Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Russ, Thanks for continuing to press on this. Before Roger C., went to Sea in Boston Harbor, he gave me a wonderful History of Chemistry, which I valiantly read from cover to cover. Of course, I understood very little of it, but I brought it with me to the Mosquito Infested Swamp, and

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Glen, If you want to see how NPD is amenable to type 2 treatment see "Analysis of the Self" by Kohut. I dare you. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 7, 2017 9:51 PM, "Nick Thompson" wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest,

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Dear All, Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest, I don’t understand it. Not a bit. I am hoping that perhaps one or more of the rest of you can help me get it. Let’s start with one baby step. What is meant by LAYER in this text? The possible meanings open to

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Seems backwards to me. Another example is atomic weight as characterizing elements. (I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the story.) Before we understood isotopes scientists were confused that different samples of what seemed like the same element had different weights. If an element type is

[FRIAM] apologies for using the list, but need help

anyone in Santa Fe know an honest electrician? I need someone to get a permit and inspection to put in an electric meter. Time is critical. dave west FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's C

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Russ, You have a knack for lining things up for me: i.e., putting them in ways that maximize my ability to make the distinctions I want to make. You wrote: Nick, it's my understanding that "species" is not well defined in biology. Yet we tend to use the term and don't get ourselves in

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Notwithstanding the trolls, lurking trolls, and meta-trolls, let me address the issue. My sense is that the term "complex system" was used to refer to systems that seemed to have properties that were not common in other (physics-based) systems. I don't think the term was ever intended to character

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

I guess there’s stuff to pick apart there, but a troll would make me feel compelled to do so from a place of poor footing. How is Russ’ post an instance of that?Or is this a meta troll? From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017

[FRIAM] And now for something completely different.

While engaged in a literature search for something entirely different, I landed on this fun paper: Consequences of removing cheap, super-strength beer and cider: a qualitative study of a UK local alcohol availability intervention https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051338/ > Incr

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

+1 Having been called a "troll" for most of my adult life, I'd love to hear why Owen lobs the insult. On 06/07/2017 01:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Owen, > > > > I don’t understand this comment. Who’s a troll? Are you trolling, here? Is > this irony? I don’t follow. > > [...] > >

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Owen, I don’t understand this comment. Who’s a troll? Are you trolling, here? Is this irony? I don’t follow. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthl

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Russ Rote, When you say "This is a great test," I'm not sure what the "this" is. Would you mind saying what it is again. I meant that your definition of complexity, with it’s clear appeal to explanatory concepts, the same concepts that one might appeal to to EXPLAIN complexity, is a gre

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Troll On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > Nick, > > When you say "This is a great test," I'm not sure what the "this" is. > Would you mind saying what it is again. > > In partial answer to your question about what's left to explain, let me > quote a list of bullet points I rece

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

I don't want to distract from the new thread, which I think is more important than this part of this thread. So, feel free to ignore this one. But I'll answer now because I have the time now. FWIW, I'm not annoyed. But I'd like to see us (everyone) make some progress, even if it's not toward

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Nick, When you say "This is a great test," I'm not sure what the "this" is. Would you mind saying what it is again. In partial answer to your question about what's left to explain, let me quote a list of bullet points I recently wrote when writing about urban systems. - Urban systems are ope

[FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Hi, Russ, Something Glen said suggests to me that my concerns about circularity are detracking this thread from its Higher Purpose. I have therefore started a new thread. Thanks for providing this definition. It really helps to mark my concern. I would argue that what you are offer

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

Hi, glen, Thanks. No wonder you're annoyed at me. See larding below. 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.

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

I didn't define complex system. (Actually, this thread is so long I may have offered one. I don't remember.) I take a complex system to be a system (do we need to define that? Presumably some collection of interacting entities around which one can draw a boundary that distinguishes the collection

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

Russ, I seem to be missing some of the correspondence, and I apologize for that. Thanks for updating me. So, did you also, in your post, offer a definition of “complex system” that excludes hurricanes? I am, as you would predict, a little troubled by your locution, “that uses en

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

That's completely reasonable. I suppose this was a bad example because it's difficult to decouple from its context. On 06/07/2017 07:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > In this example, the discussion was more about the composition of functional > relationships (ion transport, DNA repair) and thei

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

On 06/06/2017 09:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > [gepr] Although you're repeating what I'd said earlier about relying on a > more vernacular sense of "complex", we have to admit something you've yet to > acknowledge. > > [NST==>I missed this, and going back through the thread, I have not found

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

"But (I think) they use it as an immediate proxy for the real objects. So, their defn of coherence wouldn't change. My focus isn't so much on whether their calculation actually works as intended. Just that it is a more formal concept than Nick's "objects that interact more with themselves tha

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

Sorry. I've abused the word coherent as a joke. I probably shouldn't be so flippant. The defn of coherence they use does depend on an ontology. But (I think) they use it as an immediate proxy for the real objects. So, their defn of coherence wouldn't change. My focus isn't so much on whethe