Glen, Your last paragraph reminds of simulated annealing.
Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 12:44 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Glen, > > > > Good to see you again in the Zoom meeting. Talking to people “in person” > really does enhance understanding. Duh! > > > > You wrote: > > > > I reject both your and Nick's distinctions as artificial. 8^) > > > > But then you wrote: > > > > The objection I have to catastrophizing or intolerance to ambiguity is, > essentially, calling attention to our sticky-modes ... our inability to > switch modes when it would be very useful to switch. I'm not trying to > suggest that "nomothetic" knowledge is better than "idiographic" knowledge, > only that we avoid getting stuck in either one. > > > > Am I allowed to agree with the second without agreeing to the second? Am > I allowed, in fact to use the success of your second argument as evidence > AGAINST the aritificiality of the distinction? > > > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 10:09 AM > To: FriAM <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Self Case > > > > Nick's prior introduction of the two terms (here: > http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/Good-climate-change-skeptics-td7586673i20.html#a7586710) > is still relevant. I reject both your and Nick's distinctions as > artificial. 8^) > > > > The deeper issue is the domain of applicability. As chaotic, fractal, > scalable, stigmergic, markov, etc. systems seem to imply, regularity and > historicity aren't really distinct things. What matters is whether we are > *modal* in the formulation of our predicates. Inducing a rule when studying > the narrative trajectory of Nick need not be any different than inducing a > rule when studying the longitudinal trajectory of an idealized demographic. > There's a bit of trickery when switching from temporal induction to spatial > induction (narrative vs. population). But as the parallelism theorem > argues, any process achievable by a bunch of independent processes can be > simulated by a serial process. So, there *are* ways to switch modes, > perhaps even perfectly. We see the same duality in objects vs. processes. > > > > The objection I have to catastrophizing or intolerance to ambiguity is, > essentially, calling attention to our sticky-modes ... our inability to > switch modes when it would be very useful to switch. I'm not trying to > suggest that "nomothetic" knowledge is better than "idiographic" knowledge, > only that we avoid getting stuck in either one. > > > > In fact, I've argued in some publications that qualitative observations > naturally precede quantitative observations. And as the domain changes (in > our simulation work, *expands*, but it applies equally to *moves*, in > particular for parallax), what was previously quantitative can be fuzzified > to be more qualitative and then steadily walked back to quantitative with > the new domain. I.e. regularity derives from irregularity, nomothetic > derives from idiographic. > > > > On 4/10/20 4:47 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > > I don't know the difference between "nomothetic" and "idiographic", but > I am interested in the area between idiosyncratic, irregular descriptions > and symmetric, regular theories. History is often the former, an > idiosyncratic description of events and names specific for a certain time > and country. Mathematics is usually the latter, because it is based on > symmetries and precise rules to describe regularities. In the area between > we can find phenomena like path-dependent evolution and adaptation. > > > > > > For example as Edwin Holt ("The concept of consciousness") noticed the > concept of an environmental cross section helps to explain subjective > consciousness which is in a sense both specific to an individual but also > predictable if we know the exact cross section of the environment. George > H. Mead ("Mind, Self & Society") also argues that all individual selves are > reflections of the social process. I believe we discussed it a few years > ago. > > > > > > In the case of Donald Trump we can also observe how subjective objects > and objective theories overlap. There is certainly no one like Donald, and > yet there are many people especially among managers who have a Narcissistic > Personality Disorder as mental health professionals have warned us ("The > dangerous case of Donald Trump"). In addition to this psychological > interpretation Sarah Kendzior describes in her new book ("Hiding in plain > sight") that his behavior is not uncommon for authoritarian systems. > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
