Glen, I would definitely agree that we are being pretty loose with our notion of algorithmic. But, keeping to the spirit of the discussion so far in that regard:
I would agree that teams, while practicing, are "by definition, algorithmic. But, I would contend that while playing, they are not — particularly so when they are "in the zone." I would say the same thing about standout players, those capable of more than mere supporting roles, e.g. Michael Jordan. An enlightened Taoist (Ch'an / Zen Buddhist) and Michael Jordan "in the zone" are, I believe, acting algorithmically, even in a strict definition of the term, but the algorithm is incredibly complex — all relevant variables and relationships among them — and "solved" in near zero time. I see another aspect within your Taoism comment, captured in the Koan: "What is it like to live as an Enlightened One?" "When I am hungry, I eat; thirsty, I drink; sleepy, I sleep." davew On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 10:22 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Heh, all of this begs for a definition of "algorithmic". I sincerely > doubt Nick was using it in the sense of a fully definite process that is > guaranteed to halt. So, there's something else, there, something > significantly *softer* ... more vague ... ill-defined. It's almost as > if Nick (or Wouk via Nick) thinks rigorous social rules violate the soul > or denigrate the individual mind in favor of the biofilm (that we > actually are). > > It brings Taoism to my ignorant mind. It seems the fully enlightened > individual is perfectly free if and only if they fully engage in their > algorithmic behavior. > > On 1/15/19 9:13 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Computers, computing, software: all are algorithmic, creating an > > "algorithmic context" (Navy) within which human users (Sailors) are > > constrained to act. > > Like human sailors in the Navy, human users acting in this algorithmic > > context can only go wrong if they attempt to utilize their "native > > intelligence." > > Moreover, this state of affairs is pretty much intentional (albeit > > sometimes below the threshold of awareness). In the algorithmic world, > > humans are nothing except sources of error. Even those developing the > > software are assumed to be (the vast majority anyway) incompetent and > > must be constrained by rigid and detailed methodology. > > SkyNet has won and we are but its minions. > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > 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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
