Very nice! What I keep *wanting* to hear from Nick or EricC is a mechanism by 
which very tiny, very fast processes inside the body interact with very tiny, 
very fast processes outside the body. I.e. a demonstration (or simply rhetoric) 
of membrane openness (permeability, lack of closure). I.e. not all tiny/fast 
processes are bundled up into larger/slower processes at the interface between 
inside and outside.

If they made that (inherently compositional) argument, then ... then then then, 
we could talk about a taxonomy of process from tiny/fast to huge/slow, across 
spatiotemporal and functional scales. And with such a taxonomy, we could talk 
about which ones facilitate the Markovian processes EricS mentioned, required 
to successfully challenge "the hard problem" from a behaviorist perspective.


On 8/26/21 8:05 AM, Curt McNamara wrote:
> Bucky Fuller on apprehension / comprehension of systems:
> http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f0901.html 
> <http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f0901.html>
> 
> We ignore larger / slower frequencies. We also ignore smaller / faster 
> frequencies.
> http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p0600.html#509.01 
> <http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p0600.html#509.01>
> 
>            Curt
> 
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:55 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits. To say 
> we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by which parts 
> compose the whole.
> 
>     The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order 
> frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they 
> organized?
> 
>     On 8/26/21 7:50 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>     >
>     >>  E.g. when Bob wakes up startled, he interprets the situation into 
> "fear". But when Sally wakes up startled, she interprets the situation into 
> "excitement" or some other /a priori/, socially limiting, filter category.
>     > Thus my earlier suggestion that "we" "are" our emotions?   Bob *is* his
>     > propensity to read the lower-level response of "startlement" (closer to
>     > autonomic) to "fear" (closer to choice).   Sally also as "excitement".
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     ☤>$ uǝlƃ
> 
>     - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>     un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>     FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
>     archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
> <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> 
> 
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> 

-- 
☤>$ 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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Reply via email to