Uh .... The Village Pragmatist here: remember, is Pragmatist philosophy, consensus or convergence is not the goal. It's the outcome that arises from people attempting to discover the Truth. It really is quite paradoxical. But just bear in mind the 100 years of chemistry by which we came by the periodic table. Peirce was saying, if people behave like those guys did, the truth is where you will eventually get. What he doesn't say -- but which I think is implicit -- is that The Truth is a mythology that everybody has to believe in to get them to play the game right, but given Descartes, its discovery is unattainable.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 12:25 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] scientific evidence Glen - > Yes, my problem with both consensus and convergence is the downward > causation, or more specifically, the extent to which that forcing > structure can or cannot be escaped. > > With relatively independent things like zero-intelligence agents, this > isn't as much a problem (I think) because the resistance to flip from > one behavior (consensus participation, exploitation) to another > behavior > (exploration) should (ideally) be low, or at least bounded. > > But with intelligent agents (like humans), any behavior that obtains > can be positively reinforced to a huge degree, perhaps infinitely. > The little, programmable homunculus in side your head becomes > specialized and stuck in its ways. That makes the "escape velocity" > from a consensus much more difficult. I see a distinction (now) between whether your offense at convergence is a social/political/spiritual one or a technical one. I think I hear you saying that in fact, consensus and convergence *are* real phenomena in human understanding but that you *do* think they are not good for the individual or the group (unless it is the Borg as you reference later?) I've been heard using the term Homo Hiveus to describe one end-state that humans may (socially) evolve to... I'm not convinced it is necessary or even possible... but I *do* feel it would be a tragic loss if humanity becomes one big lock-step colony (or set of competing/mutually-ignoring? colonies). I think we have a counter-example to this in societies such as the Japanese who (from my Western/American perspective) seem to be a lot more predisposed (culturally?) to give over to collective behaviour. The fascists of early last century seemed prone to this (in a top-down way?), and to some extent the collectivists (socialism, communism), and for the most part all of those have (mostly) failed to capture the hearts and minds of the members of the collective. Extremist fanatics might be the closest to this? Individuals being "captured" by a small set of very powerful and shared memes? Moonies, Muslim Bro'hood(???), Taliban(???), Aryan Nation, Extreme Right Christians. > > That's also part of my suspicion of thought and preference for action. And how do you feel about thoughful action and actionable though <grin>? >> A simple summary might just be an explanation of how you think this >> aphorism has "done more harm..." ? I'm sure it *has* done harm, but >> I'm not sure what it is you refer to? > When I hear "all models are wrong, some are useful", I hear > "therefore, we need to keep modeling to make better models". And > that's the problem. I have the same problem with people who think > there is only 1 best way to _think_. And I hear... "the map is not the territory", if you really want to see what is in that area labeled "there be dragons here", you need to go visit, and don't expect to come home having bagged a dragon, but you might get eaten! > Although I sound cynical when I use the aphorism "the problem with > communication is the illusion that it exists", I'm not being cynical > at all. It's actually a positive statement that argues _for_ variety > and diversity in thought ... against consensus, pro exploration. I think aphorisms are at their best when they are offering cynicism or polyannaism... in the latter I think we call them platitudes? > To me, this is why the "Borg" is such a great enemy. To discover I > think > (nearly) exactly like another person would be the best argument for > suicide I've ever heard. To discover the fantastic ways in which > others do not think like me borders on the very purpose of life. I agree perfectly (now go ride off a cliff!) <smirk> > Further, I don't think evolution would work without this balance > between the extent to which internal models mismatch reality vs. the > extent to which they match reality. I.e. to be wrong is beautiful and > interesting. To be right is useless and boring. That explains a lot about my severe depression and feelings of uselessness! > Therefore, phrases like "all models are wrong, some are useful" is a > kind of crypto-idealism. A sneaky way to get us to converge and, > thereafter, be entrapped by the convergence. Even if the limit point > doesn't exist in itself, such crypto-idealism can trap us in an > ever-shrinking _cone_ of constraints. I like your term - Crypto Idealism... now, have you ever considered that you might be paranoid? <grin> > That's close, but not quite what I intended. I read your example as > "automatic modeling", which is awesome and I'm sad that it faded away. Or more to the point, "automated model exploration"? I'm still interested in re-igniting it if ever i find the right project/collaborators. My part was more on the analytics side of trying to understand the *results* of these ensemble runs... high dimensional correlation over a (sometimes rough) multidimensional landscape. But I also understand the ABM, GA and "design of experiments" aspects well enough to participate or lead others with fresh skills. > But model forking, to me, means the responsibility (along with all 4 > causes, efficient, material, formal, and final) may change with the > changing of hands. The two extremes are _abuse_, where the model is > being used for its side effects or purposes for which it was never > intended to an _attempt_ to carry on an effort set out by the original > modeler. There's a whole spectrum in between. Aha! Thanks for the disambiguation. I don't think we are converging, as that would be useless and boring. We are only converging enough that I can agree that "communication is an illusion"! > The main difference I see between what I'm trying/failing to describe > and automatic modeling lies in the [im|ex]plicit nature of the > objective > function(s) and the evolution of that(those) objective function(s), if > they evolve at all. > > I'm also implying a full spectrum of asynchrony between forks, in > time, space, purpose, use cases, etc. Ah yes... in fact, the "automated modeling" project was a vague attempt to rein in and exploit what already happened. Build an effective (for some purposes) model and others with co-opt it and use it (modified or not) for (more or less) different things to (more or less) effect. The results will probably never be collectively compiled, and if they are, the biggest thing likely to be discovered is big holes in it's use/application. >> I'd like to catch up on your definitions here (in this thread or our >> offline parallel one)... maybe others are curious as well by what you >> mean by multi-formalism and these evolving models (My example with >> GA-designed ensembles of meta-model parameters might be the same >> thing roughly?). > I basically mean the use of different mechanisms for the internals and > interactions of the various elements involved. The most > straightforward, practical example are hybrid systems, where a > discrete module must interact with a continuous module. In my experience, this is usually limited to using one as a forcing function to the other, with the "other" being the dominant one? Fine grain discrete informing a lower resolution continuous? I'm not current in the field. > But there are plenty of > others practical examples, as well as metaphysical ones: How do you > get an atheistic Hindu and a young earth Creationist to cooperate > toward an objective? This sounds like a Sphinx - worthy riddle or the setup for a Steven Wright joke! >> You lucky boy, to live within a drive or rail to Powells on demand. >> My wife and I spend up to half our time there it seems when we visit the >> area. The independents are going slowly but surely. Powells is a >> bastion. > Yeah, Amazon's prices are always lower. But I pay a little extra if I > meet employees or owners face to face. I don't go to bookstores to buy books, I go there to browse them in the context of other booklovers. I *buy* books at bookstores to make sure they are there the next time I want to go browse (or people watch). Powells is by far my favorite since Cody's closed. Denver's Tattered Cover (downtown) is worthy as well and I'm sad that ABQs Bound to be Read failed. Borders and their ilk managed to capture the superficial feel of the best Indies, but it is like going to Chipotle's expecting to have a Tomasita's (only for SFe residents and visitors) experience. - Steve ============================================================ 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 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
