Neither! Ha! As Colleen Green mumbles: "Once you get to know me, you won't love me anymore." https://youtu.be/ankOO77de7o
You're both a little wrong and a little right. The gen-phen map is inspired by genotype-phenotype. But liberties are taken with what it can mean. In particular, I've worked with some clinicians who call any pattern they're looking for in their patients a "phenotype". It's a very loose use of the word, but it gets the job done for them. For *me*, I tend to mean *only* systems where the phenomen[on|a] exert[s] some kind of downward causation on the generators (mostly just setting constraints). Maybe I should start calling it the phen-gen map instead? On 7/17/20 4:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > At the very end you spoke of the generator/phenomenon distinction. I bet Jon > a million dollars that you did NOT mean the same thing as the > genotype/phenotype distinction. So. Who's your friend, here? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
