[FRIAM] pick on someone your own size

[Marcus Daniels]

My take:  There is nothing at stake here, go do something useful.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax


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] 021.pdf

[Frank Wimberly]

He was my boss.  But yes, it's old.  I'm going to look for a more recent
one which stresses the interactions among levels.

---
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, 3:33 PM Gary Schiltz  That must be a year or 40 old (I noticed the most recent reference was
> 1973). Raj Reddy must have been a kid.
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:15 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
>> Nick,
>>
>> The attached is better than the Earnan paper.  You might like the example
>> too.
>>
>> 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
>> 
>> 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

[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] 021.pdf

[Gary Schiltz]

That must be a year or 40 old (I noticed the most recent reference was
1973). Raj Reddy must have been a kid.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:15 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Nick,
>
> The attached is better than the Earnan paper.  You might like the example
> too.
>
> 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
> 
> 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

[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

[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

[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/

 

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]

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]

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/

 

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 
 

 

—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 thank FRIAM members for your patience, your 
indulgence, and your profound commitment to teaching that has kept me 

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 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 

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

[Robert Holmes]

Nick,

This seems to be an issue of Wittgenstein's Lion


—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 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 

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/friam_redfish.com

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

FRIAM-COMIC   

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

[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]

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