1. I am not sure, it seems often very different 2. Multiple Networks that are connected
3. I am feeling cagey, in my case definitely. I think that even with broken large assemblies that have connections a pattern is visible but perhaps as Glen implied mis-registered. Personally I seem to think that in my case it’s a system of connected Networks. Too large to make sense of and much to dynamic to fix long enough to examine. The Emergence of my simple flower is a drastic reduction of the whole. It is less than the entire overhead but representative. If the flower approached the entire span of nodes in each sub-graph I would probably quit looking, in exasperation. Any excuse for failure would be welcomed. But I am trying today To my simple mind this must be what traffic control experts wrestle with for national highway networks, where some entities are fixed while others are moving not strictly where they should. Steve made a remark about Node valence… it struck me that when I adopted a directed graph structure that certain Nodes had higher valences since they connected to separate networks. Some nodes within the graph have low valence along the perimeters. They make no effort at bridging. So the Flower is representative of Nodes with high valence distributed along a Self Avoiding Walk that is circular or tubular. The Flower does not exist in or within any of the primary Networks it is completely new and may be a network in itself as well as an emergent structure. I use quadrilateral surfaces in space like puzzle pieces to figure out what I am seeing, often I am wrong but better than nothing. So huge parts of my Networks seem to do nothing and in some instances Nodes have Zero valence value. What is their role? Tom and Dean jumped in a dropped that neurology paper like a shark in my canoe. But they knew what would happen and chuckled. I am still chewing on the original paper. So thanks guys, it will take weeks to eat this fish. I got the pdf and should figure out how to share the text. The simplex concept should help answer how birds learn songs . Can a group of neurons become a reference tutor to detect errors… Vladimyr From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Sent: June-23-17 4:31 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought Thank you, Frank. A really important point. So bachelor implies unmarried, but unmarried does not imply bachelor. Your message also contained some additional correspondence which, for some reason, I have never seen. I have no quick answer to any of it. I still think that there is an important peril in explanations of the form “A is the explanation for A” but I am way less confident of my ability to identify pernicious extensions of that form. And it still seems significant to me that you complexitists have not identified and agreed upon a target for your explanatory efforts. (Please remind me, I if I am wrong about that). So, unless I have gone dozy, we have two outstanding questions: 1. When complexitists speak of complexity, to what phenomenon are they referring? 2. What are the conditions that predict the occurrence of such phenomena. 3. Does anybody on this list believe that it is fair to include parts of your answer to question #1 in your answer to question #2 One more thing. Back in the email midden several days ago, I said something to Glen that was inadvertently tactless and overtly stupid. Glen responded with kindness, generosity, and indefatigable focus on the main issues. This is to announce my gratitude to Glen for being … well … Glen. I am honored that you-guys let me sit on the edge of your pool and dangle my feet in it. That’s a metaphor. 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: Friday, June 23, 2017 9:52 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and nineteen year-olds, for example. I learned the word because my father's brother was a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually got married and had children. Late bloomer? Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub. My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also the side effects of various (computational) paths. On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in >it, >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns >that >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." > >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a >bit >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection >of >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" >was >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of >why >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. > >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being >"unmarried" >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor." >Thus, >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there >(in >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that >Nick >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong. > >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other >may >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice >that >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical. > >What to do with such differences.............. -- ⛧glen⛧ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
