Dear Vladimir,
First of all, at today’s meeting of the home congregation, Frank pointed out that I have been calling you “Victor” for the last two weeks. I do apologize. Alas for you, it is of the perils of corresponding with near-octogenarians. When my father got to be this age, he would assign a new acquaintance a name on first meeting, and it took some sort of Richter 10 seismic event to get him to change it. However, I will try to do better. Second, I keep thinking we have a levels of organization problem. When I describe the sign relations implicit in some animal behavior, I use words to describe each of the three “arguments” in the sign relation. So, if I am doing it right, the words should divide out and my statement still conveys useful information about the animal’s behavior. Similarly, brain talk should divide out, since EVERYTHING going on in the sign relation is going in in the brain. If there are peculiarities in the brain organization of one animal in comparison with another, those peculiarities should be entirely expressible in terms of the different interpretants that the different animals bring to the sign relation, or they are irrelevant. Similarly “mind talk”. Where things truly run off the rails is when we start to mix mind, and brain, and sign talk in the same formulation. 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 Vladimyr Burachynsky Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:29 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Sign Game Nick and Cody, Cody exposed a chink in the problem. The object is not the beginning of the issue it is the Robin’s mind that imparts the response in particular the male robin’s brain. When the Brain connects a visual stimulus with a comparison pattern in storage, a certain threshold initiates an entire array of physical responses. If the stimulus remains fixed the male will beat himself to death upon meeting his own reflection. The object only acquires a status once observed. Cody knows the fuzz is fuzz but the Robin’s knowledge is more immediate and perhaps based on a fixed neural algorithm Knowledge makes a difference. I raised hunting dogs for years and observed that Borzois attack anything that is moving quickly. And lose interest when the object stops. Then they just walk around looking for something new. The brains are the culprit, they give the object some meaning deservedly or not. Larger Brains have the luxury of choosing from a multiple of choices. So the brain’s basic structure initiates responses without cognition, the act of choosing may be a mark of higher intelligence, perhaps the reason we fail is that few people know their own minds. But we are aware of our actions. This is hauntingly like a recursion problem where one part of the brain is required to monitor another part while it is working and before the body moves. Then it must connect a complex brain activity with the reality of an automobile accident. vib From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Sent: November-18-16 3:19 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Sign Game Thanks, Cody, I don’t think anybody is very good at this game. My whole project here is to study people’s responses and see if I can develop some rules for it. Your response is helpful. The hardest part of the game is identifying the last term, the “interpretant”. I am not sure a person or an organism is a proper term to fill into that slot, although many, many people will fill in people organisms there. I think the “proper” term is more like the question that the person or organism brings to the situation. So, in some sense, a territorial male robin is constantly asking himself about the objects in his territory, “Is this thing another bird; if so, is it a robin; if so, is it a male robin? So, I would say that the “interpretant” is the dimension of inquiry with which the territorial male robin approaches the objects in his territory, not the territorial male robin himself. But if I really knew, I wouldn’t be asking the question. 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 cody dooderson Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 9:41 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Sign Game I am a total newbie to the sign game. What is considered a correct answer? I took a stab at the first question. What do you think? When a male robin enters the territorial male robin’s territory, the owner will display, sing, and approach the intruder. Experiments show that any tuft of red cotton mounted on brown wires will suffice to elicit this response. I would say the (S)ign is: A red fuzzy thing (O)bject: A male robin (I)nterpretant: Male robins are usually red fuzzy things. Cody Smith On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: Dear Members of the Local Congregation, There will be a short quiz tomorrow. (};-)] Please see attached. Nick ============================================================ 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