Friam

Abduction

Classic

List

Threaded

170 messages Options

1234567 ... 9

Prof David West

Re: Abduction

while typing my last response, the conversation took an interesting turn, prompting the following.

I went to college intending to become a quantum chromodynamicist. Before college I had read every 'popular' science book on Physics and Cosmology (Asimov, etc,) and monographs used in graduate classes on physics. Physics 101 was so dull, I quit.

What had attracted me to physics and cosmology were the "big" questions, the "how" questions, the "why" questions, the interpretation (philosophical) questions.

Serendipitously, I was taking an Asian Philosophy class the same first semester of freshman year. The philosophical questions raised were, like the speculative questions of quantum interpretation and cosmology, so interesting I was hooked. I became a 'philosopher' instead of a 'physicist'.

I wanted (still want) to know everything there is to know about the mind, including altered states of consciousness. My research included being hooked up to a computer and measuring brain waves, multiple forms of meditation, all of the seven forms of classical Yoga, and psychedelic drugs. LSD was still legal and my supply came through the auspices of the Psychology Department. Other experiments included LSD, psylicibin, and mescaline (not all at once) in a sensory-deprivation tank. Since then I have experimented with every psychoactive drug.

Never to get high.

The most serious side effect (other than my obvious insanity) is extreme isolation/loneliness; and/or, if I have the temerity to raise the subject among my intellectual friends, ostracism.

Gillian posted recently about the psychedelic effects of incense. It was demonstrated long ago that not only does the incense but the ritual of church affects the same areas of the brain and induces the same effects as "augmented meditation" (microdoses of certain types of hallucinogen like ayahuasca. The context of the research was the Catholic Mass in Latin and the silent meditation of the Quakers.

There is such a huge area of interesting, at least to me, research, and not just for therapeutic use, here that it annoys me when a combination of puritan morality and scientific elitism dismisses the entire subject.

davew

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 12:50 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> I claim the answer to your 2 questions is yes. As Marcus (with the
> usage classes) and Steve (with behavioral "drugs") point out, the reason
> people engage in such things is to make their lives *better* (according
> to some definition of "better"). To think anything else is to risk the
> madness of morons like Nancy Reagan or those who think alcoholics suffer
> from a moral failing, rather than a physiochemical one.
>
> You want your insulin pump to make your life better than it would be
> without it. Simple. Rational.
>
> As Dave pointed out, though, we have some very promising therapeutic
> agents that we've ignored because we've been hoodwinked by the moral
> proselytizing of anti-science nutbags who think like Scientologists --
> Clear Body, Clear Mind and all that.
>
> On 1/2/19 11:33 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > So is THAT the spirit in which people take psilocybin? Is that the spirit in which people welcome the legalization of LSD? I fear I may have wronged them horribly. To be so far from a moderately happy life to want to derange one's entire experience for even only a few hours, seems like a terrible thing to me. I regard sanity as an achievement, not a state of affairs into which life naturally folds. I would no more take LSD than crumple up a piece of paper before I put it in the printer.
>
> --
> ☣ 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Abduction

David writes:

< There is such a huge area of interesting, at least to me, research, and not just for therapeutic use, here that it annoys me when a combination of puritan morality and scientific elitism dismisses the entire subject. >

On a computer, when I experiment with kernel modules or unusual hardware, I use a crashbox. I don't have one of those for *me*. It isn't puritan morality nor is it any grand respect for academia or other scientific institutions or protocols. Also it seems to me this has been explored over the last 50 years or so, and if there were really easy wins, they would have been found by now.

I guess I find it more interesting and plausible to consider the possibility of Neuralink and learning how to write programs to enhance my perception and cognition. I imagine the way this will go will be lower-level interfaces, like the ability to overlay signals with the visual and auditory systems. I imagine it will be a very challenging learning curve, like learning a language and that programs will be specific to each person’s learning history. Farther out (maybe after I’m gone), I would guess there will be tunable gene regulation and maybe some family of follow-on species.

Marcus

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave,

I dunno, Dave. I still think we're different. I lay siege to large cities; you send cavalry deep behind enemy lines.

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 4:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

while typing my last response, the conversation took an interesting turn, prompting the following.

I went to college intending to become a quantum chromodynamicist. Before college I had read every 'popular' science book on Physics and Cosmology (Asimov, etc,) and monographs used in graduate classes on physics. Physics 101 was so dull, I quit.

What had attracted me to physics and cosmology were the "big" questions, the "how" questions, the "why" questions, the interpretation (philosophical) questions.

Serendipitously, I was taking an Asian Philosophy class the same first semester of freshman year. The philosophical questions raised were, like the speculative questions of quantum interpretation and cosmology, so interesting I was hooked. I became a 'philosopher' instead of a 'physicist'.

I wanted (still want) to know everything there is to know about the mind, including altered states of consciousness. My research included being hooked up to a computer and measuring brain waves, multiple forms of meditation, all of the seven forms of classical Yoga, and psychedelic drugs. LSD was still legal and my supply came through the auspices of the Psychology Department. Other experiments included LSD, psylicibin, and mescaline (not all at once) in a sensory-deprivation tank. Since then I have experimented with every psychoactive drug.

Never to get high.

The most serious side effect (other than my obvious insanity) is extreme isolation/loneliness; and/or, if I have the temerity to raise the subject among my intellectual friends, ostracism.

Gillian posted recently about the psychedelic effects of incense. It was demonstrated long ago that not only does the incense but the ritual of church affects the same areas of the brain and induces the same effects as "augmented meditation" (microdoses of certain types of hallucinogen like ayahuasca. The context of the research was the Catholic Mass in Latin and the silent meditation of the Quakers.

There is such a huge area of interesting, at least to me, research, and not just for therapeutic use, here that it annoys me when a combination of puritan morality and scientific elitism dismisses the entire subject.

davew

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 12:50 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> I claim the answer to your 2 questions is yes. As Marcus (with the
> usage classes) and Steve (with behavioral "drugs") point out, the
> reason people engage in such things is to make their lives *better*
> (according to some definition of "better"). To think anything else is
> to risk the madness of morons like Nancy Reagan or those who think
> alcoholics suffer from a moral failing, rather than a physiochemical one.
>
> You want your insulin pump to make your life better than it would be
> without it. Simple. Rational.
>
> As Dave pointed out, though, we have some very promising therapeutic
> agents that we've ignored because we've been hoodwinked by the moral
> proselytizing of anti-science nutbags who think like Scientologists --
> Clear Body, Clear Mind and all that.
>
> On 1/2/19 11:33 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > So is THAT the spirit in which people take psilocybin? Is that the spirit in which people welcome the legalization of LSD? I fear I may have wronged them horribly. To be so far from a moderately happy life to want to derange one's entire experience for even only a few hours, seems like a terrible thing to me. I regard sanity as an achievement, not a state of affairs into which life naturally folds. I would no more take LSD than crumple up a piece of paper before I put it in the printer.
>
> --
> ☣ 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

============================================================
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

Prof David West

Re: Abduction

Nick,

Absolutely different. But, in ways we have barely touched upon, potentially complementary. War required both strategies PLUS some means of meaningful interaction.

Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?

davew

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I dunno, Dave. I still think we're different. I lay siege to large
> cities; you send cavalry deep behind enemy lines.
>
> 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 Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 4:37 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction
>
> while typing my last response, the conversation took an interesting
> turn, prompting the following.
>
> I went to college intending to become a quantum chromodynamicist. Before
> college I had read every 'popular' science book on Physics and Cosmology
> (Asimov, etc,) and monographs used in graduate classes on physics.
> Physics 101 was so dull, I quit.
>
> What had attracted me to physics and cosmology were the "big" questions,
> the "how" questions, the "why" questions, the interpretation
> (philosophical) questions.
>
> Serendipitously, I was taking an Asian Philosophy class the same first
> semester of freshman year. The philosophical questions raised were, like
> the speculative questions of quantum interpretation and cosmology, so
> interesting I was hooked. I became a 'philosopher' instead of a
> 'physicist'.
>
> I wanted (still want) to know everything there is to know about the
> mind, including altered states of consciousness. My research included
> being hooked up to a computer and measuring brain waves, multiple forms
> of meditation, all of the seven forms of classical Yoga, and psychedelic
> drugs. LSD was still legal and my supply came through the auspices of
> the Psychology Department. Other experiments included LSD, psylicibin,
> and mescaline (not all at once) in a sensory-deprivation tank. Since
> then I have experimented with every psychoactive drug.
>
> Never to get high.
>
> The most serious side effect (other than my obvious insanity) is
> extreme isolation/loneliness; and/or, if I have the temerity to raise
> the subject among my intellectual friends, ostracism.
>
> Gillian posted recently about the psychedelic effects of incense. It was
> demonstrated long ago that not only does the incense but the ritual of
> church affects the same areas of the brain and induces the same effects
> as "augmented meditation" (microdoses of certain types of hallucinogen
> like ayahuasca. The context of the research was the Catholic Mass in
> Latin and the silent meditation of the Quakers.
>
> There is such a huge area of interesting, at least to me, research, and
> not just for therapeutic use, here that it annoys me when a combination
> of puritan morality and scientific elitism dismisses the entire subject.
>
> davew
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 12:50 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > I claim the answer to your 2 questions is yes. As Marcus (with the
> > usage classes) and Steve (with behavioral "drugs") point out, the
> > reason people engage in such things is to make their lives *better*
> > (according to some definition of "better"). To think anything else is
> > to risk the madness of morons like Nancy Reagan or those who think
> > alcoholics suffer from a moral failing, rather than a physiochemical one.
> >
> > You want your insulin pump to make your life better than it would be
> > without it. Simple. Rational.
> >
> > As Dave pointed out, though, we have some very promising therapeutic
> > agents that we've ignored because we've been hoodwinked by the moral
> > proselytizing of anti-science nutbags who think like Scientologists --
> > Clear Body, Clear Mind and all that.
> >
> > On 1/2/19 11:33 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > > So is THAT the spirit in which people take psilocybin? Is that the spirit in which people welcome the legalization of LSD? I fear I may have wronged them horribly. To be so far from a moderately happy life to want to derange one's entire experience for even only a few hours, seems like a terrible thing to me. I regard sanity as an achievement, not a state of affairs into which life naturally folds. I would no more take LSD than crumple up a piece of paper before I put it in the printer.
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Abduction

"Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?"

Go vs. Chess?

P.S. Even Santa is doing it https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/578959/shaman-santa/

============================================================
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

gepr

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Heh, while I appreciate the concrete example, it doesn't resolve my worry. Why? Because my steelmanning of Nick/Eric(C)/Peirce (NEP) requires *more* than the parallelism theorem (PT - that all parallel graphs can be simulated by sequential graphs). If we take NEP seriously, the PT requires us to parse "simulate". I'm going to try and fail to explain my worry. I apologize for how badly I'll mangle it.

Nick has taken pains to explain that there's plenty of wiggle room by claiming Peirce thought randomness was pervasive. But, if the real structure is parallel we have 3 options:

1) The independent paths bind/obtain at the same time,
2) The paths always bind/end in the same order, or
3) The paths bind/end in a different order depending on some other factor including randomness.

So, the reduction of that to a sequential process requires us to add that extra meta-process, e.g. creates a 3-tuple choice mechanism and/or a (perhaps pseudo) random appendage.

This seems like a problem for NEP's convergence to the real. I'll just work with (3) in this post. But I can draw similar problems from (1) and (2). Let's say with a particular process, (3) seems to be the case. Then what is it that NEP says is "real"? Is the parallel process the real thing? Or is the sequential process plus (perhaps pseudo) random number generator the real thing? And regardless of which of those NEP might assert metaphysical Truth to, can we then *use* that to infer derivative metaphysical Truths? E.g. if NEP says the process is really parallel, then does that imply that the universe does *not* have a monotonically increasing parameter (like the arrow of time or the control pointer in the compiled code)? Or if the sequential+random is real, does that imply that the universe *does* have such a parameter?

So, my steelmanning ability ends. I can't make an argument from what I know (or don't) about NEP.

Of course, this is the problem with all metaphysical claims, for every instance where we have to equivocate on "simulate". So if NEP is really only saying that "nothing is real, some patterns are simply more robust than others", then why not just say that and be done with it? Why all the fideistic rigmarole?

On 12/31/18 2:50 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Uh, why? For example, compilation of a recursive function to a control flow graph.
>
>
> mdaniels@m2:~$ cat t.c
> #include <stdbool.h>
>
> int foo(bool flag) {
> if (flag) foo(false);
> else return 0;
> }
> mdaniels@m2:~$ gcc -fdump-tree-cfg -c t.c
> mdaniels@m2:~$ cat t.c.011t.cfg
>
> ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1956, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=0)
>
> ;; 1 loops found
> ;;
> ;; Loop 0
> ;; header 0, latch 1
> ;; depth 0, outer -1
> ;; nodes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
> ;; 2 succs { 3 4 }
> ;; 3 succs { 5 }
> ;; 4 succs { 6 }
> ;; 5 succs { 1 }
> ;; 6 succs { 1 }
> foo (_Bool flag)
> {
> int D.1962;
>
> <bb 2> :
> if (flag != 0)
> goto <bb 3>; [INV]
> else
> goto <bb 4>; [INV]
>
> <bb 3> :
> foo (0);
> goto <bb 5>; [INV]
>
> <bb 4> :
> D.1962 = 0;
> // predicted unlikely by early return (on trees) predictor.
> goto <bb 6>; [INV]
>
> <bb 5> :
> return;
>
> <bb 6> :
> <L3>:
> return D.1962;
>
> }

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Abduction

Possibly of interest.. https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031013

On 1/3/19, 9:36 AM, "∄ uǝʃƃ" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Heh, while I appreciate the concrete example, it doesn't resolve my worry. Why? Because my steelmanning of Nick/Eric(C)/Peirce (NEP) requires *more* than the parallelism theorem (PT - that all parallel graphs can be simulated by sequential graphs). If we take NEP seriously, the PT requires us to parse "simulate". I'm going to try and fail to explain my worry. I apologize for how badly I'll mangle it.

Nick has taken pains to explain that there's plenty of wiggle room by claiming Peirce thought randomness was pervasive. But, if the real structure is parallel we have 3 options:

1) The independent paths bind/obtain at the same time,
2) The paths always bind/end in the same order, or
3) The paths bind/end in a different order depending on some other factor including randomness.

So, the reduction of that to a sequential process requires us to add that extra meta-process, e.g. creates a 3-tuple choice mechanism and/or a (perhaps pseudo) random appendage.

This seems like a problem for NEP's convergence to the real. I'll just work with (3) in this post. But I can draw similar problems from (1) and (2). Let's say with a particular process, (3) seems to be the case. Then what is it that NEP says is "real"? Is the parallel process the real thing? Or is the sequential process plus (perhaps pseudo) random number generator the real thing? And regardless of which of those NEP might assert metaphysical Truth to, can we then *use* that to infer derivative metaphysical Truths? E.g. if NEP says the process is really parallel, then does that imply that the universe does *not* have a monotonically increasing parameter (like the arrow of time or the control pointer in the compiled code)? Or if the sequential+random is real, does that imply that the universe *does* have such a parameter?

So, my steelmanning ability ends. I can't make an argument from what I know (or don't) about NEP.

Of course, this is the problem with all metaphysical claims, for every instance where we have to equivocate on "simulate". So if NEP is really only saying that "nothing is real, some patterns are simply more robust than others", then why not just say that and be done with it? Why all the fideistic rigmarole?

On 12/31/18 2:50 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Uh, why? For example, compilation of a recursive function to a control flow graph.
>
>
> mdaniels@m2:~$ cat t.c
> #include <stdbool.h>
>
> int foo(bool flag) {
> if (flag) foo(false);
> else return 0;
> }
> mdaniels@m2:~$ gcc -fdump-tree-cfg -c t.c
> mdaniels@m2:~$ cat t.c.011t.cfg
>
> ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1956, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=0)
>
> ;; 1 loops found
> ;;
> ;; Loop 0
> ;; header 0, latch 1
> ;; depth 0, outer -1
> ;; nodes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
> ;; 2 succs { 3 4 }
> ;; 3 succs { 5 }
> ;; 4 succs { 6 }
> ;; 5 succs { 1 }
> ;; 6 succs { 1 }
> foo (_Bool flag)
> {
> int D.1962;
>
> <bb 2> :
> if (flag != 0)
> goto <bb 3>; [INV]
> else
> goto <bb 4>; [INV]
>
> <bb 3> :
> foo (0);
> goto <bb 5>; [INV]
>
> <bb 4> :
> D.1962 = 0;
> // predicted unlikely by early return (on trees) predictor.
> goto <bb 6>; [INV]
>
> <bb 5> :
> return;
>
> <bb 6> :
> <L3>:
> return D.1962;
>
> }

--
∄ uǝʃƃ

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Great! Thanks. But which is which?

Anarchy v. Fascism?

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 12:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

"Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact
same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?"

Go vs. Chess?

P.S. Even Santa is doing it
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/578959/shaman-santa/

============================================================
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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Abduction

Chess (David) is a systematic attack at one important target and Go (Nick) is about taking territory.

One player seems to think that he can be instrumental (but there are far too many targets) and the other thinks he can be generally integrative. Some recent anarchists and fascists we see (Assange and Bannon) are real disappointments. I would not associate with them!

On 1/3/19, 10:56 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great! Thanks. But which is which?

Anarchy v. Fascism?

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 12:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

"Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact
same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?"

Go vs. Chess?

P.S. Even Santa is doing it
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/578959/shaman-santa/

============================================================
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

gepr

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Forget my incompetence in ε-machines for a minute. 8^) They say:

> Take a glass shattering upon impact with the floor. In one temporal direction, the future distribution of shards depends only on the glass's current position, velocity,and orientation. In the opposite direction, we may need to track relevant information regarding each glass shard to inferthe glass’s prior trajectory. Does this require more or less information?

What's the actual answer to that question? It's not at all obvious that "the future distribution of shards depends only on the glass's current position, velocity, and orientation." Don't you also need the shape of the glass (tumbler or tulip), the material properties of the glass (leaded?), etc? Sure, somewhere deep down, there may or may not be some randomness. And that randomness may be asymmetric. But this motivating example feels like a trojan horse for some reason.

In particular, with the heralding coin, aren't they baking in the temporal asymmetry by replacing the FIRST 0 with a 2? That "first" is called "ordinal" for a reason. But perhaps I'm missing the human experience (ha!) needed to understand how the heralding coin is canonical and to which class of other examples it refers?

On 1/3/19 9:03 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Possibly of interest.. https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031013

--
☣ 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

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by gepr

Steve S and/or Prof West<

Can either of you explain this to me in citizen speak?

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???
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 9:36 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

Heh, while I appreciate the concrete example, it doesn't resolve my worry. Why? Because my steelmanning of Nick/Eric(C)/Peirce (NEP) requires *more* than the parallelism theorem (PT - that all parallel graphs can be simulated by sequential graphs). If we take NEP seriously, the PT requires us to parse "simulate". I'm going to try and fail to explain my worry. I apologize for how badly I'll mangle it.

Nick has taken pains to explain that there's plenty of wiggle room by claiming Peirce thought randomness was pervasive. But, if the real structure is parallel we have 3 options:

1) The independent paths bind/obtain at the same time,
2) The paths always bind/end in the same order, or
3) The paths bind/end in a different order depending on some other factor including randomness.

So, the reduction of that to a sequential process requires us to add that extra meta-process, e.g. creates a 3-tuple choice mechanism and/or a (perhaps pseudo) random appendage.

This seems like a problem for NEP's convergence to the real. I'll just work with (3) in this post. But I can draw similar problems from (1) and (2). Let's say with a particular process, (3) seems to be the case. Then what is it that NEP says is "real"? Is the parallel process the real thing? Or is the sequential process plus (perhaps pseudo) random number generator the real thing? And regardless of which of those NEP might assert metaphysical Truth to, can we then *use* that to infer derivative metaphysical Truths? E.g. if NEP says the process is really parallel, then does that imply that the universe does *not* have a monotonically increasing parameter (like the arrow of time or the control pointer in the compiled code)? Or if the sequential+random is real, does that imply that the universe *does* have such a parameter?

So, my steelmanning ability ends. I can't make an argument from what I know (or don't) about NEP.

Of course, this is the problem with all metaphysical claims, for every instance where we have to equivocate on "simulate". So if NEP is really only saying that "nothing is real, some patterns are simply more robust than others", then why not just say that and be done with it? Why all the fideistic rigmarole?

On 12/31/18 2:50 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Uh, why? For example, compilation of a recursive function to a control flow graph.
>
>
> mdaniels@m2:~$ cat t.c
> #include <stdbool.h>
>
> int foo(bool flag) {
> if (flag) foo(false);
> else return 0;
> }
> mdaniels@m2:~$ gcc -fdump-tree-cfg -c t.c mdaniels@m2:~$ cat
> t.c.011t.cfg
>
> ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1956, cgraph_uid=0,
> symbol_order=0)
>
> ;; 1 loops found
> ;;
> ;; Loop 0
> ;; header 0, latch 1
> ;; depth 0, outer -1
> ;; nodes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
> ;; 2 succs { 3 4 }
> ;; 3 succs { 5 }
> ;; 4 succs { 6 }
> ;; 5 succs { 1 }
> ;; 6 succs { 1 }
> foo (_Bool flag)
> {
> int D.1962;
>
> <bb 2> :
> if (flag != 0)
> goto <bb 3>; [INV]
> else
> goto <bb 4>; [INV]
>
> <bb 3> :
> foo (0);
> goto <bb 5>; [INV]
>
> <bb 4> :
> D.1962 = 0;
> // predicted unlikely by early return (on trees) predictor.
> goto <bb 6>; [INV]
>
> <bb 5> :
> return;
>
> <bb 6> :
> <L3>:
> return D.1962;
>
> }

--
∄ uǝʃƃ

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Geez. And I thought it was the other way. Nick (attack); Dave (surround but never confront). Grant vs Stonewall Jackson.

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 11:07 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

Chess (David) is a systematic attack at one important target and Go (Nick) is about taking territory.

One player seems to think that he can be instrumental (but there are far too many targets) and the other thinks he can be generally integrative. Some recent anarchists and fascists we see (Assange and Bannon) are real disappointments. I would not associate with them!

On 1/3/19, 10:56 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great! Thanks. But which is which?

Anarchy v. Fascism?

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 12:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

"Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact
same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?"

Go vs. Chess?

P.S. Even Santa is doing it
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/578959/shaman-santa/

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Abduction

Tactics vs. strategy.. Are we watching behavior or inferring motives?

On 1/3/19, 11:29 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Geez. And I thought it was the other way. Nick (attack); Dave (surround but never confront). Grant vs Stonewall Jackson.

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 11:07 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

Chess (David) is a systematic attack at one important target and Go (Nick) is about taking territory.

One player seems to think that he can be instrumental (but there are far too many targets) and the other thinks he can be generally integrative. Some recent anarchists and fascists we see (Assange and Bannon) are real disappointments. I would not associate with them!

On 1/3/19, 10:56 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great! Thanks. But which is which?

Anarchy v. Fascism?

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 12:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

"Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact
same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?"

Go vs. Chess?

P.S. Even Santa is doing it
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/578959/shaman-santa/

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

Marcus,

Motives ARE behavior. Just at a higher level of organization.

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 11:31 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

Tactics vs. strategy.. Are we watching behavior or inferring motives?

On 1/3/19, 11:29 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Geez. And I thought it was the other way. Nick (attack); Dave (surround but never confront). Grant vs Stonewall Jackson.

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 11:07 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

Chess (David) is a systematic attack at one important target and Go (Nick) is about taking territory.

One player seems to think that he can be instrumental (but there are far too many targets) and the other thinks he can be generally integrative. Some recent anarchists and fascists we see (Assange and Bannon) are real disappointments. I would not associate with them!

On 1/3/19, 10:56 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great! Thanks. But which is which?

Anarchy v. Fascism?

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 12:14 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

"Challenge: I have tried and failed, so far, but can you pose the exact
same set of metaphors but absent the military/violence words?"

Go vs. Chess?

P.S. Even Santa is doing it
https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/578959/shaman-santa/

============================================================
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

============================================================
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

gepr

Re: Abduction

Heh, there you go again, rejecting the heterarchy! >8^D

I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT (solely) at a higher level of organization. I.e. motives consist of BOTH low level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors like how one feels about another person.

On 1/3/19 10:55 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Motives ARE behavior. Just at a higher level of organization.

--
☣ 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

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

Ok. Good. I like this. Stick with me here.

Keeping your language as citizen-y as possible, please talk to me about "heterarchy". Being of great age, I learned the song, I'm my own GrandPa in my youth. I assume that’s an example of heterarchy. But I bet you have better examples. But perhaps even more important, where does the concept stand in your approach to things? I stipulate that every duality asserted is like Siamese twins separated. A lot of blood is inevitably spilled. But no thought can possibly be achieved without that sort of blood-letting. I think I am going to argue that to the extent that the idea of heterarchy might give one a better way to separate the babies it should be entertained; but if it is a way of stopping the conversation how best the babies might be separated, then it should not.

Thanks, Marcus,

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 11:59 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

Heh, there you go again, rejecting the heterarchy! >8^D

I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT (solely) at a higher level of organization. I.e. motives consist of BOTH low level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors like how one feels about another person.

On 1/3/19 10:55 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Motives ARE behavior. Just at a higher level of organization.

☣ 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

gepr

Re: Abduction

I just gave you an example. But it's weird because nobody ever responds to my mentions of eyeball saccade. You also didn't respond to my scalar multiplied by a matrix analogy (an analogy because I was talking about comprehensions, which matrices are not, technically). So, rather than give you more examples, I'll treat you like an atheist treats Christians. What sort of example would make sense to you?

I have no idea why you used the word "duality". The ways of organizing things (heter- vs. hier-) would only produce a duality if the different ways of organizing were *functionally* equivalent. My attempt to change language from "level" to either "layer" or "order" is an implicit assertion that heterarchies are functionally *different* from hierarchies. (To be more specific, hierarchical systems are less expressive.) So, a duality might be achievable between 2 differently arranged heterarchies, but not between a hier- and a heter-.

By choosing 2 things of (we assume) the exact same type like Siamese twins, you provide a set that probably does not require a heterarchy to organize. Fraternal twins would be a better choice because while they are both of the same kinship, their *genes* differ significantly. Genes are of a lower/quicker order than kinship. But typical understanding of kinship operates over BOTH the high level (who's your daddy) and low level (what color eyes does your daddy have). While you *can* construct a hierarchy to handle that situation. There may be some situations (e.g. recessive genes, step-parents, etc.) that the hierarchy can't express but the heterarchy can.

Note that "order" doesn't technically require heterarchy, either, really. Technically, an ordering like we have in 1st to 2nd order logic is still a hierarchy, just with mixed operators. You'd only *need* a heterarchy when there are external (to a given hierarchy) objects/relations that need to be accounted for. But I suggest the social kinship, biological kinship, and genotype system does approach that need, where even if you can formulate the social as a hierarchy and the biological as a hierarchy, the mixing of the two different hierarchies requires a heterarchy.

I hope this is not a conversation stopper. That's not my intent. But based on my failures, here, I'm clearly very bad at this.

On 1/3/19 12:38 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Ok. Good. I like this. Stick with me here.
>
>
>
> Keeping your language as citizen-y as possible, please talk to me about "heterarchy". Being of great age, I learned the song, I'm my own GrandPa <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw> in my youth. I assume that’s an example of heterarchy. But I bet you have better examples. But perhaps even more important, where does the concept stand in your approach to things? I stipulate that every duality asserted is like Siamese twins separated. A lot of blood is inevitably spilled. But no thought can possibly be achieved without that sort of blood-letting. I think I am going to argue that to the extent that the idea of heterarchy might give one a better way to separate the babies it should be entertained; but if it is a way of stopping the conversation how best the babies might be separated, then it should not.

--
☣ 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

lrudolph

Re: Abduction

Glen says to Nick:

> I have no idea why you used the word "duality".

I am very afraid that Nick's use (is metaphorical and) can probably be
traced back to having read/heard someone writing about "the wave/particle
duality" or the like.

I'm not sure what *you* mean by duality: the rest of your post, which I
excised without thinking, makes it clear you have a definite, and precise,
and *not* metaphorical meaning for it, but I don't think it's a meaning I
know; and I'm doubtful that Nick, even if he's seen/heard you using it and
has had it explained to him, can explain it to *me* so that I'd understand
it...would you mind doing so (you can point me towards a reference instead
of rehashing it yourself!)?

============================================================
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

Nick Thompson

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by gepr

Rushing Glen to make an apt, so can't answer fully.

Just meant by "duality" a division into two, an opposition, a polarity.

I now see that it has a distinct mathematical meaning, which of course, I have no idea of.

I thought the example of saccads was good. Wanted more, is all.

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: Thursday, January 03, 2019 2:15 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction

I just gave you an example. But it's weird because nobody ever responds to my mentions of eyeball saccade. You also didn't respond to my scalar multiplied by a matrix analogy (an analogy because I was talking about comprehensions, which matrices are not, technically). So, rather than give you more examples, I'll treat you like an atheist treats Christians. What sort of example would make sense to you?

I have no idea why you used the word "duality". The ways of organizing things (heter- vs. hier-) would only produce a duality if the different ways of organizing were *functionally* equivalent. My attempt to change language from "level" to either "layer" or "order" is an implicit assertion that heterarchies are functionally *different* from hierarchies. (To be more specific, hierarchical systems are less expressive.) So, a duality might be achievable between 2 differently arranged heterarchies, but not between a hier- and a heter-.

By choosing 2 things of (we assume) the exact same type like Siamese twins, you provide a set that probably does not require a heterarchy to organize. Fraternal twins would be a better choice because while they are both of the same kinship, their *genes* differ significantly. Genes are of a lower/quicker order than kinship. But typical understanding of kinship operates over BOTH the high level (who's your daddy) and low level (what color eyes does your daddy have). While you *can* construct a hierarchy to handle that situation. There may be some situations (e.g. recessive genes, step-parents, etc.) that the hierarchy can't express but the heterarchy can.

Note that "order" doesn't technically require heterarchy, either, really. Technically, an ordering like we have in 1st to 2nd order logic is still a hierarchy, just with mixed operators. You'd only *need* a heterarchy when there are external (to a given hierarchy) objects/relations that need to be accounted for. But I suggest the social kinship, biological kinship, and genotype system does approach that need, where even if you can formulate the social as a hierarchy and the biological as a hierarchy, the mixing of the two different hierarchies requires a heterarchy.

I hope this is not a conversation stopper. That's not my intent. But based on my failures, here, I'm clearly very bad at this.

On 1/3/19 12:38 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Ok. Good. I like this. Stick with me here.
>
>
>
> Keeping your language as citizen-y as possible, please talk to me about "heterarchy". Being of great age, I learned the song, I'm my own GrandPa <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw> in my youth. I assume that’s an example of heterarchy. But I bet you have better examples. But perhaps even more important, where does the concept stand in your approach to things? I stipulate that every duality asserted is like Siamese twins separated. A lot of blood is inevitably spilled. But no thought can possibly be achieved without that sort of blood-letting. I think I am going to argue that to the extent that the idea of heterarchy might give one a better way to separate the babies it should be entertained; but if it is a way of stopping the conversation how best the babies might be separated, then it should not.

--
☣ 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

gepr

Re: Abduction

In reply to this post by lrudolph

I mean it in a sense you know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(mathematics)

I suspect you'll take issue with the way I'm using the term. Everyone always takes issue with everything I say. 8^) But I'm not really relying on the term for my argument about the expressibility of hier- and heter-archies. So if I'm using the term wrong, feel free to suggest a different one and I'll use that.

On 1/3/19 1:48 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Glen says to Nick:
>
>> I have no idea why you used the word "duality".
>
> I am very afraid that Nick's use (is metaphorical and) can probably be
> traced back to having read/heard someone writing about "the wave/particle
> duality" or the like.
>
> I'm not sure what *you* mean by duality: the rest of your post, which I
> excised without thinking, makes it clear you have a definite, and precise,
> and *not* metaphorical meaning for it, but I don't think it's a meaning I
> know; and I'm doubtful that Nick, even if he's seen/heard you using it and
> has had it explained to him, can explain it to *me* so that I'd understand
> it...would you mind doing so (you can point me towards a reference instead
> of rehashing it yourself!)?

--
☣ 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

1234567 ... 9