Thomas: Sort of the ol conundrum, either everything is an accident or everything is predetermined. That is sort of like the current "whatever" we hear in teenage discussions - it pretends to say something when it actually says nothing. But we can try and move it to a deeper level and look at effects.
At that level the sheer coincidence factor becomes a challenge. If everything was accidental, then statistics would have all the answers - obviously they don't - sort of argues against the accident theory. Of course there is another contender from Chaos Theory which postulates attractors which would skew statistics but still leave the accident theory in the running - except it would be accidental but responsive to external factors but still accidental. The synchronicity model implies some other agency, perhaps the economists famous "invisible hand" or the guidance of a spirit helper, or your higher self. If so, why is a progressive pattern of some kind not more noticable - effects seem contradictory at times as if whoever is running the show is only partially in charge. No definitive answers from me - I'm still at effect and still exploring. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde ---------- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [Futurework] (no subject) >Date: Mon, Sep 22, 2003, 7:32 PM > > Its interesting the extent to which we ascribe causation or meaning to > random acts, no matter the probability. > > And if you had been driving along and been hit by a moose or deer on your > way to visit a friend.....well you get the picture. > > Life is a crapshoot. Or maybe there is synchronicity. > > arthur > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Lunde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 2:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] (no subject) > > > > > ---------- >>From: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: Selma Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: [Futurework] (no subject) >>Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 4:58 PM >> > >> >> >> Bob Este wrote on this thread: >> >> Here we are not falling into the old metaphoric trap of saying "the >> brain is a computer", but instead are usefully applying the more >> flexible and helpful comparison of "the computer and our brain are >> similar in some ways". >> >> Keith wote: >> >> The truth is revealed by instances of physical brain function >> disruption, which can be generated by strokes, or by radical >> surgical intervention. The surgical instance is most impressive, >> as in this case, the majority of the brain is fully severed into >> left and right halves to stop massive epileptic attacks. As a >> result, the patients become, at the intellectual, interpretive >> level, two distinct entities which do not share any information, >> >> Selma wrote: >> >> The other is the distinction between mind and brain which, IMHO, has been >> avoided, disdained on this list, because the idea of mind as something >> separate from the brain's workings being held as akin to discussions about >> 'soul' and 'spirituality', god forbid :). Naturally this subject should >> include a discussion of consciousness which I think has also been avoided >> here. >> >> Thomas Comments: >> >> The outstanding thing to me is why we don't die when our left and right >> brains are seperated! Keith promuglates a "lower brain" without giving it >> any more detail. My best definition to date after thousands of hours >> reading, listening to tapes and attending seminars is: "the brain is a >> reprogramable response mechanism." >> >> This encompassess the physical structure of the brain in more of an >> orientation towards the activities we do with computers. It takes >> information in and combines that information in some magical way to make >> behaviors, language, movement and thought plus a whole host of other > things >> like releasing hormones which are percieved by different bodily organs and >> locations as emotions, etc. Scientist can see this activity with scans > and >> instruments. >> >> So now we come to Selma's question: Is there another agency, mostly >> unconscious to the conscious mind, that provides input and direction that >> may come from other portions of ourselves not yet identified by science or >> unable to be identified by science's tools and instruments. If so how > could >> we know except through observing activities that do not seem to be under > the >> direct control of the conscious mind or the subconscious mind. >> >> What would those activities be? Well, a computer model does not create >> other than by combining existing knowledge within it's data, so we might >> assume that any answer that can be arrived at by deductive reasoning might >> well be within the range of a biological computer mode. That leaves > answers >> that could be labelled inductive. Those leaps away from what is known to >> what is unknown. These are the equivalent of biological mutation in gene >> structre. Except we all intuit mutation in our thought that seems to defy >> our habitual responses and past information. We call this creativity. >> >> >> But that is still chugging along at the level of intellect. Let me try >> another example. On Friday, I receive a phone call saying I cannot work >> this weekend because the transmission went out on my Taxi. On Sat, I am >> driving my daughter around shopping and we are planning a movie and > dinner. >> All of a sudden I suggest - for no reason I can think of - that we go > home, >> finish our shopping tomorrow and I will cook dinner. With a small >> hesitation, she agrees. We arrive home about 4:30 in the afternoon and as > I >> walk through the door, the phone is ringing. It is from a friend I > haven't >> seen in 6 months who arrived in Regina unannounced, had tried to phone me > an >> hour ago and was heading out of town to pick up some stored material at a >> house he owns. I offer to help and he drives 20 km back to town to pick > me >> up. We have an enjoyable several hours together and then he leaves. Now > in >> my normal course of life, I would have worked Fri and Sat night as I have >> done for the last year. This weekend I didn't. Normally, I would have >> gladly forgone cooking and enjoyed dinner and a movie with my daughter, > what >> prompted me to change my mind, I was suprised at the words coming out of > my >> mouth. What are the odds that a friend would show up unexpectedly and > phone >> me at the exact minute I walked in the door. >> >> Now my question is: Is this an activity that would point towards the >> concept of a mind, that is influencing my life outside of my conscious >> awareness for purposes of which I have no knowledge. Statistically, it >> seems almost impossible that those circumstances happened outside of my >> normal routines and planned activities. What purpose was accomplished? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Thomas Lunde >> ---------- >>>From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Keith Hudson" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pete [EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Subject: Re: [Futurework] (no subject) >>>Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2003, 8:09 AM >>> >> >>> I really enjoyed this post, but I only have a minute right now to mention >>> that it brought to mind a couple of concepts that I believe are closely >>> relatedand that it would be fun to discuss and on which I will try to > post >>> later: >>> >>> One is the idea of emergence; that idea is, I think coming out of systems >>> theory and probably network theory now; >>> >>> The other is the distinction between mind and brain which, IMHO, has been >>> avoided, disdained on this list, because the idea of mind as something >>> separate from the brain's workings being held as akin to discussions > about >>> 'soul' and 'spirituality', god forbid :). Naturally this subject should >>> include a discussion of consciousness which I think has also been avoided >>> here. >>> >>> I think Bob Estey's wonderful post has some very important stuff in it > that >>> I see as leading to those two or three or more subjects; I'll try to post >>> more later about some of my thoughts and reading. >>> >>> Also, ( I know I should never start to do this when I have to do > something >>> else) I am intrigued by the fact that Arthur Koestler has been mentioned >>> twice here in the last few days. It's no surprise when creativity is > being >>> discussed but he has some wonderful ideas about levels of analysis and >>> their relation to creativity which leads to ideas about language, a la >>> Watzlawick, etc., etc., etc. >>> >>> Exciting stuff! >>> >>> Selma >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "pete >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harry Pollard" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:09 AM >>> Subject: [Futurework] (no subject) >>> >>> >>>> All: >>>> >>>> The weaving of ideas and threads about linear and non-linear thinking >>>> resonates with aspects of a paper I'm developing having to do with >>>> (for lack of a better term) emergent ambient intelligence, and so I'd >>>> like to add a bit of my current effort into those threads. >>>> >>>> The folks with whom I'm very fortunately working at the moment are >>>> greatly talented and highly gifted electrical and computer engineers. >>>> They're exploring ideas originating with Koestler's notion of the >>>> "holonic enterprise" and, based on this, are beavering away in their >>>> respective crafts to come up with robust and elegant algorithms that >>>> describe, account for and allow calculation, prediction and >>>> simulation in whatever varieties of nested hierarchical computational >>>> networks they study and develop. Their application questions address >>>> enhancing the computational capacities of organizations, especially >>>> in industries of various sorts, to deal more effectively, efficiently >>>> and productively with all the new complex, extended, nested, >>>> electronically-networked emerging virtual organizations we've >>>> recently created, in which we are all embedded, and of which we are >>>> all a part: herewith is 'network thinking' beyond the orchestra pit. >>>> >>>> The current discussion threads about linear and non-linear thinking >>>> are addressing far more than what Kolb thought of as learning cycles. >>>> So far in the exchange, I think there's an implicit comparison being >>>> made between the notions of receiving new experiences essentially >>>> through a more or less passive stance (that is, standing on the >>>> shoulders of all that we've learned and, to the best of our >>>> abilities, adding those new experiences to our foundation), versus >>>> actively exploring and seeking new experiences of an entirely >>>> different order (essentially, using those shoulders to raise >>>> ourselves up, and then leave them behind to climb new, unexplored and >>>> previously-unexperienced peaks -- some of which my only be generated >>>> as a result of our extended climbing effort). >>>> >>>> Here, I think we can usefully employ some of the interesting concepts >>>> being used by my engineering colleagues in their work discovering >>>> "ins and outs" of new emerging complex virtual networks having to do >>>> with their holonic enterprises. The conceptual models they are >>>> exploring and developing have some isomorphism with the beautiful >>>> mish-mash of connections, nodes, channels, synaptic gaps and >>>> bioelectrochemical mixtures that flicker and swirl among the nested >>>> hierarchies of our neurons, and all the other systems that support >>>> and maintain them. >>>> >>>> Here we are not falling into the old metaphoric trap of saying "the >>>> brain is a computer", but instead are usefully applying the more >>>> flexible and helpful comparison of "the computer and our brain are >>>> similar in some ways". Being careful to make this distinction, we >>>> can advance the notion that the brain and the computer have complex >>>> features that suggest they are types of system ecologies. We can >>>> rapidly spread our conceptual fields regarding ecologies to think >>>> about all other such systems: for example, without robust nested >>>> networks and sub-systems of a great many varieties, functions and >>>> descriptions, our bodies (and, presumably, everything likewise >>>> connected to this example) would simply not be. Considering >>>> everything from algae to ponds, to lakes and rivers and thence to >>>> oceans, from alpine meadows to deserts and forests, from fields of >>>> corn to ocean-bottom 'black smokers', to dust storms and thunderheads >>>> to biomes of every description, we see a huge variety of >>>> interconnected networks of nested hierarchical systems and >>>> sub-systems, furiously (and otherwise) engaging each other with >>>> countless energy, materials and information transactions. >>>> >>>> Man-made things and systems of things are little different from this. >>>> We can think of what are appearing as our new nanotechnologies, or >>>> our old familiar washing machines and fancy new laptop computers; >>>> automobiles old and new, production lines, supply chains and >>>> spaghetti junctions; the shop floors and quality circles and >>>> inventories and distribution centres and retail outlets, and all the >>>> things that have converged and continue to do so, over and over and >>>> over, to shape our realities; the homes we live in, the skyscrapers, >>>> the cities and our the largest spreading interlinked conurbations; >>>> our phone networks, power systems and infrastructure grids of every >>>> type and description, all the way to the Internet -- every one of >>>> them complex networked nested hierarchical systems and sub-systems, >>>> again engaging each other with countless energy, materials and >>>> information transactions. >>>> >>>> All of these networked ecologies are engaged in processes of bounded, >>>> robust, networked computation, all interacting, all dependent on, >>>> steered by and making use of thresholds with varying permeability and >>>> purpose and countless channels of varying size and capacities, all >>>> comprised of vibrant tuned and self-tuning networks carrying and >>>> supporting every conceivable energy, material and information >>>> transaction. >>>> >>>> I paint this image because I suspect that our senses of, or what has >>>> been discussed as 'lateral thinking' and 'linear thinking', of >>>> creativity and inventiveness and adaptability, of foundations of deep >>>> robust knowledge permitting our excitement and pleasure of design, >>>> exploration, discovery and achievement, and perhaps of eventually >>>> arriving at what we hope really does turn out to be wisdom -- I >>>> suspect all of these are features of our own emergent ambient >>>> intelligence that resides at all levels of our own holonic enterprise. >>>> >>>> My electrical and computer engineering friends are pretty sure they >>>> are on the right track, that their investigative and exploratory >>>> efforts will lead them to develop new and very useful computational >>>> tools applicable to and capable of dealing with the growing levels of >>>> systemic complexity and ever-increasing speed of our aforementioned >>>> transactions; and, of course, being agents in a holonic enterprise, >>>> what they develop will recursively add to that complexity as well as >>>> enhance capacities to understand and deal with it. They are sure we >>>> will understand holonic enterprises better, and as a result will be >>>> able to make improved use of them as they evolve and self-organize >>>> into areas, features, capacities and niches we can't even imagine. I >>>> think my engineering friends will successfully accomplish what >>>> they've set out to do. >>>> >>>> I also suspect that our minds are just like that. I think that our >>>> colleagues in many fields are doing the equivalent of what so many of >>>> our greatest trail-breaking explorers have already accomplished -- >>>> explorers such as Galileo, Copernicus, Liebniz, Newton, Boole, Frege, >>>> Russell, Einstein, Gödel, and Feynman, to name just a few. With >>>> their variously-focused efforts, they reveal, explore, explicate, >>>> model and apply facets of what our minds already have the potential >>>> to do, and thereby create the spaces where innovation can take place. >>>> As with the development and application of the telescope and >>>> microscope, for example, and the emergence of conceptual models of >>>> non-euclidian geometry, of formalism, intuitionism and logicism, of >>>> chaos and complexity theory and all that has been thereby generated >>>> and continues to flow from them, they provide new scientific, >>>> conceptual and organizational tools that amplify, enhance and combine >>>> anew our already-present capacities, to allow us to reach into >>>> nascent levels of perception and abstraction and worlds with orders >>>> of magnitude far beyond what we ever once thought we could perceive, >>>> think about, or imagine. But now, we do this, we will continue to do >>>> this, and even more so. And we will do it well. >>>> >>>> All of this emphasizes that what we think of as 'linear' and >>>> 'lateral' thinking are necessary parts of the whole. When we >>>> appreciate really good, first-class jazz, read an article that >>>> reveals a new and powerful insight, or when we gaze down at the >>>> valley from the wonderful vantage point of the peak that may have >>>> taken us the equivalent of our lifetime to first see and finally >>>> scale, every step we have taken is of both varieties. 'twas always >>>> thus, methinks. >>>> >>>> Cheers / Bob Este / Ph.D candidate / U of Calgary >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Futurework mailing list >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
