subject:"Re\: \[FRIAM\] tools, trollers, and language"

Steve, 

 

What do you want to call “levels of inclusion”?  What sorts of levels are 
trophic levels?  

 

What is preventing us from agreeing that complexity is just the inclusion of 
one system within another?

 

I know it takes a way the magic to be so straightforward, but other than you 
love of mystery, what is wrong with that definition? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

At the risk of another discursion:

I think I just realized what I've been (almost) seeing of value in all this 
back and forth:

1.  I (and Nick) heard Glen's invocation of the Onion as an attempt to 
explicate a useful difference between levels and layers in the understanding of 
Complexity Babble (Talk/Science/Math/???).  I think he meant only to try to 
distinguish the two from one another and explicate their differences 
irrespective of the near dead horse we were working over at the time.  I think 
this might be the totality of the misunderstanding.
2.  I'm always looking for form/function dualities.  In the onion, the form 
(layers) follows a certain functional/behavioural path (cyclical growth).   I 
don't even know how to find "levels" in the a *hierarchical* sense or otherwise 
in an onion... maybe if we look at the cross section (as Glen suggested) and 
see *strata* (from the source (domain) of geological deposition and erosive or 
shearing exposure?) and then consider drilling a mine shaft into said strata 
which is more suggestive of the term "levels"?   

Mumble,

 - Steve

 

On 6/12/17 1:28 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

 
Sorry.  I didn't mean anything nefarious with the "repeat a lie often enough" 
thing.
 
I introduced an onion as an example of a thing, in the real world, that you can 
look at in terms of levels or layers.  And looking at it in terms of layers 
produces something different (and presumably more "natural") than looking at it 
in terms of levels.
 
 
 
On 06/12/2017 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Look, Glen.  I may be old.  I may be stupid.  I may be distracted.  I am 
certainly out of my depth.  This discussion, which fascinates me, is happening 
at a very inopportune  time for me, so I am admittedly not able to invest as 
much attention on it as it deserves and I would like.  And the discussion is 
going very fast, with answers falling all over other answers.   But I am NOT 
ill-willed or guileful.   And I am certainly not Goebbels. Good LORD!   Try, 
whatever evidence to the contrary I may seem to present, to assume that I am 
basically an honest person, and that we share an interest in getting somewhere. 
 AND -- the hard part -- I recognize that if we ARE to get anywhere, 
everybody's thinking -- including my own -- is going to have to change. 
 
 
 
OK.  So, with all that in mind.  Say again, would you please, what the onion 
was doing in the discussion.  Just to recap from my point of view, I think the 
slice of an onion is a cross section.  The notion of a cross-section plays an 
important role in Holt's Concept of Consciousness, which describes anybody's 
consciousness as a cross section cut through the world by that person's 
behavior.  My consciousness is just those features of the world to which I 
respond.  When we slice an onion the structure revealed says something about 
BOTH the onion and about us, the slicer.  The cross section differs not only 
from onion to onion but because of how it was sliced. 
 
 
 
Now NONE of this has anything to do with what I mean by "levels" , which 
invokes an organizational metaphor.  I mean, hierarchical levels.  I suspect it 
will be almost impossible to talk about complexity without a language that 
includes hierarchical levels.  Remember, we got into this because I offered a 
definition of a complex system as a system made up of other systems.  So, on my 
account, an onion IS a complex system because it is a system of plants, each 
wrapped around another.  

 

 


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] tools, trollers, and language

On 06/12/2017 02:03 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> What you are calling "levels" I am calling "cross sections"?

Yes, a cross section would be 1 level.

> And it is the partial arbitrariness of what one sees in a cross section that 
> makes it less valuable than a layer.

Not quite.  What you see inside a cross section isn't as important as the fact 
that a cross section is _different_ from a hemispherical peeling.  But the 
important thing ... the MOST important thing is that a level is just a specific 
type of layer, whereas there are plenty of layers that are not levels.  I.e. 
layer is more generically applicable 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] tools, trollers, and language

We are NOT splitting hairs.  We are getting clear.  See below.

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

NST -



[NST==>I like “source” and “target”.  Let’s use these terms here on out.  
“Domain” is probably unnecessary, and might lead to hand-waving.  I still hate 
“conceptual metaphor” as introducing potential for confusion.  Anytime you say 
“This thing is a That” you are invoking a conception – a “grasping-together”.   
<==nst] 

I wish I could stop splitting hairs with you, but it seems built into this 
discussion (another metaphor, really?)!  I understand "domain" to modify 
"source" and "target" to make it clear that what is being 
discussed/considered/reasoned/intuited upon may be bigger than a single 
"thing".  Perhaps the over-used onion needn't be referred to as more than a 
source (or target) but if I were invoking a garden or landscape  *source* it is 
important that I'm talking about the whole ensemble of likely/possible gardens 
or landscapes. 

[NST==>No, I am going to hang tough on this one. The work you are describing is 
exactly the work necessary to unpack a metaphor and it cannot be done by 
handwaving to a domain.  Notice below that you did not abstract the Vidalia, 
you just chose another onion.  The same is true of science as it is in poetry – 
the best metaphors are specific metaphors.  <==nst] 

 With onions, it seems easier to imagine a singular canonical onion (unless 
your field of study is the inner life of Alliums).   in fact when the humble 
Onion was first invoked, I immediately abstracted (in my mind) to "bulb" with a 
nice big fat juicy vidalia onion as the prototype of the moment for my 
consideration, but including a wide range of bulbs, some more edible than 
others.   We could certainly use "source" and "target" as shorthand if we 
accept that the object of each is something more general/abstract than a 
specific object.[NST==>No way Jose!  I think this domain talk will lead to 
blather.<==nst]  

If I read your gripe with "conceptual metaphor" correctly, it is that 
"conception" already suggests ("grasping together") the metaphor?   I use 
"conceptual metaphor" to specifically imply that the "target" (domain) is in a 
more conceptual/abstract realm than literal/concrete.   the "source" (domain) 
may also be relatively abstract but I think for utility is in some sense 
"closer to literal, or concrete" than the target.   From Lakoff/Nunez, 
ultimately these layered/stacked metaphors ground out in human perceptions... 
things we apprehend directly with our senses...   

[NST==> Precisely what I am objecting to.  A metaphor brings one experience to 
bear upon another.  Abstrctions, whatever they are, are not experiences. 
<==nst] 



"The price of nonsense in America has risen in 2017" - Rising is from the 
conceptual domain of directionality which has affiliation with the domain of 
simple geometry, and perhaps is apprehended more directly perceptually by a 
human by our inner ear and other measures of the gravity gradient.   I don't 
know if YOU feel an empty spot in your gut when "the bottom of the stock market 
drops out", or a sense of "elation" when the local housing bubble "elevates the 
value of your family home" or not, I think many do.

[NST==>In Britain, when they hang you, they put you in a little room, they put 
a noose around your neck, and then the bottom drops out.  That’s my source for 
a stock market crash.  <==nst] 





In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the source domain in a 
metaphor to try to understand the more general and abstract target domain of 
layer.  Other source domains (deposition layers, skin, geology) were offered as 
well to offer conceptual parallax on this.

[NST==>See how you suddenly got wobbly when you started using the word 
“domain”?  “Domain” is another metaphor and would require its own 
specification.  <==nst] 

"Domain" is almost certainly a "borrow word" from another  domain, that 
perhaps of political/economic/military control/influence.  But then so seems 
"source" (as in a spring is the source of a creek) and "target" (keep your eye 
on the target and your aim steady!).I think that very little of our 
language is not metaphorical, even if our awareness of it as such is numbed by 
common usage.   "numbed", "

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

So, Glen, 

What you are calling "levels" I am calling "cross sections"?  

And it is the partial arbitrariness of what one sees in a cross section that 
makes it less valuable than a layer. 

Have I got that, so far? 

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: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Sorry.  I didn't mean anything nefarious with the "repeat a lie often enough" 
thing.

I introduced an onion as an example of a thing, in the real world, that you can 
look at in terms of levels or layers.  And looking at it in terms of layers 
produces something different (and presumably more "natural") than looking at it 
in terms of levels.

On 06/12/2017 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Look, Glen.  I may be old.  I may be stupid.  I may be distracted.  I am 
> certainly out of my depth.  This discussion, which fascinates me, is 
> happening at a very inopportune  time for me, so I am admittedly not able to 
> invest as much attention on it as it deserves and I would like.  And the 
> discussion is going very fast, with answers falling all over other answers.   
> But I am NOT ill-willed or guileful.   And I am certainly not Goebbels. Good 
> LORD!   Try, whatever evidence to the contrary I may seem to present, to 
> assume that I am basically an honest person, and that we share an interest in 
> getting somewhere.  AND -- the hard part -- I recognize that if we ARE to get 
> anywhere, everybody's thinking -- including my own -- is going to have to 
> change. 
> 
>  
> 
> OK.  So, with all that in mind.  Say again, would you please, what the onion 
> was doing in the discussion.  Just to recap from my point of view, I think 
> the slice of an onion is a cross section.  The notion of a cross-section 
> plays an important role in Holt's Concept of Consciousness, which describes 
> anybody's consciousness as a cross section cut through the world by that 
> person's behavior.  My consciousness is just those features of the world to 
> which I respond.  When we slice an onion the structure revealed says 
> something about BOTH the onion and about us, the slicer.  The cross section 
> differs not only from onion to onion but because of how it was sliced. 
> 
>  
> 
> Now NONE of this has anything to do with what I mean by "levels" , which 
> invokes an organizational metaphor.  I mean, hierarchical levels.  I suspect 
> it will be almost impossible to talk about complexity without a language that 
> includes hierarchical levels.  Remember, we got into this because I offered a 
> definition of a complex system as a system made up of other systems.  So, on 
> my account, an onion IS a complex system because it is a system of plants, 
> each wrapped around another.  

--
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

Right.  My only point was to distinguish the two procedures for examining a 
thing, because one's choice of procedure can bias one's results. (obviously)  
With EricS' very detailed throwdown in favor of hierarchical accumulation AND 
Russ' chosen _target_ of urban systems, I think it's critical that we choose 
analysis procedures that are as agnostic as possible.

We've now discussed cognitive biases toward _direction_ (up vs. down) and 
continuity (or population density - laminar flow - AND space vs. graph) ... 
even if it has taken us days and billions of emails.  Are there other biases we 
could eliminate?  I like, but reject, Roger's assertion that "[deep neural 
nets] don't care about no stinking layers".  As with using polar coordinates on 
an onion (or monotonic "time" in Diffusion Limited Aggregation), deep learning 
requires at least a sequencing of (distinct) procedures.  So, it does require 
layers in very much the same sense as a DLA.  On the other hand, I like 
considering deep learning as a thing to be analyzed, because it does allow 
cycles of a kind.

And again, I'm not proposing any of these _things_ are analogs/metaphors 
targeting "complex systems".  I'm only trying to argue for agnostic analysis 
tools.

TANSTAAFL!

On 06/12/2017 12:45 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> At the risk of another discursion:
> 
> I think I just realized what I've been (almost) seeing of value in all this 
> back and forth:
> 
> 1. I (and Nick) heard Glen's invocation of the Onion as an attempt to
>explicate a useful difference between levels and layers in the
>understanding of Complexity Babble (Talk/Science/Math/???).  I think
>he meant only to try to distinguish the two from one another and
>explicate their differences irrespective of the near dead horse we
>were working over at the time.  I think this might be the totality
>of the misunderstanding.
> 2. I'm always looking for form/function dualities.  In the onion, the
>form (layers) follows a certain functional/behavioural path
>(cyclical growth).   I don't even know how to find "levels" in the a
>*hierarchical* sense or otherwise in an onion... maybe if we look at
>the cross section (as Glen suggested) and see *strata* (from the
>source (domain) of geological deposition and erosive or shearing
>exposure?) and then consider drilling a mine shaft into said strata
>which is more suggestive of the term "levels"?

-- 
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language


At the risk of another discursion:

I think I just realized what I've been (almost) seeing of value in all 
this back and forth:


1. I (and Nick) heard Glen's invocation of the Onion as an attempt to
   explicate a useful difference between levels and layers in the
   understanding of Complexity Babble (Talk/Science/Math/???).  I think
   he meant only to try to distinguish the two from one another and
   explicate their differences irrespective of the near dead horse we
   were working over at the time.  I think this might be the totality
   of the misunderstanding.
2. I'm always looking for form/function dualities.  In the onion, the
   form (layers) follows a certain functional/behavioural path
   (cyclical growth).   I don't even know how to find "levels" in the a
   *hierarchical* sense or otherwise in an onion... maybe if we look at
   the cross section (as Glen suggested) and see *strata* (from the
   source (domain) of geological deposition and erosive or shearing
   exposure?) and then consider drilling a mine shaft into said strata
   which is more suggestive of the term "levels"?

Mumble,

 - Steve


On 6/12/17 1:28 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

Sorry.  I didn't mean anything nefarious with the "repeat a lie often enough" 
thing.

I introduced an onion as an example of a thing, in the real world, that you can look at 
in terms of levels or layers.  And looking at it in terms of layers produces something 
different (and presumably more "natural") than looking at it in terms of levels.



On 06/12/2017 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Look, Glen.  I may be old.  I may be stupid.  I may be distracted.  I am 
certainly out of my depth.  This discussion, which fascinates me, is happening 
at a very inopportune  time for me, so I am admittedly not able to invest as 
much attention on it as it deserves and I would like.  And the discussion is 
going very fast, with answers falling all over other answers.   But I am NOT 
ill-willed or guileful.   And I am certainly not Goebbels. Good LORD!   Try, 
whatever evidence to the contrary I may seem to present, to assume that I am 
basically an honest person, and that we share an interest in getting somewhere. 
 AND -- the hard part -- I recognize that if we ARE to get anywhere, 
everybody's thinking -- including my own -- is going to have to change.

  


OK.  So, with all that in mind.  Say again, would you please, what the onion 
was doing in the discussion.  Just to recap from my point of view, I think the 
slice of an onion is a cross section.  The notion of a cross-section plays an 
important role in Holt's Concept of Consciousness, which describes anybody's 
consciousness as a cross section cut through the world by that person's 
behavior.  My consciousness is just those features of the world to which I 
respond.  When we slice an onion the structure revealed says something about 
BOTH the onion and about us, the slicer.  The cross section differs not only 
from onion to onion but because of how it was sliced.

  


Now NONE of this has anything to do with what I mean by "levels" , which 
invokes an organizational metaphor.  I mean, hierarchical levels.  I suspect it will be 
almost impossible to talk about complexity without a language that includes hierarchical 
levels.  Remember, we got into this because I offered a definition of a complex system as 
a system made up of other systems.  So, on my account, an onion IS a complex system 
because it is a system of plants, each wrapped around another.



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] tools, trollers, and language


/*NST -*/


*/[NST==>I like “source” and “target”.  Let’s use these terms here on 
out.  “Domain” is probably unnecessary, and might lead to 
hand-waving.  I still hate “conceptual metaphor” as introducing 
potential for confusion.  Anytime you say “This thing is a That” you 
are invoking a conception – a “grasping-together”.   <==nst] /*


I wish I could stop splitting hairs with you, but it seems /built into/ 
this discussion (another metaphor, really?)!  I understand "domain" to 
modify "source" and "target" to make it clear that what is being 
discussed/considered/reasoned/intuited upon may be bigger than a single 
"thing".  Perhaps the over-used onion needn't be referred to as more 
than a source (or target) but if I were invoking a garden or landscape  
*source* it is important that I'm talking about the whole ensemble of 
likely/possible gardens or landscapes.  With onions, it seems easier to 
imagine a singular canonical onion (unless your field of study is the 
inner life of Alliums).   in fact when the humble Onion was first 
invoked, I immediately abstracted (in my mind) to "bulb" with a nice big 
fat juicy vidalia onion as the prototype of the moment for my 
consideration, but including a wide range of bulbs, some more edible 
than others.   We could certainly use "source" and "target" as shorthand 
if we accept that the object of each is something more general/abstract 
than a specific object.


If I read your gripe with "conceptual metaphor" correctly, it is that 
"conception" already suggests ("grasping together") the metaphor?   I 
use "conceptual metaphor" to specifically imply that the "target" 
(domain) is in a more conceptual/abstract realm than literal/concrete.   
the "source" (domain) may also be relatively abstract but I think for 
utility is in some sense "closer to literal, or concrete" than the 
target.   From Lakoff/Nunez, ultimately these layered/stacked metaphors 
ground out in human perceptions... things we apprehend directly with our 
senses...


"The price of nonsense in America has /risen/ in 2017" - /Rising/ is 
from the conceptual domain of /directionality /which has affiliation 
with the domain of simple geometry, and perhaps is apprehended more 
directly perceptually by a human by our inner ear and other measures of 
the gravity gradient.   I don't know if YOU feel an empty spot in your 
gut when "the bottom of the stock market drops out", or a sense of 
"elation" when the local housing bubble "elevates the value of your 
family home" or not, I think many do.


In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the /source/ 
domain in a metaphor to try to understand the more general and 
abstract target domain of /layer/.  Other /source/ domains (deposition 
layers, skin, geology) were offered as well to offer conceptual 
parallax on this.


*/[NST==>See how you suddenly got wobbly when you started using the 
word “domain”?  “Domain” is another metaphor and would require its own 
specification.  <==nst] /*


"Domain" is almost certainly a "borrow word" from another  domain, 
that perhaps of political/economic/military control/influence.  But then 
so seems "source" (as in a spring is the source of a creek) and "target" 
(keep your eye on the target and your aim steady!).I think that very 
little of our language is not metaphorical, even if our awareness of it 
as such is numbed by common usage.   "numbed", "usage", "awareness" 
(perceptual v. conceptual?)


I'm not sure if this is a rabbit hole

*/[NST==>Another metaphor, often used in such discussions (eg Owen’s 
“Troll” troll. ) to disparage attempts to clarify what a group of 
people is actually talking about.  <==nst] /*


Being one of those who is /chasing this rabbit,/ I'm not sure I am 
intending to disparage anything... more likely give us /an out/ if we 
realize we are discussing something of lesser interest/relevance and 
/losing sight/ of the topic we were originally more interested in?   As 
you can tell I am /game for/ (overly so?) discussing the meaning and 
implications of the language we use, I'm just wondering if this is the 
branch of the /branching/ discussion we are most interested in?


*//*

we fell down when we began to try to sort levels from layers.  I think 
the distinction is critical to the discussion (which is now nearly 
lost in this forest of trees of levels and layers?) but is not the 
discussion itself.   We digress within our digressions.


Jenny and Dave and I are discussing amongst ourselves a live in-person 
"salon" of sorts to be held at Jenny's (in Santa Fe) on the the 
general topic of Models, Metaphors, and Analogy. Jenny and I have 
elected Dave to try to lead this, Jenny is providing chairs and 
shade.   I'm pulsing the locals for interest in participating... I'm 
only sorry Nick and Roger and Glen are so far away right now.   Got 
any (other) locals interested in chatting face to face on these 
topics? Wimberly?  Guerin?


*/[NST==>Oh, Gosh!  That I should miss this.

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language


Sorry.  I didn't mean anything nefarious with the "repeat a lie often enough" 
thing.

I introduced an onion as an example of a thing, in the real world, that you can 
look at in terms of levels or layers.  And looking at it in terms of layers 
produces something different (and presumably more "natural") than looking at it 
in terms of levels.



On 06/12/2017 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Look, Glen.  I may be old.  I may be stupid.  I may be distracted.  I am 
> certainly out of my depth.  This discussion, which fascinates me, is 
> happening at a very inopportune  time for me, so I am admittedly not able to 
> invest as much attention on it as it deserves and I would like.  And the 
> discussion is going very fast, with answers falling all over other answers.   
> But I am NOT ill-willed or guileful.   And I am certainly not Goebbels. Good 
> LORD!   Try, whatever evidence to the contrary I may seem to present, to 
> assume that I am basically an honest person, and that we share an interest in 
> getting somewhere.  AND -- the hard part -- I recognize that if we ARE to get 
> anywhere, everybody's thinking -- including my own -- is going to have to 
> change. 
> 
>  
> 
> OK.  So, with all that in mind.  Say again, would you please, what the onion 
> was doing in the discussion.  Just to recap from my point of view, I think 
> the slice of an onion is a cross section.  The notion of a cross-section 
> plays an important role in Holt's Concept of Consciousness, which describes 
> anybody's consciousness as a cross section cut through the world by that 
> person's behavior.  My consciousness is just those features of the world to 
> which I respond.  When we slice an onion the structure revealed says 
> something about BOTH the onion and about us, the slicer.  The cross section 
> differs not only from onion to onion but because of how it was sliced. 
> 
>  
> 
> Now NONE of this has anything to do with what I mean by "levels" , which 
> invokes an organizational metaphor.  I mean, hierarchical levels.  I suspect 
> it will be almost impossible to talk about complexity without a language that 
> includes hierarchical levels.  Remember, we got into this because I offered a 
> definition of a complex system as a system made up of other systems.  So, on 
> my account, an onion IS a complex system because it is a system of plants, 
> each wrapped around another.  

-- 
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

Steve,

You wrote:

I think there is a significant difference between figurative speech 

inside and outside of scientific thought.   Perhaps there could/should 

be a more rigorous boundary put between the two... the former being more what 
is colloquially thought of as metaphor and the latter being more what is 
thought of as "formal analogy".

Isn’t this the very boundary we are exploring?   I would assert that, to the 
extent that we fail to explore it, we drain the life blood of science and 
deprive poetry of its precision. 

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 2:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Nick -

To try to offer my own understanding of Glen's position/assertion... I (like 
you) believe that his mere *invocation* of an onion in this context had a 
metaphorical quality to it, but his *emphasis* was in investigating the natural 
delimiters (?EricS term?) of a specific example of an object which might be 
analyzed in terms of "layer" or "level" where he claimed (and asked us to 
acknowledge?) that there is a 

distinct difference and the former is much more apt than the latter.   

Of course, I could be wrong (again) and Glen may well make that point if it is 
important!

Your analysis of metaphor more in figurative, romantic speech/poesy

(Love/Rose) is good and parallels what Glen was maundering most recently 
(again, GEPR correct me if I misapprehended!) regarding the responsibility of 
the speaker and the listener.  As a poet and lover of poetry and poems and 
poesy and ring around the rosy myself,  I think it is good and important that 
in those modes, that there be multiple entendres galore (and what is the French 
for multiple apprehensions to 

complement entendres?).   The good and juicy stuff lies in the various 

(mis)interpretations of the original intent, up to and including subconscious 
intents not acknowledged by the figurative writer.

I think there is a significant difference between figurative speech 

inside and outside of scientific thought.   Perhaps there could/should 

be a more rigorous boundary put between the two... the former being more what 
is colloquially thought of as metaphor and the latter being more what is 
thought of as "formal analogy".

I based most of my career on helping literal thinkers access their intuitions 
through the use of complex metaphors.  I think that was 

important.   I also saw metaphors used very effectively for 

communicating complex scientific ideas to a lay audience.

Glen is unfortunately accurate (in my experience) that it is also easy 

to use metaphor to obscure and/or muddle discussions.   I think there 

was some of that afoot with our attempts to get at "what is complexity" 

(the root of this branching labyrinth of topics?) but I also believe that Glen 
(and many others in this group) may be a bit allergic to the abuses of 
metaphorical language.

You can beat a dead metaphor, but you can't lead it to water.

- Steve

On 6/12/17 11:48 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> But Glen, if the onion was not a metaphor, then what was it?  How did it 
> become relevant?  A mongoose and a rutabaga are also things that can be 
> "sliced up, analysed..." etc, but you did not mention those.  You did not 
> offer a rutabaga model of complexity; you offered an onion one.  Is there 
> some OTHER  "process of mind" other than metaphor-making that gets you from 
> complexity to onions?

> 

> I am thinking about your worry that we over-deploy the notion of metaphor.  
> How about the following rule of thumb:  M is a metaphor for T when our 
> understandings of M ae offered as potential understandings of T.  So, a 
> metaphor can always be cashed out as follows:  What does the metaphor-maker 
> understand about M that s/he takes to be relevant to our understanding of T.

> 

> One of the fierce debates that we have had in my group over the years has 
> been over the question of who gets to say what the implications of a metaphor 
> ARE.  "My love is like a red, red rose" could imply that she is frail, 
> ephemeral, sweet smelling, gaudy, thorny, or all of the above.  Who gets to 
> say which of these entailments applies.  For those of us who think that 
> metaphor-making is at the core of scientific thought, the question is an 
> important one.   We all of us agree that a metaphor-maker is entitled to 
> disclaim some of the implications of his/her metaphor; but to what extent is 
> s/he entitled to cherry-pick.  And

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Look, Glen.  I may be old.  I may be stupid.  I may be distracted.  I am 
certainly out of my depth.  This discussion, which fascinates me, is happening 
at a very inopportune  time for me, so I am admittedly not able to invest as 
much attention on it as it deserves and I would like.  And the discussion is 
going very fast, with answers falling all over other answers.   But I am NOT 
ill-willed or guileful.   And I am certainly not Goebbels. Good LORD!   Try, 
whatever evidence to the contrary I may seem to present, to assume that I am 
basically an honest person, and that we share an interest in getting somewhere. 
 AND -- the hard part -- I recognize that if we ARE to get anywhere, 
everybody's thinking -- including my own -- is going to have to change. 

OK.  So, with all that in mind.  Say again, would you please, what the onion 
was doing in the discussion.  Just to recap from my point of view, I think the 
slice of an onion is a cross section.  The notion of a cross-section plays an 
important role in Holt's Concept of Consciousness, which describes anybody's 
consciousness as a cross section cut through the world by that person's 
behavior.  My consciousness is just those features of the world to which I 
respond.  When we slice an onion the structure revealed says something about 
BOTH the onion and about us, the slicer.  The cross section differs not only 
from onion to onion but because of how it was sliced. 

Now NONE of this has anything to do with what I mean by "levels" , which 
invokes an organizational metaphor.  I mean, hierarchical levels.  I suspect it 
will be almost impossible to talk about complexity without a language that 
includes hierarchical levels.  Remember, we got into this because I offered a 
definition of a complex system as a system made up of other systems.  So, on my 
account, an onion IS a complex system because it is a system of plants, each 
wrapped around another.  

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: Monday, June 12, 2017 1:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Hm.  I guess I'll say it at least one more time.  I did NOT offer an onion as a 
model of complexity.  You're using Goebbles on me, aren't you?  Here:

I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.

I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.

I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.

I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.

8^)

On 06/12/2017 10:48 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> But Glen, if the onion was not a metaphor, then what was it?  How did it 
> become relevant?  A mongoose and a rutabaga are also things that can be 
> "sliced up, analysed..." etc, but you did not mention those.  You did not 
> offer a rutabaga model of complexity; you offered an onion one.  Is there 
> some OTHER  "process of mind" other than metaphor-making that gets you from 
> complexity to onions?

--

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

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Steve, 

 

This is helpful.  See below. 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

FWIW 

In my parlance (I think well informed by formal usage),  A conceptual metaphor 
has a source and a target domain.  The target domain is the domain one is 
trying to understand/explain by comparison to the source domain.   The source 
domain is considered the image donor.  We use the familiar source to help us 
reason about the more abstract or unfamiliar target.

[NST==>I like “source” and “target”.  Let’s use these terms here on out.  
“Domain” is probably unnecessary, and might lead to hand-waving.  I still hate 
“conceptual metaphor” as introducing potential for confusion.  Anytime you say 
“This thing is a That” you are invoking a conception – a “grasping-together”.   
<==nst] 

In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the source domain in a 
metaphor to try to understand the more general and abstract target domain of 
layer.  Other source domains (deposition layers, skin, geology) were offered as 
well to offer conceptual parallax on this.

[NST==>See how you suddenly got wobbly when you started using the word 
“domain”?  “Domain” is another metaphor and would require its own 
specification.  <==nst] 

I'm not sure if this is a rabbit hole 

[NST==>Another metaphor, often used in such discussions (eg Owen’s “Troll” 
troll. ) to disparage attempts to clarify what a group of people is actually 
talking about.  <==nst] 

we fell down when we began to try to sort levels from layers.  I think the 
distinction is critical to the discussion (which is now nearly lost in this 
forest of trees of levels and layers?) but is not the discussion itself.   We 
digress within our digressions.

Jenny and Dave and I are discussing amongst ourselves a live in-person "salon" 
of sorts to be held at Jenny's (in Santa Fe) on the the general topic of 
Models, Metaphors, and Analogy.Jenny and I have elected Dave to try to lead 
this, Jenny is providing chairs and shade.   I'm pulsing the locals for 
interest in participating... I'm only sorry Nick and Roger and Glen are so far 
away right now.   Got any (other) locals interested in chatting face to face on 
these topics?   Wimberly?  Guerin?  

[NST==>Oh, Gosh!  That I should miss this.  I would hope that at some point you 
would have a look my article 
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228580530_Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level>
  on the confusions arising from the application of the natural selection 
metaphor to groups.  It’s a testy, difficult argument, with an unexpected and 
interesting result.  I wouldn’t expect anybody to load it entirely, but I do 
think it’s a good example of how tidying up metaphors can lead to a better 
understanding of issues.  Given that so many potentially absent people are 
interested, I would recommend organizing the conversation around a list.  If 
you haven’t done this by the time I get back in October, I could promise to 
organize a “seminar” of the “city university of santa Fe” on “scientific 
metaphors: their uses; their perils”.  We would meet regularly for a couple of 
hours.  There would be readings.   <==nst] 

 I'm feeling the same juice as some our impromptu meetups BEFORE FriAM became a 
formal deal!   We could sure use Mike Agar about now![NST==>Of course Steve and 
Frank. They might or might not, be interested. As you know, one man’s passion 
is another man’s bullshit.Jon Zingale, for sure.  Jenny’s partner would 
contribute a lot from his understanding of Peirce’s abduction, which is closely 
but ambiguously related to metaphor making. Jim Gattiker is a great seminar 
participant … mind like a steel trap … but don’t know whether this would 
interest him.  Sean Mood is another great seminar participant.   <==nst] 

Do any of you old men (or women) of this august body have a copy of 
Wheelwright's 1962 "Metaphor and Reality" you are ready to give up?  I'm 
missing my copy... not sure where it got off to!  Did I maybe miss finding one 
in your stash when you left SFe, REC?

- Steve

On 6/12/17 9:36 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

Thanks for asking.
 
Well, I still don't know what y'all mean when you say "metaphor" because the 
meaning seems to vary.  E.g. you say "a metaphor like 'layer'", indicating that 
'layer' is the metaphor.  Yet you also say things like "onion metaphor", 
indicating that onions are the metaphor.  But, as I tried to say earlier, I 
don't regard onions as a metaphor.  They are simply a thing we can analyze 
using _either_ the concep

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language


Nick -

To try to offer my own understanding of Glen's position/assertion... I 
(like you) believe that his mere *invocation* of an onion in this 
context had a metaphorical quality to it, but his *emphasis* was in 
investigating the natural delimiters (?EricS term?) of a specific 
example of an object which might be analyzed in terms of "layer" or 
"level" where he claimed (and asked us to acknowledge?) that there is a 
distinct difference and the former is much more apt than the latter.   
Of course, I could be wrong (again) and Glen may well make that point if 
it is important!


Your analysis of metaphor more in figurative, romantic speech/poesy 
(Love/Rose) is good and parallels what Glen was maundering most recently 
(again, GEPR correct me if I misapprehended!) regarding the 
responsibility of the speaker and the listener.  As a poet and lover of 
poetry and poems and poesy and ring around the rosy myself,  I think it 
is good and important that in those modes, that there be multiple 
entendres galore (and what is the French for multiple apprehensions to 
complement entendres?).   The good and juicy stuff lies in the various 
(mis)interpretations of the original intent, up to and including 
subconscious intents not acknowledged by the figurative writer.


I think there is a significant difference between figurative speech 
inside and outside of scientific thought.   Perhaps there could/should 
be a more rigorous boundary put between the two... the former being more 
what is colloquially thought of as metaphor and the latter being more 
what is thought of as "formal analogy".


I based most of my career on helping literal thinkers access their 
intuitions through the use of complex metaphors.  I think that was 
important.   I also saw metaphors used very effectively for 
communicating complex scientific ideas to a lay audience.


Glen is unfortunately accurate (in my experience) that it is also easy 
to use metaphor to obscure and/or muddle discussions.   I think there 
was some of that afoot with our attempts to get at "what is complexity" 
(the root of this branching labyrinth of topics?) but I also believe 
that Glen (and many others in this group) may be a bit allergic to the 
abuses of metaphorical language.


You can beat a dead metaphor, but you can't lead it to water.

- Steve


On 6/12/17 11:48 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

But Glen, if the onion was not a metaphor, then what was it?  How did it become relevant?  A 
mongoose and a rutabaga are also things that can be "sliced up, analysed..." etc, but you 
did not mention those.  You did not offer a rutabaga model of complexity; you offered an onion one. 
 Is there some OTHER  "process of mind" other than metaphor-making that gets you from 
complexity to onions?

I am thinking about your worry that we over-deploy the notion of metaphor.  How 
about the following rule of thumb:  M is a metaphor for T when our 
understandings of M ae offered as potential understandings of T.  So, a 
metaphor can always be cashed out as follows:  What does the metaphor-maker 
understand about M that s/he takes to be relevant to our understanding of T.

One of the fierce debates that we have had in my group over the years has been over the 
question of who gets to say what the implications of a metaphor ARE.  "My love is 
like a red, red rose" could imply that she is frail, ephemeral, sweet smelling, 
gaudy, thorny, or all of the above.  Who gets to say which of these entailments applies.  
For those of us who think that metaphor-making is at the core of scientific thought, the 
question is an important one.   We all of us agree that a metaphor-maker is entitled to 
disclaim some of the implications of his/her metaphor; but to what extent is s/he 
entitled to cherry-pick.  And we all agree that once a metaphor-maker has specified which 
entailments are essential to his understanding of his metaphor, he is stuck with them.  A 
proper scientific metaphor must be falsifiable.

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: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Just to clarify, no, that's not at all what I did.  I did not propose onion as 
a source and layer as a target.  That completely misses my point.  An onion is 
a thing that can be sliced up, thought about, analyzed, by various different 
methods.  No metaphor involved.  This tendency to see metaphors everywhere is a 
strange disease we're inflicted with. 8^)


On 06/12/2017 09:39 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the /source/ domain in a 
metaphor to try to under

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Hm.  I guess I'll say it at least one more time.  I did NOT offer an onion as a 
model of complexity.  You're using Goebbles on me, aren't you?  Here:

I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.
I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.
I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.
I did NOT offer an onion as a model of complexity.

8^)

On 06/12/2017 10:48 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But Glen, if the onion was not a metaphor, then what was it?  How did it 
> become relevant?  A mongoose and a rutabaga are also things that can be 
> "sliced up, analysed..." etc, but you did not mention those.  You did not 
> offer a rutabaga model of complexity; you offered an onion one.  Is there 
> some OTHER  "process of mind" other than metaphor-making that gets you from 
> complexity to onions?

-- 
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

But Glen, if the onion was not a metaphor, then what was it?  How did it become 
relevant?  A mongoose and a rutabaga are also things that can be "sliced up, 
analysed..." etc, but you did not mention those.  You did not offer a rutabaga 
model of complexity; you offered an onion one.  Is there some OTHER  "process 
of mind" other than metaphor-making that gets you from complexity to onions?

I am thinking about your worry that we over-deploy the notion of metaphor.  How 
about the following rule of thumb:  M is a metaphor for T when our 
understandings of M ae offered as potential understandings of T.  So, a 
metaphor can always be cashed out as follows:  What does the metaphor-maker 
understand about M that s/he takes to be relevant to our understanding of T.  

One of the fierce debates that we have had in my group over the years has been 
over the question of who gets to say what the implications of a metaphor ARE.  
"My love is like a red, red rose" could imply that she is frail, ephemeral, 
sweet smelling, gaudy, thorny, or all of the above.  Who gets to say which of 
these entailments applies.  For those of us who think that metaphor-making is 
at the core of scientific thought, the question is an important one.   We all 
of us agree that a metaphor-maker is entitled to disclaim some of the 
implications of his/her metaphor; but to what extent is s/he entitled to 
cherry-pick.  And we all agree that once a metaphor-maker has specified which 
entailments are essential to his understanding of his metaphor, he is stuck 
with them.  A proper scientific metaphor must be falsifiable.  

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: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Just to clarify, no, that's not at all what I did.  I did not propose onion as 
a source and layer as a target.  That completely misses my point.  An onion is 
a thing that can be sliced up, thought about, analyzed, by various different 
methods.  No metaphor involved.  This tendency to see metaphors everywhere is a 
strange disease we're inflicted with. 8^)

On 06/12/2017 09:39 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the /source/ domain in a 
> metaphor to try to understand the more general and abstract target domain of 
> /layer/.  Other /source/ domains (deposition layers, skin, geology) were 
> offered as well to offer conceptual parallax on this.

--
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

Just to clarify, no, that's not at all what I did.  I did not propose onion as 
a source and layer as a target.  That completely misses my point.  An onion is 
a thing that can be sliced up, thought about, analyzed, by various different 
methods.  No metaphor involved.  This tendency to see metaphors everywhere is a 
strange disease we're inflicted with. 8^)

On 06/12/2017 09:39 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the example at hand,  Glen invoked "an Onion" as the /source/ domain in a 
> metaphor to try to understand the more general and abstract target domain of 
> /layer/.  Other /source/ domains (deposition layers, skin, geology) were 
> offered as well to offer conceptual parallax on this.

-- 
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

FWIW

In my parlance (I think well informed by formal usage), A /conceptual
metaphor/ has a /source/ and a /target/ domain. The /target/ domain is
the domain one is trying to understand/explain by comparison to the
/source/ domain. The /source/ domain is considered the/image donor/. We
use the familiar /source/ to help us reason about the more abstract or
unfamiliar /target/.

In the example at hand, Glen invoked "an Onion" as the /source/ domain
in a metaphor to try to understand the more general and abstract target
domain of /layer/. Other /source/ domains (deposition layers, skin,
geology) were offered as well to offer conceptual parallax on this.

I'm not sure if this is a rabbit hole we fell down when we began to try
to sort levels from layers. I think the distinction is critical to the
discussion (which is now nearly lost in this forest of trees of levels
and layers?) but is not the discussion itself. We digress within our
digressions.

Jenny and Dave and I are discussing amongst ourselves a live in-person
"salon" of sorts to be held at Jenny's (in Santa Fe) on the the general
topic of Models, Metaphors, and Analogy.Jenny and I have elected
Dave to try to lead this, Jenny is providing chairs and shade. I'm
pulsing the locals for interest in participating... I'm only sorry Nick
and Roger and Glen are so far away right now. Got any (other) locals
interested in chatting face to face on these topics? Wimberly?
Guerin? I'm feeling the same juice as some our impromptu meetups
BEFORE FriAM became a formal deal! We could sure use Mike Agar about now!

Do any of you old men (or women) of this august body have a copy of
Wheelwright's 1962 "Metaphor and Reality" you are ready to give up? I'm
missing my copy... not sure where it got off to! Did I maybe miss
finding one in your stash when you left SFe, REC?

- Steve

On 6/12/17 9:36 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

Thanks for asking.

Well, I still don't know what y'all mean when you say "metaphor" because the meaning seems to vary.
E.g. you say "a metaphor like 'layer'", indicating that 'layer' is the metaphor. Yet you also say
things like "onion metaphor", indicating that onions are the metaphor. But, as I tried to say
earlier, I don't regard onions as a metaphor. They are simply a thing we can analyze using _either_ the
concept of levels (strict ordering) or the concept of layers (more flexible organization). So, the concept
of metaphors isn't useful to me, there.

However, I do think a metaphor consists of 2 analogs (real things like rocks or onions) and the
analogy between them. So, I can see "metaphor" meaning a) just 2 analogs, b) just the
relation/analogy, without the analogs, or with implicit/schematic analogs, or c) all 3: 2 analogs
plus their relation(s). So, if that's what you're asking for, I do like "exhibiting
particulate deposition" as the relationship/analogy. For the 2 analogs, we can choose, as I
said: 1) coral deposition and, say, diffusion limited aggregation.

So, the metaphor would be DLA ⇔ coral. And that analogy should help identify why "layer"
is a more general analysis concept than "levels".

On 06/12/2017 08:23 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Explicating a metaphor like "layer" is for me a serious and important art. It starts, I think, by
the metaphor maker identifying his absolute favorite example of a layer situation. The situation that
unequivocably instantiates "layers". The next step will be to identify in the plainest way
possible the crucial features of this example ... what makes it such a good example of "layers".
Then, and only then does it make sense to apply the metaphor to the situation we are trying to elucidate with
it.

It seems to me that the onion metaphor is not perhaps what everybody has in
mind, because the layers of an onion are more or less independent of one
another. But I shouldn’t try to speak for you.

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] tools, trollers, and language

And as I tried to imply in my note about "lamina" being a biased term, DLA is a 
schematic analog, meaning using the term "DLA" unadorned with context, leaves 
many variables unbound, one of which is whether it's a parallel or serial 
implementation.

On 06/12/2017 08:36 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
> So, the metaphor would be DLA ⇔ coral.  And that analogy should help identify 
> why "layer" is a more general analysis concept than "levels".

-- 
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-12 Thread ┣glen┫

Thanks for asking.

Well, I still don't know what y'all mean when you say "metaphor" because the 
meaning seems to vary.  E.g. you say "a metaphor like 'layer'", indicating that 
'layer' is the metaphor.  Yet you also say things like "onion metaphor", 
indicating that onions are the metaphor.  But, as I tried to say earlier, I 
don't regard onions as a metaphor.  They are simply a thing we can analyze 
using _either_ the concept of levels (strict ordering) or the concept of layers 
(more flexible organization).  So, the concept of metaphors isn't useful to me, 
there.

However, I do think a metaphor consists of 2 analogs (real things like rocks or 
onions) and the analogy between them.  So, I can see "metaphor" meaning a) just 
2 analogs, b) just the relation/analogy, without the analogs, or with 
implicit/schematic analogs, or c) all 3: 2 analogs plus their relation(s).  So, 
if that's what you're asking for, I do like "exhibiting particulate deposition" 
as the relationship/analogy.  For the 2 analogs, we can choose, as I said: 1) 
coral deposition and, say, diffusion limited aggregation.

So, the metaphor would be DLA ⇔ coral.  And that analogy should help identify 
why "layer" is a more general analysis concept than "levels".

On 06/12/2017 08:23 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Explicating a metaphor like "layer" is  for me a serious and important art.  
> It starts, I think, by the metaphor maker identifying his absolute favorite 
> example of a layer situation.  The situation that unequivocably instantiates 
> "layers".  The next step will be to identify in the plainest way possible the 
> crucial features of this example ... what makes it such a good example of 
> "layers".  Then, and only then does it make sense to apply the metaphor to 
> the situation we are trying to elucidate with it.  
> 
> It seems to me that the onion metaphor is not perhaps what everybody has in 
> mind, because the layers of an onion are more or less independent of one 
> another.   But I shouldn’t try to speak for you. 

-- 
␦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] tools, trollers, and language

THIS MAY BE MOOT, BY NOW; GOT STUCK IN MY OUTBOX. 

Glen, 

I like the idea of turning these discussions into publications, although I 
doubt that I have the firepower.  Let's just keep that as a thought. 

Explicating a metaphor like "layer" is  for me a serious and important art.  It 
starts, I think, by the metaphor maker identifying his absolute favorite 
example of a layer situation.  The situation that unequivocably instantiates 
"layers".  The next step will be to identify in the plainest way possible the 
crucial features of this example ... what makes it such a good example of 
"layers".  Then, and only then does it make sense to apply the metaphor to the 
situation we are trying to elucidate with it.  

It seems to me that the onion metaphor is not perhaps what everybody has in 
mind, because the layers of an onion are more or less independent of one 
another.   But I shouldn’t try to speak for you. 

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: Thursday, June 08, 2017 4:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the point that an 
email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative production tool.

Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the 
PSL.  He supposedly works up at PNNL.  Thanks for 
that article.

Yes, I took Owen to be calling Russ' post a trolling post.  But "troll" is like 
"complex", meaningless out of context.

I'm completely baffled why "layer" isn't understood ... makes me think I must 
be wrong in some deep way.  But for whatever it's worth, I believe I understand 
and _agree_ with Nick's circularity criticism of mechanistic explanations for 
complexity, mostly because of a publication I'm helping develop that tries to 
classify several different senses of the word "mechanistic".  The 1st attempt 
was rejected by the journal, though. 8^(  But repeating Nick's point back in my 
own words obviously won't help, here.

Yes, I'm willing to help cobble together these posts into a document.  But, 
clearly, I can't be any kind of primary.  If y'all don't even understand what I 
mean by the word "layer", then whatever I composed would be alien to the other 
participants.  One idea might be to use a "mind mapping" tool and fill in the 
bubbles with verbatim snippets of people's posts ... that might help avoid the 
bias introduced by the secretary. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software I also 
don't care that much about the meaning of "complex".  So, my only motivation 
for helping is because y'all tolerate my idiocy.

On 06/08/2017 12:52 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> 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.

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-09 Thread Owen Densmore

Re Troll & OP, like Steve said.

Re discussions amongst people who disagree: I just read that analysis of
voice & speech patterns could reveal concussion related brain damage far
before normal methods.

Possibly, like IdeaTree, analysing the structure, grammar, word choice, etc
of a conversation, not simply what is said, could also reveal hidden intent
and feelings.

Re complexity as language: Merle has been using complexity concepts and
language for years .. let's get her to chat about it.

   -- Owen

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] tools, trollers, and language

I feel that I have been "there" from (near) the inception of the 
Complexity Bubble you refer to.


I'm not sure if you are mixing a metaphor here...  though it does seem 
that the source domain is the same in both metaphors:   1) A bubble like 
a housing or tulip bubble which just keeps expanding until it bursts 
from it's own unsustainable expansion; 2) A bubble like the kind that we 
put children with no immune system inside of.


I wonder if this concise paragraph you offer here isn't what you are 
mostly getting on about with circular definitions?  I DO think that 
Complexity Science (if there is such a thing in reality) has the 
properties you speak of:  "If you understand the lingo then you 
understand the questions and if you don't then you don't."


My own memory/opinion is that Complexity Science grew up out of various 
existing fields such as Nonlinear Physics and Dynamical Systems theory.  
The colloquial term "Chaos" has a fairly decent description on Wikipedia:


   *Chaos theory* is a branch of mathematics
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics> focused on the behavior
   of dynamical systems
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system> that are highly
   sensitive to initial conditions
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_conditions>. 'Chaos' is an
   interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness
   of chaotic complex systems
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_complex_system>, there are
   underlying patterns, constant feedback loops
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_loops>, repetition,
   self-similarity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity>,
   fractals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals>, self-organization
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization>, and reliance on
   programming at the initial point known as /sensitive dependence on
   initial conditions/.

I don't believe that anyone invoked the Wikipedia entry for Complex 
Systems which I find on the whole fairly reasonable:


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

and

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

which seem a bit overlapping and redundant to me (In Wikipedia? Never!)

Sadly, I think an earlier quote (from Marcus) that said roughly "nobody 
understands mathematics, they just get used to it" might apply a bit to 
Complex Systems/Science.


I realize this may not be helpful, and I appreciate your frustrations.  
I also seem to remember that Owen(?) gave a pointer to Melanie 
Mitchell's "Complexity Explorer"  course on "Intro to Complexity": 
https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/74-introduction-to-complexity-spring-2017 
which I *think* can actually be taken out of sync with the group that 
started in April.


I DO think that one of the more interesting points of Complexity Science 
is to get at the basic nature of Emergence as you suggest.   Perhaps 
that is "creation itself" or at least "life itself"?


Mumble,

 - Steve


On 6/8/17 7:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Dear All,

I wonder the extent to which you would all agree that there is a bit 
of a complexity bubble: i.e., if you know the lingo, then you can 
understand the questions; if you don't know the lingo, then you can't 
understand what complexity people are on about.  So, one kind of 
project a group like us could work on is breaking out of the bubble. 
That would require putting the complexity problem in a form that any 
ordinary mortal can understand.   Here’s my attempt: I think what you 
are up to is coming up with a general theory of creation, more general 
even than natural selection.  You want to offer a theory that accounts 
for the emergence of complex structures (/sensu Thompsoni/) in the 
universe. Now that’s a program that anybody outside the bubble could 
understand.


How wrong am I about that?

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: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

I think you and I on the same page.  My first thought (before the 
concept-mapping tools) was to collaboratively develop an ontology so 
that we could all talk about the same things.  But my guess is that 
would just cause even more hemming and hawing over terms.  Regardless 
of tools, someone needs to run point.  If there's a lead author and 
the other participants can "get behind" that author's objective, then 
it would work.


On 06/08/2017 03:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, 
but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (o

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language


Nick -

I share your concern about the current place of political (and generally 
public?) discourse.  I am heartened by the work of Krista Tippet and her 
many interviewees in what she calls "The Civil Conversation Project 
<http://www.civilconversationsproject.org/>" with a psuedo abstract of:



 /Speaking together differently in order to live together
 differently. /

   /The Civil Conversations Project seeks to renew common life in a
   fractured and tender world. We are a conversation-based,
   virtues-based resource towards hospitable, trustworthy relationship
   with and across difference. We honor the power of asking better
   questions, model reframed approaches to entrenched debates, and
   insist that the ruptures above the radar do not tell the whole story
   of our time. We aspire to amplify and cross-pollinate the generative
   new realities that are also being woven, one word and one life at a
   time./

This plug aside, I understand your interest in mind or concept mapping 
software to help identify and perhaps illuminate for others differences 
in language and maybe more fundamentally, values?   I'm curious how you 
feel about the use of the term "mind" in this case rather than 
"concept"? It seems like with your background (evolutionary psychology?) 
that you would find THOSE terms to have very specific meaning and while 
"mind mapping" is catchy and colloquial, do you *really* think such 
tools actually map anything significant about the mind?  As Glen 
suggested, perhaps this kind of hair-splitting is what pollutes threads 
to the point they die?  If you think so, feel free to ignore the 
question and proceed. I think *I* am OK to make the translation on the 
fly if I need to.


In any case, if sfX were still standing, or if you were in SFe right 
now, I'd offer to join you in an interactive session of this kind at 
SimTable with a projector and mouse and maybe a few other locals to 
shout out directions at whomever was "driving" in the moment.  I believe 
it might be at least interesting if not actually more productive than 
the kinds of banter we have all exchanged here on the topic(s).


Maybe when you return from the swamp?

- Steve


On 6/8/17 7:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi, everybody,

If only because of my despair concerning the current state of our 
national political discourse, mind mapping tools are of great interest 
to me. Some of us briefly considered using such tools to moderate 
conversation between people who disagree.   Would such a tool help to 
determine whether you-all are using complexity terms in roughly the 
same way or whether, in the interest of keeping the conversation 
going, you are letting slide fundamental differences in what you take 
complexity to be?


In any case, don’t let this thread die.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>


*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Tom Johnson
*Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:18 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
<friam@redfish.com>

*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Steve:

I think the mind mapping developer you are thinking of is Ron Newman 
-- ron.new...@gmail.com <mailto:ron.new...@gmail.com>


TJ




Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)   505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data 
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*


http://www.jtjohnson.com <http://www.jtjohnson.com/> t...@jtjohnson.com 
<mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>



On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com 
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:


Glen -

I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context,
but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more)
operators clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while
others chatter out loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to
another(s).

I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool
developer on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he
has been active off and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches
in.  I believe he was heading toward web-enabled, simultaneous
editing capabilities.   I did some tests and provided some
feedback on an early version a few years ago..

My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few
others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never
really adopted by myself.

I was in the process of d

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language


Nick -

My read is that Owen was teasing you... by all understandings I have of 
teasing, it is always oblique.


My read on "not unkind" was that he was suggesting that your post was 
perhaps deliberately provocative, which I also think it was, but in a 
positive way which adds to the quality of the discussions here.


O.P. is an acronym for "Original Post".

- Steve


On 6/8/17 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi, Owen,

This would all be a lot easier if you would just say what you think.

What was the “unkind way” that your message was “not in” ?

And what the dickens is an O.P.?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>


*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen 
Densmore

*Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:08 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
<friam@redfish.com>

*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

No, my troll comment was meant for Nick's OP. Not in an unkind way, 
but ...


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com 
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:


Glen -

I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context,
but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more)
operators clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while
others chatter out loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to
another(s).

I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool
developer on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he
has been active off and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches
in.  I believe he was heading toward web-enabled, simultaneous
editing capabilities.   I did some tests and provided some
feedback on an early version a few years ago..

My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few
others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never
really adopted by myself.

I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM
for the NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed
by Tim Goldsmith (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS
(IS) that we all have reserved lexicons and for a collaborative
group to develop a common one, there has to be a lot of discussion
and negotiation.  Our example was a group of climate change
scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in very
similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings in
some cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an
ocean scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested
in many of the same physical properties, but with different
emphasis and within different regimes.  Pressure, density,
humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear
meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance
and interaction between them has different implications for each
group.

Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran
out.  This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still
valid but without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is
hard to push such tools forward.   My part included building the
equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from the differing lexical
elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each individual
(or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective...
with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup
appreciate the *different* perspective of the others.

This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also
currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons"
is replaced by "multiple ontologies"   or in both cases, the
superposition of multiple lexicons/ontologies.

I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we
*tried* a joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but
it failed due to inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an
equally brilliant/oblique character as you...   take that for what
it is worth!

I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of
the good things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others'
feistiness!  It was also good that you could both call it for what
it was.  It makes me want to read Kohut... I have special reasons
for trying to apprehend alternate self-psychology models right
now, though from your's and Frank's apparent
avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic
slip-slide to Camus, I'm a little leery.

On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language


Yes!  thanks!

The tool is IdeaTreeLive  and attempts to 
address *some* of the issues discussed here.   If Ron is still live on 
this list, I trust he will weigh in.  He's clearly thought a lot about 
these issues (as several of us obviously have) but with a commercially 
viable tool perspective rather than a fairly academic or research 
perspective (speaking for myself).


- Steve

On 6/8/17 5:17 PM, Tom Johnson wrote:

Steve:
I think the mind mapping developer you are thinking of is Ron Newman 
-- ron.new...@gmail.com 


TJ



Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)   505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists 
*Check out It's The People's Data 
*
http://www.jtjohnson.com  t...@jtjohnson.com 




On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith > wrote:


Glen -

I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context,
but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more)
operators clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while
others chatter out loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to
another(s).

I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool
developer on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he
has been active off and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches
in.  I believe he was heading toward web-enabled, simultaneous
editing capabilities.   I did some tests and provided some
feedback on an early version a few years ago..

My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few
others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never
really adopted by myself.

I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM
for the NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed
by Tim Goldsmith (dept. Psychology) at UNM.  The presumption WAS
(IS) that we all have reserved lexicons and for a collaborative
group to develop a common one, there has to be a lot of discussion
and negotiation.  Our example was a group of climate change
scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in very
similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings in
some cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an
ocean scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested
in many of the same physical properties, but with different
emphasis and within different regimes.   Pressure, density,
humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear
meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance
and interaction between them has different implications for each
group.

Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran
out.  This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still
valid but without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is
hard to push such tools forward.  My part included building the
equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from the differing lexical
elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each individual
(or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective...
with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup
appreciate the *different* perspective of the others.

This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also
currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons"
is replaced by "multiple ontologies"  or in both cases, the
superposition of multiple lexicons/ontologies.

I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we
*tried* a joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but
it failed due to inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an
equally brilliant/oblique character as you...   take that for what
it is worth!

I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of
the good things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others'
feistiness!  It was also good that you could both call it for what
it was.  It makes me want to read Kohut... I have special reasons
for trying to apprehend alternate self-psychology models right
now, though from your's and Frank's apparent
avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic
slip-slide to Camus, I'm a little leery.

On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the
point that an email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative
production tool.

Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread Russ Abbott

Complex system and emergence reached their hype peak around 2,000. The
bubble burst for emergence
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=emergence_insensitive=on_start=1800_end=2008=15=3=_url=t4%3B%2Cemergence%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bemergence%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEmergence%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BEMERGENCE%3B%2Cc0>,
but complex system
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=complex+system_insensitive=on_start=1800_end=2008=15=3=_url=t4%3B%2Ccomplex%20system%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcomplex%20system%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BComplex%20System%3B%2Cc0>
seems to be hanging on. Unfortunately, Google's NGram viewer only goes up
to 2008.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:17 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I wonder the extent to which you would all agree that there is a bit of a
> complexity bubble: i.e., if you know the lingo, then you can understand the
> questions; if you don't know the lingo, then you can't understand what
> complexity people are on about.  So, one kind of project a group like us
> could work on is breaking out of the bubble.  That would require putting
> the complexity problem in a form that any ordinary mortal can understand.
> Here’s my attempt:  I think what you are up to is coming up with a general
> theory of creation, more general even than natural selection.  You want to
> offer a theory that accounts for the emergence of complex structures (*sensu
> Thompsoni*) in the universe.  Now that’s a program that anybody outside
> the bubble could understand.
>
>
>
> How wrong am I about that?
>
>
>
> 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: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language
>
>
>
>
>
> I think you and I on the same page.  My first thought (before the
> concept-mapping tools) was to collaboratively develop an ontology so that
> we could all talk about the same things.  But my guess is that would just
> cause even more hemming and hawing over terms.  Regardless of tools,
> someone needs to run point.  If there's a lead author and the other
> participants can "get behind" that author's objective, then it would work.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/08/2017 03:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
> > I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but
> usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators
> clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out
> loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).
>
> >
>
> > I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer
> on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off
> and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading
> toward web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests
> and provided some feedback on an early version a few years ago..
>
> >
>
> > My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few
> others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really
> adopted by myself.
>
> >
>
> > I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for
> the NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim
> Goldsmith (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all
> have reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common
> one, there has to be a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was
> a group of climate change scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical
> terms in very similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings
> in some cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an ocean
> scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested in many of the
> same physical properties, but with different emphasis and within different
> regimes.   Pressure, density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to
> have pretty clear meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative
> importance and interaction between them has different implications for each
> group.
>
> >
>
> > Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.
> This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but
> without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such
> tools forward.   My part included building th

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread Nick Thompson

Dear All, 

 

I wonder the extent to which you would all agree that there is a bit of a 
complexity bubble: i.e., if you know the lingo, then you can understand the 
questions; if you don't know the lingo, then you can't understand what 
complexity people are on about.  So, one kind of project a group like us could 
work on is breaking out of the bubble.  That would require putting the 
complexity problem in a form that any ordinary mortal can understand.   Here’s 
my attempt:  I think what you are up to is coming up with a general theory of 
creation, more general even than natural selection.  You want to offer a theory 
that accounts for the emergence of complex structures (sensu Thompsoni) in the 
universe.  Now that’s a program that anybody outside the bubble could 
understand.

 

How wrong am I about that?  

 

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: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

 

I think you and I on the same page.  My first thought (before the 
concept-mapping tools) was to collaboratively develop an ontology so that we 
could all talk about the same things.  But my guess is that would just cause 
even more hemming and hawing over terms.  Regardless of tools, someone needs to 
run point.  If there's a lead author and the other participants can "get 
behind" that author's objective, then it would work.

 

 

On 06/08/2017 03:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but usually 
> in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators clicking and 
> typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out loud, then 
> shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).

> 

> I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer on 
> the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off and 
> on!  I hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading toward 
> web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests and 
> provided some feedback on an early version a few years ago..

> 

> My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others 
> driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by 
> myself.

> 

> I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the 
> NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith 
> (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have 
> reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one, 
> there has to be a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was a group 
> of climate change scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in 
> very similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings in some 
> cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an ocean scientist and 
> an atmospheric scientist are very interested in many of the same physical 
> properties, but with different emphasis and within different regimes.   
> Pressure, density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty 
> clear meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance and 
> interaction between them has different implications for each group.

> 

> Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.  This 
> is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but without a 
> patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such tools forward.  
>  My part included building the equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from 
> the differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each 
> individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective... 
> with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup appreciate the 
> *different* perspective of the others.

> 

> This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also currently 
> not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is replaced by 
> "multiple ontologies"   or in both cases, the superposition of multiple 
> lexicons/ontologies.

> 

> I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a joint 
> project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to 
> inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally brilliant/oblique 
> character as you...   take that for what it is worth!

> 

> I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I thin

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread Nick Thompson

Hi, everybody, 

 

If only because of my despair concerning the current state of our national 
political discourse, mind mapping tools are of great interest to me. Some of us 
briefly considered using such tools to moderate conversation between people who 
disagree.   Would such a tool help to determine whether you-all are using 
complexity terms in roughly the same way or whether, in the interest of keeping 
the conversation going, you are letting slide fundamental differences in what 
you take complexity to be?

 

In any case, don’t let this thread die. 

 

Nick   

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

Steve:

I think the mind mapping developer you are thinking of is Ron Newman --  
<mailto:ron.new...@gmail.com> ron.new...@gmail.com

 

TJ






Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>  
Check out It's The People's Data 
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671> 

http://www.jtjohnson.com <http://www.jtjohnson.com/>
t...@jtjohnson.com <mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com> 


 

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com 
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

Glen -

I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but usually 
in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators clicking and 
typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out loud, then shifting 
the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).

I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer on the 
list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off and on!  I 
hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading toward 
web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests and provided 
some feedback on an early version a few years ago..

My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others 
driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by 
myself.

I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the NSF 
a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith (dept. 
Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have reserved 
lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one, there has to be 
a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was a group of climate change 
scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in very similar contexts 
with very different intentions and meanings in some cases.   It isn't too 
surprising when you realize that an ocean scientist and an atmospheric 
scientist are very interested in many of the same physical properties, but with 
different emphasis and within different regimes.   Pressure, density, humidity, 
salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear meanings to any scientist 
using them, but the relative importance and interaction between them has 
different implications for each group.

Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.  This 
is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but without a 
patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such tools forward.   
My part included building the equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from the 
differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each 
individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective... 
with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup appreciate the 
*different* perspective of the others.

This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also currently not 
under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is replaced by "multiple 
ontologies"   or in both cases, the superposition of multiple 
lexicons/ontologies.

I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a joint 
project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to 
inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally brilliant/oblique 
character as you...   take that for what it is worth!

I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of the good 
things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' feistiness!  It was 
also good that you could both call it for what it was.  I

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread Nick Thompson

Hi, Owen,  

 

This would all be a lot easier if you would just say what you think.  

 

What was the “unkind way” that your message was “not in” ?

 

And what the dickens is an O.P.?   

 

Nick 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

 

No, my troll comment was meant for Nick's OP. Not in an unkind way, but ...

 

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com 
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

Glen -

I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but usually 
in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators clicking and 
typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out loud, then shifting 
the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).

I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer on the 
list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off and on!  I 
hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading toward 
web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests and provided 
some feedback on an early version a few years ago..

My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others 
driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by 
myself.

I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the NSF 
a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith (dept. 
Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have reserved 
lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one, there has to be 
a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was a group of climate change 
scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in very similar contexts 
with very different intentions and meanings in some cases.   It isn't too 
surprising when you realize that an ocean scientist and an atmospheric 
scientist are very interested in many of the same physical properties, but with 
different emphasis and within different regimes.   Pressure, density, humidity, 
salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear meanings to any scientist 
using them, but the relative importance and interaction between them has 
different implications for each group.

Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.  This 
is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but without a 
patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such tools forward.   
My part included building the equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from the 
differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each 
individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective... 
with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup appreciate the 
*different* perspective of the others.

This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also currently not 
under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is replaced by "multiple 
ontologies"   or in both cases, the superposition of multiple 
lexicons/ontologies.

I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a joint 
project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to 
inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally brilliant/oblique 
character as you...   take that for what it is worth!

I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of the good 
things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' feistiness!  It was 
also good that you could both call it for what it was.  It makes me want to 
read Kohut... I have special reasons for trying to apprehend alternate 
self-psychology models right now, though from your's and Frank's apparent 
avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic slip-slide to Camus, 
I'm a little leery.

On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the point that an 
email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative production tool.

Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the 
PSL<https://www.psl.nmsu.edu/>.  He supposedly works up at PNNL.  Thanks for 
that article.

Yes, I took Owen to be calling Russ' post a trolling post.  But "troll" is like 
"complex", meaningless out of context.

I'm completely baffled why "layer" isn't understood ... makes me think I must 
be wrong in some deep way.  But for whatever it's worth, I believe I understand 
and _agree_ with Nick's circularity criticism of mechanistic explanatio

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread Tom Johnson

Steve:
I think the mind mapping developer you are thinking of is Ron Newman --
ron.new...@gmail.com

TJ



Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists 
*Check out It's The People's Data
*
http://www.jtjohnson.com   t...@jtjohnson.com


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith  wrote:

> Glen -
>
> I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but
> usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators
> clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out
> loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).
>
> I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer
> on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off
> and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading
> toward web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests
> and provided some feedback on an early version a few years ago..
>
> My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others
> driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by
> myself.
>
> I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the
> NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith
> (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have
> reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one,
> there has to be a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was a
> group of climate change scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical
> terms in very similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings
> in some cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an ocean
> scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested in many of the
> same physical properties, but with different emphasis and within different
> regimes.   Pressure, density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to
> have pretty clear meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative
> importance and interaction between them has different implications for each
> group.
>
> Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.
> This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but
> without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such
> tools forward.   My part included building the equivalent of what you call
> "mind maps" from the differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and
> "morphing" from each individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of
> common perspective... with the intention of helping each individual or
> subgroup appreciate the *different* perspective of the others.
>
> This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also
> currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is
> replaced by "multiple ontologies"   or in both cases, the superposition of
> multiple lexicons/ontologies.
>
> I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a
> joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to
> inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally brilliant/oblique
> character as you...   take that for what it is worth!
>
> I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of the good
> things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' feistiness!  It was
> also good that you could both call it for what it was.  It makes me want to
> read Kohut... I have special reasons for trying to apprehend alternate
> self-psychology models right now, though from your's and Frank's apparent
> avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic slip-slide to
> Camus, I'm a little leery.
>
> On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
>
>> We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the point that
>> an email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative production tool.
>>
>> Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the PSL<
>> https://www.psl.nmsu.edu/>.  He supposedly works up at PNNL.  Thanks for
>> that article.
>>
>> Yes, I took Owen to be calling Russ' post a trolling post.  But "troll"
>> is like "complex", meaningless out of context.
>>
>> I'm completely baffled why "layer" isn't understood ... makes me think I
>> must be wrong in some deep way.  But for whatever it's worth, I believe I
>> understand and _agree_ with Nick's circularity criticism of mechanistic
>> explanations for complexity, mostly because of a publication I'm helping
>> develop that tries to classify several different senses of the word
>> "mechanistic".  The 1st attempt was rejected by the journal, though. 8^(
>> But repeating

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread glen ☣


I think you and I on the same page.  My first thought (before the 
concept-mapping tools) was to collaboratively develop an ontology so that we 
could all talk about the same things.  But my guess is that would just cause 
even more hemming and hawing over terms.  Regardless of tools, someone needs to 
run point.  If there's a lead author and the other participants can "get 
behind" that author's objective, then it would work.


On 06/08/2017 03:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but usually 
> in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators clicking and 
> typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out loud, then 
> shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).
> 
> I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer on 
> the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off and 
> on!  I hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading toward 
> web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests and 
> provided some feedback on an early version a few years ago..
> 
> My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others 
> driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by 
> myself.
> 
> I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the 
> NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith 
> (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have 
> reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one, 
> there has to be a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was a group 
> of climate change scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in 
> very similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings in some 
> cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an ocean scientist and 
> an atmospheric scientist are very interested in many of the same physical 
> properties, but with different emphasis and within different regimes.   
> Pressure, density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty 
> clear meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance and 
> interaction between them has different implications for each group.
> 
> Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.  This 
> is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but without a 
> patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such tools forward.  
>  My part included building the equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from 
> the differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each 
> individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective... 
> with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup appreciate the 
> *different* perspective of the others.
> 
> This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also currently 
> not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is replaced by 
> "multiple ontologies"   or in both cases, the superposition of multiple 
> lexicons/ontologies.
> 
> I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a joint 
> project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to 
> inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally brilliant/oblique 
> character as you...   take that for what it is worth!
> 
> I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of the good 
> things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' feistiness!  It was 
> also good that you could both call it for what it was.  It makes me want to 
> read Kohut... I have special reasons for trying to apprehend alternate 
> self-psychology models right now, though from your's and Frank's apparent 
> avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic slip-slide to 
> Camus, I'm a little leery.

-- 
☣ 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] tools, trollers, and language

Yes, I suppose that one could say that Nick is the best kind of Troll 
here...  I always appreciate his (deliberately) naive questions and hair 
splitting even when it IS the hair on my own chinny chin chin!




On 6/8/17 4:08 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
No, my troll comment was meant for Nick's OP. Not in an unkind way, 
but ...


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith > wrote:


Glen -

I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context,
but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more)
operators clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while
others chatter out loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to
another(s).

I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool
developer on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he
has been active off and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches
in.  I believe he was heading toward web-enabled, simultaneous
editing capabilities.   I did some tests and provided some
feedback on an early version a few years ago..

My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few
others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never
really adopted by myself.

I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM
for the NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed
by Tim Goldsmith (dept. Psychology) at UNM.  The presumption WAS
(IS) that we all have reserved lexicons and for a collaborative
group to develop a common one, there has to be a lot of discussion
and negotiation.  Our example was a group of climate change
scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical terms in very
similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings in
some cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an
ocean scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested
in many of the same physical properties, but with different
emphasis and within different regimes.   Pressure, density,
humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear
meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance
and interaction between them has different implications for each
group.

Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran
out.  This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still
valid but without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is
hard to push such tools forward.  My part included building the
equivalent of what you call "mind maps" from the differing lexical
elements, floating in N-space and "morphing" from each individual
(or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective...
with the intention of helping each individual or subgroup
appreciate the *different* perspective of the others.

This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also
currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons"
is replaced by "multiple ontologies"  or in both cases, the
superposition of multiple lexicons/ontologies.

I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we
*tried* a joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but
it failed due to inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an
equally brilliant/oblique character as you...   take that for what
it is worth!

I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of
the good things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others'
feistiness!  It was also good that you could both call it for what
it was.  It makes me want to read Kohut... I have special reasons
for trying to apprehend alternate self-psychology models right
now, though from your's and Frank's apparent
avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic
slip-slide to Camus, I'm a little leery.

On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the
point that an email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative
production tool.

Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the
PSL. He supposedly works up at
PNNL.  Thanks for that article.

Yes, I took Owen to be calling Russ' post a trolling post. 
But "troll" is like "complex", meaningless out of context.


I'm completely baffled why "layer" isn't understood ... makes
me think I must be wrong in some deep way.  But for whatever
it's worth, I believe I understand and _agree_ with Nick's
circularity criticism of mechanistic explanations for
complexity, mostly because of a publication I'm helping
develop that tries to classify several different senses of the
word "mechanistic".  The 1st attempt was rejected by the
journal, though. 8^( But repeating Nick's

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

2017-06-08 Thread Owen Densmore

No, my troll comment was meant for Nick's OP. Not in an unkind way, but ...

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith  wrote:

> Glen -
>
> I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but
> usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators
> clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out
> loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).
>
> I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer
> on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off
> and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches in.  I believe he was heading
> toward web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities.   I did some tests
> and provided some feedback on an early version a few years ago..
>
> My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others
> driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by
> myself.
>
> I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the
> NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith
> (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have
> reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one,
> there has to be a lot of discussion and negotiation.  Our example was a
> group of climate change scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical
> terms in very similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings
> in some cases.   It isn't too surprising when you realize that an ocean
> scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested in many of the
> same physical properties, but with different emphasis and within different
> regimes.   Pressure, density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to
> have pretty clear meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative
> importance and interaction between them has different implications for each
> group.
>
> Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out.
> This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but
> without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such
> tools forward.   My part included building the equivalent of what you call
> "mind maps" from the differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and
> "morphing" from each individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of
> common perspective... with the intention of helping each individual or
> subgroup appreciate the *different* perspective of the others.
>
> This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also
> currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is
> replaced by "multiple ontologies"   or in both cases, the superposition of
> multiple lexicons/ontologies.
>
> I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a
> joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to
> inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally brilliant/oblique
> character as you...   take that for what it is worth!
>
> I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of the good
> things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' feistiness!  It was
> also good that you could both call it for what it was.  It makes me want to
> read Kohut... I have special reasons for trying to apprehend alternate
> self-psychology models right now, though from your's and Frank's apparent
> avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic slip-slide to
> Camus, I'm a little leery.
>
> On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
>
>> We quickly polluted that thread, too.  But it drives home the point that
>> an email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative production tool.
>>
>> Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the PSL<
>> https://www.psl.nmsu.edu/>.  He supposedly works up at PNNL.  Thanks for
>> that article.
>>
>> Yes, I took Owen to be calling Russ' post a trolling post.  But "troll"
>> is like "complex", meaningless out of context.
>>
>> I'm completely baffled why "layer" isn't understood ... makes me think I
>> must be wrong in some deep way.  But for whatever it's worth, I believe I
>> understand and _agree_ with Nick's circularity criticism of mechanistic
>> explanations for complexity, mostly because of a publication I'm helping
>> develop that tries to classify several different senses of the word
>> "mechanistic".  The 1st attempt was rejected by the journal, though. 8^(
>> But repeating Nick's point back in my own words obviously won't help, here.
>>
>> Yes, I'm willing to help cobble together these posts into a document.
>> But, clearly, I can't be any kind of primary.  If y'all don't even
>> understand what I mean by the word "layer", then whatever I composed would
>> be alien to the other participants.  One idea might be to use a "mind
>> mapping" tool and fill in the bubbles with verbatim snippets of people's
>> posts ... that might help avoid the bias

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language