if he is speaking, it seems like we would understand him. But for 
Wittgenstein, the words themselves don't so much convey meaning, but express 
intent that is confined within a particular situation that takes place within 
our shared culture and experience. So, for example, if a surgeon is performing 
surgery and said "nurse, scalpel", it isn't simply the two words together that 
convey the meaning of the surgeon wanting the nurse to hand him a scalpel, it 
is their shared knowledge of what a surgery is, and what is expected under 
those circumstances. If, for example, the nurse and surgeon are later at a 
company dinner, and the surgeon says "nurse, salt", in the same cadence, this 
will be understood to be a joke, parodying the former circumstance. Nothing 
about the words themselves really conveys this, but only the shared world that 
both the nurse and surgeon occupy. This shared world is necessary for any 
language to function, and learning a language is not only learning the words, 
but the world in which we are expected to use the worlds.

On the hand, if a lion could suddenly speak English, it wouldn't matter much, 
because the world that the lion exists in is so divorced from ours, that his 
expressions, desires, and intents could still never be communicated. The lion 
doesn't know what a surgery is, or a dinner party, or a joke for that matter. 
Likewise, we don't know what sort world the lion occupies, so words would be 
useless. This phenomenon isn't as outlandish as it might sound at first, and 
even occurs frequently among humans. For example, I had two coworkers who 
played World of Warcraft constantly, and would talk about it at lunch. They 
could speak to each other for ten minutes, in English, and I wouldn't be able 
to decipher a single sentence. It isn't because I didn't understand the meaning 
of the worlds, but because I had no ability to relate the words to a situation 
or world that I knew, so the meaning was lost on me. If I can't understand a 
conversation about a video game I haven't played, even when I've played similar 
games, how can I be expected to understand a conversation between lions?

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 11:08 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Nick,

 

This seems to be an issue of Wittgenstein's Lion 
<http://existentialcomics.com/comic/245> 

 

—R

 

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:04 AM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Once again, I am lost in my own thread.  

 

I will say this:  often it seems, with both Marcus, and Glen, and even Owen and 
Steve, and to a lesser extent Dave West, that their (your) thinking is rooted 
in models from coding and because I have never been a coder those models are 
utterly unavailable to me.   I have always ... since childhood ...believed that 
if I worked hard enough at something I could understand it.  And so, almost 14 
years ago, when I was cast loose in Santa Fe, and Steve and Owen and Carl and 
Frank took me into that jammed freezing cold office on Agua Fria.  They fed me 
when I was intellectually hungry and comforted me when I was intellectually 
lonely, and in gratitude, I was determined to understand their mindset.  But 
despite all that I have learned since that time, I have come to admit that 
there are probably chasms of thought too deep for people to reach across … or, 
at least, people like me, at this age.   I simply lack the models, the 
commonplace toys of thought, with which you guys so effortlessly play.  

 

I will keep trying, of course,  But I thought, perhaps, being the New Year and 
all, now was a moment to stop and t

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Nick Thompson]

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/> 
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 
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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

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 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
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 
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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Gillian Densmore]

Well you see:P


On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:06 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> 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 <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM
> *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> 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 <
> 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

[uǝlƃ ☣]

FWIW, I have no idea what to call myself.  So, I often opt for "simulant", 
which usually requires an explanation.  Then I can yap till the cows come home 
about systems engineering, programming, yaddayaddayadda and let other people 
decide what to call me.  (It's usually not a flattering label they give me. 8^) 
 But Marcus is right that I would never call myself a software engineer, having 
been trained by actual engineers.

On 1/8/19 1:57 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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?  

-- 
☣ 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]

My rule of thumb is that if they have to take time out to `identify' me, they 
aren't interested in a conversation anyway.   They are just interested in 
where/if I fit in their pecking order or in their tedious, error-prone mental 
filing system.   Best for both of us if we don't communicate!   Many years ago 
I had complex/heuristic Lisp rules in Emacs to sort incoming e-mails into 
categories.   But I found the e-mails I wanted to read were not from people 
that had rigid organizational relationships to me or followed single topics.  

On 1/8/19, 4:02 PM, "uǝlƃ ☣"  wrote:

FWIW, I have no idea what to call myself.  So, I often opt for "simulant", 
which usually requires an explanation.  Then I can yap till the cows come home 
about systems engineering, programming, yaddayaddayadda and let other people 
decide what to call me.  (It's usually not a flattering label they give me. 8^) 
 But Marcus is right that I would never call myself a software engineer, having 
been trained by actual engineers.

On 1/8/19 1:57 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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?  

-- 
☣ 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



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/> 
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/> 
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

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] 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 http://friam-comic.blogspot

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/> 
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 
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange>
  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 

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 <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

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] 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

[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/> 
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 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/style/self-care/terry-gross-conversation-advice.html>
  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

[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] 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/> 
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 ta

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

[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

[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 o

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/> 
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/> 
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 <mailto: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

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/> 
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

[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

[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

[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/> 
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  
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange>
 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 htt

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] Motives - Was Abduction

[Roger Critchlow]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

-- rec --

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:23 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:

> 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
>

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]

Trump is coming up frequently in this "abduction" thread, especially
with regard communication and rhetoric.A very good, quite
enlightening, book about this is Scott Adams' (yes, the Dilbert
cartoonist) *_Win Bigly_*.
davew


On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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[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.> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

If there were a deep state it would have disappeared this guy.   Hierarchical 
systems are way too efficient.


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]

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

<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange>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 unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIChttp://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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Steve writes:

< I happen to be reading Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell" which is a 
deep dive into the theme of how people (sometimes) show their best while 
suffering great disasters.   Particularly in the area of community spirit and 
synergistic cooperation.  She anecdotally and analytically reviews disasters 
from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake to Katrina, focusing *mostly* on the 
positive examples of people stepping up individually and collectively to show 
demonstrate/discover their "best selves".   In this, she speaks of the tension 
between "Seeking a better life" and "Seeking a better world".   It is suggested 
that in the face of disaster, the latter is evidently the most efficient route 
to the former, and on the whole, the behaviour of individuals in those contexts 
suggests that such is self-evident.   She acknowledges that there are plenty of 
opportunists who *do not* apprehend that their "best interests" are supported 
by cooperation, but instead notice that the fragility of their context allows 
them to "exploit" that fragility, and in fact seem convinced that it is not 
only an opportunity but an unction. >

There’s a more cynical interpretation of positive disaster behavior.  Because 
of the way human memory works, everyone understands that *many* people will 
remember in vivid detail all kinds of nuances about a crisis.   So it is of 
benefit to be helpful, because others will remember that.   It does not 
necessarily mean that anything will change about how an otherwise Grinch-like 
person will behave after the crisis.   Goodwill is a currency and a crisis is 
when one can buy low.   Also it may just be collectively necessary in some 
circumstances for everyone to cooperate, and even a completely selfish person 
can see that.

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]

Marcus Daniels wrote:


If there were a deep state it would have disappeared this guy.   
Hierarchical systems are way too efficient.


I'd like to (and sometimes do) believe that Trump & Co's apparent 
incompetence and general foolishness reflects a lack of deep conspiracy 
ON the Right, as well as his continued survival (not shot, poisoned, or 
pushed from the open door of Marine 1) suggests there is no Deep State.


On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his 
presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?"


While many (most) conspiracists might applaud Trump's ascendency and 
consider it a victory over their favorite bogeymen, I can't see anything 
that would suggest that if such bogeymen actually do exist that they 
wouldn't be *using* this train-wreck for their own purposes.   And is 
there a singular monolithic bogeyman called "Deep State" or is it 
factionated into many subgroups who are right now in their evil lair 
fighting over whether or when or how to "neutralize" or "liquidate" 
Agent Orange?  In this parallel universe, how many times has one agent 
of the deep state interfered with the Sniper in the Clocktower...  Spy 
vs Spy style?


The *left-wing* CS types who are sure he's in Putin's pocket don't seem 
to recognize that Putin (and many others with less profile) might be 
using Trump (and others with less profile) as blunt instruments... just 
softening us up by stirring us up... with little if any regard for the 
specific puppeteering often attributed to them?  While Trump's attempted 
withdrawal of troops from Syria *might* have been a response to direct 
Putin-Whispering or Erdogan-Whispering, it might have just been a whim 
based on his motivated but under-informed style of isolationism.


- 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

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Steve writes:

< On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his 
presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?"  >

To clarify, I’m talking about the hypothesis of a Deep State that breaks rules 
as they need to be broken to advance the general welfare of people in the 
country & world.   I don’t have any doubt that the kind of Deep State you are 
describing exists, but that reality is more the failure of organizations to 
police themselves than a (sub)organization that has become especially 
autonomous and potent.

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]

Marcus -


< On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if 
his presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?" >


To clarify, I’m talking about the hypothesis of a Deep State that 
breaks rules as they need to be broken to advance the general welfare 
of people in the country & world.


I didn't know anyone hypothesized this version...  the people I know who 
run on incessantly about "Deep State" seem to be categorically talking 
about a deeply non-altruistic version.


And my original point still (might) hold(s) if we push the ends/means 
justification far enough.   What if having Trump in office somehow 
*does* advance the general welfare of the people (and sentient animals) 
in the country and the world?   Sort of a "back fire" against the more 
effective, institutionalized fascist narcissism of the "shallow 
state/culture/..."?


The version you reference here, reminds me (quite tangentially) of the 
collective sub-protaganists in John Brunner's 1984 novel "Shockwave 
Rider" where a collective of well meaning individuals set up (Precipice) 
to provide a ubiquitous anonymous ear (Hearing Aid) for anyone "just 
needing to talk".


From Wikipedia's plot summary:

    Precipice turns out to be a Utopian community of a few thousand
   people. The nearest comparison would be an agrarian, cottage
   industry  community
   designed by William Morris
   . Precipice is also
   the home of "Hearing Aid", an anonymous telephone confession service
   accessible to anyone in the country. Hearing Aid is also known as
   the "Ten Nines", after the phone number used to call it:
   999-999-. People call the service, a human operator answers, and
   they simply talk while the operator listens. Some rant, others seek
   sympathy, still others commit suicide while on the phone. Hearing
   Aid's promise is that nobody else, not even the government, will
   hear the call. The only response Hearing Aid gives to a caller is
   "Only I heard that, I hope it helped."

  A million plot twists aside, the bottom line (as I remember it when I 
read it) was that the *collective* knowledge/intelligence of the members 
of Precipice gained by having listened to millions of people talk openly 
to them about their greatest hopes/fears gave them some incredible 
advantage/perspective which supported their Utopian ideals (nominally 
altruistic in the sense you reference above).   As I remember it, this 
consequence was an entirely unintended side-consequence.


  I don’t have any doubt that the kind of Deep State you are 
describing exists, but that reality is more the failure of 
organizations to police themselves than a (sub)organization that has 
become especially autonomous and potent.


I would suppose that any and all criminal organizations which have 
penetrated various parts of "the State" *are* this.   The (alleged?) 
criminal elements of the CIA and/or foreign equivalents (e.g KGB) or 
even the Mexican Federal Police, for example.


Is this another example of the conflation of "absence of evidence" with 
"evidence of absence"?


- Steve


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]

Steve writes:

< And my original point still (might) hold(s) if we push the ends/means 
justification far enough.   What if having Trump in office somehow *does* 
advance the general welfare of the people (and sentient animals) in the country 
and the world?   Sort of a "back fire" against the more effective, 
institutionalized fascist narcissism of the "shallow state/culture/..."? >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

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

[Eric Smith]

An article on this that found enjoyable was the following:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-russian-influence-campaign-remains-so-hard-to-understand

There are a key set of areas, where I often think the bulk of the commentariat 
go off on tangents and distractions, and Masha sees clearly the point and can 
cut to it without difficulty.

The importance of noise qua noise in the predatory behavior patterns of 
opportunistic con-men seems to me an important observation.  It’s not changing 
a language; it’s not even a coordinated effort to “destroy” a language, quite.  
It is just throwing up clouds of chaff so they can dart about and steal stuff 
under cover.

She did another interview with Gary Kasparov that I also liked:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/garry-kasparov-says-we-are-living-in-chaos-but-remains-an-incorrigible-optimist

he being another who says things I haven’t heard before and endlessly repeated. 
 He comments that dictators are all in key respects opportunists.  I also love 
his characterization of the core message of Putin:  We are shit. You are shit. 
It’s all bullshit.  What democracy?”  That observation works well together with 
the former observation about the role of noise.

Eric



> On Jan 10, 2019, at 4:49 AM, 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] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Eric writes: 

"I also love his characterization of the core message of Putin:  We are shit. 
You are shit. It’s all bullshit.  What democracy?”

If it is all bullshit, then why not steal Putin's stuff?  You know, just for 
shits and grins.   I guess if people are just demoralized and terrified they 
won't.   

I also appreciate Steve remarks about the consequences of devolving norms in 
Washington.   I can see folks on CNN talk about the same topics day after day 
after day, distributing the same information.   But it isn't until the Southern 
District of New York gives Cohen a sentence out that it is `real' -- ultimately 
an authority is invoked to move on to the next thing.   The possibility that 
hundreds of lies just keep accumulating and the choice is between rationalizing 
and categorizing them or forgetting them is very strange.   Trump is a denial 
of service attack.

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]

Eric writes:

"I also love his characterization of the core message of Putin:  We are shit. 
You are shit. It’s all bullshit.  What democracy?”

Marcus writes:

If it is all bullshit, then why not steal Putin's stuff?  You know, just for 
shits and grins.   I guess if people are just demoralized and terrified they 
won't.
I would love to think there would be people out there doing just that.   
And the Trumpster himself would seem like an even softer target?   The 
idea among confidence gamers that "the best mark is a conman" (as 
demonstrated in movies like "The Grifters" and "The Sting") suggests 
that bosons like Trump and Putin are ultimately just *huge* attractive 
nuisances, begging to be fleeced.   I can't imagine that they aren't 
subject to everything from petty pilfering (albeit very carefully) to 
huge conspiracies from within.

Trump is a denial of service attack.


Well said!

Even the mainstream media (which I watch way too much of these days, in 
rapt morbid fascination) seems to understand this.   When they were 
debating amongst themselves whether to bother to air Trump's Oval Office 
address, they seemed to understand that *they* are playing into his 
control/distortion of the news cycle/topic. But they seem as powerless 
to stop doing that as I am to quit streaming their inane presentation of 
Trump's inanity into my eyeballs...


I need to adopt/develop a good conspiracy theory I can call my own to 
obsess over... using DoS to fight DoS?  The media (and now congress) 
seem to be responding to Trump with their own DDoS of sorts, pummeling 
him with snark and drang from all sides.


- Steve



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

[Eric Smith]

Marcus wrote:

  Trump is a denial of service attack.

I love this.  There must be some T-shirt opportunity in it.  One might be able 
to make enough money selling them at an appropriate conference to live 
independently for a year, and do the work one likes without writing grant 
proposals, which cannot be evaluated becuse the US govt is closed.






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]

 techniques?).> The American 
> Cannabis Summit video Roger linked suggests that there is
> "wealth" to be had by jumping on the Cannabis bandwagon, comparing it
> to Tobacco, among other things.   The message seems to equate "wealth"
> with "leverage over others"...  without much more than a passing nod
> to the actual enrichment of lives (individually and collectively).
> Without debating whether the widespread legalization and
> commercialization of Cannabis implies/supports some "greater good"> I happen 
> to be reading Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell"
> which is a deep dive into the theme of how people (sometimes) show
> their best while suffering great disasters.   Particularly in the area
> of community spirit and synergistic cooperation.  She anecdotally and
> analytically reviews disasters from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake
> to Katrina, focusing *mostly* on the positive examples of people
> stepping up individually and collectively to show demonstrate/discover
> their "best selves".   In this, she speaks of the tension between
> "Seeking a better life" and "Seeking a better world".   It is
> suggested that in the face of disaster, the latter is evidently the
> most efficient route to the former, and on the whole, the behaviour of
> individuals in those contexts suggests that such is self-evident.
> She acknowledges that there are plenty of opportunists who *do not*
> apprehend that their "best interests" are supported by cooperation,
> but instead notice that the fragility of their context allows them to
> "exploit" that fragility, and in fact seem convinced that it is not
> only an opportunity but an unction.   In their zero (or negative) sum
> model, the only way to get what they need is to take it (or hoard it)
> from someone else, and *sharing* is deeply suspect at best and> ON the topic 
> of "persuasion" vs "ethics", one of Adam's reviewers
> reflected: "But, when I was in school, we always discussed ethical
> responsibility of the persuader and Adams does not. As long as Trump
> was persuasive he was going to win and that’s what matters."   I
> suppose this is the tension I often experience... between that which
> is "efficacioius" in a (deliberately?) limited context, and that which
> has a larger context and is nominally discussed in terms of ethical
> and moral frameworks.> I was raised in various cultures of "rugged 
> individualism" which
> biases me toward what I perceive to be a *natural/instinctual*
> state of "me first".   I would claim that *fortunately*, I grew
> (over many decades now) into an awareness that while that might be
> the default position to retreat to when all available strategies
> for a larger collective (family, neighborhood, tribe, etc.) seem
> hopeless or negative, that those collectives are a deeply adaptive
> aspect of life's evolution.   Many organisms are capable of living
> in relative isolation from members of their own group, but do seem
> to thrive in groups of their own type but also enhanced by modest
> diversity (forests, savannahs, blooms, pods, hives,  tribes,
> schools, flocks, etc.).> I'm rambling/rattling on (as usual) here, but I'd 
> like to hear your
> (DaveW) perspective on this topic, since you have spoken fairly
> directly to the ideals of individualism.> What is the case (from your 
> perspective) to the complement to rabid
> individualism?   Does the individualists bogeymen of collectivism or
> in the (relative) extreme Globalism have *any* redeeming qualities, or
> is the very idea of participating in larger and larger collectives
> (hierarchical or heterarchical) completely antithetical to the
> survival and enrichment of the individual?> - SteveS


> On 1/10/19 6:40 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Trump is coming up frequently in this "abduction" thread, especially
>> with regard communication and rhetoric.A very good, quite
>> enlightening, book about this is Scott Adams' (yes, the Dilbert
>> cartoonist) *_Win Bigly_*.>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>> 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 Comple

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

David writes:

< I am in fact saying that avoiding the disaster is what matters and we might 
have prevented the disaster if we had recognized and addressed the factors that 
made it inevitable instead of wailing and gnashing teeth about the driver being 
a drunk sex offender working for a company that skipped safety inspections ... >

Progressives complain a lot about superdelegates and advantages that Hillary 
had over Bernie.  Political parties are supposed to do this sort of thing:  
Setup a system so that crazy things don’t happen.  Vet your candidate.   
(Bernie happens not to be crazy, but that populist movement had its fair share 
of wingnuts.)

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]

Dave -
First, why /Win Bigly/ recommend. Adams' book is his attempt to 
understand, to deconstruct and analyze, why he "knew" with complete 
certainty that Trump would win simply by observing one of his first 
political rallies. From where did that conviction arise? Why was it so 
absolute? Adams eventually comes to the conclusion that he was so 
certain because he non-consciously, at first, recognized a master 
communicator. Most of the book is a series of anecdotal 'experiments' 
that fleshed out and confirmed his instinctual reaction at the first 
rally. Ultimately it is a cautionary tale: if you can't (my own 
editorial position, if you won't) recognize why — despite all the 
negatives — he won, you will not be able to defeat him next time.
I think I got this point in a post several weeks ago and maybe even 
during the election runup/aftermath.  It opens as many questions as it 
closes however.   I didn't engage (much) then, and am perhaps still (2 
years later?) still trying to form the question.


As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers: 
/"//But, when I was in school, we always discussed ethical 
responsibility of the persuader and Adams does not. As long as Trump 
was persuasive he was going to win and that’s what matters."/ This 
misconstrues what Adams, who is definitely NOT a Trump fan or even 
apologist, is saying.
I appreciate your own explanation of "Win Bigly".  It isn't that 
surprising that many of his reviewers would miss his point in favor of 
some slightly askew but fundamentally different.
A different metaphor: I am standing on a hill watching as a Tanker 
truck filled with, but leaking, 5,000 gallons of gasoline rushing 
headlong towards a family minivan and state the obvious, "that truck 
gonna crush that minivan and immolate every person nearby," and "the 
truck outweighs the minivan by 5 tons, it has no breaks and the truck 
driver is slumped over behind the wheel," and "there is nothing the 
minivan can do about it unless it is a Transformer in mufti." I am not 
saying that the truck crushing the minivan is "what matters." I am in 
fact saying that avoiding the disaster is _what matters_ and we might 
have prevented the disaster if we had recognized and addressed the 
factors that made it inevitable instead of wailing and gnashing teeth 
about the driver being a drunk sex offender working for a company that 
skipped safety inspections ...


Yes to this, I think.  Both the point that avoiding the disaster is at 
least what is most important in the moment, and some kind of 
understanding of how we might have avoided it in the first place has a 
less urgent but  similar if not equal level of importance. If we 
*imagine* that the driver of the 5 ton truck with failed brakes was 
slumped over his wheel in a drunken stupor while reviewing child 
pornography on his electronic tablet, then I suppose being incensed 
about those factors is relevant to the imminent disaster and possible 
future replays by trucks from the same or similar companies with drivers 
with the same or similar questionable habits.


I do believe you might be referring to the common tendency to take the 
facts of a (dire) situation and apply them immediately through the lens 
of your own agenda-structured worldview, letting the current imminent 
incident be fodder for promoting some subset of one's agendas... say 
like what the White House has been doing around the southern border 
"crisis".




Trump's communication skills ensured that he would win as long as the 
opposition focused on the cretin instead of the policy.


I'm surprised you (and Scott Adams?) would call this "communication 
skills"... he IS effective at what I would more aptly call 
*mis*communication.   It is not that he has a complicated or subtle or 
exotic idea to share which he then serializes into a series of 
communications (talking points in a speech, or a series of tweets), but 
rather that he spews something which may or may not be well crafted, but 
has a quality which misdirects the listener in a way that supports is 
*goals* which are very likely far from the ones he is stating overtly.


My father used to say, when watching a rodeo clown, "you have to be 
really good to be that bad!" referring to the apparent clumsy buffoonery 
being played out to distract the recently goaded bull from the 
bullriding goader trying to get up off the dirt and back to the safety 
of the arena fence.




Second, Individualism. The list recently struggled with the idea of 
labeling (categorizing) people and my response to your question and 
observations about individualism will echo some of the labeling 
conversation.


I will resist being labeled an "individualist" because every 
characterization I have seen on this list is grounded, in one way or 
another, on "individual rights." I do not believe that indivdiual's 
have "rights," even the inalienable ones, that are not derived 
entirely from "individual responsibility."
I think I sha

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

< As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers: "But, when I 
was in school, we always discussed ethical responsibility of the persuader and 
Adams does not. As long as Trump was persuasive he was going to win and that’s 
what matters." >

He’s not persuasive.   His arguments are ridiculous and appeal to the stupid 
and ignorant.   See Alfredo’s post.

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

[Prof David West]

"Persuasive" is a term the reviewer used, Adams restricts his analysis
to "communication." The two terms are worlds apart. I would claim that
no one in politics is persuasive, and given the polarity that exists in
political discourse, it is impossible for anyone to be persuasive.
davew


On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> < As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers:
> *"But, when I was in school, we always discussed ethical
> responsibility of the persuader and Adams does not. As long as Trump
> was persuasive he was going to win and that’s what matters."* >>  


> He’s not persuasive.   His arguments are ridiculous and appeal to the
> stupid and ignorant.   See Alfredo’s post.>  


> 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

[Marcus Daniels]

The kind of communication that Trump uses should just be illegal 
(Volksverhetzung).

From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:56 AM
To: "friam@redfish.com" 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

"Persuasive" is a term the reviewer used, Adams restricts his analysis to 
"communication." The two terms are worlds apart. I would claim that no one in 
politics is persuasive, and given the polarity that exists in political 
discourse, it is impossible for anyone to be persuasive.

davew


On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

< As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers: "But, when I 
was in school, we always discussed ethical responsibility of the persuader and 
Adams does not. As long as Trump was persuasive he was going to win and that’s 
what matters." >



He’s not persuasive.   His arguments are ridiculous and appeal to the stupid 
and ignorant.   See Alfredo’s post.



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]

Geez, Dave.  I might have put it the other way.  People are persuasive as hell; 
they just aren’t communicating.  

 

But I haven’t been following the thread.  

 

Get back here!  It’s Friday and we need you. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 7:56 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

"Persuasive" is a term the reviewer used, Adams restricts his analysis to 
"communication." The two terms are worlds apart. I would claim that no one in 
politics is persuasive, and given the polarity that exists in political 
discourse, it is impossible for anyone to be persuasive.

 

davew

 

 

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

< As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers: "But, when I 
was in school, we always discussed ethical responsibility of the persuader and 
Adams does not. As long as Trump was persuasive he was going to win and that’s 
what matters." >

 

He’s not persuasive.   His arguments are ridiculous and appeal to the stupid 
and ignorant.   See Alfredo’s post.  

 

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> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
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

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

Apologies for not snipping more of the below.  I try to only include the 
relevant bits.  But Steve is particularly good at tight weaves.

I'll (inappropriately, I'm sure) name Dave's conception of individualism as 
"networked extensive individualism" (NEI).  Networked to address what I infer 
from the word "absolute".  And the graph is either undirected or the edges are 
bidirectional.  Extensive because there's some sense that the attributes of the 
nodes extend out along the edges to other nodes.  If we allow for different 
types of edges, then each sub-graph (following only the edges associated with 1 
attribute) might have a larger or smaller extent/size.  Again, "absolute" would 
play, here.

So, if that sort of name is OK, then I have to ask why use the word 
"individual" at all?  It sounds very much more like "fabric" or "population" 
... perhaps even "gooey colloid".  What does the individual comprise that is 
not out in the larger network?

My *guess* is that my intuition tells me there's a natural asymmetry between 
actions and considerations (a more neutral way of saying "rights" and 
"responsibilities").  An individual can be a towering intellect or a complete 
moron and both might be capable of making a great cup of tea.  So, when we 
package up, as a kind of shorthand a sub-graph into an "individual", we're 
trying to create some sort of equivalence between action and consideration.  If 
you act without thinking things through, then we blame you.  If your actions 
(even accidentally as I think Scott Adams' prediction Trump would win was an 
accident) imply to us that you're some mysterious, deep oracle (e.g. Richard 
Feynman), then credit you.

But this is a false equivalence.  A specific form of this is the Great Man 
theory, where people like Einstein or whoever are "10-100 times more effective 
than average".  If we *parse* "effective" well, then it's true.  But we're in 
danger of assuming that efficacy in action is somehow directly related to "deep 
thought" or "intelligence" or whatever.

I hope that makes sense.

On 1/10/19 4:19 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> On 1/10/19 2:26 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Second, Individualism. The list recently struggled with the idea of labeling 
>> (categorizing) people and my response to your question and observations 
>> about individualism will echo some of the labeling conversation.
>>
>> I will resist being labeled an "individualist" because every 
>> characterization I have seen on this list is grounded, in one way or 
>> another, on "individual rights." I do not believe that indivdiual's have 
>> "rights," even the inalienable ones, that are not derived entirely from 
>> "individual responsibility."
> I think I share some analog to your rights/responsibility duality. But I also 
> think they are part of a social construct/contract. "Rights" and 
> "Responsibilities" only make sense to me in the context of some group. I 
> think in most cultures *many* of the rights and responsibilities of the 
> "individual" are so implicit in the culture that we don't think much about 
> them until we get around to conjuring up a constitutional governance document 
> or facing a judge in a courtroom.
>>
>> I am ultimately and absolutely responsible for, not only myself, but, 
>> labeling again, all sentient life. While this seems absurd on its face, it 
>> is directly analogous to the Bodhisattva. (A goal, not an achievement!)
> Why draw the boundary around sentient life?  Why not include *all 
> consciousness* or *all life* and then extend  that to *all patterns of matter 
> and energy*?   I'm not asking this challengingly...  I'm suggesting that in 
> the same way expanding past "me" to "my family" to "my tribe" to "my nation" 
> to "my race" to "my species" to "my genus" or "family" or "order" or even 
> "kingdom" makes some real sense.
>> Corollaries follow: 1) absolute responsibility also means absolute 
>> accountability, including if a mistake is made ("do the crime, do the time");
> I think the question of "accountability" vs vaguely related concepts like 
> "retribution", "revenge", "rehabilitation", "recovery", even "return to 
> grace" is important but probably worth deferring here.
>> 2) a critical dimension of responsibility is acquiring the kind of 
>> 'omniscience' that assures non-attachment;
> These are somewhat the opposite of "Willful Ignorance", methinks?
>> 3) every act (behavior) I exhibit is both informed and intentional;
> 
> In some limit, yes.  But along a spectrum it would seem.   Until one has 
> achieved said "Omniscient Non-attached Enlightenment" there is room for 
> weakly informed and therefore mis-applied intentions.   The truck-driver 
> hurtling toward the minivan loaded with a model family (including a couple of 
> cute dogs) may well have been swerving to avoid a deer when his poor 
> information lead him to believe that he could do so without crossing lanes, 
> jumping a barrier, and flying headlong into said family (in th

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

< Geez, Dave.  I might have put it the other way.  People are persuasive as 
hell; they just aren’t communicating.  >

There’s nothing left to talk about.   Progressive states and municipalities 
just need to insulate themselves as much as possible from the rest, and 
encourage movement toward the cities (at least in spirit), whether it is folks 
born in rural areas or folks from other countries.   Remote work technologies 
help do this, but it is still easy to feel isolated as a remote worker.   
Better just to get people to move, I think.   Bleed them dry.

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

[Prof David West]

Nick,

The definition of persuade begins with "cause (someone) ..." which
implies some degree or 'change' e.g. from a current mindset/belief to a
modification of same.  Within "groups" you might find persuasion, but
across "groups" there is none;, "confirmation bias" and all that.
davew


On Fri, Jan 11, 2019, at 8:03 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Geez, Dave.  I might have put it the other way.  People are persuasive
> as hell; they just aren’t communicating.>  


> But I haven’t been following the thread. 


>  


> Get back here!  It’s Friday and we need you.


>  


> 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:* Friday, January 11, 2019 7:56 AM *To:*
> friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction>  


> "Persuasive" is a term the reviewer used, Adams restricts his analysis
> to "communication." The two terms are worlds apart. I would claim that
> no one in politics is persuasive, and given the polarity that exists
> in political discourse, it is impossible for anyone to be persuasive.>  


> davew


>  


>  


> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


>> < As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers:
>> *"But, when I was in school, we always discussed ethical
>> responsibility of the persuader and Adams does not. As long as Trump
>> was persuasive he was going to win and that’s what matters."* >>>  


>> He’s not persuasive.   His arguments are ridiculous and appeal to the
>> stupid and ignorant.   See Alfredo’s post.>>  


>> 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


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]

Glen -

As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field 
dual, all this resonates well.  I also like your characterization as 
"gooey colloid" and was reminded of JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of 
atoms.


I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilities... 
sort of a verb/noun or active/passive duality?


Regarding the use of the term "effectivity".   I long ago began to 
rephrase statements using "good" with similar statements being 
"effective".   e.g. "Science is good at X" with "Science is effective 
for addressing the topic/problem/question of X".   The key point is to 
replace an absolute value judgement with a more contextualized and 
relative one.


If Trump claimed "A Physical Barrier like a Concrete Wall or a 
Beautifully Artistic Steel Slatted Fence is particularly effective in 
helping personnel in charge of maintaining border security stop the 
casual crossing of the border without appropriate inspection of cargo 
and entry documents" rather than the variety of simpleton dumbass claims 
he *does make*, he would A) put most people to sleep; B) be part of a 
constructive conversation toward improving the effectiveness of our 
southern national border.


- Steve

PS.  Thanks for the (underhanded?) complement on my "tight weave".   I 
started to claim that I don't *intend* to make the discourse more 
difficult to analyze, then I realized, that I probably DO intend to 
prevent the context of any given conversation from being trivialized or 
made degenerate for the sake of clarity over meaning.


On 1/11/19 8:20 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:

Apologies for not snipping more of the below.  I try to only include the 
relevant bits.  But Steve is particularly good at tight weaves.

I'll (inappropriately, I'm sure) name Dave's conception of individualism as "networked extensive 
individualism" (NEI).  Networked to address what I infer from the word "absolute".  And the 
graph is either undirected or the edges are bidirectional.  Extensive because there's some sense that the 
attributes of the nodes extend out along the edges to other nodes.  If we allow for different types of edges, 
then each sub-graph (following only the edges associated with 1 attribute) might have a larger or smaller 
extent/size.  Again, "absolute" would play, here.

So, if that sort of name is OK, then I have to ask why use the word "individual" at all?  It sounds very much 
more like "fabric" or "population" ... perhaps even "gooey colloid".  What does the 
individual comprise that is not out in the larger network?

My *guess* is that my intuition tells me there's a natural asymmetry between actions and considerations (a 
more neutral way of saying "rights" and "responsibilities").  An individual can be a 
towering intellect or a complete moron and both might be capable of making a great cup of tea.  So, when we 
package up, as a kind of shorthand a sub-graph into an "individual", we're trying to create some 
sort of equivalence between action and consideration.  If you act without thinking things through, then we 
blame you.  If your actions (even accidentally as I think Scott Adams' prediction Trump would win was an 
accident) imply to us that you're some mysterious, deep oracle (e.g. Richard Feynman), then credit you.

But this is a false equivalence.  A specific form of this is the Great Man theory, where people like Einstein or 
whoever are "10-100 times more effective than average".  If we *parse* "effective" well, then it's 
true.  But we're in danger of assuming that efficacy in action is somehow directly related to "deep thought" 
or "intelligence" or whatever.

I hope that makes sense.

On 1/10/19 4:19 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

On 1/10/19 2:26 PM, Prof David West wrote:

Second, Individualism. The list recently struggled with the idea of labeling 
(categorizing) people and my response to your question and observations about 
individualism will echo some of the labeling conversation.

I will resist being labeled an "individualist" because every characterization I have seen on this list is 
grounded, in one way or another, on "individual rights." I do not believe that indivdiual's have 
"rights," even the inalienable ones, that are not derived entirely from "individual responsibility."

I think I share some analog to your rights/responsibility duality. But I also think they are part of a social 
construct/contract. "Rights" and "Responsibilities" only make sense to me in the context 
of some group. I think in most cultures *many* of the rights and responsibilities of the 
"individual" are so implicit in the culture that we don't think much about them until we get around 
to conjuring up a constitutional governance document or facing a judge in a courtroom.

I am ultimately and absolutely responsible for, not only myself, but, labeling 
again, all sentient life. While this seems absurd on its face, it is directly 
analogous to the Bodhisattva. (A goal, not an achievement!)

Why draw the 

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Steven A Smith]

David -


Steven,

Is is a pleasure to do discourse with you.

The pleasure is mutual.
Minor clarification: When I mention "sentient life" I do indeed 
include all life. In fact, given that I take as a working assumption 
the Vedic (and then Buddhist) notion that the entire universe, all the 
way down to quanta is an admixture of purusa (mind) and prakrti 
(matter) so even a 'string' is sentient. Pragmatically, I focus on 
multi-cellular lifeforms that I can actually sense / interact with.
This is the sense which I prefer and acknowledge the pragmatic limits 
implied by "that which I can actually sense/interact with." I would like 
to learn more about your Vedic (cum Buddhist?) groundings in the 
philosophical (often shrouded in political) discussions here.  Or maybe 
it just helps that you have made them explicit (or I have finally heard 
your explication of them).
"Willful ignorance" — I would indeed assert that most people are 
willfully ignorant most of the time, that the vast majority live lives 
that are "unexamined" ala Plato.  This is the reason that I am very, 
very, wary of "pure democracy."
It seems to come with our language functions to be both willful and 
ignorant.   Animals which we presume to have no significant language 
ability, have a very different quality of each "will" and "ignorance" 
and I don't think "willful ignorance" really makes sense for them except 
to the extent that we humans project that onto them.  My dogs can seem 
to exhibit willful ignorance,   but I think something less complicated 
is going on.  They can definitely be willful, and they do something 
which is like feigning ignorance (e.g. pretending not to hear me until I 
rattle the milk-bone box, breaking that illusion).
Christopher Alexander spoke at OOPSLA a decade ago — an architect 
talking to software professionals. He noted that professional 
architects influence roughly 10% of the built world, but software folk 
will influence 100 percent, and not just the physical "built" world, 
but every aspect of life, redefining work, play. culture 
I'm a fan of Alexander, mildly for his architectural/urbanist work, 
almost not at all for his influence of SW and "design patterns", but 
hugely for the abstract underpinnings of form and function.
"With great power comes great responsibility." Alas the software folks 
have refused to accept the responsibility that goes hand in hand with 
the power they have.  And this is a case of dramatic "willful 
ignorance" on the part of the software community, but also those 
engaged in city and social planning efforts. Everything they do 
affects people — individually, collectively, socio-politically, and 
culturally — and yet they are "willfully ignorant" of people.
Much of my work over the decades has been roughly in the realm of "user 
interface"... not exactly or always directly involving building UI's, 
but rather centered on the problem of how to help humans be more 
effective/efficient through the leverage/mediation of computers.   The 
culture of "willful ignorance" in systems analysts, software engineers, 
coders, etc.   is extreme.   And I believe it inherits from the 
techno-utopian/techno-cratic mindset of Scientists, Engineers, and 
Technologists in general.   Present (collective) company included.   
Pogo and Scott Adams both seemed to have our number from early on: "We 
have met the enemy and they is us!"
The attached paper was presented at PURPLSOC (software, city planning, 
social change agents) in Austria last fall. It became the featured 
paper of the conference and proceedings. I think you might find it 
interesting, and, hopefully, find some seeds for further discussion of 
how a social construct might evolve from the kind of individualism we 
both seem to resonate to.
Thanks, I'll take a look.  I knew through Jenny that you had been 
(presenting?) at a conference on patterns last year, but hadn't bothered 
to follow up.   From the Abstract, I think I'll find plenty of meat to 
chew on and try to respond responsibly to it.
[The professor at Macalester College that inspired my interest in 
utopian/designed communities was Hildegarde B. Johnson. Just 
remembered her full name.]


Just looked her up... fascinating story of maintaining/promoting 
Geography in the Liberal Arts.


-sas



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

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Heh.  When I was tasked with explaining agent-based modeling to some art 
students in Sweden, I made heavy use of the gooey colloid metaphor. There were 
a lot of blank stares in the audience. 8^)  But the guy who hired me was happy 
with the presentation.  So, who knows?

I think I agree with Marcus.  Trump is neither a good communicator nor a good 
persuader.  If I were going to say something positive about him, I'd call him a 
poet, since I view poetry as a balance act between being *just* descriptive 
enough to imply some thing, but vague enough to allow the audience maximum 
freedom to fill in whatever nonsense they want to from their own imagination.  
Whether Trump trains himself in his poetry or if he was trained by his genes 
and rearing is irrelevant.  And all that should be read with the knowledge that 
I do not like poetry.  I do like *performative* poetry to some extent, though.  
I'm fans of the epic rants of someone like Lewis Black, spoken-word lyrics, 
some rap, etc.  But if you compare a good performer (actors, comedians, 
rappers) to Trump, there's still something missing from his public 
presentations.

One speculation I like is that Trump is a small-group presenter, not a large 
group presenter.  The only explanation I can come up with for the loyalty his 
"friends" show him is that he must be a pretty good interpersonal manipulator.  
One on one, perhaps Trump is respectful, flattering, etc.  And it's just when 
he gets into a larger audience that he flubs it.  It's difficult to manipulate 
a large number of people (unless they're *already* pre-adapted to the 
manipulation like at his rallies).

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to 
communicate or persuade, only to perform.

And the tight weave thing was definitely a compliment, and very much on the 
topic of speaking with language that hangs together and can 
communicate/persuade, even if *you* don't intend or want to. 8^)

On 1/11/19 11:43 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field dual, 
> all this resonates well.  I also like your characterization as "gooey 
> colloid" and was reminded of JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of atoms.
> 
> I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilities... sort 
> of a verb/noun or active/passive duality?
> 
> Regarding the use of the term "effectivity".   I long ago began to rephrase 
> statements using "good" with similar statements being "effective".   e.g. 
> "Science is good at X" with "Science is effective for addressing the 
> topic/problem/question of X".   The key point is to replace an absolute value 
> judgement with a more contextualized and relative one.
> 
> If Trump claimed "A Physical Barrier like a Concrete Wall or a Beautifully 
> Artistic Steel Slatted Fence is particularly effective in helping personnel 
> in charge of maintaining border security stop the casual crossing of the 
> border without appropriate inspection of cargo and entry documents" rather 
> than the variety of simpleton dumbass claims he *does make*, he would A) put 
> most people to sleep; B) be part of a constructive conversation toward 
> improving the effectiveness of our southern national border.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> PS.  Thanks for the (underhanded?) complement on my "tight weave".   I 
> started to claim that I don't *intend* to make the discourse more difficult 
> to analyze, then I realized, that I probably DO intend to prevent the context 
> of any given conversation from being trivialized or made degenerate for the 
> sake of clarity over meaning.

-- 
☣ 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

[Frank Wimberly]

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to
communicate or persuade, only to perform.

This is consistent with his saying *everything* three times.  He turns a 15
minute performance into a 45 minute one.
---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 1:31 PM uǝlƃ ☣  Heh.  When I was tasked with explaining agent-based modeling to some art
> students in Sweden, I made heavy use of the gooey colloid metaphor. There
> were a lot of blank stares in the audience. 8^)  But the guy who hired me
> was happy with the presentation.  So, who knows?
>
> I think I agree with Marcus.  Trump is neither a good communicator nor a
> good persuader.  If I were going to say something positive about him, I'd
> call him a poet, since I view poetry as a balance act between being *just*
> descriptive enough to imply some thing, but vague enough to allow the
> audience maximum freedom to fill in whatever nonsense they want to from
> their own imagination.  Whether Trump trains himself in his poetry or if he
> was trained by his genes and rearing is irrelevant.  And all that should be
> read with the knowledge that I do not like poetry.  I do like
> *performative* poetry to some extent, though.  I'm fans of the epic rants
> of someone like Lewis Black, spoken-word lyrics, some rap, etc.  But if you
> compare a good performer (actors, comedians, rappers) to Trump, there's
> still something missing from his public presentations.
>
> One speculation I like is that Trump is a small-group presenter, not a
> large group presenter.  The only explanation I can come up with for the
> loyalty his "friends" show him is that he must be a pretty good
> interpersonal manipulator.  One on one, perhaps Trump is respectful,
> flattering, etc.  And it's just when he gets into a larger audience that he
> flubs it.  It's difficult to manipulate a large number of people (unless
> they're *already* pre-adapted to the manipulation like at his rallies).
>
> Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to
> communicate or persuade, only to perform.
>
> And the tight weave thing was definitely a compliment, and very much on
> the topic of speaking with language that hangs together and can
> communicate/persuade, even if *you* don't intend or want to. 8^)
>
> On 1/11/19 11:43 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field
> dual, all this resonates well.  I also like your characterization as "gooey
> colloid" and was reminded of JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of atoms.
> >
> > I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilities...
> sort of a verb/noun or active/passive duality?
> >
> > Regarding the use of the term "effectivity".   I long ago began to
> rephrase statements using "good" with similar statements being
> "effective".   e.g. "Science is good at X" with "Science is effective for
> addressing the topic/problem/question of X".   The key point is to replace
> an absolute value judgement with a more contextualized and relative one.
> >
> > If Trump claimed "A Physical Barrier like a Concrete Wall or a
> Beautifully Artistic Steel Slatted Fence is particularly effective in
> helping personnel in charge of maintaining border security stop the casual
> crossing of the border without appropriate inspection of cargo and entry
> documents" rather than the variety of simpleton dumbass claims he *does
> make*, he would A) put most people to sleep; B) be part of a constructive
> conversation toward improving the effectiveness of our southern national
> border.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> > PS.  Thanks for the (underhanded?) complement on my "tight weave".   I
> started to claim that I don't *intend* to make the discourse more difficult
> to analyze, then I realized, that I probably DO intend to prevent the
> context of any given conversation from being trivialized or made degenerate
> for the sake of clarity over meaning.
>
> --
> ☣ 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
>

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]

Something along these lines, with the help of higher density of Trump voters in 
states favored with electoral density.  And Trump himself is somewhere towards 
the right side of the red distribution.  Thus he a good communicator because 
the messages that need to be conveyed to this audience have to be simple.

From: Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 1:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to 
communicate or persuade, only to perform.

This is consistent with his saying *everything* three times.  He turns a 15 
minute performance into a 45 minute one.
---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 1:31 PM uǝlƃ ☣ 
mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
Heh.  When I was tasked with explaining agent-based modeling to some art 
students in Sweden, I made heavy use of the gooey colloid metaphor. There were 
a lot of blank stares in the audience. 8^)  But the guy who hired me was happy 
with the presentation.  So, who knows?

I think I agree with Marcus.  Trump is neither a good communicator nor a good 
persuader.  If I were going to say something positive about him, I'd call him a 
poet, since I view poetry as a balance act between being *just* descriptive 
enough to imply some thing, but vague enough to allow the audience maximum 
freedom to fill in whatever nonsense they want to from their own imagination.  
Whether Trump trains himself in his poetry or if he was trained by his genes 
and rearing is irrelevant.  And all that should be read with the knowledge that 
I do not like poetry.  I do like *performative* poetry to some extent, though.  
I'm fans of the epic rants of someone like Lewis Black, spoken-word lyrics, 
some rap, etc.  But if you compare a good performer (actors, comedians, 
rappers) to Trump, there's still something missing from his public 
presentations.

One speculation I like is that Trump is a small-group presenter, not a large 
group presenter.  The only explanation I can come up with for the loyalty his 
"friends" show him is that he must be a pretty good interpersonal manipulator.  
One on one, perhaps Trump is respectful, flattering, etc.  And it's just when 
he gets into a larger audience that he flubs it.  It's difficult to manipulate 
a large number of people (unless they're *already* pre-adapted to the 
manipulation like at his rallies).

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to 
communicate or persuade, only to perform.

And the tight weave thing was definitely a compliment, and very much on the 
topic of speaking with language that hangs together and can 
communicate/persuade, even if *you* don't intend or want to. 8^)

On 1/11/19 11:43 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field dual, 
> all this resonates well.  I also like your characterization as "gooey 
> colloid" and was reminded of JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of atoms.
>
> I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilities... sort 
> of a verb/noun or active/passive duality?
>
> Regarding the use of the term "effectivity".   I long ago began to rephrase 
> statements using "good" with similar statements being "effective".   e.g. 
> "Science is good at X" with "Science is effective for addressing the 
> topic/problem/question of X".   The key point is to replace an absolute value 
> judgement with a more contextualized and relative one.
>
> If Trump claimed "A Physical Barrier like a Concrete Wall or a Beautifully 
> Artistic Steel Slatted Fence is particularly effective in helping personnel 
> in charge of maintaining border security stop the casual crossing of the 
> border without appropriate inspection of cargo and entry documents" rather 
> than the variety of simpleton dumbass claims he *does make*, he would A) put 
> most people to sleep; B) be part of a constructive conversation toward 
> improving the effectiveness of our southern national border.
>
> - Steve
>
> PS.  Thanks for the (underhanded?) complement on my "tight weave".   I 
> started to claim that I don't *intend* to make the discourse more difficult 
> to analyze, then I realized, that I probably DO intend to prevent the context 
> of any given conversation from being trivialized or made degenerate for the 
> sake of clarity over meaning.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

=

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I think that conflates the communicat-or with the communication medium.  My 
question to Dave about the need for "individual" in his version of 
individualism was intended to sideload this point.  To what extent is a person 
simply a *vehicle* for innovations to bubble up through?  We spend all this 
faith-based energy believing that individuals have thoughts and intentions, 
when perhaps we're merely *tools*.  Dawkins, I think, proposed that we're just 
the hosts for our genotype.  Same idea.

To posit that Trump is a "good XYZ" is tantamount to saying he has thoughts and 
intentions at all.  I agree that he probably does.  But it seems to me his 
thoughts and intentions are all about *spectacle*.  He's willing to trade any 
postulate for its opposite *if* such a trade will attract more eyeballs to him. 
 Saying that's communication is like saying the TV, itself, programs the shows 
it plays for you.  At best, the TV constrains or filters the shows (e.g. full 
screen format vs. wide screen format).  We don't confuse the TV with a TV show 
and we shouldn't take Trump for a communicator.  He has no idea what it is he's 
communicating.

Nirvana said it best:

He's the one, who likes
All our pretty songs, and he
Likes to sing along, and he
Likes to shoot his gun, but he
Don't know what it means
Don't know what it means

On 1/11/19 12:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Something along these lines, with the help of higher density of Trump voters 
> in states favored with electoral density.  And Trump himself is somewhere 
> towards the right side of the red distribution.  Thus he a good communicator 
> because the messages that need to be conveyed to this audience have to be 
> simple.

-- 
☣ 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

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to 
communicate or persuade, only to perform.
I do believe that this describes his intentions (as best I can tell from 
outside and far away).   I think he believes that he *is* persuasive 
just by his presence/nature and that there is no need to communicate 
anything excepting his authority.   To quote a couple of Austrian 
bodybuilders "hear me now and believe me later" seems to be his style?

And the tight weave thing was definitely a compliment, and very much on the 
topic of speaking with language that hangs together and can 
communicate/persuade, even if *you* don't intend or want to. 8^)


While I know this was tongue ^ in cheek ) , I think this type of forum 
and the personal style of each of us as "communicators" is very 
interesting.   On the surface, I would claim that *of course I want to 
communicate!*.   I'm not always interested in "persuading" because I 
feel that my "audience" (the subset of the forum that hears me now, 
whether they believe me later or not) is capable of coming to their own 
conclusions and rightly so.  In fact, I would say "persuasive" modes 
interfere with "communication".  For the most part, I don't think anyone 
here is significantly motivated to "persuade".


There are other motivations than simple communication and persuasion 
practiced here, including "to entertain", "to ask for help", "to offer 
support/perspective", and "to express/vent".   By and large, this is a 
very civil and knowledgeable online community.   The biggest challenges 
I recognize for us are: A) too few active voices (~dozen?); B) too 
little diversity (voices mostly white males over 50?); C) not enough 
explicit Complexity Science discussion.


I can't say how much I appreciate it when a new or infrequent voice 
(Jackie Kazil most recently) speaks up... our raucous discussions often 
seem to continue on over these new/unique voices and I wish we were 
better at including/encouraging them without being awkward about it 
(like this very sentence?).


Since I tend to be pretty herky-jerky in my posting (especially of 
late), I feel a little conspicuous when I go on a riff of 
posts/responses like this current one.   I do trust that many here have 
me in their TL;DR filter (explicit or implicit) already so I'm at worst 
a minor nuisance to them.  For what it is worth, most of the time I'm 
silent, I've possibly composed as many as several replies each day but 
never sent because I was either interrupted and when I came back to 
them, just didn't feel the urge to complete them, or my 
self-consciousness over not wanting to add noise over signal overwhelms 
my need to compulsively express my opinion on just about everything 
posited here.


- Steve



On 1/11/19 11:43 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field dual, all this 
resonates well.  I also like your characterization as "gooey colloid" and was reminded of 
JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of atoms.

I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilities... sort 
of a verb/noun or active/passive duality?

Regarding the use of the term "effectivity".   I long ago began to rephrase statements using "good" with 
similar statements being "effective".   e.g. "Science is good at X" with "Science is effective for 
addressing the topic/problem/question of X".   The key point is to replace an absolute value judgement with a more 
contextualized and relative one.

If Trump claimed "A Physical Barrier like a Concrete Wall or a Beautifully Artistic 
Steel Slatted Fence is particularly effective in helping personnel in charge of 
maintaining border security stop the casual crossing of the border without appropriate 
inspection of cargo and entry documents" rather than the variety of simpleton 
dumbass claims he *does make*, he would A) put most people to sleep; B) be part of a 
constructive conversation toward improving the effectiveness of our southern national 
border.

- Steve

PS.  Thanks for the (underhanded?) complement on my "tight weave".   I started 
to claim that I don't *intend* to make the discourse more difficult to analyze, then I 
realized, that I probably DO intend to prevent the context of any given conversation from 
being trivialized or made degenerate for the sake of clarity over meaning.



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]

Jon,

 

I wrote this immediately but forgot to send it. 

 

I have to say, the idea of a squandered metaphor really grabbed me.  I may have 
squandered some metaphors, in my own time.  A metaphor is definitely something 
that can be used prematurely or other than for its highest and best use.   

 

I am not sure what monads and monism have to do with each other, other than 
that they share a linguistic root.  Honest.  I have trouble seeing the 
connection.  

 

As I understand it, “monism” is a philosophical position that asserts that 
there is only one kind of stuff.  There are materialist monists, idealist 
monists, and neutral monists.  My “experience monism” (which I attribute to 
Peirce) is meant to be a form of neutral monism.  It makes no claim, takes no 
interest in, any claim that “experience” is either “in the mind” or “of the 
world”.  Experience just is.  Experiences represent only other experiences.  

 

I don’t have much of a grip on MonADism.  As I understand monads, they are 
irreduceable “atoms” of existence.  They have no innards.   Now I suppose [he 
said, thinking aloud] that I might believe that everything that is consists of 
irreduceable particles of unchanging properties … and that would be a monist 
monadism.  

 

I am still tantalized by the thought that “you-guys” know something that arises 
from the depth of your practice that could be put into words for a person like 
me.  I have written a little on metaphors in science, published less.  But what 
I have learned suggests that the more specific and the less handwavey a 
metaphor is, the more “juice” it has.  In that connection, I was sorry we 
didn’t pursue further John Balwit’s example of Goedel, Escher, and Bach, as a 
book that points into the heart of computation by describing three different 
practices that are peripheral to it and inviting the reader to get a feel for 
what they have in common.   

 

I hope some folks follow up on your suggestion. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Jon Zingale [mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 9:49 AM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Re: Motives - Was Abduction

 

Marcus,

 

There is almost something ironic about mentioning

monads in a discussion which continues to skirt

relationships between monist and dualist perspectives.

Unlike Leibniz's notion of monad (classic monism),

the 'functional programming' notion of monad is

necessarily steeped in dualism (thanks category theory).

While it is amusing that these categorical structures

have found a home in the tool sets of functional

programmers (thanks Moggi), it is the case that they

are often misrepresented in the poetry of armchair

philosophers across the internet:

 

Q: How is a monad like Vegas?

A: What happens in a monad stays in a monad.

 

In an effort to avoid a continuous stream of squandered

metaphors and endless meandering I wish to see this

metaphor spelled out further. In your example, what

would the multiplication for the monad be? If it is fair

to say that this is a monad, in what sense are the units

and multiplication natural? Lastly, what are the categories

(objects and morphisms)?

 

As far as characterizing subjectivity and degrees of

failure, would it perhaps be more fair to suggest a

comonadic model?

 

Jonathan Zingale


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

[lrudolph]

>We spend all this faith-based energy believing that individuals
> have thoughts and intentions, when perhaps we're merely *tools*.

Cf. Fort's maxim, "A social growth cannot find out the use of steam
engines, until comes steam-engine-time."



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

[lrudolph]

Nick writes, in relevant part:

> I am not sure what monads and monism have to do with each other, other
> than that they share a linguistic root.  Honest.  I have trouble seeing
> the connection.
...
> I don't have much of a grip on MonADism.  As I understand monads, they
> are irreduceable "atoms" of existence.  They have no innards.

The "monads" of category theory did not arise under that name, and they
absolutely have "innards".  Why Saunders MacLane renamed them (as I just
learned by checking Wikipedia) that is probably known to many, but not to
me; as an instance of the "working mathematician" to whom his book
"Categories for the Working Mathematician" was purportedly addressed (J.
Frank Adams has a reference in one of his books to "Categories for the
Idle Mathematician"), I have a long experience of observing category
theorists' whimsy (e.g., Peter Freyd's "kittygory" for a "small category",
Peter Johnstone's "pointless topology", etc., etc.), and I suspect that
MacLane was mostly indulging in that rather than riffing on antique
philosophy.  Certainly the word is short and snappy, and that's sufficient
to explain why it caught on.

To the extent that it can be useful and accurate to describe some bit of
mathematics (or a name for that bit of mathematics) by applying to it the
term "metaphor" borrowed from rhetoric, it will almost always be MORE
useful and MORE accurate (if harder for Nick to deal with) to apply to it
another term borrowed from rhetoric, "conceit". Consulting Wikipedia, I
find that "modern literary criticism", damn its collective eyes, has
redefined that good old word for its own malign ends.  What *I* mean by it
is (I find by consulting the rather pre-modern Princeton Encyclopedia of
Poetry and Poetics) a generalization away from literature of the
"metaphysical conceit" (as contrasted with the "Petrarchian conceit"; and
named for the Metaphysical Poets, not for William James's coterie): "An
intricate [...] metaphor [...] in which the [...] qualities or functions
of the described entity are presented by means of a vehicle which shares
no physical features with the entity" (of course the "physical features"
business is not part of *my* meaning).

That is, a conceit is a metaphor that pays serious attention to the
multi-level *structures* and *functions* involved on both sides of the
trope.  A simple metaphor need have no innards; a conceit can be
jam-packed with them, but not arbitrarily jam-packed.  (The part of the
preceding sentence before the semi-colon is itself a pretty simple
metaphor.  The part after the semi-colon at least tends towards conceit. 
If I started to distinguish different kinds and functions of innards that
bodies can have--bones, muscles, vital and less-vital organs, etc.--and
likewise to distinguish different substructures that metaphors can have,
along with functions that they perform in the service of metaphorical
communication, and THEN set up a correspondence between the bodily innards
and the metaphorical substructures that "respected" their respective
functions...that would be a conceit.  Which I don't intend to work on any
further at the moment.)

The category-theorists among us may think I'm describing morphisms etc.
etc.  If they do, then they're committing metaphor (or thinking that I
am).  If they go further, and try to make sense about rhetorical
activities by applying category theory, then they're committing conceit.

Enough for now.

Lee








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]

Thanks, Lee, for "conceit".  If it means what it says it means to anybody
but you, I may have to reconsider my decade long use of term, metaphor.  

 

Do I find myself in a rats' nest of category theorists?  I had always
thought that category was a rather outré field, that mathematicians were a
little embarrassed to be interested in.  An now suddenly they are as think
on the ground as rabbits.  Help me understand the teams, here, the … um …
categories.

 

N

 

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
lrudo...@meganet.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 7:57 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

 

Nick writes, in relevant part:

 

> I am not sure what monads and monism have to do with each other, other 

> than that they share a linguistic root.  Honest.  I have trouble 

> seeing the connection.

...

> I don't have much of a grip on MonADism.  As I understand monads, they 

> are irreduceable "atoms" of existence.  They have no innards.

 

The "monads" of category theory did not arise under that name, and they
absolutely have "innards".  Why Saunders MacLane renamed them (as I just
learned by checking Wikipedia) that is probably known to many, but not to
me; as an instance of the "working mathematician" to whom his book
"Categories for the Working Mathematician" was purportedly addressed (J.

Frank Adams has a reference in one of his books to "Categories for the Idle
Mathematician"), I have a long experience of observing category theorists'
whimsy (e.g., Peter Freyd's "kittygory" for a "small category", Peter
Johnstone's "pointless topology", etc., etc.), and I suspect that MacLane
was mostly indulging in that rather than riffing on antique philosophy.
Certainly the word is short and snappy, and that's sufficient to explain why
it caught on.

 

To the extent that it can be useful and accurate to describe some bit of
mathematics (or a name for that bit of mathematics) by applying to it the
term "metaphor" borrowed from rhetoric, it will almost always be MORE useful
and MORE accurate (if harder for Nick to deal with) to apply to it another
term borrowed from rhetoric, "conceit". Consulting Wikipedia, I find that
"modern literary criticism", damn its collective eyes, has redefined that
good old word for its own malign ends.  What *I* mean by it is (I find by
consulting the rather pre-modern Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and
Poetics) a generalization away from literature of the "metaphysical conceit"
(as contrasted with the "Petrarchian conceit"; and named for the
Metaphysical Poets, not for William James's coterie): "An intricate [...]
metaphor [...] in which the [...] qualities or functions of the described
entity are presented by means of a vehicle which shares no physical features
with the entity" (of course the "physical features"

business is not part of *my* meaning).

 

That is, a conceit is a metaphor that pays serious attention to the
multi-level *structures* and *functions* involved on both sides of the
trope.  A simple metaphor need have no innards; a conceit can be jam-packed
with them, but not arbitrarily jam-packed.  (The part of the preceding
sentence before the semi-colon is itself a pretty simple metaphor.  The part
after the semi-colon at least tends towards conceit. 

If I started to distinguish different kinds and functions of innards that
bodies can have--bones, muscles, vital and less-vital organs, etc.--and
likewise to distinguish different substructures that metaphors can have,
along with functions that they perform in the service of metaphorical
communication, and THEN set up a correspondence between the bodily innards
and the metaphorical substructures that "respected" their respective
functions...that would be a conceit.  Which I don't intend to work on any
further at the moment.)

 

The category-theorists among us may think I'm describing morphisms etc.

etc.  If they do, then they're committing metaphor (or thinking that I am).
If they go further, and try to make sense about rhetorical activities by
applying category theory, then they're committing conceit.

 

Enough for now.

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FR

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Prof David West]

Steven,

Fall of 1968, I abandoned physics and adopted Asian Philosophy (first
semester at Macalester College). Since then, every spare moment, and
many not so spare, was dedicated to learning and practicing. My
vocation, quite by accident, was always programming/software/IT but
everything in that realm is intensely informed by the philosophy.
Like you, I have been totally underwhelmed by Alexander's Pattern
language stuff and especially its adoption in the software community. I
am really enamored with his early writing on "non self conscious
process," "fit" as a design principle; "unfolding," "Timeless Way of
Building," and a lot, but not all, of Nature of Order.
Given your career, "centered on the problem of how to help humans be
more effective/efficient through the leverage/mediation of computers"
really interests me. Englebart's paper on Augmenting Human Intelligence
(circa 1965) was truly inspirational but I admit ignorance about how or
if it had much impact. Nothing I have read in the area of UI / UX has
seemed to have that kind of focus. Perhaps you could share some insights
/ references from your work?
davew


On Fri, Jan 11, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> David -


>> Steven,
>> 
>> Is is a pleasure to do discourse with you.
> The pleasure is mutual.
> 
>> Minor clarification: When I mention "sentient life" I do indeed
>> include all life. In fact, given that I take as a working assumption
>> the Vedic (and then Buddhist) notion that the entire universe, all
>> the way down to quanta is an admixture of purusa (mind) and prakrti
>> (matter) so even a 'string' is sentient. Pragmatically, I focus on
>> multi-cellular lifeforms that I can actually sense / interact with.> This is 
>> the sense which I prefer and acknowledge the pragmatic limits
> implied by "that which I can actually sense/interact with."   I would
> like to learn more about your Vedic (cum Buddhist?) groundings in the
> philosophical (often shrouded in political) discussions here.  Or
> maybe it just helps that you have made them explicit (or I have
> finally heard your explication of them).> 
>> 
>> "Willful ignorance" — I would indeed assert that most people are
>> willfully ignorant most of the time, that the vast majority live
>> lives that are "unexamined" ala Plato.  This is the reason that I am
>> very, very, wary of "pure democracy."> It seems to come with our language 
>> functions to be both willful and
> ignorant.   Animals which we presume to have no significant language
> ability, have a very different quality of each "will" and "ignorance"
> and I don't think "willful ignorance" really makes sense for them
> except to the extent that we humans project that onto them.  My dogs
> can seem to exhibit willful ignorance,   but I think something less
> complicated is going on.  They can definitely be willful, and they do
> something which is like feigning ignorance (e.g. pretending not to
> hear me until I rattle the milk-bone box, breaking that illusion).> 
>> Christopher Alexander spoke at OOPSLA a decade ago — an architect
>> talking to software professionals. He noted that professional
>> architects influence roughly 10% of the built world, but software
>> folk will influence 100 percent, and not just the physical "built"
>> world, but every aspect of life, redefining work, play. culture > I'm a 
>> fan of Alexander, mildly for his architectural/urbanist work,
> almost not at all for his influence of SW and "design patterns", but
> hugely for the abstract underpinnings of form and function.> 
>> 
>> "With great power comes great responsibility." Alas the software
>> folks have refused to accept the responsibility that goes hand in
>> hand with the power they have.  And this is a case of dramatic
>> "willful ignorance" on the part of the software community, but also
>> those engaged in city and social planning efforts. Everything they do
>> affects people — individually, collectively, socio-politically, and
>> culturally — and yet they are "willfully ignorant" of people.> Much of my 
>> work over the decades has been roughly in the realm of
> "user interface"... not exactly or always directly involving building
> UI's, but rather centered on the problem of how to help humans be more
> effective/efficient through the leverage/mediation of computers.   The
> culture of "willful ignorance" in systems analysts, software
> engineers, coders, etc.   is extreme.   And I believe it inherits from
> the techno-utopian/techno-cratic mindset of  Scientists, Engineers,
> and Technologists in general.   Present (collective) company included.
> Pogo and Scott Adams both seemed to have our number from early on: "We
> have met the enemy and they is us!"> 
>> 
>> The attached paper was presented at PURPLSOC (software, city
>> planning, social change agents) in Austria last fall. It became the
>> featured paper of the conference and proceedings. I think you might
>> find it interesting, and, hopefully, find some seeds for furth

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Prof David West]

Glen, 

I want to respond to this but my knowledge of graphs is laughable, so please be 
patient.

When I attempt to visualize a graph to use as a metaphor for explaining my 
notions of individualism — the image in my mind is of Indra's Net  ( 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net ) which itself is a metaphor.

As a node in that net I have at my disposal the entirety of the net. [There are 
some interesting convolutions that get from 'refelcting' to 'containing'.]

As a node with the ability to "act" (i.e. exhibit behavior) I cannot avoid 
"acting/behaving." This is not a "right" to act it is a "responsibility" to act 
(Don't ask from whence this responsibility came to be assigned to me) and, to 
"act responsibly."

"Responsible Action" is one that is fully informed, that takes into account all 
available input; which in the case of a gem in Indra's Net, means the entire 
universe. Only possible for those who are enlightened.

When I state that I am an individual, I am asserting a degree of autonomy along 
with an obligation to act responsibly. To act responsibly each action must be 
conscious, deliberative, and fully informed. As a 'gem' in Indra's Net, I have 
the potential to be absolutely informed and my humanity is determined by the 
extent to which I avail myself of that potential.

The possibility of and the means of achieving things like group structures, 
cultures, social compacts, governments, etc. from a presumption of 
individualism as depicted above it an entirely different realm to explore.

All of the above feels at least orthogonal to, if not contradictory, of  your 
graph explanation. But please explain why  and how I might be wrong.

davew



On Fri, Jan 11, 2019, at 8:20 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote:
> Apologies for not snipping more of the below.  I try to only include the 
> relevant bits.  But Steve is particularly good at tight weaves.
> 
> I'll (inappropriately, I'm sure) name Dave's conception of individualism 
> as "networked extensive individualism" (NEI).  Networked to address what 
> I infer from the word "absolute".  And the graph is either undirected or 
> the edges are bidirectional.  Extensive because there's some sense that 
> the attributes of the nodes extend out along the edges to other nodes.  
> If we allow for different types of edges, then each sub-graph (following 
> only the edges associated with 1 attribute) might have a larger or 
> smaller extent/size.  Again, "absolute" would play, here.
> 
> So, if that sort of name is OK, then I have to ask why use the word 
> "individual" at all?  It sounds very much more like "fabric" or 
> "population" ... perhaps even "gooey colloid".  What does the individual 
> comprise that is not out in the larger network?
> 
> My *guess* is that my intuition tells me there's a natural asymmetry 
> between actions and considerations (a more neutral way of saying 
> "rights" and "responsibilities").  An individual can be a towering 
> intellect or a complete moron and both might be capable of making a 
> great cup of tea.  So, when we package up, as a kind of shorthand a sub-
> graph into an "individual", we're trying to create some sort of 
> equivalence between action and consideration.  If you act without 
> thinking things through, then we blame you.  If your actions (even 
> accidentally as I think Scott Adams' prediction Trump would win was an 
> accident) imply to us that you're some mysterious, deep oracle (e.g. 
> Richard Feynman), then credit you.
> 
> But this is a false equivalence.  A specific form of this is the Great 
> Man theory, where people like Einstein or whoever are "10-100 times more 
> effective than average".  If we *parse* "effective" well, then it's 
> true.  But we're in danger of assuming that efficacy in action is 
> somehow directly related to "deep thought" or "intelligence" or 
> whatever.
> 
> I hope that makes sense.
> 
> On 1/10/19 4:19 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > On 1/10/19 2:26 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> >> Second, Individualism. The list recently struggled with the idea of 
> >> labeling (categorizing) people and my response to your question and 
> >> observations about individualism will echo some of the labeling 
> >> conversation.
> >>
> >> I will resist being labeled an "individualist" because every 
> >> characterization I have seen on this list is grounded, in one way or 
> >> another, on "individual rights." I do not believe that indivdiual's have 
> >> "rights," even the inalienable ones, that are not derived entirely from 
> >> "individual responsibility."
> > I think I share some analog to your rights/responsibility duality. But I 
> > also think they are part of a social construct/contract. "Rights" and 
> > "Responsibilities" only make sense to me in the context of some group. I 
> > think in most cultures *many* of the rights and responsibilities of the 
> > "individual" are so implicit in the culture that we don't think much about 
> > them until we get around to conjuring up a const

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Some counter examples:

1) You do not have the potential to fully informed.  The governments of China 
or Iran would never give you access to their classified data, for example.   
Heck, the US government probably wouldn't either with all your discussion of 
psychedelics and what not!

2) You cannot assert autonomy.   You are a part of a physical, economic, and 
social fabric that is largely out of your control.
Further, you are a biological system that follows the laws of physics.   What 
you are at t+1 comes from what you were at time t and you are entangled in 
everything, much of which is outside of the membrane that can be called `you'.  

3) There does not exist the technology yet to change your own DNA (in 
predictable and reliable ways) or to direct edit neural constructs, or to 
extend neural constructs with open-ended compute resources.   Even if you were 
fully informed you couldn't do anything with much of the information you would 
have access to, because it is just to complicated to understand or to use for 
predictions.Even if this were possible, the agents with the most compute 
and the best models will win and that too will be a historical accident.

In summary, your life means nothing and neither does mine.

Have fun,

Marcus

On 1/12/19, 2:28 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West" 
 wrote:

"Responsible Action" is one that is fully informed, that takes into account 
all available input; which in the case of a gem in Indra's Net, means the 
entire universe. Only possible for those who are enlightened.

When I state that I am an individual, I am asserting a degree of autonomy 
along with an obligation to act responsibly. To act responsibly each action 
must be conscious, deliberative, and fully informed. As a 'gem' in Indra's Net, 
I have the potential to be absolutely informed and my humanity is determined by 
the extent to which I avail myself of that potential.

The possibility of and the means of achieving things like group structures, 
cultures, social compacts, governments, etc. from a presumption of 
individualism as depicted above it an entirely different realm to explore.

All of the above feels at least orthogonal to, if not contradictory, of  
your graph explanation. But please explain why  and how I might be wrong.


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

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

W.r.t. Indra's Net, I can understand Hofstadter's description in Gödel, Escher, 
Bach only because he asserts Indra's Net can be modeled with "augmented 
transition networks" (ATNs).  ATNs have some of the properties we've talked 
about on the list (e.g. in the context of Rosen) like reflectivity - one node 
"modeling" another node, modeling the original node, etc. - and closures - the 
network being invoked fully parameterized with all variables bound so that 
action is always possible.

Having said that, my purpose was to try to repeat back to you what I heard, 
albeit in fewer words and my own words.  Obviously I didn't do that for (at 
least) leaving out at least this percolation and bounce-back waviness aspect 
Hofstadter mentions (and that might map to your rights/responsibilities 
unification).  So, rather than putting too much weight on my words "networked" 
and "extensive", I can change the model from an abstract graph to, say, a set 
of balls with springs between them.  So the movement of any ball could 
(potentially) make another ball wobble anywhere in the net and you could have 
waves and deformations of any "lattice-like" complexity.

But even that metaphor fails because, in my rendition I infer from you, the 
edges/springs are manifold.  So, any notion of locality, a node and it's 1-hop 
neighbors is no more "real" or a higher priority than, say, a node and another 
one 1000 hops away.  I imagine a *set* of different graphs with different types 
of springs connecting different types of nodes and sub-graphs.

And this moves on to Marcus' comment.  Indra's Net is inadequate for a 
well-formed *model*.  There's something (vague) about it that won't submit to 
approximation.  Perhaps this is where Rosen can be invoked in his "no largest 
model" conception of complexity.  But everything we do as unenlightened 
*individuals* is make models of the world.  As Walt Whitman might inject, we 
can create many models, some of which contradict others.  Our beaten horse can 
be quantum mechanics and gravity, both are accurate, yet contradict one another.

So, something *like* Indra's Net, yet more well-formed is required if we're 
going to handle cases like private information (governments or perfect 
encryption), the heterarchical gooey colloid of physiochemically driven 
thinking meat (e.g. humans), etc.

So, how am I doing?  Does this new description *still* seem orthogonal or 
contradictory to what you're saying?


On 1/12/19 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Some counter examples:
> 
> 1) You do not have the potential to fully informed.  The governments of China 
> or Iran would never give you access to their classified data, for example.   
> Heck, the US government probably wouldn't either with all your discussion of 
> psychedelics and what not!
> 
> 2) You cannot assert autonomy.   You are a part of a physical, economic, and 
> social fabric that is largely out of your control.
> Further, you are a biological system that follows the laws of physics.   What 
> you are at t+1 comes from what you were at time t and you are entangled in 
> everything, much of which is outside of the membrane that can be called 
> `you'.  
> 
> 3) There does not exist the technology yet to change your own DNA (in 
> predictable and reliable ways) or to direct edit neural constructs, or to 
> extend neural constructs with open-ended compute resources.   Even if you 
> were fully informed you couldn't do anything with much of the information you 
> would have access to, because it is just to complicated to understand or to 
> use for predictions.Even if this were possible, the agents with the most 
> compute and the best models will win and that too will be a historical 
> accident.
> 
> In summary, your life means nothing and neither does mine.
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Marcus
> 
> On 1/12/19, 2:28 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West" 
>  wrote:
> 
> "Responsible Action" is one that is fully informed, that takes into 
> account all available input; which in the case of a gem in Indra's Net, means 
> the entire universe. Only possible for those who are enlightened.
> 
> When I state that I am an individual, I am asserting a degree of autonomy 
> along with an obligation to act responsibly. To act responsibly each action 
> must be conscious, deliberative, and fully informed. As a 'gem' in Indra's 
> Net, I have the potential to be absolutely informed and my humanity is 
> determined by the extent to which I avail myself of that potential.
> 
> The possibility of and the means of achieving things like group 
> structures, cultures, social compacts, governments, etc. from a presumption 
> of individualism as depicted above it an entirely different realm to explore.
> 
> All of the above feels at least orthogonal to, if not contradictory, of  
> your graph explanation. But please explain why  and how I might be wrong.


-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ


FR