An easier question (less contentious but somewhat depressing)
Locked
An easier question (less contentious but somewhat depressing)
 
|
My wife is doing her PhD in Human & Organizational Learning and I have been flicking through the papers she has to read for an upcoming complexity class. I came across a surprisingly impressive review paper that has (I'm guessing) one of the earliest (if not the earliest) uses of the phrase "complex adaptive system". Anyone care to guess when the paper was authored?
-- Robert P.S. For those interested, I'll post the paper in the next day or two.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: An easier question (less contentious but somewhat depressing)
|
|
1960.
An integrated project for the design and appraisal of mechanized decision-making control … KD Tocher - OR, 1960 - jstor.org ... will be established on simulation models, but there is a theoretical interest in the necessary conditions for such a complex adaptive system as illustrated in ... --Doug On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote: My wife is doing her PhD in Human & Organizational Learning and I have been flicking through the papers she has to read for an upcoming complexity class. I came across a surprisingly impressive review paper that has (I'm guessing) one of the earliest (if not the earliest) uses of the phrase "complex adaptive system". Anyone care to guess when the paper was authored? -- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: An easier question (less contentious but somewhat depressing)
|
|
Damn, you beat me. I had 1968 for William Buckley's "Society as a Complex Adaptive System" http://tinyurl.com/yfrbaqm
It's an interesting read - and the depressing thing is that it shows how little the theory has progressed in 41 years (41! count them!). -- R P.S. Anyone who tried Wikipedia will have been given the incorrect info that the term was invented sometime after 1984 at SFI. On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote: 1960. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Warning: Rant!
Robert wrote: > I still don't feel that I've got a straight answer to my question, > other than Doug's (which I suspect is the most accurate) and > Russ's (which I really hope isn't true). So let me try again: > once I've established that a phenomenon is emergent by using > a yet-to-be developed metric (Owen's formalism) or > philosophic enquiry (Nick's & other's approach) - then what? And a little later: > Merely an expression of a personal preference: if "there is no > point" is true, it tells me that emergence is and can only ever > be pure science. As a practitioner, I prefer my science applied And in between, bizarrely: > It's an interesting read - and the depressing thing is that it > shows how little the theory has progressed in 41 years > (41! count them!). Glen wrote: > A merely hypothetical claim that some thing _could_ be > used is inadequate. Centers of gravity are actually used; they effect > and affect actions (act-ions). To be clear about my stance, nothing > just is. Reality (if we have to use the concept) consists entirely of > actions, processes, verbs. There need be no nouns. Hence, unless a > hypothetical noun participates directly in a verb, we're free to ignore > it because it doesn't matter. It is inactive and, hence, unreal. > > Centers of gravity are useful and used. Hence, they exist. Doug quotes his parrots! Good heavens! I can understand a preference for application; I'm an engineer myself and only feel truly satisfied when scientific enquiry has come full circle and augmented the physical world in some manner, but what is it with the continuous sniping at curiosity, discussion, exploration of ideas? I'm sure I need not list examples of theory that lay dormant for years before filling some vital, practical niche. Why the exasperation with, at times almost hostility towards, the process that runs (necessarily, as the low-hanging fruit thins out) from curiosity, through philosophy, science and math, engineering to useful systems? Or relegating partial, developing fruit of the process to the realm of fantasy? A large part of what we're curious about turns out to be irrelevant, a large part of philosophy turns out to be useless, or simply wrong; much research is sterile. Sure, demand efficiency from these processes -- more, as one moves closer to practical implementation -- but how about cutting the people who engage in them *some* slack? What the hell? I mean, these aren't a bunch of crackpots spewing bunk. It's smart people grappling with something difficult that is not well understood by anybody, and it concerns a class of systems that touches on every aspect of our lives in vital ways. If there is the possibility of additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free as they go! Rikus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice)
|
|
Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM:
> What the hell? [...] > If there is the possibility of > additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend > their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free as > they go! Well, the thing you might be missing is that detailed criticism _is_ applause in scientific circles. Online media are difficult to understand. Detailed criticism is usually a sign of _respect_ and should be interpreted as an "atta boy". But ignoring someone's post is NOT a secret message for that person to stop contributing. Sometimes, the impact of a post is quite large even if there is no response. These things are occult. But one thing is for sure, if a person takes the time to actually read and respond to what you've written, then it is a sign of RESPECT, even if (or perhaps especially if) the response is very critical. Now, while I agree that self-indulgent mocking in the form of "Oh no, not again", without any detailed criticism is bad form (because it's mostly useless), I don't think we need saccharine back-patting. But then again, I've been accused of total failure in my attempts to encourage people after doing a good job. ;-) So, what do I know? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice)
|
|
I will add that in this particular Kaffe Klatch, especially through the
Philosophy Wars and now the Emergentist Period that
even "Oh No, NOT AGAIN!" has become more good natured ribbing or the
extravagant eye-rolling of friends who have agreed to disagree about
the importance or relevance of a given topic. Clearly there are many
camps and many of them overlap and people even (usually quietly) drift
from one to another.
I also appreciate the reminder that deafening silence is not necessarily (or even likely) a censure by the group. I often notice that when someone makes a profound statement on a particular thread that it sometimes actually *cuts* the chatter rather than raising it. It is as if some people are stunned at the obviousness or finality of the observation while others are probably chagrined that they had been talking all around it and failed to say it so clearly themselves. And of course many are simply not listening or not prepared to chime in.. they are busy with their lives, careers, and other obsessions (perhaps including other forums, blogs, etc.). For example, my colleagues and I have been mani(a)cally building, rebuilding and using various stereo and multi-camera rigs to capture the 600+ balloons that were launched many times over and over this week at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta. During that time, I managed to take the time to open and skim virtually every FRIAM message (especially the ones on emergence) and was very motivated to read, re-read, track-back parts of a thread (thanks to Owen's coaching to the group about good thread hygiene) or two but simply have not had the time. By the time I do and am ready to have an idea, the topic may have since gone stale and I may have to let it sit. On the other hand, I have to appreciate Sam Clemen's approach to the reading of news two weeks late, as by the time you read it it is either proven to be bunk or has become irrelevant. I am curious if anyone else on this list has given much thought to analyzing the dynamics of this list directly. What would a tool look like that allowed us to model the thread(s) and the conversations here and do some intuitive as well as formal analysis? I was (almost) motivated enough to build a simple visualization tool for Nick's Noodles a year back or more when he introduced them... they had much more specific structure (being wiki-based) than mail lists. What are some of the mathematical models people might consider for modeling the discussions on this list? What are the objects being modeled? Concepts, Terms, Threads, Members, ??? All of the above? There must already be tools out there designed to help visualize e-mail archive threads at a superficial level at least... Owen? Carry on, - Steve Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice)
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
I'm comfortable with detailed criticism and familiar with the strange
activity patterns of online forums. What disturbed me was the notion that knowledge, discussion or inquiry without immediate, direct application is undesirable. I find such a stance shortsighted, to say the least, and was taken aback that it seemed to be able to survive in intelligent, educated, experienced minds. Human knowledge is a vast web that only occasionally supports application, but it needs the whole web (well, most of it) to carry the weight of need and use in such instances. Frequently, it's impossible to tell ahead of time which strands may take up the weight years later. I lumped a post of yours (Glen) with some others in my rant, because it seemed to support said stance by casting the unused as unreal, and hence -- in my mind, at the time -- unsuitable for discussion. That was probably an unfair interpretation. Steve mentions good-natured ribbing among friends; this is valid and I'm aware that a large part of the FRIAM membership has face-to-face interaction and enjoys a consequent sense of social awareness and cohesion that may cast conversations in a different light. I should probably be more sensitive to this. No need for saccharine, only respect for a sincere desire to know, to understand and to share insight. It underpins all human achievement and it riles me to see it trivialised. Having said that, it is also true that capable minds and the bandwidth that connects them are valuable resources. I acknowledge that signal-to-noise ratio and opportunity cost become relevant at some point and that opinion on optimal focus, volume and quality may differ. Rikus -------------------------------------------------- From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:22 PM To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice) Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM: > What the hell? [...] > If there is the possibility of > additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend > their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free > as > they go! Well, the thing you might be missing is that detailed criticism _is_ applause in scientific circles. Online media are difficult to understand. Detailed criticism is usually a sign of _respect_ and should be interpreted as an "atta boy". But ignoring someone's post is NOT a secret message for that person to stop contributing. Sometimes, the impact of a post is quite large even if there is no response. These things are occult. But one thing is for sure, if a person takes the time to actually read and respond to what you've written, then it is a sign of RESPECT, even if (or perhaps especially if) the response is very critical. Now, while I agree that self-indulgent mocking in the form of "Oh no, not again", without any detailed criticism is bad form (because it's mostly useless), I don't think we need saccharine back-patting. But then again, I've been accused of total failure in my attempts to encourage people after doing a good job. ;-) So, what do I know? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice)
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Rikus,
I am grateful for your commentary. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Rikus Combrinck <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 10/13/2009 5:13:56 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice) > > I'm comfortable with detailed criticism and familiar with the strange > activity patterns of online forums. What disturbed me was the notion that > knowledge, discussion or inquiry without immediate, direct application is > undesirable. I find such a stance shortsighted, to say the least, and was > taken aback that it seemed to be able to survive in intelligent, educated, > experienced minds. Human knowledge is a vast web that only occasionally > supports application, but it needs the whole web (well, most of it) to > the weight of need and use in such instances. Frequently, it's impossible > to tell ahead of time which strands may take up the weight years later. > > I lumped a post of yours (Glen) with some others in my rant, because it > seemed to support said stance by casting the unused as unreal, and hence -- > in my mind, at the time -- unsuitable for discussion. That was probably an > unfair interpretation. > > Steve mentions good-natured ribbing among friends; this is valid and I'm > aware that a large part of the FRIAM membership has face-to-face interaction > and enjoys a consequent sense of social awareness and cohesion that may cast > conversations in a different light. I should probably be more sensitive to > this. > > No need for saccharine, only respect for a sincere desire to know, to > understand and to share insight. It underpins all human achievement and it > riles me to see it trivialised. > > Having said that, it is also true that capable minds and the bandwidth that > connects them are valuable resources. I acknowledge that signal-to-noise > ratio and opportunity cost become relevant at some point and that opinion on > optimal focus, volume and quality may differ. > > Rikus > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:22 PM > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice) > > Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM: > > What the hell? [...] > > If there is the possibility of > > additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend > > their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free > > as > > they go! > > Well, the thing you might be missing is that detailed criticism _is_ > applause in scientific circles. Online media are difficult to > understand. Detailed criticism is usually a sign of _respect_ and > should be interpreted as an "atta boy". But ignoring someone's post is > NOT a secret message for that person to stop contributing. Sometimes, > the impact of a post is quite large even if there is no response. These > things are occult. But one thing is for sure, if a person takes the > time to actually read and respond to what you've written, then it is a > sign of RESPECT, even if (or perhaps especially if) the response is very > critical. > > Now, while I agree that self-indulgent mocking in the form of "Oh no, > not again", without any detailed criticism is bad form (because it's > mostly useless), I don't think we need saccharine back-patting. But > then again, I've been accused of total failure in my attempts to > encourage people after doing a good job. ;-) So, what do I know? > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Criticism and feedback (was Re: Theory and practice)
|
|
I second Nick's comment.
-- Russ A On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Rikus, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |