Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-04-10 10:16 AM:
Same organized behavior but completely different principles. Do we force
complex interpretations where simple ones suffice.
Yes, we definitely _do_ when the validation data indicates that the more
complex mechanisms actually exist, as
I haven't read the papers all the way through, but on first blush, I don't
see them as contradictory. Either could be correct.
A leader - whether bird or person - could act first due to internal traits
(inclination, ability, imagination) or external influence. The first
implies that the leader
)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
- Original Message -
From: Ted Carmichael
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 4/10/2010 4:39:22 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks
I haven't
-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Ted Carmichael
Sent: April 10, 2010 5:39 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks
I haven't read the papers all the way through, but on first blush, I don't
see them as contradictory. Either could
Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Regardless of whether leaders act because of endogenous traits or a
circumstantial opening, they are indeed emergent throughout the system.
In human systems, however, unlike flocks, over-determined structures
suppress this emergent property of the system. Rather than
: April 10, 2010 12:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] leadership in flocks
Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Regardless of whether leaders act because of endogenous traits or a
circumstantial opening, they are indeed emergent throughout the system.
In human systems
Vladimyr -
A leader
in a cycling peloton
is such a temporary phenomenon that one has to be very careful how the
term it
is used. But in the bird flock the leader seems to be part of a social
dynamic
which might not actual exist but in the minds of the writers?
I agree
Comments below...
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
vbur...@shaw.cawrote:
Wow, wait a second,
If the object in motion has a group of followers I don't see emergence,
Remoras follow sharks or any other moving object, there is no dynamic
social
system. My Wolfhounds
But by your own definition, an emergent property requires correlated
feedback in the system
supression is as likely to emerge as leadership, and thus we revert to
the question in earlier conversations about the value systems of the
observer fabricating the label of emergent or not. Right?
No, it's a good question, Tory. I said I wasn't sure about the label
emergent being applied to suppression, and I'm not. Thinking about it
more, it's a good idea to clarify the terminology.
Let's see ... a single act of suppression is feedback that helps to preserve
the emergent feature of a
Correlated feedback? The example given is that of a pack of dogs chasing a
rabbit and keeping it running in a straight line. The straight line is the
emergent property. A similar example is a thermostat -- or a bunch of
thermostats distributed around an area. (If you like they can control
The religious grouping I belong to had cause to study/discuss this about 150
years back (concerning flocks of men not birds). The leader of the faction
in opposition to mine (which means my faction vehemently disagrees with his
view) had this to say
Source:
sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-09 06:34 AM:
The religious grouping I belong to had cause to study/discuss this about 150
years back (concerning flocks of men not birds). The leader of the faction
in opposition to mine (which means my faction vehemently disagrees with his
view) had this to say
Of course, one significant difference between bird flocking behavior and
human religious flocking behavior is that birds have brains...
--Doug
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote:
sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-09 06:34 AM:
The religious
14 matches
Mail list logo
