On 11/11/2013 11:05 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > If we truly understand the complex dynamic of the social system we are > embedded in (and in this case, shaped by) then we might have a chance of > exercising some of our free will in an enlightened self-interest > manner. What I'm espousing is an attempt to understand (be enlightened) > about our own nature (to the extent it was determined by our origins) > and to exercise whatever free will we have to A) improve our own lot > within the context of the system(s) we are embedded in, and B) to groom > (change our behaviour/trajectory in the system in a way that predictably > changes the whole system) those systems in a way that we believe suits > our self-interest.
Right. I wasn't arguing with any of that. 8^) I was _agreeing_ with your statement: On 11/10/2013 08:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote:> StephT - > We are not who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. I just threw it in a combative curve. The thing I disagree with is the idea that any _actionable_ objective toward self-interest will be too myopic in one form or another. The accretion of the system happens in such a way, over various scales in space and time, and over various "we" comprehensions, that objectives can't be sliced out. Any less-than-10-millenia historical account of what _is_ will be flawed, perhaps fatally so, and any objective that fails to account for enough side effects and unintended consequences will result in "something to be ashamed of". Of course, it can all be summed up as "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." In that regard, what achievements can we be proud of? My guess is that every answer we might offer to that question has a dark side to it. At the end of the day, it's easy to see why whole swaths of people might fall for "positive psychology". At some point, you gotta just quit worrying about what might happen and make some change just for the sake of change. And if we do that, how much hand-wringing is enough to argue that the changer is responsible in their actions? E.g. is ObamaCare a responsible piece of legislation? Or is it a bad compromise that puts us further in the hole? Did our for-hire-hand-wringers (aka Congress-lawyers) do enough worrying? > Hysteresis itself does not admit free-will, and stigmergy, a bit more > refined, the feedback system being mediated by "symbols" of sorts is a > step closer. While neither model free will, it does seem that > self-aware agency within a system allows for free will to be part of the > dynamic. You might have a better way of saying this (or denying it)? Well, I've argued my case before. Free will is a generative random twitch. Any apparent purpose, color, or bias that results is purely a function of the constraints in which that twitch takes place. This is why stigmergy and hysteretic are better words than emergence. We each spastically flop around, banging against the structures in our environment (including other spastic floppers). If you start with too few constraints, your produce is random. If you start with too tight a set of constraints, your produce is nil. > You found the embedding of Texas too difficult to change or endure so > you kicked a few of your jets in a way that threw you out of it's orbit > and into another orbit... Well, I didn't leave because of my beef with the people, institutions, or government. I left because I got a good job offer ... and I was piqued by the idea of living at 7k feet. I did press my employer at the time to give me a budget to play with (like they had at the New York office). My bosses didn't even respond to my request. ;-) So, I left. But I can say that the people, institutions, and government will help keep me from moving back to Texas. Now that my mom's moving to Colorado, I have even less reason to consider it. I'm now thinking Boulder, CO might be a cool place to live for awhile. > I think you can see the difference between a healthy member of a healthy > group and a "spoiled and usurious" parasite living on a stew of > resources taken thoughtlessly from "the commons" by pirates supported by > whatever it is said "parasites" can offer them (votes, deference, $$?). Maybe. It sounds a bit like the definitions for porn and life... can't define it but know it when you see it? If that's the case, then I think it's _begging_ for some reductionist analysis. I hear a lot of "kids these days". And there's plenty of eschatological doomsaying on both the left and the right (though in the modern conception, we end up with some fantastic, well-toned, with good skin and straight teeth, zombie killers). Although I don't buy into the Singularity, I do wish there were more people arguing "It's OK, just go with it, be creative, we'll find solutions as we go along." You can't be rational without a ratio. > But in the first world, it is latent (or not) hoarding IMO. I agree. The real trick is that those of us who live with the "wolf at the door", with a lean supply network, are _shamed_ into hoarding. If you don't hoard, you are considered immature or irresponsible ... unless you're lucky enough to die on time. ;-) -- ⇒⇐ 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
