Glen- Why are you so sure you know what is in other people's minds? Your continual use of the annotated point-for-point refutation of why I am wrong and you are right just proves the point, doesn't it? Reductionism a a wonderful tool, for the complicated. But the complex is something entirely different. Here's an example I think you will understand:
747-interconnected and interwoven-can be reduced to its components, each optimized and reassembled and the whole is improved: COMPLICATED Brazilian Rainforest-interconnected and interwoven-destroyed if reduced to its components: COMPLEX Ambiguity, at least in my flawed perception, is one of the hallmarks of complexity. The current situation in AZ has been brought about precisely because of the LACK of an attractor--it is of course not an attractor itself. It has left the attractor well of stability that existed years ago and yes, is between attractors. The law put forward "could" be an attractor, but we won't know until we see the outcome. Complexity has "retrospective coherence". Cause and effect can only be judged after the effect has occurred. If I knew what the proper attractor was, it wouldn't be complex, now would it? It would just be another complicated system in which expert knowledge uncovers cause and effect. I honestly don't know why I am even continuing on in this... We are on completely different pages. I make the statement that watching what happens in AZ will be interesting from the complexity standpoint,and you make the assumption that I lack empathy, don't see logic, am only comfortable dealing with people who think like me, etc.. Is this really that much fun for you? Let's terminate this BS and go on with something interesting and important. Russ Russell Gonnering, MD, MMM, FACS, CPHQ [email protected] www.emergenthealth.net
<<inline: PastedGraphic-3.tiff>>
On May 10, 2010, at 6:01 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-10 03:36 PM: >> It would be refreshing to find a venue in which my definition of >> complexity (and the one described by Snowden, Stacey, Arthur, etc.) >> can be discussed. "Interconnectivity" and "interwoven" things are >> present in "complicated" and even "simple" systems as well. The >> difference is in how cause and effect function in the system. >> Different dynamics are operative. > > Yes, it's always refreshing to find a community of people who build on > the same foundations as ourselves and explore the superstructure of that > foundation. This is why, I think, silos are prevalent in corporations > and universities. And it's also why discussions of complex systems are > interesting to me, because the people interested in complexity come from > all different backgrounds. It's interdisciplinary, which makes it > difficult to find a large group with the same foundations. > > But that reflects my choice of career, as well. I write simulations of > all sorts of things, allowing me to skate between domains. I never > commit fully to any one domain or foundation. It's true that makes me > scatter brained. But it also adds a synoptic view I don't think would > be attainable if I committed fully to any given domain. > > To each his own. > >> This forum, on the other hand, usually has countless threads >> dissecting the exact meaning of this or that word, with voluminous >> rants on just why one particular individual is "wrong" and the author >> always "right". Then there is a counter rant, complete with the >> carefully annotated bits of the prior post, like yours below, >> describing how much in error the first (or was it the second) poster >> is or was and forever will be. > > Wow. Either I've wildly mis-implied my point or you've wildly > mis-inferred my point. My point was only that it is entirely logical to > think the new AZ immigration law will cause racial profiling. You said > that it seemed illogical to you. I was merely pointing out that there > is logic in their position. > > I'm not trying to tit-for-tat you to death. I just wanted to make the > point that the criticism against the new law is based on logic. > >> Is this really people's >> idea of what complexity is all about? Such intellectual exercise is >> no doubt enjoyable to many people, but I tired of that long ago. If >> "suitable attractor" in the context of complexity theory is vague to >> you, I honestly don't know how we can have a discussion, as we are >> talking about such vastly different things. It would be better just >> to argue ideology and stop the charade of discussing complexity. > > Well, I understand your frustration. But the problem is a lack of > concreteness, not definitions. I don't have a problem with the phrase > "suitable attractor". I just don't know what attractor you happen to be > talking about. You seem to think that the current situation in AZ is on > an attractor; but we have no data. Is it really on an attractor? Or is > it moving between attractors? Has it _ever_ been on an attractor or has > it, for the last 200 or so years just _slowly_ been moving in an > attractor-less space? > > None of these questions will go anywhere without deciding what data we > want to look at. > >> Glen, I would suggest you read "Tribal Leadership" by David Logan. >> You can download an mp3 version for free from their website: >> www.triballeadership.net. Perhaps that will give you some insight >> into what I am talking about. > > Thanks. I'll put it in my queue. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
