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

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -

I'm not sure I've observed a "fingers in the ears shouting" here, but I 
do understand the point I think.


I always read FriAM discussions as if the goal is exactly what you 
stated... to find a common language/model/metaphor to use to discuss.


As Glen aptly put it, these threads often DO get polluted perhaps by too 
much hair splitting or discursions from the OT (original topic) and I 
might be one of the guiltier parties to that.I think we DO wear 
ourselves (and one another as well as not-so-innocent bystanders who 
might otherwise participate) out with the long winded discussions of 
details (see the mass exodus/defection of WedTech a few years ago).


I believe that the argument (discussion) over levels vs layers was 
fueled partly by Glen's trying to hold us responsible for not enforcing 
a strong idea of hierarchy into the ideas of complex systems.So I'm 
game for helping to explore (but maybe not resolve) this question of how 
models of complex systems are structured.   But to avoid the risk of 
being mistaken for shouting with my ears plugged, I hope someone else 
will make a next step?


My own limited throwdown might be as follows:

Complex (biological?) systems do tend to exhibit (some) hierarchy as a 
consequence of self-organizing principles building larger units from 
smaller subunits (e.g. C, H, O, N molecules forming into carboxyl 
groups, glycerol groups, phosphate groups, which in turn form amino, 
nucleic, and fatty acids which form into macromolecules like fats, 
carbohydrates and polypeptide chains which fold into proteins which then 
go on to self-organize (or be assembled or catalyzed) into structures 
such as cellular and nuclear membranes as well as cytoskeletal 
membrane/tubules, flagella, etc. on up through the formation of 
organelles, viruses, microphages, and then unicellular life like 
bacteria/amoebae/protozoa/archaea/algae/fungi, and then multicellular 
life into complex organisms which then organize into units like 
flocks/herds/tribes/packs/murders/crowder/school/crudeness/troop/rabble/flange/etc 
and then perhaps proto-organisms like hive/city/state/nation/etc.   But 
following Vlad's lead and other's complementary offerings... there IS 
interaction between these levels of hierarchy...  cell membranes and 
other organelles "process" macro(and micro)molecular structures,  groups 
interact collectively with individuals, etc.


I'm with Glen intuitively that even though there are MANY examples of 
hierarchy in complex systems,  it isn't clear that they are either 
necessary nor sufficient to explain self-organization, emergence, 
sensitive dependence on initial conditions, punctuated 
criticality/equilibrium, etc.


I fear I may have muddied (polluted) a little here...

- Steve



On 6/10/17 12:04 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Dear Vib,

So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far 
do we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one 
another?  And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation 
what do we do?  One option, of course, is for each us to put his 
fingers in his ears and continue to shout at one another, each using 
his own language and his own favorite metaphor.  Another option, is to 
give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.


Is there a third option? I think so.  (Surprise!)  I think it is to 
find a common “model” to work with.  Now to me, a “model” is a formal 
scientific metaphor.  To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a 
specific phenomenon that is  thoroughly understood by all participants 
in the discussion.  “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time 
because everybody understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny 
reaction that Steve Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes 
into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my discussions of 
convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I should 
be.


So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with?  If so, then 
we might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly 
familiar with it.   If not, then giving up would seem to be better 
than the “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method.


I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared 
intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important 
sense?


Nick

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 *Vladimyr
*Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
*To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 

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


Frank and the Congregation,

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but 

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

[Frank Wimberly]

The Hearsay system might serve.  It was a speech understanding system
developed at CMU in the 1970s.  It could take sound and, if it were
connected human speech, produce a written version.  Raj Reddy constantly
used the phrase "signal to symbol" to describe what we were working on in
general.  The point is it had levels.  The segmentation level determined at
what time one phoneme ended and the next began, for example.  Other levels
were the phoneme, word, syntax, semantic, etc.  (World peace vs whirled
peas in a political discussion).  Levels revised each other's hypotheses
based on their own.  I may have some of the details wrong.This was done
using knowledge sources etc.  The classic reference is

Lesser, et al.  Organization of the Hearsay-II speech understanding
system.  IEEE Tran. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing​ ASSP-23, 1975.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 10, 2017 12:05 PM, "Nick Thompson" 
wrote:

> Dear Vib,
>
>
>
> So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far do
> we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one
> another?  And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation what
> do we do?  One option, of course, is for each us to put his fingers in his
> ears and continue to shout at one another, each using his own language and
> his own favorite metaphor.  Another option, is to give up, with graceful
> acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.
>
>
>
> Is there a third option? I think so.  (Surprise!)  I think it is to find a
> common “model” to work with.  Now to me, a “model” is a formal scientific
> metaphor.  To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a specific phenomenon
> that is  thoroughly understood by all participants in the discussion.
> “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time because everybody
> understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny reaction that Steve
> Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes into cells has often served
> as a “model” for his and my discussions of convection, although I am not as
> familiar with its details as I should be.
>
>
>
> So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with?  If so, then we
> might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly familiar
> with it.   If not, then giving up would seem to be better than the
> “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method.
>
>
>
> I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared
> intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important sense?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> 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 *Vladimyr
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
> WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
> Frank and the Congregation,
>
>
>
> Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress
> redistribution
>
> is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.
>
> But  what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points
> without breaking
>
> the filaments.
>
>
>
> Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.
>
>
>
> So now do we agree, in part,  that lamina can penetrate other lamina and
> generate very complex systems.
>
> Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already  make these
> flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.
>
> The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view
> point presents a different structure.
>
> It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as
> easily become transit or vascular systems.
>
> So information can be accommodated…
>
> I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks
> are very real.
>
> But this code is now close to my own physical limit.
>
> Time is short for all of us.
>
> vib
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* June-09-17 11:21 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
> WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
> "strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but
> I can't think of a biological example"
>
>
>
> Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  wrote:
>
> Vlad -
>
> I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
> motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some
> connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is 

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

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Vib, 

 

So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far do we 
engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one another?  And, 
when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation what do we do?  One 
option, of course, is for each us to put his fingers in his ears and continue 
to shout at one another, each using his own language and his own favorite 
metaphor.  Another option, is to give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one 
another’s wisdom.  

 

Is there a third option? I think so.  (Surprise!)  I think it is to find a 
common “model” to work with.  Now to me, a “model” is a formal scientific 
metaphor.  To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a specific phenomenon that 
is  thoroughly understood by all participants in the discussion.  “Natural 
Selection” was such a model in its time because everybody understood how to 
breed domestic animals. That funny reaction that Steve Guerin describes which 
spontaneously organizes into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my 
discussions of convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I 
should be.  

 

So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with?  If so, then we might 
study together on that model until we are all thoroughly familiar with it.   If 
not, then giving up would seem to be better than the 
“fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method. 

 

I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared intuition 
that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important sense?  

 

Nick 

 

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 Vladimyr
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

Frank and the Congregation,

 

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress 
redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But  what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without 
breaking

the filaments. 

 

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

 

So now do we agree, in part,  that lamina can penetrate other lamina and 
generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already  make these 
flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.   

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point 
presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily 
become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated… 

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are 
very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example"

 

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  > wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, 
though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some connotation 
related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the 
vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" 
a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I know how to think about ply 
which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting 
perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or 
"evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like 
strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to 
achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical 
stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept 
graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity 
for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground directly out in 
3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and 

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

[Nick Thompson]

 

Frank, 

 

These are exactly the sorts of considerations we have to bring to bear when we 
“cash out” a scientific metaphor.  What DIFFERENCE does it make when we call 
something a layer.   What EXACTLY is the experience that we are bringing to 
bear? 

 

How was Friday’s meeting of the M. C. ?

 

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: Saturday, June 10, 2017 12:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example"

 

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  > wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, 
though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some connotation 
related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the 
vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" 
a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I know how to think about ply 
which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting 
perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or 
"evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like 
strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to 
achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical 
stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept 
graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity 
for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground directly out in 
3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which 
in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system 
projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as 
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial 
reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning 
(graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) 
subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a 
somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" 
was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well 
be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term.   I understand that taking 
(otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with 
jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your 
stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian 
(processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate 
cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own 
petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of 
the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used 
by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to  analyze 
why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger 
condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into 

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

[gepr ⛧]

I agree with Steve that lamina is biased with the assumption of continuous 
flow. Discrete aggreagation like coral deposition or FACS based cell by cell 
deposition would not be evoked by the term lamina.

As an aside, although (serial) diffusion limited aggregation is often used to 
model coral deposition, (serial) DLA does submit to a partal order in a 
monotonic time parameter. The parallelism theorem from LTS tells us that the 
result of any parallel transition can be perfectly duplicated/simulated with a 
serial transition. But it still seems to me that parallel deposition (like in 
coral growth) might reach points in shape space not reachable by serial 
deposition.


On June 9, 2017 10:26:09 PM PDT, Vladimyr  wrote:
>So now do we agree, in part,  that lamina can penetrate other lamina
>and generate very complex systems.
>
>Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already  make
>these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.   
>
>The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view
>point presents a different structure.
>
>It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as
>easily become transit or vascular systems.
>
>So information can be accommodated… 

-- 
⛧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

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

[gepr ⛧]

and mollusk shell formation. Though they don't really interact, they are 
deposited kinda like spray paint.  Coral deposition might also work well as a 
canonical example.




On June 9, 2017 9:20:37 PM PDT, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that,
>but I
>can't think of a biological example"
>
>Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.
>
>Frank Wimberly
>Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  wrote:
>
>> Vlad -
>>
>> I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
>> motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has
>some
>> connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is
>structurally
>> similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which
>connotes
>> the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I
>know
>> how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of
>> engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?)
>and
>> engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?
>>
>> The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems
>like
>> strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that,
>but I
>> can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were
>trying
>> to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

-- 
⛧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

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

[Vladimyr]

Frank and the Congregation,

 

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress 
redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But  what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without 
breaking

the filaments. 

 

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

 

So now do we agree, in part,  that lamina can penetrate other lamina and 
generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already  make these 
flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.   

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point 
presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily 
become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated… 

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are 
very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example"

 

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, 
though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some connotation 
related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the 
vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" 
a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I know how to think about ply 
which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting 
perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or 
"evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like 
strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to 
achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical 
stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept 
graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity 
for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground directly out in 
3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which 
in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system 
projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as 
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial 
reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning 
(graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) 
subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a 
somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" 
was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well 
be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term.   I understand that taking 
(otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with 
jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your 
stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian 
(processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate 
cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own 
petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single 

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

[Frank Wimberly]

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I
can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  wrote:

> Vlad -
>
> I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
> motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some
> connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally
> similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes
> the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I know
> how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of
> engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and
> engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?
>
> The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like
> strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I
> can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying
> to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?
>
> I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a
> redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical
> stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept
> graph/network) ?
>
> As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your
> affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground
> directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex
> metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more
> to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using
> geometric primitives?)
>
> I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as
> animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial
> reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological
> reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be
> a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological,
> though in a somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used to wonder why the term
> "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting
> code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term.   I
> understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering
> them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.
>
> I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of
> your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and
> Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this
> and respond under separate cover.
>
> Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my
> own petard here!
>
> - Steve
>
> On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
>
>> Nicholas,
>> I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.
>>
>> I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an
>> Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
>> It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We
>> were using various materials and filament
>> winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a
>> term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
>> When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was
>> composed of any number of lamina
>> having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global
>> coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
>> structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation
>> to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
>> very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber
>> thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
>> with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact
>> when used by people.
>>
>> Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to
>> analyze why something failed and killed good people.
>> The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger
>> condiment but one must specify which context before
>> breaking into a brawl.
>>
>> We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the
>> lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.
>>
>> Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots.
>> Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
>> In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the
>> social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
>> never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a
>> biological analogue.
>>
>> The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my
>> third language so I am not so biased about some words
>> as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my
>> interests, graph theory and 

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

[Steven A Smith]

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very 
motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some 
connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is 
structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" 
which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.  
I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived 
from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small 
number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?


The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems 
like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for 
that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what 
you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?


I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include 
engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even 
semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?


As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your 
affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground 
directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex 
metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object 
(more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space 
using geometric primitives?)


I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as 
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D 
spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with 
topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics 
might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is 
primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used 
to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I 
suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily 
complex as to deserve that term.   I understand that taking (otherwise) 
simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with 
jumps/goto's is pathological.


I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description 
of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and 
Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this 
and respond under separate cover.


Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my 
own petard here!


- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of 
the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used 
by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to  analyze 
why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger 
condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the 
lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix 
Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social 
norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological 
analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third 
language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my 
interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute 
stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images 
to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and 
explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be 

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

[Vladimyr]

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of 
the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used 
by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to  analyze 
why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger 
condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the 
lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix 
Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social 
norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological 
analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third 
language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my 
interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute 
stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images 
to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and 
explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of 
my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to 
see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was 
jumping to conclusions.  I had the code on one screen and the graphics running 
beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality 
to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once 
useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. 
Words are nearly  useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. 
Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed 
I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental 
models I used 
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 
in total) 28 rows and 162 columns  Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither 
Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I 
connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only 
connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into 
Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. 
So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a 
methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them 
simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be 
synchronized to the  frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput 
capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already 
well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to 
display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, 
each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix 
while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single 
Matrix would 
never 

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

[Nick Thompson]

Sorry.  Slip of the "pen".   Layers it is.  

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: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?


Ha!  I don't know if this is fun or not.  But you are making me giggle.  So 
that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a 
> minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?


I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and 
Robert.  But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of 
context.  Onions are definitely not metaphors.  When you bit into one, your 
body reacts.  To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you 
bite into a metaphor.


>In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in 
>mind?


The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that 
the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation.  We could also use 
Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.


>If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of 
>complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or 
>whatever) are onion-like?


Sheesh.  I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level".  That's all I'm 
doing.  Maybe you're too smart for your own good.  I don't care about ANYTHING 
else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks.  Stop using it.


> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in 
> evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural 
> selection) seriously enough.  


Yes, I know.  That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer 
is better than level.


--
☣ 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

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

[glen ☣]

Ha!  I don't know if this is fun or not.  But you are making me giggle.  So 
that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a 
> minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?


I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and 
Robert.  But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of 
context.  Onions are definitely not metaphors.  When you bit into one, your 
body reacts.  To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you 
bite into a metaphor.


>In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in 
>mind?


The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that 
the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation.  We could also use 
Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.


>If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of 
>complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or 
>whatever) are onion-like?


Sheesh.  I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level".  That's all I'm 
doing.  Maybe you're too smart for your own good.  I don't care about ANYTHING 
else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks.  Stop using it.


> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in 
> evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural 
> selection) seriously enough.  


Yes, I know.  That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer 
is better than level.


-- 
☣ 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

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

[Nick Thompson]

 Glen, 

But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a 
minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?  I assume you 
take your models seriously, right?  I don't know what it means, "Just an 
analogy".  Either your layers are onion-like or not, right?  In which case, 
don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?  If your 
notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, 
then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are 
onion-like?  

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in 
evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural 
selection) seriously enough.  

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: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

On 06/09/2017 09:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It seems like onions develop from the inside out, right?


Heh, I don't know.  Nor do I care because my analogy is not intended to be 
anything more than an analogy. >8^D


>The outside layer is just the first inside layer grown large.  I think if one 
>examines the whole onion plant, one finds that each layer of the onion proper 
>is connected to its own onion leave.  But mostly my interest is in playing the 
>metaphor game rigorously, which you are doing with admirable precision.


There our purposes diverge.  My interest is in demonstrating that the concept 
of levels is inadequate to describe the layers involved in complexity.


> I stipulate that a bump in one layer of an onion will enforce itself on the 
> layers around it, so the layers are not entirely independent of one another.  
> Do you stipulate that each layer of an onion is essentially an independent 
> plant wrapped in the earlier layers grown larger?


Not in the slightest.  I only stipulate that the concept of levels is 
inadequate when examining onions.


> At some point, in the metaphor game, we return to the thing we are trying to 
> explain and map the elements of the metaphor (the "analogs") onto the 
> explanandum.  But not yet.  This is too much fun. 


Unfortunately, perhaps because I simulate things for a living, I don and doff 
analogs more frequently than you don and doff hats or shoes.  So, I'm ready to 
abandon the near-spherical onion and move on to more complicated surfaces and 
the layers that accrete from within or without.

--
☣ 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

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

[glen ☣]

On 06/09/2017 09:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It seems like onions develop from the inside out, right?


Heh, I don't know.  Nor do I care because my analogy is not intended to be 
anything more than an analogy. >8^D


>The outside layer is just the first inside layer grown large.  I think if one 
>examines the whole onion plant, one finds that each layer of the onion proper 
>is connected to its own onion leave.  But mostly my interest is in playing the 
>metaphor game rigorously, which you are doing with admirable precision.


There our purposes diverge.  My interest is in demonstrating that the concept 
of levels is inadequate to describe the layers involved in complexity.


> I stipulate that a bump in one layer of an onion will enforce itself on the 
> layers around it, so the layers are not entirely independent of one another.  
> Do you stipulate that each layer of an onion is essentially an independent 
> plant wrapped in the earlier layers grown larger?


Not in the slightest.  I only stipulate that the concept of levels is 
inadequate when examining onions.


> At some point, in the metaphor game, we return to the thing we are trying to 
> explain and map the elements of the metaphor (the "analogs") onto the 
> explanandum.  But not yet.  This is too much fun. 


Unfortunately, perhaps because I simulate things for a living, I don and doff 
analogs more frequently than you don and doff hats or shoes.  So, I'm ready to 
abandon the near-spherical onion and move on to more complicated surfaces and 
the layers that accrete from within or without.

-- 
☣ 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

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

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, glen, 

Great!  I am learning stuff.  I am happy to learn more about onions.   In fact, 
now wish I knew more.  It seems like onions develop from the inside out, right? 
 The outside layer is just the first inside layer grown large.  I think if one 
examines the whole onion plant, one finds that each layer of the onion proper 
is connected to its own onion leave.  But mostly my interest is in playing the 
metaphor game rigorously, which you are doing with admirable precision.  

I stipulate that a bump in one layer of an onion will enforce itself on the 
layers around it, so the layers are not entirely independent of one another.  
Do you stipulate that each layer of an onion is essentially an independent 
plant wrapped in the earlier layers grown larger?  

At some point, in the metaphor game, we return to the thing we are trying to 
explain and map the elements of the metaphor (the "analogs") onto the 
explanandum.  But not yet.  This is too much fun. 

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: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

Heh, you're so rife with premature registration!  You _leap_ to thinking about 
the strength of the onion analogy without seeming to listen to what I'm saying 
at all.  8^)  That's OK.  I'm used to it.  But to be clear, my point was about 
_direction_, not the extent to which layers are coupled.  I also mentioned 
spray painting and sand blasting.  Those are even better than onions, given 
Russ' target of urban systems.

But on with the onion!  Surely you don't believe your own statement that an 
onion's layers have relatively little to do with one another.  That would be 
akin to rejecting the concept of a population _relaxing_ into a landscape.  
Literally, the very shape of the outer layers is determined by the shapes of 
the inner layers.  And since the onion analog (not metaphor) is about space, 
the shapes matter a great deal to the structural analogy.

More importantly, the thickness of an onions layer has much to do with the 
gradients it's being painted by.  So, this analog is actually a pretty good one 
for making my point that layer is a more generically useful term than level.


On 06/08/2017 09:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Late, here, so I will just say a little.  According to the scientific 
> metaphor game I understand, we would now start to cash out the onion 
> metaphor.  Does the relation between the layers in an onion REALLY capture 
> what you are after.  I would guess not, because (I am holding an onion now) 
> the layers in an onion have relatively little to do with one another.  You 
> can slide one with respect to the other.  I am guessing that you are looking 
> for a metaphor in which one layer interacts with another.  (Ugh.  I have to 
> go wash my hands.)  Remember, you can make a metaphor to an abstract onion.  
> A model has to have its own reality beyond it’s use to represent your notion 
> of layer.  


--
␦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

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

[┣glen┫]

Because, as Steve rightly pointed out with that Joslyn paper, the point is the 
extent to which the system submits to ordering.  A strict hierarchy (levels, 
like I think EricS drew) submits to a total order, whereas a brranching 
hierarchy (still levels) submits to a partial order.  Graphs work, but not as 
analogy, per se ... more like exact representations.  The kinds of graphs I'd 
like to talk about don't (necessarily) submit to ordering, even partial 
ordering. (no levels) It would be more complete to say that any "ordering" 
would be more complicated than simple relations like ≥ or ≤.

On 06/08/2017 09:48 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Why does there need to be any spatial property?  Why not a graph?


-- 
␦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

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

[┣glen┫]

Heh, you're so rife with premature registration!  You _leap_ to thinking about 
the strength of the onion analogy without seeming to listen to what I'm saying 
at all.  8^)  That's OK.  I'm used to it.  But to be clear, my point was about 
_direction_, not the extent to which layers are coupled.  I also mentioned 
spray painting and sand blasting.  Those are even better than onions, given 
Russ' target of urban systems.

But on with the onion!  Surely you don't believe your own statement that an 
onion's layers have relatively little to do with one another.  That would be 
akin to rejecting the concept of a population _relaxing_ into a landscape.  
Literally, the very shape of the outer layers is determined by the shapes of 
the inner layers.  And since the onion analog (not metaphor) is about space, 
the shapes matter a great deal to the structural analogy.

More importantly, the thickness of an onions layer has much to do with the 
gradients it's being painted by.  So, this analog is actually a pretty good one 
for making my point that layer is a more generically useful term than level.


On 06/08/2017 09:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Late, here, so I will just say a little.  According to the scientific 
> metaphor game I understand, we would now start to cash out the onion 
> metaphor.  Does the relation between the layers in an onion REALLY capture 
> what you are after.  I would guess not, because (I am holding an onion now) 
> the layers in an onion have relatively little to do with one another.  You 
> can slide one with respect to the other.  I am guessing that you are looking 
> for a metaphor in which one layer interacts with another.  (Ugh.  I have to 
> go wash my hands.)  Remember, you can make a metaphor to an abstract onion.  
> A model has to have its own reality beyond it’s use to represent your notion 
> of layer.  


-- 
␦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

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

[Marcus Daniels]

Glen writes:

"But at least you can vary the direction without changing layers.  More 
complicated layering would be something like doping a silicon chip or spray 
painting a complicated surface ... or perhaps sand blasting something, where 
you turn it within the directional gradient."

Why does there need to be any spatial property?  Why not a graph?

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Glen,

Missed this the first time.  

Late, here, so I will just say a little.  According to the scientific metaphor 
game I understand, we would now start to cash out the onion metaphor.  Does the 
relation between the layers in an onion REALLY capture what you are after.  I 
would guess not, because (I am holding an onion now) the layers in an onion 
have relatively little to do with one another.  You can slide one with respect 
to the other.  I am guessing that you are looking for a metaphor in which one 
layer interacts with another.  (Ugh.  I have to go wash my hands.)  Remember, 
you can make a metaphor to an abstract onion.  A model has to have its own 
reality beyond it’s use to represent your notion of layer.  

Nik 

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: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?


You seem to be asking for people other than me to respond.  But I doubt anyone 
will try to explain a troll like me. >8^)

I don't have any idea what you mean by "a kind of hen".  So, I'll let that go.  
Stratum is a good word, but like level, it implies a direction, namely up-down 
("something laid down").  I do mean something very much like level and stratum, 
except without implying a (constant) direction.  Onion is a better analog than, 
say, genus or battalion.  There's still a symmetry in the directions from the 
center of the onion.  But at least you can vary the direction without changing 
layers.  More complicated layering would be something like doping a silicon 
chip or spray painting a complicated surface ... or perhaps sand blasting 
something, where you turn it within the directional gradient.

It's important to graduate from the naive concept of levels to the more 
sophisticated concept of layers because, e.g. in Russ' urban systems, there are 
all different types of flows and ebbs, gradients of different speeds, 
directions, types, etc. that "paint" things on the system in varied ways.  It's 
not a singular hierarchy in any sense.

If you grok the poverty of the concept of the "landscape" in evolution, then 
you should grok the poverty of the concept of "level" in cumulative structures.

That's the best I can do to explain it.  Sorry for my inadequacy.

On 06/07/2017 06:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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 me are, (1) a kind of hen; 
> (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical descriptive 
> scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of these meanings 
> relevant to Glen’s post?  

--
☣ 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

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

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

I admit to being over my depth, at least in attention, if not in ability 
to parse out your dense text, and more to the point, the entire 
thread(s) which gives me more sympathy with Nick who would like a tool 
to help organize, neaten up, trim, etc. these very complex ( in the more 
common meaning of the term) discussions. My experience with you is that 
you always say what you mean and mean what you say, so I don't doubt 
that there is gold in that mine... just my ability to float the 
overburden and other minerals away with Philosopher's Mercury (PhHg) in 
a timely manner.


I DO think Nick is asking for help from the rest of us in said 
parsing...   to begin, I can parse HIS first definition of "layer" is as 
a "laying hen"... a chicken (or duck?) who is actively laying eggs.   A 
total red-herring to mix metaphors here on a forum facilitated by 
another kind of RedFish altogether... a "fish of a different color" as 
it were, to keep up with the metaphor (aphorism?) mixology.


I DON'T think Owen was referring to you when he said: "troll", I think 
he was being ironical by suggesting Russ himself was being a troll.  But 
I could be wrong.   Owen may not even remember to whom his bell 
"trolled" in that moment?  In any case, I don't find your 
contribution/interaction here to be particularly troll-like.  Yes, you 
can be deliberately provocative, but more in the sense of Socrates who 
got colored as a "gadfly" (before there were trolls in the lexicon?).   
Stay away from the Hemlock, OK?


I'm trying to sort this (simple?) question of the meaning (connotations) 
of layering you use, as I have my own reserved use of the term in 
"complex, layered metaphors" or alternately "layered, complex 
metaphors"... but that is *mostly* an aside.   I believe your onion 
analogy is Nick's "stratum" but I *think* with the added concept that 
each "direction" (theta/phi from onion-center) as a different 
"dimension".   Your subsequent text suggests a high-dimensional venn 
diagram.   My own work in visualization of  Partially Ordered Sets (in 
the Gene Ontology) may begin to address some of this, but I suspect not.


   https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4935.pdf

I may continue to dig into this minefield of rich ore and interesting 
veins, but it has gotten beyond (even) me as a multiple attender who 
thrives on this kind of complexity (with limits apparently!).


I think I heard you suggest that YOU would volunteer to pull in the 
various drawstrings on this multidimensional bag forming of a half-dozen 
or more branching threads...  I'll see if I can find that and ask some 
more pointed questions that might help that happen?


I truly appreciate Nick's role (as another Socrates?) teasing at our 
language to try to get it more plain or perhaps more specific or perhaps 
more concise?  Is there some kind of conservation law in these dimensions?


- Steve



On 6/8/17 10:40 AM, glen ☣ wrote:

You seem to be asking for people other than me to respond.  But I doubt anyone 
will try to explain a troll like me. >8^)

I don't have any idea what you mean by "a kind of hen".  So, I'll let that go.  Stratum 
is a good word, but like level, it implies a direction, namely up-down ("something laid 
down").  I do mean something very much like level and stratum, except without implying a 
(constant) direction.  Onion is a better analog than, say, genus or battalion.  There's still a 
symmetry in the directions from the center of the onion.  But at least you can vary the direction 
without changing layers.  More complicated layering would be something like doping a silicon chip 
or spray painting a complicated surface ... or perhaps sand blasting something, where you turn it 
within the directional gradient.

It's important to graduate from the naive concept of levels to the more sophisticated 
concept of layers because, e.g. in Russ' urban systems, there are all different types of 
flows and ebbs, gradients of different speeds, directions, types, etc. that 
"paint" things on the system in varied ways.  It's not a singular hierarchy in 
any sense.

If you grok the poverty of the concept of the "landscape" in evolution, then you should 
grok the poverty of the concept of "level" in cumulative structures.

That's the best I can do to explain it.  Sorry for my inadequacy.

On 06/07/2017 06:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

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 me are, (1) a kind of hen; 
(2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical descriptive 
scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of these meanings 
relevant to Glen’s post?



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at 

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

[glen ☣]

You seem to be asking for people other than me to respond.  But I doubt anyone 
will try to explain a troll like me. >8^)

I don't have any idea what you mean by "a kind of hen".  So, I'll let that go.  
Stratum is a good word, but like level, it implies a direction, namely up-down 
("something laid down").  I do mean something very much like level and stratum, 
except without implying a (constant) direction.  Onion is a better analog than, 
say, genus or battalion.  There's still a symmetry in the directions from the 
center of the onion.  But at least you can vary the direction without changing 
layers.  More complicated layering would be something like doping a silicon 
chip or spray painting a complicated surface ... or perhaps sand blasting 
something, where you turn it within the directional gradient.

It's important to graduate from the naive concept of levels to the more 
sophisticated concept of layers because, e.g. in Russ' urban systems, there are 
all different types of flows and ebbs, gradients of different speeds, 
directions, types, etc. that "paint" things on the system in varied ways.  It's 
not a singular hierarchy in any sense.

If you grok the poverty of the concept of the "landscape" in evolution, then 
you should grok the poverty of the concept of "level" in cumulative structures.

That's the best I can do to explain it.  Sorry for my inadequacy.

On 06/07/2017 06:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> 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 me are, (1) a kind of hen; 
> (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical descriptive 
> scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of these meanings 
> relevant to Glen’s post?  

-- 
☣ 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

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

[┣glen┫]

Ha!  I was going to respond to the playground bullying tactic of double dog 
dares with a request for some clinical trial data.  But, to be honest, I'm 
biased toward Thomas Szasz' perspective and would probably never read Kohut's 
book, anyway. 8^)

On 06/08/2017 06:18 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Clarification: the book is 45 years old and is available online as a PDF
> file.  It's hard to read without a lot of background in the field.
> Psychiatric residents who used to read it often felt they had the disorder
> even if they didn't.  I apologize for the snarky suggestion that you read
> it.
> 
> On Jun 7, 2017 10:06 PM, "Frank Wimberly"  wrote:
> 
>> If you want to see how NPD is amenable to type 2 treatment see "Analysis
>> of the Self" by Kohut. I dare you.
>>
>>> I think we have 2 types
>>> of recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to
>>> me before, and 2) phenomenological.

-- 
␦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

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

[Frank Wimberly]

Clarification: the book is 45 years old and is available online as a PDF
file.  It's hard to read without a lot of background in the field.
Psychiatric residents who used to read it often felt they had the disorder
even if they didn't.  I apologize for the snarky suggestion that you read
it.


Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 7, 2017 10:06 PM, "Frank Wimberly"  wrote:

> 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, 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 me are, (1) a
>> kind of hen; (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical
>> descriptive scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of
>> these meanings relevant to Glen’s post?
>>
>>
>>
>> Please help me out here.  Intuition tells me that there is gold, here,
>> but I just don’t have the tools to mine it out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent!  Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this).  So, here's
>> my, in class, answer to Nick's quiz:
>>
>>
>>
>> nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a
>> recursive one.  What is the key dimension that determines whether an
>> explanation is viciously circular?   Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously
>> circular? Why?  Why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> *Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs
>> phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat.* [bolding by NST]  Vicious
>> circularity simply means "has only 1 layer".  (I disagree with this
>> idea.[*])  The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language)
>> layers and, by the single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types
>> of recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to
>> me before, and 2) phenomenological.  When we land in an attractor like
>> "something is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of
>> reasoning (intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever).  If we have a
>> tacit feeling for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply
>> assign a token to it: NPD.  But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look
>> for ways to break that layer into parts.  Parts don't necessarily imply
>> crossing layers.  E.g. a meaningful picture can be cut into curvy pieces
>> without claiming the images on the pieces also have meaning.  So 1) we can
>> simply name various (same layer) phenomena that hook together like jigsaw
>> pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that personality traits are
>> layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the higher/outer
>> turtles.
>>
>>
>>
>> What Frank says below is of type (1).  What Jochen (and others) have
>> talked about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2).
>> The question arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression
>> (renaming sets of same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it
>> become type (2).  To me, mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it.  There must be a
>> somewhat objectively defined difference, a name-independent difference.
>> So, if we changed all the words we use (don't use "narcissism",
>> "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... use booga1, booga2,
>> booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect?  Note that
>> mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible
>> layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems.  But those are syntactic
>> _demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language
>> and scientific grounding.  To assert that problems like natural selection
>> vs. adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic
>> properties would _require_ complete formalization into math.  Wolpert did
>> this (I think) to some extent.  But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary
>> theory and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry.  (I
>> admit my ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.)
>>
>>
>>
>> More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is
>> _any_ different from a flat cycle.  Who was it that said all deductive
>> inference is tautology?  I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John
>> Woods.  Unless there is some significantly different chunk of reasoning
>> somewhere in one of the layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a
>> single layer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_
>> cycles are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we 

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

[Nick Thompson]

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 I plan to have another go, this summer.  

 

One of the points of the Lipton and Thompson article that I pressed on Glen is 
that recursive (reflexive?) explanations – explanations that  mention the 
explanandum in the explanans but are not strictly circular -- may serve as 
place holders for the real thing as scientists home in on it.  So, “the aids 
vector” could have served as a recursive explanation for AIDS before folks knew 
whether that vector was a virus or a bacterium.  That sort of sounds like what 
you are saying.  

 

But if one allows recursive explanations, one has to be absolutely clear that 
they are explanations only up to a point, and beyond that point they are 
assertions of ignorance.  So, before an audience of South Africans a decade 
ago, “AIDS is caused by the AIDS vector” would have been an explanation, 
because South Africans denied at that time that aids was caused by any vector.  
Before an American scientific audience at that time, it would simply have been 
a declaration of ignorance.  

 

And I still don’t think that lets you-guys off the hook  of identifying the 
citadel you intend to assault before you bring up your siege engines and your 
catapults.  

 

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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 11:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: 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 
characterized by its atomic weight, which was the original inclination, that 
would have produced wrong categories. Element types are defined by the number 
of protons in the nucleus, independent of the number of neutrons, which is what 
fouls up the atomic weight approach. But if you pushed scientists to commit to 
a definition of element type too early that would have fouled everything up. It 
was only after we understood more about the phenomena we were trying to 
categorize that we were able to come up with an appropriate definition. 

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM Nick Thompson  > wrote:

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 too much trouble. "Complex 
system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful pseudo-category.

 

Well, “species” is a wonderful example of the very problem of “painting 
ourselves into a corner” that I want to talk about.  So, in Darwin’s time, the 
the notion of species as a kind was not in dispute.  The question was, How did 
these kinds come about, and Darwin theorized that they came  about not through 
creation but through diversifying natural selectionl  This view became so 
orthodox that in time the species was DEFINED as a reproductivelly isolated 
population. This lasted only until people began to notice that some creatures 
became very different without being reproductively isolated (“ring” species) 
and some reproductively isolate populations did not produce different species 
(I think this was mice in large midwestern chicken barns, but I don’t remember 
for sure) .  Then there was that wonderful example on the Galapagos Islands, 
where the finches speciated every 4 – 8 years depending on El Nino.   It’s been 
a while since I have had anybody to talk to about this, but I get the 
impression that the matter stands approximately there.  To my knowledge, nobody 
has ever worked with the plain phenomological fact that animals seem to be sort 
of arrayed in sorts.  This discontinuity in character possession is the fact 
that, once we give up on God, needs explaining.  Why do animals come in 
‘sort-of sorts”?   And what is the role of natural selection, reproductive 
isolation, and other factors in contributing to this sortiness.  But without a 
formal definition of “sortiness” and perhaps also a mathematical description, 
the work of answering that question 

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

[Frank Wimberly]

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, 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 me are, (1) a
> kind of hen; (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical
> descriptive scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of
> these meanings relevant to Glen’s post?
>
>
>
> Please help me out here.  Intuition tells me that there is gold, here, but
> I just don’t have the tools to mine it out.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Excellent!  Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this).  So, here's
> my, in class, answer to Nick's quiz:
>
>
>
> nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a
> recursive one.  What is the key dimension that determines whether an
> explanation is viciously circular?   Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously
> circular? Why?  Why not?
>
>
>
> *Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs
> phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat.* [bolding by NST]  Vicious
> circularity simply means "has only 1 layer".  (I disagree with this
> idea.[*])  The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language)
> layers and, by the single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious.
>
>
>
> Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types
> of recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to
> me before, and 2) phenomenological.  When we land in an attractor like
> "something is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of
> reasoning (intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever).  If we have a
> tacit feeling for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply
> assign a token to it: NPD.  But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look
> for ways to break that layer into parts.  Parts don't necessarily imply
> crossing layers.  E.g. a meaningful picture can be cut into curvy pieces
> without claiming the images on the pieces also have meaning.  So 1) we can
> simply name various (same layer) phenomena that hook together like jigsaw
> pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that personality traits are
> layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the higher/outer
> turtles.
>
>
>
> What Frank says below is of type (1).  What Jochen (and others) have
> talked about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2).
> The question arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression
> (renaming sets of same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it
> become type (2).  To me, mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it.  There must be a
> somewhat objectively defined difference, a name-independent difference.
> So, if we changed all the words we use (don't use "narcissism",
> "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... use booga1, booga2,
> booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect?  Note that
> mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible
> layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems.  But those are syntactic
> _demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language
> and scientific grounding.  To assert that problems like natural selection
> vs. adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic
> properties would _require_ complete formalization into math.  Wolpert did
> this (I think) to some extent.  But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary
> theory and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry.  (I
> admit my ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.)
>
>
>
> More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is
> _any_ different from a flat cycle.  Who was it that said all deductive
> inference is tautology?  I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John
> Woods.  Unless there is some significantly different chunk of reasoning
> somewhere in one of the layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a
> single layer.
>
>
>
> Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_
> cycles are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we take my
> concept of "vicious", then only those cycles that _hide_ behind (false)
> layers are vicious.
>
>
>
>
>
> [*] I think a cycle is vicious iff it causes problems.  Tautologies don't
> cause problems.  They don't solve them.  But they don't cause them either.
> So a vicious cycle must have more than 1 layer.
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 

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

[Nick Thompson]

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 me are, (1) a kind of hen; 
(2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical descriptive 
scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of these meanings 
relevant to Glen’s post?  

 

Please help me out here.  Intuition tells me that there is gold, here, but I 
just don’t have the tools to mine it out. 

 

Nick 

 

Excellent!  Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this).  So, here's my, 
in class, answer to Nick's quiz:

 

nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a recursive 
one.  What is the key dimension that determines whether an explanation is 
viciously circular?   Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously circular? Why?  Why 
not?

 

Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs 
phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat. [bolding by NST]  Vicious 
circularity simply means "has only 1 layer".  (I disagree with this idea.[*])  
The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language) layers and, by the 
single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious.

 

Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types of 
recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to me 
before, and 2) phenomenological.  When we land in an attractor like "something 
is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of reasoning 
(intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever).  If we have a tacit feeling 
for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply assign a token to it: 
NPD.  But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look for ways to break that layer 
into parts.  Parts don't necessarily imply crossing layers.  E.g. a meaningful 
picture can be cut into curvy pieces without claiming the images on the pieces 
also have meaning.  So 1) we can simply name various (same layer) phenomena 
that hook together like jigsaw pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that 
personality traits are layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the 
higher/outer turtles.

 

What Frank says below is of type (1).  What Jochen (and others) have talked 
about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2).  The question 
arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression (renaming sets of 
same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it become type (2).  To me, 
mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it.  There must be a somewhat objectively defined 
difference, a name-independent difference.  So, if we changed all the words we 
use (don't use "narcissism", "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... 
use booga1, booga2, booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect? 
 Note that mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible 
layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems.  But those are syntactic 
_demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language and 
scientific grounding.  To assert that problems like natural selection vs. 
adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic 
properties would _require_ complete formalization into math.  Wolpert did this 
(I think) to some extent.  But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary theory 
and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry.  (I admit my 
ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.)

 

More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is _any_ 
different from a flat cycle.  Who was it that said all deductive inference is 
tautology?  I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John Woods.  Unless there 
is some significantly different chunk of reasoning somewhere in one of the 
layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a single layer.

 

Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_ cycles 
are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we take my concept of 
"vicious", then only those cycles that _hide_ behind (false) layers are vicious.

 

 

[*] I think a cycle is vicious iff it causes problems.  Tautologies don't cause 
problems.  They don't solve them.  But they don't cause them either.  So a 
vicious cycle must have more than 1 layer.

 

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: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:57 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: 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 

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

[Russ Abbott]

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
characterized by its atomic weight, which was the original inclination,
that would have produced wrong categories. Element types are defined by the
number of protons in the nucleus, independent of the number of neutrons,
which is what fouls up the atomic weight approach. But if you pushed
scientists to commit to a definition of element type too early that would
have fouled everything up. It was only after we understood more about the
phenomena we were trying to categorize that we were able to come up with an
appropriate definition.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> 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 too much trouble.
> "Complex system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful
> pseudo-category.
>
>
>
> Well, “species” is a wonderful example of the very problem of “painting
> ourselves into a corner” that I want to talk about.  So, in Darwin’s time,
> the the notion of species as a kind was not in dispute.  The question was,
> How did these kinds come about, and Darwin theorized that they came  about
> not through creation but through diversifying natural selectionl  This view
> became so orthodox that in time the species was DEFINED as a
> reproductivelly isolated population. This lasted only until people began to
> notice that some creatures became very different without being
> reproductively isolated (“ring” species) and some reproductively isolate
> populations did not produce different species (I think this was mice in
> large midwestern chicken barns, but I don’t remember for sure) .  Then
> there was that wonderful example on the Galapagos Islands, where the
> finches speciated every 4 – 8 years depending on El Nino.   It’s been a
> while since I have had anybody to talk to about this, but I get the
> impression that the matter stands approximately there.  To my knowledge,
> nobody has ever worked with the plain phenomological fact that animals seem
> to be sort of arrayed in sorts.  This discontinuity in character possession
> is the fact that, once we give up on God, needs explaining.  Why do animals
> come in ‘sort-of sorts”?   And what is the role of natural selection,
> reproductive isolation, and other factors in contributing to this
> sortiness.  But without a formal definition of “sortiness” and perhaps also
> a mathematical description, the work of answering that question can’t go
> forward.
>
>
>
> What may be subject to challenge here is my assumption that a science
> cannot usefully go forward without explit descriptoins of the phenomena it
> is hoping to explain because its practioners never know if they are talking
> about the same thing.  So their explanatory hypothises are confounded with
> descrptive vicissitudes.
>
>
>
> I don’t know what the troll business was about.  I asked Owen and he
> hasn’t answered yet.
>
>
>
> 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 *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 8:00 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* 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
> characterize a class of systems in a formal sense. It was more an informal
> way of saying that some system probably won't yield to traditional
> analysis.
>
>
>
> That raises two questions. (1) What are those properties that systems we
> (informally) call complex posses that other systems don't. (2) Do we want
> to want to define the term "complex system" formally, e.g., the way
> mathematician define a group, so that we might, perhaps, prove theorems
> about systems that satisfy the definition?
>
>
>
> My answers are: (1) Yes, it's useful to try to pin down the properties
> that tend to make systems resistant to traditional analysis. (2) No.
> "Complex System" is not a formally defined type (or as philosophers say
> "kind") in the way a mathematical 

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

[Nick Thompson]

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 too much trouble. "Complex 
system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful pseudo-category.

 

Well, “species” is a wonderful example of the very problem of “painting 
ourselves into a corner” that I want to talk about.  So, in Darwin’s time, the 
the notion of species as a kind was not in dispute.  The question was, How did 
these kinds come about, and Darwin theorized that they came  about not through 
creation but through diversifying natural selectionl  This view became so 
orthodox that in time the species was DEFINED as a reproductivelly isolated 
population. This lasted only until people began to notice that some creatures 
became very different without being reproductively isolated (“ring” species) 
and some reproductively isolate populations did not produce different species 
(I think this was mice in large midwestern chicken barns, but I don’t remember 
for sure) .  Then there was that wonderful example on the Galapagos Islands, 
where the finches speciated every 4 – 8 years depending on El Nino.   It’s been 
a while since I have had anybody to talk to about this, but I get the 
impression that the matter stands approximately there.  To my knowledge, nobody 
has ever worked with the plain phenomological fact that animals seem to be sort 
of arrayed in sorts.  This discontinuity in character possession is the fact 
that, once we give up on God, needs explaining.  Why do animals come in 
‘sort-of sorts”?   And what is the role of natural selection, reproductive 
isolation, and other factors in contributing to this sortiness.  But without a 
formal definition of “sortiness” and perhaps also a mathematical description, 
the work of answering that question can’t go forward. 

 

What may be subject to challenge here is my assumption that a science cannot 
usefully go forward without explit descriptoins of the phenomena it is hoping 
to explain because its practioners never know if they are talking about the 
same thing.  So their explanatory hypothises are confounded with descrptive 
vicissitudes.  

 

I don’t know what the troll business was about.  I asked Owen and he hasn’t 
answered yet.  

 

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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 8:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: 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 characterize a class of 
systems in a formal sense. It was more an informal way of saying that some 
system probably won't yield to traditional analysis. 

 

That raises two questions. (1) What are those properties that systems we 
(informally) call complex posses that other systems don't. (2) Do we want to 
want to define the term "complex system" formally, e.g., the way mathematician 
define a group, so that we might, perhaps, prove theorems about systems that 
satisfy the definition?

 

My answers are: (1) Yes, it's useful to try to pin down the properties that 
tend to make systems resistant to traditional analysis. (2) No. "Complex 
System" is not a formally defined type (or as philosophers say "kind") in the 
way a mathematical group is. 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 
too much trouble. "Complex system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful 
pseudo-category.

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM Marcus Daniels  > wrote:

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 2:40 PM


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: 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 

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

[Russ Abbott]

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
characterize a class of systems in a formal sense. It was more an informal
way of saying that some system probably won't yield to traditional
analysis.

That raises two questions. (1) What are those properties that systems we
(informally) call complex posses that other systems don't. (2) Do we want
to want to define the term "complex system" formally, e.g., the way
mathematician define a group, so that we might, perhaps, prove theorems
about systems that satisfy the definition?

My answers are: (1) Yes, it's useful to try to pin down the properties that
tend to make systems resistant to traditional analysis. (2) No. "Complex
System" is not a formally defined type (or as philosophers say "kind") in
the way a mathematical group is. 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 too much trouble. "Complex system" is probably a similarly
undefined by useful pseudo-category.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> 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 2:40 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* 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 recently wrote when writing about urban
> systems.
>
>- Urban systems are open (in the system sense of openness). They
>exchange materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries.
>
>
>- Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in
>initial conditions may produce very different results.
>
>
>- Urban systems are path-dependent.
>
>
>- Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences.
>
>
>- Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may
>produce large effects.
>
>
>- Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary
>processes.
>
>
>- Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers
>of agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of
>these are causally autonomous.
>
>
>- Urban systems are not in equilibrium.
>
>
>- Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range
>of relatively familiar or foreseeable states.
>
>
>- Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an
>acceptable state after a serious disruption.
>
>
>- Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to
>adapt to changing conditions.
>
> These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we
> want to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we
> want to ask how a complex system defined according to definition X
> necessarily develops these qualities or provably has them?
>
> Is this what you are getting at?
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
>
> 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 offering here is *an
> explanation of* complex systems, and that this definition actually begs
> the question of what is a complex system.  Yeah.  I know.  Where do I
> muster the arrogance to make such an assertion?
>
>
>
> Try this:  Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way
> you have, what is left to be explained about  them?  In other words, if
> this is what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?
>
>
>
> If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or
> some other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here *becomes
> a [heuristic]  theory of complex systems*.  It answers the question, How
> did complex systems come about?  What are the essential conditions for the
> occurrence of such systems.  And we can precede to 

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

[Marcus Daniels]

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 2:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: 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 recently wrote when writing about urban systems.

  *   Urban systems are open (in the system sense of openness). They exchange 
materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries.

  *   Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in initial 
conditions may produce very different results.

  *   Urban systems are path-dependent.

  *   Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences.

  *   Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may 
produce large effects.

  *   Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary processes.

  *   Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers of 
agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of these are 
causally autonomous.

  *   Urban systems are not in equilibrium.

  *   Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range of 
relatively familiar or foreseeable states.

  *   Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an 
acceptable state after a serious disruption.

  *   Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to adapt to 
changing conditions.

These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we want 
to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we want to ask 
how a complex system defined according to definition X necessarily develops 
these qualities or provably has them?

Is this what you are getting at?

-- Russ

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
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 offering here is an explanation of complex 
systems, and that this definition actually begs the question of what is a 
complex system.  Yeah.  I know.  Where do I muster the arrogance to make such 
an assertion?

Try this:  Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way you 
have, what is left to be explained about  them?  In other words, if this is 
what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?

If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or some 
other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here becomes a 
[heuristic]  theory of complex systems.  It answers the question, How did 
complex systems come about?  What are the essential conditions for the 
occurrence of such systems.  And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an 
empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or 
sufficient) for a complex system to arise.  From my point of view, what 
complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly 
explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised.  That would be like 
insisting that discussants endorse the proposition that natural selection 
explains evolution before we get to ask the question, What is evolution and how 
did it come about?

This is a great test.  If I cannot convince you, and the others, to see any 
possible perils in the sort of definition you offer here, then you probably 
should just go back to “painting the floor” and leave me to rave in peace about 
the fact that there is no door in the corner you are so skillfully painting.

Thanks for putting the matter so clearly.  Clarity is an absolute necessity for 
progress.

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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
Subject: 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 

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

[glen ☣]

+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.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:40 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
> non-biological complex systems?
> 
>  
> 
> Troll

-- 
☣ 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

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

[Nick Thompson]

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.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: 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 recently wrote when writing about urban systems.

*   Urban systems are open (in the system sense of openness). They exchange 
materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries. 

*   Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in 
initial conditions may produce very different results. 

*   Urban systems are path-dependent. 

*   Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences. 

*   Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may 
produce large effects. 

*   Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary processes. 

*   Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers of 
agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of these are 
causally autonomous.

*   Urban systems are not in equilibrium. 

*   Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range of 
relatively familiar or foreseeable states.

*   Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an 
acceptable state after a serious disruption. 

*   Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to adapt 
to changing conditions. 

These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we want 
to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we want to ask 
how a complex system defined according to definition X necessarily develops 
these qualities or provably has them?

Is this what you are getting at?

-- Russ   

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson  > wrote:

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 offering here is an explanation of complex 
systems, and that this definition actually begs the question of what is a 
complex system.  Yeah.  I know.  Where do I muster the arrogance to make such 
an assertion?  

 

Try this:  Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way you 
have, what is left to be explained about  them?  In other words, if this is 
what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?  

 

If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or some 
other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here becomes a 
[heuristic]  theory of complex systems.  It answers the question, How did 
complex systems come about?  What are the essential conditions for the 
occurrence of such systems.  And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an 
empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or 
sufficient) for a complex system to arise.  From my point of view, what 
complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly 
explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised.  That would be like 
insisting that discussants endorse the proposition that natural selection 
explains evolution before we get to ask the question, What is evolution and how 
did it come about?  

 

This is a great test.  If I cannot convince you, and the others, to see any 
possible perils in the sort of definition you offer here, then you probably 
should just go back to “painting the floor” and leave me to rave in peace about 
the fact that there is no door in the corner you are so skillfully painting.  

 

Thanks for putting the matter so clearly.  Clarity is an absolute necessity for 
progress.  

 

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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 

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

[Nick Thompson]

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 great test of my proposition that you-all are in danger of 
painting yourselves into a corner by how you define your object of study. 

 

If I cannot make you uneasy about this definition, my cause is lost. 

 

Russ also Rote: 

 

These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we want 
to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we want to ask 
how a complex system defined according to definition X necessarily develops 
these qualities or provably has them?

I think I want to ask, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the 
development of a complex system.  To ask that question, I have ALREADY to know 
what a complex system is.  In other words, on pain of vicious circularity,  the 
conditions that determine whether I call something a complex system cannot be 
the same condition that I use to explain 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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: 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 open (in the system sense of openness). They exchange 
materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries. 

*   Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in 
initial conditions may produce very different results. 

*   Urban systems are path-dependent. 

*   Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences. 

*   Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may 
produce large effects. 

*   Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary processes. 

*   Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers of 
agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of these are 
causally autonomous.

*   Urban systems are not in equilibrium. 

*   Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range of 
relatively familiar or foreseeable states.

*   Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an 
acceptable state after a serious disruption. 

*   Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to adapt 
to changing conditions. 

These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we want 
to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we want to ask 
how a complex system defined according to definition X necessarily develops 
these qualities or provably has them?

Is this what you are getting at?

-- Russ   

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson  > wrote:

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 offering here is an explanation of complex 
systems, and that this definition actually begs the question of what is a 
complex system.  Yeah.  I know.  Where do I muster the arrogance to make such 
an assertion?  

 

Try this:  Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way you 
have, what is left to be explained about  them?  In other words, if this is 
what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?  

 

If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or some 
other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here becomes a 
[heuristic]  theory of complex systems.  It answers the question, How did 
complex systems come about?  What are the essential conditions for the 
occurrence of such systems.  And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an 
empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or 
sufficient) for a complex system to arise.  From my point of view, what 
complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly 
explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised.  That would be like 
insisting that 

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

[Owen Densmore]

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 recently wrote when writing about urban
> systems.
>
>
>- Urban systems are open (in the system sense of openness). They
>exchange materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries.
>
>
>- Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in
>initial conditions may produce very different results.
>
>
>- Urban systems are path-dependent.
>
>
>- Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences.
>
>
>- Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may
>produce large effects.
>
>
>- Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary
>processes.
>
>
>- Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers
>of agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of
>these are causally autonomous.
>
>
>- Urban systems are not in equilibrium.
>
>
>- Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range
>of relatively familiar or foreseeable states.
>
>
>- Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an
>acceptable state after a serious disruption.
>
>
>- Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to
>adapt to changing conditions.
>
> These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we
> want to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we
> want to ask how a complex system defined according to definition X
> necessarily develops these qualities or provably has them?
>
> Is this what you are getting at?
>
> -- Russ
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 offering here is *an
>> explanation of* complex systems, and that this definition actually begs
>> the question of what is a complex system.  Yeah.  I know.  Where do I
>> muster the arrogance to make such an assertion?
>>
>>
>>
>> Try this:  Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way
>> you have, what is left to be explained about  them?  In other words, if
>> this is what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or
>> some other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here *becomes
>> a [heuristic]  theory of complex systems*.  It answers the question, How
>> did complex systems come about?  What are the essential conditions for the
>> occurrence of such systems.  And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an
>> empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or
>> sufficient) for a complex system to arise.  From my point of view, what
>> complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly
>> explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised.  That would be like
>> insisting that discussants endorse the proposition that natural selection
>> explains evolution before we get to ask the question, What is evolution and
>> how did it come about?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a great test.  If I cannot convince you, and the others, to see
>> any possible perils in the sort of definition you offer here, then you
>> probably should just go back to “painting the floor” and leave me to rave
>> in peace about the fact that there is no door in the corner you are so
>> skillfully painting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for putting the matter so clearly.  Clarity is an absolute
>> necessity for progress.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 *Russ
>> Abbott
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:21 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* 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 from its environment.)
>> that has the following characteristics/capabilities.
>>
>>- It can acquire and store 

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

[Russ Abbott]

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 open (in the system sense of openness). They
   exchange materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries.


   - Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in
   initial conditions may produce very different results.


   - Urban systems are path-dependent.


   - Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences.


   - Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may
   produce large effects.


   - Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary processes.


   - Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers of
   agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of these
   are causally autonomous.


   - Urban systems are not in equilibrium.


   - Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range of
   relatively familiar or foreseeable states.


   - Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an
   acceptable state after a serious disruption.


   - Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to adapt
   to changing conditions.

These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we
want to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we
want to ask how a complex system defined according to definition X
necessarily develops these qualities or provably has them?

Is this what you are getting at?

-- Russ

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> 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 offering here is *an
> explanation of* complex systems, and that this definition actually begs
> the question of what is a complex system.  Yeah.  I know.  Where do I
> muster the arrogance to make such an assertion?
>
>
>
> Try this:  Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way
> you have, what is left to be explained about  them?  In other words, if
> this is what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about?
>
>
>
> If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or
> some other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here *becomes
> a [heuristic]  theory of complex systems*.  It answers the question, How
> did complex systems come about?  What are the essential conditions for the
> occurrence of such systems.  And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an
> empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or
> sufficient) for a complex system to arise.  From my point of view, what
> complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly
> explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised.  That would be like
> insisting that discussants endorse the proposition that natural selection
> explains evolution before we get to ask the question, What is evolution and
> how did it come about?
>
>
>
> This is a great test.  If I cannot convince you, and the others, to see
> any possible perils in the sort of definition you offer here, then you
> probably should just go back to “painting the floor” and leave me to rave
> in peace about the fact that there is no door in the corner you are so
> skillfully painting.
>
>
>
> Thanks for putting the matter so clearly.  Clarity is an absolute
> necessity for progress.
>
>
>
> 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 *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:21 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* 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 from its environment.)
> that has the following characteristics/capabilities.
>
>- It can acquire and store free energy, e.g., as fat biologically or
>stress geologically. The free energy is acquired from outside the system.
>- It does that in multiple (more or less) independent ways, (E.g.,
>lots of "agents.")
>- Those reservoirs of free energy can be released