A question for tomorrow
Locked
123456
123456
 
|
But that's what's confusing to me. Why do we need the metaphysical extrapolation from the model to "the true explanation"? I'm not saying I don't suffer from a similar need. I'm asking for myself as much as anyone else.
By "seem very different", you're asserting classical logic, a fragility to inconsistency, a reliance on proof by contradiction. If the implications of this contradict the implications of that, then one of them must be false. But, in my ignorant understanding of the process, neither physics nor mathematical paradox resolution rely on that. It's always some munging of old things to arrive at the new things, including munging the logic by which the implications are inferred. Why is "shut up and calculate" so unnatural? On 4/30/19 5:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I was just throwing out two, the wormhole idea of Maldacena & Susskind and super-determinism described by Hooft. They seem very different to me, and could imply two very different universes. That QM works for either doesn't help explain how one or the other or neither is the true explanation. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
Glen writes:
< But, in my ignorant understanding of the process, neither physics nor mathematical paradox resolution rely on that. It's always some munging of old things to arrive at the new things, including munging the logic by which the implications are inferred. Why is "shut up and calculate" so unnatural? > One recollection from many years ago was debugging a generational garbage collector (GGC). The program with the GGC would crash after hours due to a memory corruption that manifest itself via multiple layers of indirection. C programs often have memory overruns that create similarly baffling outcomes, but this was worse due the complexity of the algorithm. The advice I got from one expert was to ratchet it down on degree of freedom at a time. It was incredibly tedious, days of work, and required systematic bookkeeping. I eventually found the problem. That reductionist approach from experiences like that, is burned into my psyche and has paid-off many times. The alternative is suspect to me at a primal level. Pulling up stakes and trying something else only slightly different is wasted motion. There has to be some clear stopping evidence to show an approach is flawed before one pulls up stakes. Otherwise it is just a game of musical chairs. So to me jumping between different modeling approaches or "views" speaks not to plasticity but a lack of commitment; it is an act of desperation. Obviously this is not a justification. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Heh, you mistake me for someone who thinks clearly and understands social interaction. I have no idea why you forwarded that or why you direct it at me. In fact, culturally, I wonder why so many of you *direct* your posts at all. So many of you start your posts with "Bob, ..." or "Tim, ...". It's weird and confusing to me. I tend to think quoted preambles like "On 2/12/2050 5:56 PM, Frank Zappa wrote:" as the person most likely to *respond* to my post. But it's a post to a lot of people and not really directed *at* Mr. Zappa. If anyone would like to throw some words out that may clear up my confusion, I'd be grateful. Seriously.
But back to the topic, I think the majority of the people on this list are, and have been for most of their lives, committed materialists. Affiliations can be tricky, of course. E.g. I've been agnostic my entire life (as far as I can tell), but I was affiliated with St. Martha's Parish from age 4-16 or so, until my affinity for Satanic metal stressed that affiliation. 8^) I didn't "identify" with the Satanists until the Satanic Temple emerged. The Church of Satan, though I appreciated their libertarian and entheogenic overtones, had too much "social darwinism" to it. I didn't learn the term "social darwinism" until I started arguing about neo-Darwinism back at Lockheed Martin, where a fellow engineer asserted, very confidently, that black people were bred to be extraordinary athletes. I struggled to find ways to communicate with someone I had thought to be a fairly thoughtful person until he put that forth at our weekly salon over Guiness and darts. He single-handedly coerced me to identify as a politically correct snowflake. Anyhoo ... what were we talking about? 8^D On 5/1/19 12:13 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > This Article <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312489651_Alphabet_Soup>, published in the 70's, will show that my materialist affiliations go way back. Please let me know if the link doesn’t work. > > My children, who are now pushing sixty, admit that I have become a somewhat better cook. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
Glen writes:
< In fact, culturally, I wonder why so many of you *direct* your posts at all > From a career of trying to redirect or humiliate students in a classroom setting? :-) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Very interesting. In the last post, I deleted a paragraph where I analogized the human population to a swarm intelligence optimization problem, each human being an ant pursuing her own little solution, but the whole circumscribing (up to a convex hull) the solution space. I deleted it because I was being too glib with the analogy. Humans are very complicated organisms, not zero-intelligence agents.
But we do have *modes* where we behave very depth-firsty. My depth-firsty methods don't kick in in very many contexts. Others tend to use them in more places. E.g. I have a friend who really dug deep into ferementation food and drink. I limit myself to beer. But he launched into everything that involved any type of fermentation to get a deeper (hands-on) understanding of our symbiotic relationship with those little bugs. I struggled to stay interested in any context but that of beer ... though the bread phase was interesting. In any case, even *that* relatively narrow aspect of "food and drink" is pretty diverse, almost fractal. We can find a connected path from any part of fermented food and drink to pretty much any other aspect of humanity that I've ever encountered, from domesticated animals to humans visiting the far side of the moon. All that text is merely to provide context that my guess is your depth-firsty commitment to a reasonably trustworthy reductionism isn't as depth-firsty as you think it is. It's more like those massive muscles in your back or leg that attract all the attention, but that are useless without the thousands of little control tissues providing the context that allows the big guys to do their work. The real weight is being pulled by the infrastructure, not the rock stars. Anyone whose suffered from Tennis Elbow will attest. 8^) On 5/1/19 10:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > One recollection from many years ago was debugging a generational garbage collector (GGC). The program with the GGC would crash after hours due to a memory corruption that manifest itself via multiple layers of indirection. C programs often have memory overruns that create similarly baffling outcomes, but this was worse due the complexity of the algorithm. The advice I got from one expert was to ratchet it down on degree of freedom at a time. It was incredibly tedious, days of work, and required systematic bookkeeping. I eventually found the problem. That reductionist approach from experiences like that, is burned into my psyche and has paid-off many times. The alternative is suspect to me at a primal level. Pulling up stakes and trying something else only slightly different is wasted motion. There has to be some clear stopping evidence to show an approach is flawed before one pulls up stakes. Otherwise it is just a game of musical chairs. So to me jumping between different modeling approaches or "views" speaks not to plasticity but a lack of commitment; it is an act of desperation. > > Obviously this is not a justification. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
On 5/1/19, 12:06 PM, "uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote:
< All that text is merely to provide context that my guess is your depth-firsty commitment to a reasonably trustworthy reductionism isn't as depth-firsty as you think it is. It's more like those massive muscles in your back or leg that attract all the attention, but that are useless without the thousands of little control tissues providing the context that allows the big guys to do their work. > That's probably so. One would hope that one gets better over time at choosing when to sink one's teeth in to something. Oh, this is kind of an unpleasant story but it speaks to the emotional side of this. I may have mentioned it before in some other context. I'm driving home after some errands on a Saturday and I see this woman kicking a dog in the middle of Canyon road. It's a pit bull and it is mauling her smaller, defenseless dog. Several people are trying to figure out how to stop this, and we drag the mess off to the side of the road and try to start to pry open the pit bull's jaws. This wasn't some mix of pit bull, this was the real thing. It didn't think it was strong, it was strong. It was not an easy task to slow the pit bull down, even with several men with gloves. An older man that had probably rescued the dog had been knocked over and was struggling to collect himself. He could see his dog was going to be put down and was distraught. The woman was also of course distraught seeing her pet being killed. But the fascinating part of this was watching the pit bull work. It would slow down for a moment just to see what the humans were doing and go from one target to the next when the time was right. It was _totally_ committed. We did eventually free the smaller dog and isolated it in a safe place until it could be taken to the vet. The pit bull did not show any indication of hostility toward a human, it just wouldn't budge on what it was doing. In spite of the awfulness of it all, I couldn't help admire that single-mindedness. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen,
I direct my posts at who ever made me think about something. I think I am following up on a question you asked, roughly, why are we talking about consciousness when basic facts of biology pose all the interesting problems and we know a lot more about them? My basic New Thought (new to me, I mean) was, why talk about biology when we can talk about computer programming, given the wonders that simple algorithms (eg, cellular automata) can generate. I wondered how any computer programmer could have doubts about materialism: i.e., doubts about how emergent properties (such as consciousness) could be generated from higher and higher levels of material relations. The Alphabet Soup Letter I sent you shows how the complexities of the genome could readily arise from material relations. You basic point is however correct. I think many of us who write here are trying to work out some ideas and we use the posts of others as the occasions for those developments. Threading might not be as ... um ... tight as should be. But I find that looseness actually exciting -- people here are trying to figure stuff out. FRIAM has been a tremendous help to me in that regard. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 11:49 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow Heh, you mistake me for someone who thinks clearly and understands social interaction. I have no idea why you forwarded that or why you direct it at me. In fact, culturally, I wonder why so many of you *direct* your posts at all. So many of you start your posts with "Bob, ..." or "Tim, ...". It's weird and confusing to me. I tend to think quoted preambles like "On 2/12/2050 5:56 PM, Frank Zappa wrote:" as the person most likely to *respond* to my post. But it's a post to a lot of people and not really directed *at* Mr. Zappa. If anyone would like to throw some words out that may clear up my confusion, I'd be grateful. Seriously. But back to the topic, I think the majority of the people on this list are, and have been for most of their lives, committed materialists. Affiliations can be tricky, of course. E.g. I've been agnostic my entire life (as far as I can tell), but I was affiliated with St. Martha's Parish from age 4-16 or so, until my affinity for Satanic metal stressed that affiliation. 8^) I didn't "identify" with the Satanists until the Satanic Temple emerged. The Church of Satan, though I appreciated their libertarian and entheogenic overtones, had too much "social darwinism" to it. I didn't learn the term "social darwinism" until I started arguing about neo-Darwinism back at Lockheed Martin, where a fellow engineer asserted, very confidently, that black people were bred to be extraordinary athletes. I struggled to find ways to communicate with someone I had thought to be a fairly thoughtful person until he put that forth at our weekly salon over Guiness and darts. He single-handedly coerced me to identify as a politically correct snowflake. Anyhoo ... what were we talking about? 8^D On 5/1/19 12:13 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > This Article <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312489651_Alphabet_Soup>, published in the 70's, will show that my materialist affiliations go way back. Please let me know if the link doesn’t work. > > My children, who are now pushing sixty, admit that I have become a > somewhat better cook. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
What a great story, Marcus. Do you know how it came out? I know that's irrelevant, but still I want to know.
More to the point, I take it you have no trouble calling that behavior "single-mindedness." Does anybody else? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 12:25 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow On 5/1/19, 12:06 PM, "uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: < All that text is merely to provide context that my guess is your depth-firsty commitment to a reasonably trustworthy reductionism isn't as depth-firsty as you think it is. It's more like those massive muscles in your back or leg that attract all the attention, but that are useless without the thousands of little control tissues providing the context that allows the big guys to do their work. > That's probably so. One would hope that one gets better over time at choosing when to sink one's teeth in to something. Oh, this is kind of an unpleasant story but it speaks to the emotional side of this. I may have mentioned it before in some other context. I'm driving home after some errands on a Saturday and I see this woman kicking a dog in the middle of Canyon road. It's a pit bull and it is mauling her smaller, defenseless dog. Several people are trying to figure out how to stop this, and we drag the mess off to the side of the road and try to start to pry open the pit bull's jaws. This wasn't some mix of pit bull, this was the real thing. It didn't think it was strong, it was strong. It was not an easy task to slow the pit bull down, even with several men with gloves. An older man that had probably rescued the dog had been knocked over and was struggling to collect himself. He could see his dog was going to be put down and was distraught. The woman was also of course distraught seeing her pet being killed. But the fascinating part of this was watching the pit bull work. It would slow down for a moment just to see what the humans were doing and go from one target to the next when the time was right. It was _totally_ committed. We did eventually free the smaller dog and isolated it in a safe place until it could be taken to the vet. The pit bull did not show any indication of hostility toward a human, it just wouldn't budge on what it was doing. In spite of the awfulness of it all, I couldn't help admire that single-mindedness. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
I left when the pit bull had lost interest in the other dog, which it couldn't reach . The pit bull, kind of playfully, went back to its master who was upright by then, as if nothing had happened. To be honest, I felt sorry for that guy but I didn't want to engage with him because his options were obvious and all bad. The pit bull hadn't violated the don't-hurt-the-pack taboo, but was unaware of other modern taboos. I think we can look forward to more of this sort of thing from the tribalism of human animals.
On 5/1/19, 12:46 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote: What a great story, Marcus. Do you know how it came out? I know that's irrelevant, but still I want to know. More to the point, I take it you have no trouble calling that behavior "single-mindedness." Does anybody else? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 12:25 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow On 5/1/19, 12:06 PM, "uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: < All that text is merely to provide context that my guess is your depth-firsty commitment to a reasonably trustworthy reductionism isn't as depth-firsty as you think it is. It's more like those massive muscles in your back or leg that attract all the attention, but that are useless without the thousands of little control tissues providing the context that allows the big guys to do their work. > That's probably so. One would hope that one gets better over time at choosing when to sink one's teeth in to something. Oh, this is kind of an unpleasant story but it speaks to the emotional side of this. I may have mentioned it before in some other context. I'm driving home after some errands on a Saturday and I see this woman kicking a dog in the middle of Canyon road. It's a pit bull and it is mauling her smaller, defenseless dog. Several people are trying to figure out how to stop this, and we drag the mess off to the side of the road and try to start to pry open the pit bull's jaws. This wasn't some mix of pit bull, this was the real thing. It didn't think it was strong, it was strong. It was not an easy task to slow the pit bull down, even with several men with gloves. An older man that had probably rescued the dog had been knocked over and was struggling to collect himself. He could see his dog was going to be put down and was distraught. The woman was also of course distraught seeing her pet being killed. But the fascinating part of this was watching the pit bull work. It would slow down for a moment just to see what the humans were doing and go from one target to the next when the time was right. It was _totally_ committed. We did eventually free the smaller dog and isolated it in a safe place until it could be taken to the vet. The pit bull did not show any indication of hostility toward a human, it just wouldn't budge on what it was doing. In spite of the awfulness of it all, I couldn't help admire that single-mindedness. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Very nice! Had you prefaced the link to the paper with that, I would have better understand *why* it might be a good idea to read it. I also failed to infer the challenge to ... non-materialist? ... interpretations of phenomena generated by CAs. Your text was too obtuse for me. I can defend at least one non-materialist interpretation of emergence for that context. But I suspect my defense would simply lead you to another objection that hasn't yet been delineated clearly enough, because it relies on the immaterial nature of what we've come to call "digital" computing. This has professional as well as personal consequences. I've recently had to grapple with using the word "virtual" as a descriptor for the simulations I build. When we talk about "virtual reality", are we being materialist? I honestly don't know.
A better example to work with than CAs implemented on a general purpose [†] computer would be something implemented by an analog computer. (Hillis' tinkertoy computer, maybe? ... or Turing's patterns on a seashell? ... I don't know.) Maybe your alphabet soup is such a thing? Although I (obviously?) agree on the value of this list and the people who post to it, I do find myself unsatisfied with how often we let things fade away without developing them further [‡], something similar to what you've expressed in your posts about other formats, assembling chains of posts, etc. Thanks for explaining why you direct the posts at particular people. I think it has unforeseen (negative) consequences that outweigh your intended consequences. But at least I can understand the motivation, now. [†] Both the general purpose and the digital qualifiers are important, here. Jon's comments re: "Magic The Gathering" and "Mine Craft" and sensing the world are relevant. [‡] I openly blame my own laziness, of course. I still intend to read both the Bokov paper Eric posted, the Bernian paper Marcus posted, and the Rives paper Roger posted. Now I suppose I have to read yours as well. I should just quit my job and read full time. Renee' makes enough money to support us, I think. 8^) On 5/1/19 11:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I direct my posts at who ever made me think about something. I think I am following up on a question you asked, roughly, why are we talking about consciousness when basic facts of biology pose all the interesting problems and we know a lot more about them? My basic New Thought (new to me, I mean) was, why talk about biology when we can talk about computer programming, given the wonders that simple algorithms (eg, cellular automata) can generate. I wondered how any computer programmer could have doubts about materialism: i.e., doubts about how emergent properties (such as consciousness) could be generated from higher and higher levels of material relations. The Alphabet Soup Letter I sent you shows how the complexities of the genome could readily arise from material relations. > > You basic point is however correct. I think many of us who write here are trying to work out some ideas and we use the posts of others as the occasions for those developments. Threading might not be as ... um ... tight as should be. But I find that looseness actually exciting -- people here are trying to figure stuff out. FRIAM has been a tremendous help to me in that regard. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick writes:
"My basic New Thought (new to me, I mean) was, why talk about biology when we can talk about computer programming, given the wonders that simple algorithms (eg, cellular automata) can generate." It's true it is all much more coherent. But the algorithms are simple and the machines that execute them can't (yet) reproduce or repair themselves. They are at most shallow 3D fixed-purpose devices, not complex evolving nanomachines like cells. Most computer programs are built around the so-called von Neumann architecture that separates programs from the machine that executes programs, and this architecture has favored serial step-by-step programs instead of highly-distributed and scalable signaling. Papers like the one Roger shared are interesting to me is because the latent `discovered' structure might suggest new (synthetic biology) programming models, which could either be used directly to perform different tasks (eat up CO2, clean up toxic waste, novel medications, perform large distributed calculations) or inspire new designs for more conventional (e.g. silicon) systems. It's a fishing expedition to find fixed-function machines that already exist in nature and can be adapted to do what we want. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
"Now I suppose I have to read yours as well. I should just quit my job and read full time. Renee' makes enough money to support us, I think." I have a colleague whose husband is a F16 pilot. (Wow!) As he moves up through the ranks, she is the main source of income. She says things to him like "You're so pretty." I could live with that (minus the pilot part - not gonna happen). Get me a shirt with ruffles. No problem. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Oh, gosh! "Humiliate?!!!"
I hope not. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 11:57 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow Glen writes: < In fact, culturally, I wonder why so many of you *direct* your posts at all > From a career of trying to redirect or humiliate students in a classroom setting? :-) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Agreed! But I've put on about 5 lbs of fat during this last winter season. Add that to my bald head and it's obvious my dreams of being a trophy husband are delusional. The best I could hope for is to rub my beard a lot and speak only rarely in cryptic, pseudo-profound jargon ... maybe wearing tweed. But I'm allergic to smoke. So I can't even smoke a pipe. [sigh]
On May 1, 2019 1:10:48 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >I have a colleague whose husband is a F16 pilot. (Wow!) As he moves >up through the ranks, she is the main source of income. >She says things to him like "You're so pretty." I could live with >that (minus the pilot part - not gonna happen). Get me a shirt with >ruffles. No problem. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
A brief survey leads me to believe there are no non-satire Real Husbands of X programs on cable.
This is completely sexist. There ought to be a way for a middle-aged man to get a stylist, a trainer, a wardrobe, a television program *and* to have their partners (male or female) celebrate the investment. This should be the new mid-life crisis. On 5/1/19, 2:22 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Agreed! But I've put on about 5 lbs of fat during this last winter season. Add that to my bald head and it's obvious my dreams of being a trophy husband are delusional. The best I could hope for is to rub my beard a lot and speak only rarely in cryptic, pseudo-profound jargon ... maybe wearing tweed. But I'm allergic to smoke. So I can't even smoke a pipe. [sigh] On May 1, 2019 1:10:48 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >I have a colleague whose husband is a F16 pilot. (Wow!) As he moves >up through the ranks, she is the main source of income. >She says things to him like "You're so pretty." I could live with >that (minus the pilot part - not gonna happen). Get me a shirt with >ruffles. No problem. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yep. It is sexist. But lest we get confused, the sexists are men, not women. I'm pummeled on a daily basis for my ... [ahem] "sensitivity". On Twitch recently, some jerk gamer accused me of being a CASUAL just for saying I liked playing co-op games with Renee' ... the Texas analog for being called all sorts of names line "Nancy boy".
I regularly come back to the idea that if women were the majority in leadership positions, our world would be a better place. I don't know if it's true. But we should give it a shot, including on this mailing list. On May 1, 2019 1:35:09 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >A brief survey leads me to believe there are no non-satire Real >Husbands of X programs on cable. >This is completely sexist. There ought to be a way for a middle-aged >man to get a stylist, a trainer, a wardrobe, a television program *and* >to have their partners (male or female) celebrate the investment. >This should be the new mid-life crisis. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
There are "leadership positions" on this mailing list?! Wow, there are two words that make me leave a party.
I became aware of some these cable shows staying with my uncle for a few days. There are also the ones about plastic surgery. It's incredible to imagine going under the knife to be attractive. Being open-minded it makes sense as some protection from ageism. I work out more for my mental health at this point, but I can see doing it for other practical reasons. I bet many women are more practically-minded than vain when it comes to fitness -- it is just expected, even though it is isn't fair. I don't think the sexism is just from men, but the overt stuff is mostly from men. On 5/1/19, 2:55 PM, "Friam on behalf of glen" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yep. It is sexist. But lest we get confused, the sexists are men, not women. I'm pummeled on a daily basis for my ... [ahem] "sensitivity". On Twitch recently, some jerk gamer accused me of being a CASUAL just for saying I liked playing co-op games with Renee' ... the Texas analog for being called all sorts of names line "Nancy boy". I regularly come back to the idea that if women were the majority in leadership positions, our world would be a better place. I don't know if it's true. But we should give it a shot, including on this mailing list. On May 1, 2019 1:35:09 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >A brief survey leads me to believe there are no non-satire Real >Husbands of X programs on cable. >This is completely sexist. There ought to be a way for a middle-aged >man to get a stylist, a trainer, a wardrobe, a television program *and* >to have their partners (male or female) celebrate the investment. >This should be the new mid-life crisis. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
G
Historically, women have not found us much fun. n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 2:55 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow Yep. It is sexist. But lest we get confused, the sexists are men, not women. I'm pummeled on a daily basis for my ... [ahem] "sensitivity". On Twitch recently, some jerk gamer accused me of being a CASUAL just for saying I liked playing co-op games with Renee' ... the Texas analog for being called all sorts of names line "Nancy boy". I regularly come back to the idea that if women were the majority in leadership positions, our world would be a better place. I don't know if it's true. But we should give it a shot, including on this mailing list. On May 1, 2019 1:35:09 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >A brief survey leads me to believe there are no non-satire Real >Husbands of X programs on cable. >This is completely sexist. There ought to be a way for a middle-aged >man to get a stylist, a trainer, a wardrobe, a television program *and* >to have their partners (male or female) celebrate the investment. >This should be the new mid-life crisis. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 5/1/19 2:23 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Historically, women have not found us much fun. Induction is the Devil. On 5/1/19 2:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > There are "leadership positions" on this mailing list?! Wow, there are two words that make me leave a party. Ha! Unfortunately, leadership is that way. What's the saying "nature abhors a vacuum"? Leave it open and whatever corrupt moron *wants* the seat will have the seat. I find it interesting how seldom our leaders (talking about government, here, not this list) seem to sacrifice their selves for their "service". Even in the cases where it's debatable, the leaders seem to be less interested in sacrificing their selves to serve the collective. To make that point concrete, I'll talk about the local VFW, which is populated with racist, self-righteous jerks. Renee' and I tend to like aged drinkers ... partly because we are aged drinkers in the making. So there's a natural affinity with the regulars at the local VFW. I can be a member because my dad "fought" in Korea. (In reality, he was a flight engineer and helped bomb people from the abstracted heights.) But the only reason they (barely) accept me is because I speak respectfully (in their presence) about what it means to kill people, mostly with other skin colors, because our leadership told us to kill them. Anyone who bears the slightest resemblance of skepticism/disrespect for "those who served" is quickly shown the door. They are much more interested in their *identity* than they are in any facts surrounding the issues. Renee' still wants to join. Her dad did not "serve". So I get the veto power. I'm not hangin' with those ... [ahem] people. > I don't think the sexism is just from men, but the overt stuff is mostly from men. That's a safe position to take. But I think it's ultimately wrong. If, however, we lived in a matriarchy, I would likely object to the parallel idea that sexism was not just from women. I tend to think that the sexism is systemic and programmed in by the reigning -archy. This is enlightened, I think, by reactionary ideas like "reverse racism" and "all lives matter" ... or even the victim blaming rampant in sexual abuse media stories. It's fine to rationally assert a non-zero participation on the part of the victim. But such rhetoric will always be overblown. In our society, I think men are the overwhelming majority cause of sexism, both overt and covert. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A Question For Tomorrow
|
|
Glen writes:
< To make that point concrete, I'll talk about the local VFW, which is populated with racist, self-righteous jerks. Renee' and I tend to like aged drinkers ... partly because we are aged drinkers in the making. So there's a natural affinity with the regulars at the local VFW. I can be a member because my dad "fought" in Korea. (In reality, he was a flight engineer and helped bomb people from the abstracted heights.) But the only reason they (barely) accept me is because I speak respectfully (in their presence) about what it means to kill people, mostly with other skin colors, because our leadership told us to kill them. Anyone who bears the slightest resemblance of skepticism/disrespect for "those who served" is quickly shown the door. They are much more interested in their *identity* than they are in any facts surrounding the issues. > Yep, I know those engineers & designers. Didn't see it directly until after the election, but sheesh, there it was. Mercenary, I can deal with that. Heisenberg (science comes first no matter what), I can deal with that. But sitting at a table with a proud moron eventually makes me run for the exit (or worse). I could live in Antarctica or Mars by myself for the rest of my life and I would never have the slightest urge to seek that company. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |