Phil Henshaw wrote:
Are you saying that the 'contextualize'
function extracts the meanings of the words though, and looks for other
associations with those meanings, or does it just reflect things like
frequency and proximity of occurrence.
The purpose of the contextualize function in
, April 22, 2007 12:07 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Phil Henshaw wrote:
H... what does that mean? The model of evolution I
observe working
in both natural systems and in designed systems is
exploration
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Phil Henshaw wrote:
My guess is that the reason
Phil Henshaw wrote:
H... what does that mean? The model of evolution I observe working
in both natural systems and in designed systems is exploration at the
fringe What that means depends on the system involved, but the
invariant is a high degree of organizational invariance in the
Phil Henshaw wrote:
you kept coming back
with the additional levels of distinctions that a careful application of
categories to physical things must encounter. Do you have a method of
doing that, or is that part of the method of the Cyc data format
somehow?
I don't have an algorithm for
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:33 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Phil Henshaw wrote:
I'll have to try OpenCyc to have any
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Phil Henshaw wrote:
So maybe the question of abstract v. real categories could provide
plenty to talk about.
Or perhaps how to take a lot of talk (or papers) and mine
Phil Henshaw wrote:
I'll have to try OpenCyc to have any clear idea what it's for. What's
the productive question it asks?
From http://www.cyc.com/cyc/technology/whatiscyc_dir/whatsincyc
The Cyc knowledge base (KB) is a formalized representation of a vast
quantity of fundamental human
, 2007 8:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Frank Wimberly wrote:
The reflexivity of the relation on the set of humans hasSameSexAs
doesn't depend on what anyone reports or what organs they have. It
only depends
Phil Henshaw wrote:
So maybe the question of abstract v. real categories could provide
plenty to talk about.
Or perhaps how to take a lot of talk (or papers) and mine it for strict
or fuzzy categories that a computer could use, e.g. software like
http://www.opencyc.org
I think that common
On 4/15/07, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Agar wrote:
Reflexivity is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory,
a relation R is reflexive in set A iff for all a in A aRa is true.
Question is, what is the discrimination power of R? Does it ever say
false?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Michael Agar
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Reflexivity is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory
?
:) Allison
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Michael Agar
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Reflexivity is one of those terms
Michael Agar wrote:
Reflexivity is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory,
a relation R is reflexive in set A iff for all a in A aRa is true.
Question is, what is the discrimination power of R? Does it ever say
false? (Unlike, say, Freud's theories or religious dogma),
Frank wrote:
It seems to me that sameSex is reflexive on the set of all humans.
The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the
same sex as him or her self.
The set of all humans is not reflexive due to ambiguity.
sameSex(x0,x1) := (hasMaleSexOrgan (x0) and
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Michael Agar wrote:
Reflexivity is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory,
a relation R is reflexive in set A iff for all a in A aRa
is true.
Question is, what is the discrimination power of R? Does it ever say
false
, 2007 7:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Hi Allison,
You must be familiar with the European consensus conference concept?
There has been some work in STS that looks at these sense-making spaces (see
Frank Fischer's work
, let me know ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
All best and good luck with the project,
David
- Original Message -
From: Allison Pinto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
friam@redfish.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess
Gus Koehler wrote:
How is the invisible structure of software, be it GIS, networking systems,
or electronic voting machines, to be made transparent and how do we know?
One thing is to do is to require these crucial systems be open source.
Maximally expose all potential vulnerabilities.
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Frank wrote:
It seems to me that sameSex is reflexive on the set of all humans.
The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the
same sex
Frank Wimberly wrote:
The reflexivity of the relation on the set of humans hasSameSexAs
doesn't depend on what anyone reports or what organs they have. It only
depends on whether their gender is what their gender is.
Unless it can't be defined as a single thing, in which case the set
cannot
Good morning!
On 4/14/07, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matt,
For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems:
1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the world.
To ask the right questions means having unbiased data on how people in
some
Matthew Francisco wrote:
A system for knowing, for reflecting on reality; that's science, isn't
it? A social system for reflecting on reality also fits the
description of religion too (assuming that you accept a belief in what
one is refleciting on is reality). We all know that there is a
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Matthew Francisco wrote:
A system for knowing, for reflecting on reality; that's science, isn't
it? A social system for reflecting on reality also fits the
description of religion too (assuming that you accept a belief in what
one is refleciting
Reflexivity is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory,
a relation R is reflexive in set A iff for all a in A aRa is true.
Then there's the ethnomethodology version, which means talk and
situation dynamically co-constitute each other. Then there's the
focused ethno version I
Mike, how goes it? Thanks for your note.
The field of science and technology studies is indeed interesting. Over the
years I've tried to track cultural studies and philosophical works that have
tried to reveal the form of what is emerging. The following authors turned
up: Taylor and
Good day FRIAM,
I am happy to have found this group. Joining about a month ago and in
the midst of defending my proposal for dissertation research I haven't
yet had the energy to respond to any of the discussions here. But I
feel compelled today.
As an emerging expert in the field of science
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
So what does this reflexivity have to do with applied complexity science?
Interesting results are easier to come by if it is possible to chase the
ball with the bar that measures the kick
Folks that are interested in the structure of scientific communities
might be
interested in some of David Corfield's work. It's aimed primarily at the
intersection of the math and philosophy communities, but seems to me to
have
some cross-application to some of the issues in this thread. The
Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and
cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of cybernetics too...
For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems:
1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the
No clue, but sounds like a normal view from the 50's 60's 70's 80's or
90's? Clearly not someone who knew about new classes of promising options
that hadn't been tried yet though...
On 4/11/07, Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am curious to know if anybody in Friam-land will
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
And counsels of dispair are urgings toward a libertine life. On the
theory that my raping and muggering is as likely to produce social
good as my non raping and non muggering, why dont I just go out and
rape and mugger?
Is there some evidence that, without
Dr. Daniels,
I want to make sure I understand you. See below...
On 4/13/07, Marcus G. Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and
cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of cybernetics too...
For
6:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
And counsels of dispair are urgings toward a libertine life. On the
theory that my raping and muggering is as likely to produce social
good as my non
Hi Matt,
For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems:
1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the world.
To ask the right questions means having unbiased data on how people in
some context of interest actually behave.
I take it that when you say
Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man
and
man today. These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel
management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the
idolatrous worship of things by man.
Oddly enough,
www.timestructures.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Gus,
As I was reading through the full Port Huron statement at
http
Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Steve:
Actually, your question is really hard. I have been involved in tracing the
significant issues--economic, political, ethical, philosophical--associated
with the emergence of various advanced technologies here
Gus Koehler wrote:
Technohippies can identify
the ethical and moral limits, design webs that are grounded in the knowing
of what is cut-off and what is brought forward. They can insist on
face-to-face meetings and rolling in the grass.
alex strauss wrote:
Back to rolling in the grass and
I am curious to know if anybody in Friam-land will recognize the following
passage. No Fair using google.
It is NOT from the Gettysburg Address.
Our work is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in the
experiment with living. But we are a minority--the vast majority of our
I'll play.
Theodore Kaczynski?
Now I have to go see if I am right. It's scary playing this game and
quite possibly making a fool of oneself.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 6:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
I am curious to know if anybody in Friam-land will recognize the
following passage. No
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
I am curious to know if anybody in Friam-land will recognize the following
passage. No Fair using google.
It is NOT from the Gettysburg Address.
Our work is guided
Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
I am curious to know if anybody in Friam-land will recognize the
following passage. No Fair
Morning Applied
Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.
Lets see, patriot act,
citizen phone taps without knowledge, bank taps without
knowledge, Bush manipulation of fear by terror buggy man,
electronic voting subversion resulting from subversion of two
44 matches
Mail list logo
