Nick -
I'm not sure I've observed a "fingers in the ears shouting" here, but I
do understand the point I think.
I always read FriAM discussions as if the goal is exactly what you
stated... to find a common language/model/metaphor to use to discuss.
As Glen aptly put it, these threads often DO get polluted perhaps by too
much hair splitting or discursions from the OT (original topic) and I
might be one of the guiltier parties to that. I think we DO wear
ourselves (and one another as well as not-so-innocent bystanders who
might otherwise participate) out with the long winded discussions of
details (see the mass exodus/defection of WedTech a few years ago).
I believe that the argument (discussion) over levels vs layers was
fueled partly by Glen's trying to hold us responsible for not enforcing
a strong idea of hierarchy into the ideas of complex systems. So I'm
game for helping to explore (but maybe not resolve) this question of how
models of complex systems are structured. But to avoid the risk of
being mistaken for shouting with my ears plugged, I hope someone else
will make a next step?
My own limited throwdown might be as follows:
Complex (biological?) systems do tend to exhibit (some) hierarchy as a
consequence of self-organizing principles building larger units from
smaller subunits (e.g. C, H, O, N molecules forming into carboxyl
groups, glycerol groups, phosphate groups, which in turn form amino,
nucleic, and fatty acids which form into macromolecules like fats,
carbohydrates and polypeptide chains which fold into proteins which then
go on to self-organize (or be assembled or catalyzed) into structures
such as cellular and nuclear membranes as well as cytoskeletal
membrane/tubules, flagella, etc. on up through the formation of
organelles, viruses, microphages, and then unicellular life like
bacteria/amoebae/protozoa/archaea/algae/fungi, and then multicellular
life into complex organisms which then organize into units like
flocks/herds/tribes/packs/murders/crowder/school/crudeness/troop/rabble/flange/etc
and then perhaps proto-organisms like hive/city/state/nation/etc. But
following Vlad's lead and other's complementary offerings... there IS
interaction between these levels of hierarchy... cell membranes and
other organelles "process" macro(and micro)molecular structures, groups
interact collectively with individuals, etc.
I'm with Glen intuitively that even though there are MANY examples of
hierarchy in complex systems, it isn't clear that they are either
necessary nor sufficient to explain self-organization, emergence,
sensitive dependence on initial conditions, punctuated
criticality/equilibrium, etc.
I fear I may have muddied (polluted) a little here...
- Steve
On 6/10/17 12:04 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Dear Vib,
So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far
do we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one
another? And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation
what do we do? One option, of course, is for each us to put his
fingers in his ears and continue to shout at one another, each using
his own language and his own favorite metaphor. Another option, is to
give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.
Is there a third option? I think so. (Surprise!) I think it is to
find a common “model” to work with. Now to me, a “model” is a formal
scientific metaphor. To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a
specific phenomenon that is thoroughly understood by all participants
in the discussion. “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time
because everybody understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny
reaction that Steve Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes
into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my discussions of
convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I should
be.
So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with? If so, then
we might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly
familiar with it. If not, then giving up would seem to be better
than the “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method.
I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared
intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important
sense?
Nick
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
*From:*Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Vladimyr
*Sent:* Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
*To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
Frank and the Congregation,
Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but
stress redistribution
is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.
But what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection
points without breaking
the filaments.
Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.
So now do we agree, in part, that lamina can penetrate other lamina
and generate very complex systems.
Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already make
these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.
The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view
point presents a different structure.
It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just
as easily become transit or vascular systems.
So information can be accommodated…
I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping
networks are very real.
But this code is now close to my own physical limit.
Time is short for all of us.
vib
*From:*Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Frank
Wimberly
*Sent:* June-09-17 11:21 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that,
but I can't think of a biological example"
Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Vlad -
I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has
some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is
structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer"
which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.
I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived
from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small
number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?
The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems
like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for
that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what
you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?
I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include
engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even
semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?
As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your
affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts
ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and
complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D
object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D
space using geometric primitives?)
I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D
spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with
topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics
might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is
primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I
used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such
derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so
arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that
taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them
unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.
I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your
description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks
and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more
of this and respond under separate cover.
Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on
my own petard here!
- Steve
On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.
I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an
Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We
were using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a
term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each
was composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and
global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a
designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really
cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber
thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact
when used by people.
Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to
analyze why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a
hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.
We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from
the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.
Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots.
Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the
social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a
biological analogue.
The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was
my third language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my
interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot
redistribute stress.
Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D
images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.
But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to
try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with
some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain
location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either
columns or helices.
I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain
was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the
graphics running beside on the left.
I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over
which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain
structures that were once useful but now
a hindrance.
Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for
some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe
are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph
Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To
illustrate my own bent mental models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular
Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self
Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the
unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then
I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions
into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when
scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a
methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present
them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must
be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain
throughput capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is
already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use
Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.
So take a look you may have to download
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM
<https://1drv.ms/v/s%21AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM>
This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D
space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as
like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the
fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation.
Examination of any single Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of
any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight
that something exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is
4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to
change perhaps based on proximity.
I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I
hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique
Growth Factors or engineering properties.
I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me
giggle. So that's good. 8^)
On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model
for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?
I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr
and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable
without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When
you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no
such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.
In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you
have in mind?
The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the
fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation.
We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be
clearer.
If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels
of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity
(or whatever) are onion-like?
Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's
all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't
care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level"
sucks. Stop using it.
Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have
in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor
(natural selection) seriously enough.
Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point
that layer is better than level.
--
☣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
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
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
