Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Yuck. < We should probably all practice saying, “There’s no evidence for that, but the important thing is … ” and “Well, I disagree, but let’s say you’re right. What about … ” without

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 5:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) On 02/07/2017 04:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 04:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I accept these are your assumptions. I find it to be misrepresentation of > the most interesting people, but a plausible representation for many others. Which raises the question: What's the ratio of "most interesting people" to "many others"?

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Glen writes: "I'd argue the majority of our opinions and decisions are made according to the communities with which we identify, not according to some idealistic rationality." I accept these are your assumptions. I find it to be misrepresentation of the most interesting people, but a

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 03:19 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > She doesn't have to decide on the basis of communities. She can look at the > available evidence and estimate if this is the kind of leader that match her > personal values and her interests. There is the question of set membership > (e.g.

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

"For example, if you're a woman and you're trying to decide if Trump's words are meaningful (his locker room talk), you have to decide what community takes priority." She doesn't have to decide on the basis of communities. She can look at the available evidence and estimate if this is the

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

The article I posted (and much of the conversations everywhere these days) is about things others say (fake news, Trump lying, Conway talking about massacres that didn't happen, etc.). For example, if you're a woman and you're trying to decide if Trump's words are meaningful (his locker room

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:31 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) But the point was how do you know what communities to which you belong, or not. And, moreover, when w

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

But the point was how do you know what communities to which you belong, or not. And, moreover, when we talk about expectations of a community to "police its own worst actors", how does a putative member of a community know whether an actor needs policing or correction. My claim is that none

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

"Hence, no matter how deep the individuals are, they can come to a common ground through _actions_. But we can't (necessarily) say the same thing about thoughts/ideas/concepts/memes." Boycotts, stock trades, votes, and pulling down of walls with pickup trucks are all actions. We can also

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Heh, it's the "except to the extent the robots would have some retry events" that is the subject of the conversation. 8^) The point is that meat space is necessary for truth seeking. And the critical thing about meat space is that it is _not_ loopy ... at least we assume it's not loopy.

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

the same time and one of them waits for the other. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loo

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Right. But what you've done, here, is remove any lossy compression like what happens when humans [mis]identify with some demographic. Your robots are sharing their information in some perfect sense. And by doing that, you've _baked_ in the flattening. Your compression is non-lossy. And

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

communication sequential processes formalism. -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) On

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 01:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > For a robot built on digital technology, sensor data would be quantized to > bits, thus non face-to-face words. I don't think so. Proprioception is a critical type of sensor data, especially enteroception. While it may seem like the robot's

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

"But what I'm trying to distinguish is whether or not such a commonality/normalization can occur _without_ actions, solely with thoughts, memes, and non-face-to-face words. I think not. I think the actions in the richer medium of meat space is required for that normalization." For a robot

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 11:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > It seems like you are just saying that the phenotype is not knowable, and > that there is no inherent meaning until many individuals act and there are > consequences. No problem with that. The phenotype is coupled to the > environment of the

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Glen writes: < This is one of the fundamental criticisms of the concept of memes. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." There are no shared ideas; no shared understanding. There is only shared action, mediated by some medium, which is why Steve's broaching of the

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 11:36 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote: > Glen, somehow I missed your original post. Do you mind re-posting again? I have that problem a lot, too. It seems to have made the archive. I wonder if there are issues with the mail queue at friam.com? I used to rely on the gmane copy as well.

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Glen, somehow I missed your original post. Do you mind re-posting again? Thanks so much. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > On 02/07/2017 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > I meant on the left. Progressives wanted a progress story rather than > attending

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I meant on the left. Progressives wanted a progress story rather than > attending to the danger of regression. Result, bad turnout. Bernie or > bust, etc. Ah, OK. > On the main topic, it seems to me that if we view individuals as bit strings

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Glen writes: < I don't think Trumpism is caused even slightly by too many people wanting to _drive_ the tractor. I think it's caused by a decoupling of words/understanding from action. > I meant on the left. Progressives wanted a progress story rather than attending to the danger of

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

The first 2/3 of what you write focuses on shared understanding as a basis for community. Perhaps that's an important part. But underlying both the code communities and congregation, you also mention organization, adopting issues, making code changes, transfer of funds, perhaps

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/06/2017 07:32 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > One fine gem is the fact that the generally accepted most brilliant Chess > Player of all time, Garry Kasparov is a Tweeter and is one of Vlad's (Putin, > not Burachynsky) greatest critics! Yep. I didn't realize how much of a public intellectual

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

< In our post-fact world, to which communities does any particular person belong? ... to the ones you think you belong to? ... to the ones that respond to your calls to action? > I could say I belong to the `community' of some large code projects, e.g. on github. I share an understanding

Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

Glen - Great article and great insight! One fine gem is the fact that the generally accepted most brilliant Chess Player of all time, Garry Kasparov is a Tweeter and is one of Vlad's (Putin, not Burachynsky) greatest critics! I think we need to put Garry up against Donald in Chess Boxing,

[FRIAM] loopiness (again)

In light of the idea that we don't talk about complexity here on friam, this article: Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html triggered my itch. In it, Sykes says: > As uncomfortable as it