" because, then truly, “Knowedge Extinguishes Emergence.”
Well there are attempts to define emergence as what happens when the
phenomena at higher levels *could not *be predicted from knowledge of the
lower levels alone.
Probably that definition involves a lot of question begging, and seems
My homunculus is not a dadblasted larva.
Good job by a couple of officers in the US Navy Medical Corps. Two such
physicians did a biopsy on my scaly knee when I was 8. They removed a
pea-sized piece of skin and said that that their presumptive diagnosis of
psoriasis was correct and that there's
I don't know about your Confirmation homunculus, but you mentioned migraines.
Another diagnosis? Could the homunculus be a real *thing*?
https://www.mdedge.com/ccjm/article/132192/imaging/worsening-migraine-due-neurocysticercosis
On 5/8/19, 1:15 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" wrote:
Ok, so, Lee. I keep getting my ears boxed for misinterpreting people. So.
If my understanding of your metaphor is wrong, what is yours?
And to your earlier post, is emergence (or phase change) anything more than
the failure of induction? If I asked Conway or Wolfram why does this thing,
which
> "I can't help but feel you're waiting to pop out of the horse and hit me
> with something that falsifies my faith in the foxes."
A fox one's faith in which can be falsified is a faux-fox.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Emergent: hexagonality of snowflakes. Can we predict that from water
> vapor and cold?
And something about (maybe just the existence of) nuclei?
But predicting the hexagonality doesn't seem (to me) nearly enough to
predict the (not always, but very often) near-symmetry well past the level
of
Nick thinks:
> As I think Lee would say (dammit, Lee, where are you?), don't ask a fish
> about water; he knows nothing of it.
I would not say that; I have always thought it was a particularly silly
thing to say. Since there are approximately 30 more messages to work
through, I won't expand on
I am going to plug into this conversation at a posting from Nick, and attempt
to pose an answer to his question about why "we" 'cannot' or 'refuse to' offer
a modicum of enlightenment. I would hope that others shred, or improve, my
argument, but only Nick can say if it approximates an answer
I knew it! 8^) I would, naturally, extrapolate (or is it interpolate?) from big
systems-level scales down to smaller (but still big, my Confirmation homunculus
argues) scales like that of individual organisms. So, here I am thinking a
person can be foxy about their own narrativity and you pop
Glen writes:
"I can't help but feel you're waiting to pop out of the horse and hit me with
something that falsifies my faith in the foxes."
Their examples were more about (big) systems-level phenomena, anyway. So it is
true by construction that breadth is needed.
Marcus
Ha! I spend all my time arguing for the foxes and against the hedgehogs. And
you've installed yet another trojan horse into my brain by linking to this
article (and the oh so attractive book "Range").
"They took from each argument and integrated apparently contradictory
worldviews. ... Foxes,
Glen writes:
"Even *if* we admit that the accumulation of biological artifacts (like shorter
telomeres) "tells the story of our lives", there are some of us who don't
understand, reflect on, or realize that story and some who do. My headaches
have helped me be more episodic, I think. Maybe you
Worth repeating here:
https://medium.com/@nziehl/coping-with-chaos-in-the-white-house-697fa2ca3ddf
---
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Wed, May 8, 2019, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> That's a great point. I suppose we do have to separate a psychological
>
That's a great point. I suppose we do have to separate a psychological
narrativity from a physiological narrativity.
On 5/8/19 10:59 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A poor memory could cause one to fall back on the old habits without
> realizing it.(Not "*Why* did I do that again?!")
--
☣
Glen writes:
"Well, my memory is *terrible*. That helps."
A poor memory could cause one to fall back on the old habits without realizing
it.(Not "*Why* did I do that again?!")
Marcus
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
From the paper: Against Narrativity - Galen Strawson
"The basic form of Diachronic self-experience is that
[D] one naturally figures oneself, considered as a self, as some-
thing that was there in the (further) past and will be there in
the (further) future
...
If one is Episodic, by contrast,
Well, my memory is *terrible*. That helps. I realized the other day, re: one of
my narcissist friends (eg she *consistently* gets bored with our conversations
and starts poking her phone even while her S.O. is talking directly about a
topic she introduced), I don't even remember where she was
Interesting. What is the difference between episodic and diachronic
personalities?-Jochen
Original message From: Marcus Daniels
Date: 5/8/19 19:40 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Reasons why we elect
narcissists Glen
Glen writes:
< I recently had an offline discussion with Steve Smith about Galen Strawson's
episodic vs. diachronic personalities. And I definitely identify as episodic. >
The snowflake analogy in another thread seems apt. While I recognize I'm some
form of ice one h, my life history leads
Although I'm sympathetic with characterizing him (and most other
attention-seeking people) as a narcissist, it seems inadequate. I really liked
this characterization, though:
IMO the 45th president is a unique example of NPD. The following "Psychology
Today" article says that "severe narcissists were likely emotionally injured at
a crucial time in their development". For Donald this might have been the time
when his parents sent him as a young kid to a private
Lee,
I am perfectly happy that an argument cannot embrace every extreme case.
Reductio ad absurdum has never seemed to me a conclusive form of argument.
I looked up "phase transition", which one wise source defined as "a
transition ... in phase." Wikipedia was a little wiser.
During
Yeah, you're right. Degenerate cases would violate the intuition. But that
happens everywhere we're forced to develop coherent and complete definitions.
The empty set is a good example. A set with nothing in it? Pffft. So, I'd be OK
with the extreme case where the generators were expressive
Well takes a certain kind of person that's not exactly all their to want to
try wrangling 500 egotistical aholes to even get into the same room much
less keep the countery from go careening off the deepend. So yeah I'd
imagine not to much of a strech that a ahole jerk, and infamous internet
troll
> I only kinda like it because I would prefer something like: emergence
> exists when the post-map language has a different expressibility than the
> pre-map language.
Surely not *simply* "different"? If the post-map language has strictly
less expressibility than the pre-map language, does
Given that the 45th president clearly shows signs of severe NPD, which we
discussed already 2 years ago, I thought you would perhaps be interested in
this Psychology Today article titled "4 Reasons Why We Elect Narcissists and
26 matches
Mail list logo
