Ants and Bees, Oh My.
Locked
 
|
Dear Robert,
Pulling my self up to my full height as an evolutionary psychologist, I assert that: 1. Things arent so clear about the bees and ants. In the first place female bees can mate with more than one male; if they mate with more that two, then the workers in a hive are LESS closely related than mammalian siblings. 2. Things arent so clear about the principles underlying group action and self sacrifice. Relatedness is one of THREE accepted principles, one other being reciprocal altruism, the other being group selection. Much of human behavior seems group seleected and the historical circumstances of human evolution -- extreme unpredictibility in the environment -- would pull for group selection. 3. What appears to be true is that human beings are constantly balanced on the tipping point from individual directed to group directed action. For this reason, it is imperative that we think carefully about the conditions we put people under. Environmental conditions can trigger adolescents into group directed behavior (gang formation, etc.) and indiviidual directed behavior (preparing for medical school). What cues we give our kids about the nature of the world they are entering and its contingencies may be crucial. Now I will deflate myself. thank you for your patience. Nick > > 1. Re: Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic (Robert Howard) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:42 -0700 > From: "Robert Howard" <rob at symmetricobjects.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <001301c7bff1$6c3f2690$7401a8c0 at Core2Duo> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I'm suspicious of the ant and bee analogy for humans. It should (and does) > work for routing trucks and autonomous supply chain; but humans? > > Here's my hypothesis. With ants and bees, we expect a random individual to > be a female. In fact, only the queen and a few male drones reproduce. The > rest exists to propagate the genes of these few elite siblings. > > I see no evolutionary benefit for any ordinary female to "defect" from the > collective. > > An ordinary ant has everything to gain from laying down its life for the > queen. > > This is not the case with humans, which is why we observe non-ant-and-bee > things like revolts, revolutions, and certain extreme command-structured > governments respond by punishing the children of their subjects for > of dissent. > > With humans (and caribou), we expect a random individual to participate in > natural selection for the genes that each carry individually. > > When individuals propagate their own genes, predator/prey dynamics evolve > within the species; unlike ants and bees. > > > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > _____ > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Of Joshua Thorp > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:53 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic > > > > Interesting article in National Geographic: > > http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ > > > > >From slashdot with interesting commentary: > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/07/05/1244224.shtml > > > > --joshua > > > > --- > > Joshua Thorp > > Redfish Group > > 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:38 -0600 > From: "Bruce Abell" <bruceabe at gmail.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: > <e89a6f6e0707061030k3a66ce6ap344d890c8ef51e95 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > FRIAMers-- > > I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use it > to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become a > back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to find > it a new home or bury it. > > Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works > fine. I wrote a nice book on it. > > HP Pavilion 6630 > Celeron 500 MHz > Win 98 SE > 192 Meg Ram > 10 Gig HD > Ethernet card > Modem > CD R/W drive > Floppy drive > 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No one > can take the computer without taking the monitor! > Manuals, OS, etc. > > Send me an e-mail if you're interested. > > --Bruce Abell > > -- > Bruce Abell > 7 Morning Glory > Santa Fe, NM 87506 > Tel: 505 986 9039 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:59:31 -0400 > From: "Stephen Guerin" <Stephen.Guerin at redfish.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and > Dewar > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <E1I6t1f-0000ar-VI at madrid.hostgo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Roderick Dewar's > work. > > http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get- > document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050142 > > I'm now reading Whitfield's book, "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, > Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (www.inthebeatofaheart.com), but it > appears so far to be much more focused on quarter-power scaling than > maximum entropy production... > > -S > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0600 > From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <e04090490707061530i53d6dd5cqcd762c169c5c370c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Bruce: > > If you don't get any takers, you might try Craig's List. It has a "free" > section. > http://santafe.craigslist.org/zip/ > > -tj > > On 7/6/07, Bruce Abell <bruceabe at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > FRIAMers-- > > > > I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use > > to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become a > > back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to find > > it a new home or bury it. > > > > Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works > > fine. I wrote a nice book on it. > > > > HP Pavilion 6630 > > Celeron 500 MHz > > Win 98 SE > > 192 Meg Ram > > 10 Gig HD > > Ethernet card > > Modem > > CD R/W drive > > Floppy drive > > 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No > > can take the computer without taking the monitor! > > Manuals, OS, etc. > > > > Send me an e-mail if you're interested. > > > > --Bruce Abell > > > > -- > > Bruce Abell > > 7 Morning Glory > > Santa Fe, NM 87506 > > Tel: 505 986 9039 > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:02:50 -0700 > From: "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin at redfish.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] local boy makes good > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Cc: 'Dan Kunkle' <dan at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <016f01c7c021$c97e7470$6501a8c0 at hongyu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Just happened across this news tidbit: > http://tinyurl.com/2b7ywl (Boston Globe) > http://www.physorg.com/news99843195.html > http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/rubik/index.html > > Cool work, Dan!! > > -S > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:59:30 -0400 > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) > To: "'Robert Holmes'" <robert at holmesacosta.com>, "'The Friday Morning > Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <002c01c7c029$b22bb730$6402a8c0 at SavyII> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an edit > anyway > > --------- > The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be exploring > actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the > journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a sign of > confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't > concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the > structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, in the > banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says > "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and > understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." > That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by > computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they think > real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems > different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. > > That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How > Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following > abstract: > > Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an > underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular design > of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other side. > Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption behaviors > backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately > existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both topology and > transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to which > extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect modeling > results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and > mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: > real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. > Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between > diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various > kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured > transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models such > as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the more > realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On the > whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that models > should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. > > Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities not > discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated > with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather than > behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". > It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, where > the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary > succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as definite > random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of > fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. > Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion processes, > of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most > definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design > (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any > behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and > complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the > pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly are not > asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the > journal is unaware of the difference. > > Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I guess the > subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development process, > and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > From: rholmes62 at gmail.com [mailto:rholmes62 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Robert Holmes > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) > > > Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer > to your last question is "No". > > Robert > > > On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, > and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears > that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing > entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you > say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just > switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being > consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone > understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 > ************************************ |
|
|
Thanks, Nick. In one of his books about warcraft (I forget which)
Paul Fussell begins by saying we train young men to be warriors not because that's when they're at their physical peak, but that's when they're most easily molded into groups. It won't work later. (When he was writing we were only training young men to be warriors.) On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Pulling my self up to my full height as an evolutionary > psychologist, I > assert that: > > 1. Things arent so clear about the bees and ants. In the first place > female bees can mate with more than one male; if they mate with > more that > two, then the workers in a hive are LESS closely related than > mammalian > siblings. > > 2. Things arent so clear about the principles underlying group > action and > self sacrifice. Relatedness is one of THREE accepted principles, > one other > being reciprocal altruism, the other being group selection. Much > of human > behavior seems group seleected and the historical circumstances of > human > evolution -- extreme unpredictibility in the environment -- would > pull for > group selection. > > 3. What appears to be true is that human beings are constantly > balanced on > the tipping point from individual directed to group directed > action. For > this reason, it is imperative that we think carefully about the > conditions > we put people under. Environmental conditions can trigger > adolescents into > group directed behavior (gang formation, etc.) and indiviidual > directed > behavior (preparing for medical school). What cues we give our > kids about > the nature of the world they are entering and its contingencies may be > crucial. > > Now I will deflate myself. > > thank you for your patience. > > Nick > > >> >> 1. Re: Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic (Robert Howard) >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:42 -0700 >> From: "Robert Howard" <rob at symmetricobjects.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic >> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >> <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: <001301c7bff1$6c3f2690$7401a8c0 at Core2Duo> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> I'm suspicious of the ant and bee analogy for humans. It should >> (and does) >> work for routing trucks and autonomous supply chain; but humans? >> >> Here's my hypothesis. With ants and bees, we expect a random >> individual to >> be a female. In fact, only the queen and a few male drones >> reproduce. The >> rest exists to propagate the genes of these few elite siblings. >> >> I see no evolutionary benefit for any ordinary female to "defect" >> from the >> collective. >> >> An ordinary ant has everything to gain from laying down its life >> for the >> queen. >> >> This is not the case with humans, which is why we observe non-ant- >> and-bee >> things like revolts, revolutions, and certain extreme command- >> structured >> governments respond by punishing the children of their subjects for > actions >> of dissent. >> >> With humans (and caribou), we expect a random individual to >> participate in >> natural selection for the genes that each carry individually. >> >> When individuals propagate their own genes, predator/prey dynamics >> evolve >> within the species; unlike ants and bees. >> >> >> >> Robert Howard >> Phoenix, Arizona >> >> >> >> _____ >> >> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf >> Of Joshua Thorp >> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:53 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic >> >> >> >> Interesting article in National Geographic: >> >> http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ >> >> >> >>> From slashdot with interesting commentary: >> >> http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/07/05/1244224.shtml >> >> >> >> --joshua >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Joshua Thorp >> >> Redfish Group >> >> 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ > 20070706/08bf91f7 > /attachment-0001.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:38 -0600 >> From: "Bruce Abell" <bruceabe at gmail.com> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free >> To: friam at redfish.com >> Message-ID: >> <e89a6f6e0707061030k3a66ce6ap344d890c8ef51e95 at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> FRIAMers-- >> >> I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I >> might use it >> to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has >> become a >> back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got >> to find >> it a new home or bury it. >> >> Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It >> works >> fine. I wrote a nice book on it. >> >> HP Pavilion 6630 >> Celeron 500 MHz >> Win 98 SE >> 192 Meg Ram >> 10 Gig HD >> Ethernet card >> Modem >> CD R/W drive >> Floppy drive >> 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty >> well. No one >> can take the computer without taking the monitor! >> Manuals, OS, etc. >> >> Send me an e-mail if you're interested. >> >> --Bruce Abell >> >> -- >> Bruce Abell >> 7 Morning Glory >> Santa Fe, NM 87506 >> Tel: 505 986 9039 >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ > 20070706/6c9a7a2e > /attachment-0001.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:59:31 -0400 >> From: "Stephen Guerin" <Stephen.Guerin at redfish.com> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and >> Dewar >> To: friam at redfish.com >> Message-ID: <E1I6t1f-0000ar-VI at madrid.hostgo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Roderick Dewar's >> work. >> >> http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get- >> document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050142 >> >> I'm now reading Whitfield's book, "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, >> Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (www.inthebeatofaheart.com), but it >> appears so far to be much more focused on quarter-power scaling than >> maximum entropy production... >> >> -S >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0600 >> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: >> <e04090490707061530i53d6dd5cqcd762c169c5c370c at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Bruce: >> >> If you don't get any takers, you might try Craig's List. It has a >> "free" >> section. >> http://santafe.craigslist.org/zip/ >> >> -tj >> >> On 7/6/07, Bruce Abell <bruceabe at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> FRIAMers-- >>> >>> I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I >>> might use > it >>> to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has >>> become > a >>> back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've >>> got to > find >>> it a new home or bury it. >>> >>> Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It >>> works >>> fine. I wrote a nice book on it. >>> >>> HP Pavilion 6630 >>> Celeron 500 MHz >>> Win 98 SE >>> 192 Meg Ram >>> 10 Gig HD >>> Ethernet card >>> Modem >>> CD R/W drive >>> Floppy drive >>> 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty >>> well. No > one >>> can take the computer without taking the monitor! >>> Manuals, OS, etc. >>> >>> Send me an e-mail if you're interested. >>> >>> --Bruce Abell >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce Abell >>> 7 Morning Glory >>> Santa Fe, NM 87506 >>> Tel: 505 986 9039 >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ========================================== >> J. T. Johnson >> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >> www.analyticjournalism.com >> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us >> >> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >> To change something, build a new model that makes the >> existing model obsolete." >> -- Buckminster >> Fuller >> ========================================== >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ > 20070706/8251dfc0 > /attachment-0001.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:02:50 -0700 >> From: "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin at redfish.com> >> Subject: [FRIAM] local boy makes good >> To: <friam at redfish.com> >> Cc: 'Dan Kunkle' <dan at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: <016f01c7c021$c97e7470$6501a8c0 at hongyu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >> >> Just happened across this news tidbit: >> http://tinyurl.com/2b7ywl (Boston Globe) >> http://www.physorg.com/news99843195.html >> http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/rubik/index.html >> >> Cool work, Dan!! >> >> -S >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:59:30 -0400 >> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) >> To: "'Robert Holmes'" <robert at holmesacosta.com>, "'The Friday Morning >> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: <002c01c7c029$b22bb730$6402a8c0 at SavyII> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an >> edit >> anyway >> >> --------- >> The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be >> exploring >> actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the >> journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a >> sign of >> confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't >> concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the >> structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, >> in the >> banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says >> "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and >> understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." >> That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by >> computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they >> think >> real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems >> different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. >> >> That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How >> Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following >> abstract: >> >> Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an >> underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular >> design >> of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other >> side. >> Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption >> behaviors >> backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately >> existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both >> topology and >> transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to >> which >> extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect >> modeling >> results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and >> mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: >> real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. >> Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between >> diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various >> kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured >> transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models >> such >> as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the >> more >> realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On >> the >> whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that >> models >> should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. >> >> Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities >> not >> discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated >> with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather >> than >> behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". >> It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, >> where >> the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary >> succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as >> definite >> random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of >> fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. >> Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion >> processes, >> of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most >> definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design >> (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any >> behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and >> complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the >> pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly >> are not >> asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the >> journal is unaware of the difference. >> >> Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I >> guess the >> subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development >> process, >> and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. >> >> >> >> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >> NY NY 10040 >> tel: 212-795-4844 >> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com >> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rholmes62 at gmail.com [mailto:rholmes62 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of >> Robert Holmes >> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM >> To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee >> Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) >> >> >> Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the >> answer >> to your last question is "No". >> >> Robert >> >> >> On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < sy at synapse9.com> wrote: >> >> The task of associating abstract and real things is rather >> complicated, >> and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it >> appears >> that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing >> entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even >> though you >> say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just >> switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while >> being >> consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone >> understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? >> >> >> >> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ > 20070706/6b468548 > /attachment-0001.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Friam mailing list >> Friam at redfish.com >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 >> ************************************ > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070708/155627a9/attachment.html |
|
|
Pamela/Nick/Robert/Josh/PeterMiller/ChrisLangton/ThomasHobbes...
I don't know when it was first noticed that human behaviour, could be understood collectively by analogy with living organisms. My earliest reference is Hobbes' Leviathan where he described human societies (or all of human society) as a single organism. Surely there are earlier references and few intermediate ones before the Cellular Automata work of John Von Neumann, of the work exhibited at Evolution, Games and Learning (82?) and the ensuing ALife conferences... In many situations, an apt meta-organism to use for the analogy is a hive creature. I cannot drive past a housing development, apartment building or skyscraper being built without thinking "Termite Mound". I cannot sit and watch evening rush-hour traffic in a megalopolis (especially at dusk when the individual cars are visible but are most notably visible by their head and tail lights and blinking turns and propogating braking lights) without thinking of ants. Similarly, I cannot watch industrial processes (factory lines, shipping containers being brought in by ship, unloaded, moved by rail, then by truck, etc.) without thinking of ants or bees. I cannot watch pedestrians in a big city, especially at the nominal noon hour rushing off to errands and/or a quick meal or 2 martini lunch without seeing a hive. Part of this may simply be bacause I saw none of these human activities until I was a teenager and even then only briefly. The target domain of my most common metaphor (hive) for understanding large-scale collective human behaviour was the ant-hills, bee-hives, termite-mounds, hornets nests, prarie-dog colonies, bird-flocks, were what I was most familiar with, long before I ever saw enough humans in one place to notice the similarities. As a child I had occasionally seen pack and herd (and flock and colongy) behaviour in humans... a group of cowboys going out to round up some cattle (pack) or my schoolmates marching from one classroom to another (herd) or playing on the playground (pack or flock, or school) or large groups of relative (to me) strangers attending the county rodeo and fair (herd, pack, flock, colony). I an not an anthropologist or evolutionary biologist or ??? enough to say what our primate ancestors were collectively, though I think the term Tribe is used often and seems to have aspects of both pack and herd. Later, nomadic humans who lived with herd animals very likely learned some of their own social and cultural patterns from the herds they followed or kept. Similarly, groups who lived primarily as hunter gatherers very likely were more informed by the pack-like or pride-like patterns of their close competitors (canine and feline groups?) I don't know if there are many human groups who had enough close engagement with birds and fish to learn/adopt flock or school like patterns, but we do sometimes see those patterns in human collective activities. I suspect this is "emergent" rather than learned. As we began to become agricultural, it seems like we started down the path toward hive. Packs and herds (in a different way) have their own territorial ways of being but the hive is naturally rooted at a location and it's entire existence is virtually dependent on owning/dominating that location. Ants are known to have "aphid ranches" and it is not very long of a stretch to see the pollinization of flowers by bees (and other pollenizers) as a proto-farming... Our formation of city-states, then nation-states, corporations, mega-nationals, etc. all have deep hive-like patterns, in my informal observation. As we developed language, money, iconic religion, legal systems, advertising, etc. We paralleled the pheremonal and other types of signalling and behaviour response in hive creatures. Rather than focus on a direct link from hive-like behaviours to evolutionary benefit, I wonder if we would not do well to hypothesize a much more complex set of abstractions for humans than for say bees or ants which yield some fundamentally similar patterns? When dealing with economists, political scientists, and worst of all Ad-men (and women) I get the impression that they all *want* us to be as simple as ants and bees and do all that they can to keep us operating in regimes where we are as predictable and directable as hive creatures. I'm not sure there is a spectrum from idealized, individualistic motivation and behaviour (say that assumed by anarchists like myself) to slightly more idealized collective, but still primarily individualistic (say that of libertarians), to somewhat more idealized collective, but still motivated by self interest (say that of the democratic/free-marketeers), to the significantly more collective (socialist/communist) to the downright built-on-the-hive model idealization (fascists), but it sure feels like it sometimes! Our employers/religious leaders/politicians/marketeers seem to prefer us as hive-creatures... highly productive and easily manipulable through simple signals (based in the primitive needs of hunger, fear, reproductive drive). Others aspiring to power (aggregated through our collective behaviour) but needing us to be more herdlike and packlike might be leaders of aspiring gangs, parties, companies, fads , etc... who will curry our individualistic tendencies to break us out of the trances we are held in by the various cults of politics (Green herds vs the Red/Blue cult-hives), religion (evangelical movements to disrupt/unseat their parent-cult religions), techno (say Torvalds vs Jobs vs Gates), etc. We poor little individual creatures, so deeply laced with neurochemical responses, so highly charged with fear, greed, lust, so heavily steeped in religion, politics, socio-economics (as deep as our culture, our ethnic-identity usually) and then so full of our own self-image as individualistic, highly-evolved, thinking, acting beings. It is fascinating and instructive to watch us and our collective behaviour emerging on top of all that as we imagine we are being radical or individualistic, striking out in new directions! Is it possible that both can be true and that perhaps that is what makes us such a *potent* species? We may be so potent as to truly destroy a good portion of the biosphere... and it may be because we can respond to so many different collective modalities... that within one individual there can (perhaps) be the latent ability to self-organize with others in so many different ways... that we don't need to wait for *genetic* evolution for us to find a new way to organize, try it out, destroy another culture or half the planet, then either collapse under our own nonsense or transcend the "worst" of that modality and push our *potency* down from active to potential... The good work in the past decade++ in understanding the structure/function in complex networked systems seems to be a good start toward (maybe) understanding our collective behaviour and it's potential for not having to be so (self) destructive. Sorry for the long rave... for anyone who made it through this, I'd be interested in your ideas/responses. - Steve > Thanks, Nick. In one of his books about warcraft (I forget which) > Paul Fussell begins by saying we train young men to be warriors not > because that's when they're at their physical peak, but that's when > they're most easily molded into groups. It won't work later. (When > he was writing we were only training young men to be warriors.) > > > > > On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> Dear Robert, >> >> Pulling my self up to my full height as an evolutionary psychologist, I >> assert that: >> >> 1. Things arent so clear about the bees and ants. In the first place >> female bees can mate with more than one male; if they mate with more >> that >> two, then the workers in a hive are LESS closely related than mammalian >> siblings. >> >> 2. Things arent so clear about the principles underlying group action and >> self sacrifice. Relatedness is one of THREE accepted principles, one >> other >> being reciprocal altruism, the other being group selection. Much of >> human >> behavior seems group seleected and the historical circumstances of human >> evolution -- extreme unpredictibility in the environment -- would >> pull for >> group selection. >> >> 3. What appears to be true is that human beings are constantly >> balanced on >> the tipping point from individual directed to group directed action. For >> this reason, it is imperative that we think carefully about the >> conditions >> we put people under. Environmental conditions can trigger >> adolescents into >> group directed behavior (gang formation, etc.) and indiviidual directed >> behavior (preparing for medical school). What cues we give our kids >> about >> the nature of the world they are entering and its contingencies may be >> crucial. >> >> Now I will deflate myself. >> >> thank you for your patience. >> >> Nick >> >> >>> >>> 1. Re: Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic (Robert Howard) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:42 -0700 >>> From: "Robert Howard" <rob at symmetricobjects.com >>> <mailto:rob at symmetricobjects.com>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic >>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >>> <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> >>> Message-ID: <001301c7bff1$6c3f2690$7401a8c0 at Core2Duo> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> I'm suspicious of the ant and bee analogy for humans. It should (and >>> does) >>> work for routing trucks and autonomous supply chain; but humans? >>> >>> Here's my hypothesis. With ants and bees, we expect a random >>> individual to >>> be a female. In fact, only the queen and a few male drones >>> reproduce. The >>> rest exists to propagate the genes of these few elite siblings. >>> >>> I see no evolutionary benefit for any ordinary female to "defect" >>> from the >>> collective. >>> >>> An ordinary ant has everything to gain from laying down its life for the >>> queen. >>> >>> This is not the case with humans, which is why we observe >>> non-ant-and-bee >>> things like revolts, revolutions, and certain extreme command-structured >>> governments respond by punishing the children of their subjects for >> actions >>> of dissent. >>> >>> With humans (and caribou), we expect a random individual to >>> participate in >>> natural selection for the genes that each carry individually. >>> >>> When individuals propagate their own genes, predator/prey dynamics >>> evolve >>> within the species; unlike ants and bees. >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Howard >>> Phoenix, Arizona >>> >>> >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On >> Behalf >>> Of Joshua Thorp >>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:53 PM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic >>> >>> >>> >>> Interesting article in National Geographic: >>> >>> http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ >>> >>> >>> >>>> From slashdot with interesting commentary: >>> >>> http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/07/05/1244224.shtml >>> >>> >>> >>> --joshua >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Joshua Thorp >>> >>> Redfish Group >>> >>> 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/08bf91f7 >> /attachment-0001.html >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:38 -0600 >>> From: "Bruce Abell" <bruceabe at gmail.com <mailto:bruceabe at gmail.com>> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free >>> To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: >>> <e89a6f6e0707061030k3a66ce6ap344d890c8ef51e95 at mail.gmail.com >>> <mailto:e89a6f6e0707061030k3a66ce6ap344d890c8ef51e95 at mail.gmail.com>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> FRIAMers-- >>> >>> I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might >>> use it >>> to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has >>> become a >>> back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got >>> to find >>> it a new home or bury it. >>> >>> Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works >>> fine. I wrote a nice book on it. >>> >>> HP Pavilion 6630 >>> Celeron 500 MHz >>> Win 98 SE >>> 192 Meg Ram >>> 10 Gig HD >>> Ethernet card >>> Modem >>> CD R/W drive >>> Floppy drive >>> 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. >>> No one >>> can take the computer without taking the monitor! >>> Manuals, OS, etc. >>> >>> Send me an e-mail if you're interested. >>> >>> --Bruce Abell >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce Abell >>> 7 Morning Glory >>> Santa Fe, NM 87506 >>> Tel: 505 986 9039 >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6c9a7a2e >> /attachment-0001.html >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:59:31 -0400 >>> From: "Stephen Guerin" <Stephen.Guerin at redfish.com >>> <mailto:Stephen.Guerin at redfish.com>> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and >>> Dewar >>> To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: <E1I6t1f-0000ar-VI at madrid.hostgo.com >>> <mailto:E1I6t1f-0000ar-VI at madrid.hostgo.com>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >>> >>> Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Roderick Dewar's >>> work. >>> >>> http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get- >>> document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050142 >>> >>> I'm now reading Whitfield's book, "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, >>> Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (www.inthebeatofaheart.com >>> <http://www.inthebeatofaheart.com>), but it >>> appears so far to be much more focused on quarter-power scaling than >>> maximum entropy production... >>> >>> -S >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0600 >>> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com <mailto:tom at jtjohnson.com>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >>> <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> >>> Message-ID: >>> <e04090490707061530i53d6dd5cqcd762c169c5c370c at mail.gmail.com >>> <mailto:e04090490707061530i53d6dd5cqcd762c169c5c370c at mail.gmail.com>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> Bruce: >>> >>> If you don't get any takers, you might try Craig's List. It has a >>> "free" >>> section. >>> http://santafe.craigslist.org/zip/ >>> >>> -tj >>> >>> On 7/6/07, Bruce Abell <bruceabe at gmail.com >>> <mailto:bruceabe at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> FRIAMers-- >>>> >>>> I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use >> it >>>> to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become >> a >>>> back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to >> find >>>> it a new home or bury it. >>>> >>>> Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works >>>> fine. I wrote a nice book on it. >>>> >>>> HP Pavilion 6630 >>>> Celeron 500 MHz >>>> Win 98 SE >>>> 192 Meg Ram >>>> 10 Gig HD >>>> Ethernet card >>>> Modem >>>> CD R/W drive >>>> Floppy drive >>>> 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No >> one >>>> can take the computer without taking the monitor! >>>> Manuals, OS, etc. >>>> >>>> Send me an e-mail if you're interested. >>>> >>>> --Bruce Abell >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bruce Abell >>>> 7 Morning Glory >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87506 >>>> Tel: 505 986 9039 >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ========================================== >>> J. T. Johnson >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >>> www.analyticjournalism.com >>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us >>> <mailto:tom at jtjohnson.us> >>> >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the >>> existing model obsolete." >>> -- Buckminster Fuller >>> ========================================== >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/8251dfc0 >> /attachment-0001.html >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 5 >>> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:02:50 -0700 >>> From: "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin at redfish.com >>> <mailto:stephen.guerin at redfish.com>> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] local boy makes good >>> To: <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> >>> Cc: 'Dan Kunkle' <dan at redfish.com <mailto:dan at redfish.com>> >>> Message-ID: <016f01c7c021$c97e7470$6501a8c0 at hongyu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >>> >>> Just happened across this news tidbit: >>> http://tinyurl.com/2b7ywl (Boston Globe) >>> http://www.physorg.com/news99843195.html >>> http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/rubik/index.html >>> >>> Cool work, Dan!! >>> >>> -S >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 6 >>> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:59:30 -0400 >>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com <mailto:sy at synapse9.com>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) >>> To: "'Robert Holmes'" <robert at holmesacosta.com >>> <mailto:robert at holmesacosta.com>>, "'The Friday Morning >>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com >>> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> >>> Message-ID: <002c01c7c029$b22bb730$6402a8c0 at SavyII> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an edit >>> anyway >>> >>> --------- >>> The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be exploring >>> actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the >>> journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a sign of >>> confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't >>> concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the >>> structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, in the >>> banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says >>> "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and >>> understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." >>> That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by >>> computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they think >>> real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems >>> different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. >>> >>> That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How >>> Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following >>> abstract: >>> >>> Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an >>> underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular design >>> of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other side. >>> Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption behaviors >>> backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately >>> existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both topology and >>> transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to which >>> extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect modeling >>> results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and >>> mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: >>> real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. >>> Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between >>> diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various >>> kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured >>> transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models such >>> as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the more >>> realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On the >>> whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that models >>> should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. >>> >>> Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities not >>> discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated >>> with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather than >>> behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". >>> It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, where >>> the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary >>> succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as definite >>> random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of >>> fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. >>> Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion processes, >>> of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most >>> definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design >>> (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any >>> behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and >>> complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the >>> pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly are not >>> asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the >>> journal is unaware of the difference. >>> >>> Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I guess the >>> subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development process, >>> and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >>> NY NY 10040 >>> tel: 212-795-4844 >>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> >>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: rholmes62 at gmail.com [mailto:rholmes62 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of >>> Robert Holmes >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM >>> To: sy at synapse9.com <mailto:sy at synapse9.com>; The Friday Morning >>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) >>> >>> >>> Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer >>> to your last question is "No". >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < sy at synapse9.com <mailto:sy at synapse9.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, >>> and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears >>> that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing >>> entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you >>> say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just >>> switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being >>> consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone >>> understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6b468548 >> /attachment-0001.html >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Friam mailing list >>> Friam at redfish.com <mailto:Friam at redfish.com> >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >>> >>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 >>> ************************************ >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed > it." > > Bertrand Russell > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pamela McCorduck
Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for
making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! Does that mean that military 'intelligence' is aware of complex systems and how to use them. Not as I see it. I think it shows military intelligence behaveing more like ants forming a trail, drawn itself by the attraction of the pheramones of the young men. If military people (or politicians) had anything like actual complex systems knowledge the very first thing they'd notice about Iraq is that our military organization is not fighting another military organization, but fighting a local culture with all the properties and emergent behaviors that a local culture would be expected to have, and none of the behaviors or organizations that a military organization is designed to have or those it is designed to fight. Where we went wrong in systems terms, allowing gthat the invasion could have been as some sort of panic response to 9/11, was when we began a 'cleaning up' after the defeated army that involved seeking out and assaulting renegade defenders of a radical faigh and indigenous culture we had no understanding of at all, and took pains to deny and dismiss it's evident swelling power in direct response. That was all clearly evident in how the reaction to our attempt to supress those dissenting to our presence, and it whipped up a firestorm. The rigorous evidence is in the form of the growth process, and the form of the networks that developed. The fact that probably most of the 'insurgents' in Iraq are living in the bossom of their families and eat at the family table, and the incidental fact that after 4 years we have not only not found the weapons of mass destruction, we have also yet to find the enemy barracks are abslutely damning of our paper thing intent. We've made a mistake. We're at war with a people. The scientific evidence is concrete and real and really matters. We're committing crimes as a nation worse than murder on a daily basis and occupying ourselves with excuses. We should reverse course entirely and find some reason to honor the sacrifice that others have been imposed on to endure in our name. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 1:11 PM To: nickthompson at earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. Thanks, Nick. In one of his books about warcraft (I forget which) Paul Fussell begins by saying we train young men to be warriors not because that's when they're at their physical peak, but that's when they're most easily molded into groups. It won't work later. (When he was writing we were only training young men to be warriors.) On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Dear Robert, Pulling my self up to my full height as an evolutionary psychologist, I assert that: 1. Things arent so clear about the bees and ants. In the first place female bees can mate with more than one male; if they mate with more that two, then the workers in a hive are LESS closely related than mammalian siblings. 2. Things arent so clear about the principles underlying group action and self sacrifice. Relatedness is one of THREE accepted principles, one other being reciprocal altruism, the other being group selection. Much of human behavior seems group seleected and the historical circumstances of human evolution -- extreme unpredictibility in the environment -- would pull for group selection. 3. What appears to be true is that human beings are constantly balanced on the tipping point from individual directed to group directed action. For this reason, it is imperative that we think carefully about the conditions we put people under. Environmental conditions can trigger adolescents into group directed behavior (gang formation, etc.) and indiviidual directed behavior (preparing for medical school). What cues we give our kids about the nature of the world they are entering and its contingencies may be crucial. Now I will deflate myself. thank you for your patience. Nick 1. Re: Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic (Robert Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:42 -0700 From: "Robert Howard" <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <001301c7bff1$6c3f2690$7401a8c0 at Core2Duo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm suspicious of the ant and bee analogy for humans. It should (and does) work for routing trucks and autonomous supply chain; but humans? Here's my hypothesis. With ants and bees, we expect a random individual to be a female. In fact, only the queen and a few male drones reproduce. The rest exists to propagate the genes of these few elite siblings. I see no evolutionary benefit for any ordinary female to "defect" from the collective. An ordinary ant has everything to gain from laying down its life for the queen. This is not the case with humans, which is why we observe non-ant-and-bee things like revolts, revolutions, and certain extreme command-structured governments respond by punishing the children of their subjects for actions of dissent. With humans (and caribou), we expect a random individual to participate in natural selection for the genes that each carry individually. When individuals propagate their own genes, predator/prey dynamics evolve within the species; unlike ants and bees. Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joshua Thorp Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:53 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic Interesting article in National Geographic: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ >From slashdot with interesting commentary: http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/07/05/1244224.shtml --joshua --- Joshua Thorp Redfish Group 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/08bf 91f7 /attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:38 -0600 From: "Bruce Abell" <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free To: friam at redfish.com Message-ID: <e89a6f6e0707061030k3a66ce6ap344d890c8ef51e95 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" FRIAMers-- I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use it to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become a back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to find it a new home or bury it. Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works fine. I wrote a nice book on it. HP Pavilion 6630 Celeron 500 MHz Win 98 SE 192 Meg Ram 10 Gig HD Ethernet card Modem CD R/W drive Floppy drive 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No one can take the computer without taking the monitor! Manuals, OS, etc. Send me an e-mail if you're interested. --Bruce Abell -- Bruce Abell 7 Morning Glory Santa Fe, NM 87506 Tel: 505 986 9039 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6c9a 7a2e /attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:59:31 -0400 From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Dewar To: friam at redfish.com Message-ID: <E1I6t1f-0000ar-VI at madrid.hostgo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Roderick Dewar's work. http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get- document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050142 I'm now reading Whitfield's book, "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (www.inthebeatofaheart.com), but it appears so far to be much more focused on quarter-power scaling than maximum entropy production... -S ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0600 From: "Tom Johnson" <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <e04090490707061530i53d6dd5cqcd762c169c5c370c at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Bruce: If you don't get any takers, you might try Craig's List. It has a "free" section. http://santafe.craigslist.org/zip/ -tj On 7/6/07, Bruce Abell <bruceabe at gmail.com> wrote: FRIAMers-- I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use it to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become a back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to find it a new home or bury it. Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works fine. I wrote a nice book on it. HP Pavilion 6630 Celeron 500 MHz Win 98 SE 192 Meg Ram 10 Gig HD Ethernet card Modem CD R/W drive Floppy drive 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No one can take the computer without taking the monitor! Manuals, OS, etc. Send me an e-mail if you're interested. --Bruce Abell -- Bruce Abell 7 Morning Glory Santa Fe, NM 87506 Tel: 505 986 9039 ============================================================ 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 -- ========================================== J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA www.analyticjournalism.com 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller ========================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/8251 dfc0 /attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:02:50 -0700 From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] local boy makes good To: <friam at redfish.com> Cc: 'Dan Kunkle' <dan at redfish.com> Message-ID: <016f01c7c021$c97e7470$6501a8c0 at hongyu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Just happened across this news tidbit: http://tinyurl.com/2b7ywl (Boston Globe) http://www.physorg.com/news99843195.html http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/rubik/index.html Cool work, Dan!! -S ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:59:30 -0400 From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) To: "'Robert Holmes'" <robert at holmesacosta.com>, "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <002c01c7c029$b22bb730$6402a8c0 at SavyII> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an edit anyway --------- The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be exploring actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a sign of confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, in the banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they think real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following abstract: Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular design of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other side. Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption behaviors backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both topology and transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to which extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect modeling results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models such as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the more realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On the whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that models should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities not discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather than behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, where the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as definite random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion processes, of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly are not asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the journal is unaware of the difference. Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I guess the subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development process, and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer to your last question is "No". Robert On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < sy at synapse9.com> wrote: The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6b46 8548 /attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Friam mailing list Friam at redfish.com http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 ************************************ ============================================================ 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 "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070708/52cdbadb/attachment-0001.html |
|
|
On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: > Good observation, about using young mend when they are most > maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the > opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people > who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't > generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes > idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of > diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental > process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these > are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for > the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually > going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical observation served well enough. As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have-- or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070708/7ee3298a/attachment.html |
|
|
Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use then?
We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious permanent psycological dammage. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling it science? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical observation served well enough. As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070709/20d3c01f/attachment.html |
|
|
I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of
political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter, most professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is too nice a word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of facts. If you follow it at all, you know that the present administration has gutted scientific committees meant to advise or make scientific policy for the government and loaded them with politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, foreign policy generally. I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues? On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: > Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use > then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure > (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike > the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm > in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask > with serious permanent psycological dammage. http:// > content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. > I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to > mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't > break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military > deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point > of calling it science? > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] > On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: > >> Good observation, about using young mend when they are most >> maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the >> opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, >> people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I >> don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of >> genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence >> of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental >> process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these >> are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for >> the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually >> going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! > > I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) > whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies > understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for > centuries, empirical observation served well enough. > > As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the > military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old > cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled > at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a > guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who > understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about it > I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have > been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction > of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians > fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in > this instance. > > > > > > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I > have not noticed it." > > Bertrand Russell > > > ============================================================ > 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 "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070709/eec91789/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
At the risk of creating a diversion from the purpose of this list ... It is not the youth of the men that matters, it is their sexuality. There is a very well known inverse relationship between sex and violence. Young men (and women in those cultures where they are allowed to) have the strongest sexual desires and control of access is easier with the young than the old. The problem with older men (and women with previous caveat) is not that they "think" more but that they "lust" less. (An aside to an aside - control of access is why gays in the military are such a big deal in the U.S. but not in other cultures.) You must have a lot of "lust" available so that you can subvert most of it to violence and sublimate the rest in Agape (fraternal and symbolic "love"). The young have the largest available stock of "lust" and that is why they are ideal candidates for the military. The military is concerned far less with the formation of teams and structures (There is some unintended honesty in the Army's latest slogan, "An Army of One!") than they are with "ferocity" and "fanaticism" and the individual psychology that allows individuals to exhibit that kind of behavior in appropriate contexts. Teams and structures seldom survive the battlefield (any more than plans do) but creating "warriors" with the right "local rules of behavior" allows for the emergence of "winning strategy" in chaotic situations. I am wearing my cultural anthropologist and anthropology of war hats to write this. I am not a military historian or an expert on the military per se, by my tangential contact with same suggests that lots of military theorists have talked about this subject. davew On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:31:35 -0400, "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> said: > Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for > making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for > emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite > it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary > value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, > but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage > a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact > that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb > enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's > actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! > > Does that mean that military 'intelligence' is aware of complex systems > and how to use them. Not as I see it. I think it shows military > intelligence behaveing more like ants forming a trail, drawn itself by > the attraction of the pheramones of the young men. If military people > (or politicians) had anything like actual complex systems knowledge the > very first thing they'd notice about Iraq is that our military > organization is not fighting another military organization, but fighting > a local culture with all the properties and emergent behaviors that a > local culture would be expected to have, and none of the behaviors or > organizations that a military organization is designed to have or those > it is designed to fight. > > Where we went wrong in systems terms, allowing gthat the invasion could > have been as some sort of panic response to 9/11, was when we began a > 'cleaning up' after the defeated army that involved seeking out and > assaulting renegade defenders of a radical faigh and indigenous culture > we had no understanding of at all, and took pains to deny and dismiss > it's evident swelling power in direct response. That was all clearly > evident in how the reaction to our attempt to supress those dissenting > to our presence, and it whipped up a firestorm. The rigorous evidence > is in the form of the growth process, and the form of the networks that > developed. The fact that probably most of the 'insurgents' in Iraq are > living in the bossom of their families and eat at the family table, and > the incidental fact that after 4 years we have not only not found the > weapons of mass destruction, we have also yet to find the enemy barracks > are abslutely damning of our paper thing intent. We've made a mistake. > We're at war with a people. The scientific evidence is concrete and > real and really matters. We're committing crimes as a nation worse > than murder on a daily basis and occupying ourselves with excuses. We > should reverse course entirely and find some reason to honor the > sacrifice that others have been imposed on to endure in our name. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 1:11 PM > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > Thanks, Nick. In one of his books about warcraft (I forget which) Paul > Fussell begins by saying we train young men to be warriors not because > that's when they're at their physical peak, but that's when they're most > easily molded into groups. It won't work later. (When he was writing > we were only training young men to be warriors.) > > > > > On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > Dear Robert, > > Pulling my self up to my full height as an evolutionary psychologist, I > assert that: > > 1. Things arent so clear about the bees and ants. In the first place > female bees can mate with more than one male; if they mate with more > that > two, then the workers in a hive are LESS closely related than mammalian > siblings. > > 2. Things arent so clear about the principles underlying group action > and > self sacrifice. Relatedness is one of THREE accepted principles, one > other > being reciprocal altruism, the other being group selection. Much of > human > behavior seems group seleected and the historical circumstances of human > evolution -- extreme unpredictibility in the environment -- would pull > for > group selection. > > 3. What appears to be true is that human beings are constantly balanced > on > the tipping point from individual directed to group directed action. > For > this reason, it is imperative that we think carefully about the > conditions > we put people under. Environmental conditions can trigger adolescents > into > group directed behavior (gang formation, etc.) and indiviidual directed > behavior (preparing for medical school). What cues we give our kids > about > the nature of the world they are entering and its contingencies may be > crucial. > > Now I will deflate myself. > > thank you for your patience. > > Nick > > > > > 1. Re: Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic (Robert Howard) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:42 -0700 > From: "Robert Howard" <rob at symmetricobjects.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <001301c7bff1$6c3f2690$7401a8c0 at Core2Duo> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I'm suspicious of the ant and bee analogy for humans. It should (and > does) > work for routing trucks and autonomous supply chain; but humans? > > Here's my hypothesis. With ants and bees, we expect a random individual > to > be a female. In fact, only the queen and a few male drones reproduce. > The > rest exists to propagate the genes of these few elite siblings. > > I see no evolutionary benefit for any ordinary female to "defect" from > the > collective. > > An ordinary ant has everything to gain from laying down its life for the > queen. > > This is not the case with humans, which is why we observe > non-ant-and-bee > things like revolts, revolutions, and certain extreme command-structured > governments respond by punishing the children of their subjects for > > actions > > of dissent. > > With humans (and caribou), we expect a random individual to participate > in > natural selection for the genes that each carry individually. > > When individuals propagate their own genes, predator/prey dynamics > evolve > within the species; unlike ants and bees. > > > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > _____ > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > Behalf > > Of Joshua Thorp > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:53 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Swarm Intelligence in National Geographic > > > > Interesting article in National Geographic: > > http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ > > > > > >From slashdot with interesting commentary: > > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/07/05/1244224.shtml > > > > --joshua > > > > --- > > Joshua Thorp > > Redfish Group > > 624 Agua Fria, Santa Fe, NM > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/08bf > 91f7 > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:30:38 -0600 > From: "Bruce Abell" <bruceabe at gmail.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: > <e89a6f6e0707061030k3a66ce6ap344d890c8ef51e95 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > FRIAMers-- > > I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use > it > to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become > a > back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to > find > it a new home or bury it. > > Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works > fine. I wrote a nice book on it. > > HP Pavilion 6630 > Celeron 500 MHz > Win 98 SE > 192 Meg Ram > 10 Gig HD > Ethernet card > Modem > CD R/W drive > Floppy drive > 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No > one > can take the computer without taking the monitor! > Manuals, OS, etc. > > Send me an e-mail if you're interested. > > --Bruce Abell > > -- > Bruce Abell > 7 Morning Glory > Santa Fe, NM 87506 > Tel: 505 986 9039 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6c9a > 7a2e > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:59:31 -0400 > From: "Stephen Guerin" <Stephen.Guerin at redfish.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and > Dewar > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <E1I6t1f-0000ar-VI at madrid.hostgo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Whitfield's PLOS article mentioning Eric Smith and Roderick Dewar's > work. > > http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get- > document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050142 > > I'm now reading Whitfield's book, "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, > Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (www.inthebeatofaheart.com), but it > appears so far to be much more focused on quarter-power scaling than > maximum entropy production... > > -S > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0600 > From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Anyone want an older OK computer? Free > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <e04090490707061530i53d6dd5cqcd762c169c5c370c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Bruce: > > If you don't get any takers, you might try Craig's List. It has a > "free" > section. > http://santafe.craigslist.org/zip/ > > -tj > > On 7/6/07, Bruce Abell <bruceabe at gmail.com> wrote: > > > FRIAMers-- > > I've kept my older desktop computer for a spare and thought I might use > > it > > to experiment with a different operating system. But now it has become > > a > > back-up spare with the acquisition of yet another one, so I've got to > > find > > it a new home or bury it. > > Free. Just pick it up and pretend it will have a good home. It works > fine. I wrote a nice book on it. > > HP Pavilion 6630 > Celeron 500 MHz > Win 98 SE > 192 Meg Ram > 10 Gig HD > Ethernet card > Modem > CD R/W drive > Floppy drive > 17-inch CRT monitor--a monster, but it still displays pretty well. No > > one > > can take the computer without taking the monitor! > Manuals, OS, etc. > > Send me an e-mail if you're interested. > > --Bruce Abell > > -- > Bruce Abell > 7 Morning Glory > Santa Fe, NM 87506 > Tel: 505 986 9039 > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > > > -- > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/8251 > dfc0 > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:02:50 -0700 > From: "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin at redfish.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] local boy makes good > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Cc: 'Dan Kunkle' <dan at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <016f01c7c021$c97e7470$6501a8c0 at hongyu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Just happened across this news tidbit: > http://tinyurl.com/2b7ywl (Boston Globe) > http://www.physorg.com/news99843195.html > http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/may-aug07/rubik/index.html > > Cool work, Dan!! > > -S > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:59:30 -0400 > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) > To: "'Robert Holmes'" <robert at holmesacosta.com>, "'The Friday Morning > Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <002c01c7c029$b22bb730$6402a8c0 at SavyII> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I somehow didn't send this to the forum before - and it needed an edit > anyway > > --------- > The ambiguity about whether computer models are thought to be exploring > actual social systems or not is definitely all over the place in the > journal, and not discussed. That's what I usually take as a sign of > confusion, so I'd have to tentatively conclude that the journal isn't > concerned with the difference and assumes that their theories are the > structures of human societies. To check exactly what they say, in the > banner of the journal for example, top of the front page, it says > "JASSS....an inter-disciplinary journal for the exploration and > understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation." > That specifically says the exploring of the social system is done by > computer, but maybe the mean that they'd study models of how they think > real systems work to help them study what makes actual systems > different. That's my method, and could be what they mean to say. > > That view is also hinted at in the article on model realism, "How > Realistic Should Knowledge Diffusion Models Be?" with the following > abstract: > > Knowledge diffusion models typically involve two main features: an > underlying social network topology on one side, and a particular design > of interaction rules driving knowledge transmission on the other side. > Acknowledging the need for realistic topologies and adoption behaviors > backed by empirical measurements, it becomes unclear how accurately > existing models render real-world phenomena: if indeed both topology and > transmission mechanisms have a key impact on these phenomena, to which > extent does the use of more or less stylized assumptions affect modeling > results? In order to evaluate various classical topologies and > mechanisms, we push the comparison to more empirical benchmarks: > real-world network structures and empirically measured mechanisms. > Special attention is paid to appraising the discrepancy between > diffusion phenomena (i) on some real network topologies vs. various > kinds of scale-free networks, and (ii) using an empirically-measured > transmission mechanism, compared with canonical appropriate models such > as threshold models. We find very sensible differences between the more > realistic settings and their traditional stylized counterparts. On the > whole, our point is thus also epistemological by insisting that models > should be tested against simulation-based empirical benchmarks. > > Here again I find confusion, though, in terms of clear ambiguities not > discussed. It appears that the 'real world phenomena' are equated > with general statistical measures in terms of 'benchmarks' rather than > behaviors, and these may be "simulation-based empirical benchmarks". > It's like the analysis of that plankton evolution data I studied, where > the complex eruptions of developmental processes in the evolutionary > succession I uncovered were for many years firmly defended as definite > random walks because the statistical benchmark for their range of > fluctuation was within the range reasonably likely for random walks. > Benchmarks, are sometimes very useful for actual diffusion processes, > of course, and much has been learned with them. What they are most > definitely misleading for is as indicators of complex system design > (lacking the 'requisite variety' I guess you'd say), and for any > behavior that is pathway dependent. The whole field of systems and > complexity is really supposed to be about building knowledge of the > pathway dependent properties of nature. These authors clearly are not > asking about that, so I guess I'd have to agree with you that the > journal is unaware of the difference. > > Is knowledge 'diffusion' pathway dependent? You bet. So I guess the > subject it not a 'diffusion' process at all, but a development process, > and nearly any kind of 'benchmarks' will be reliably misleading. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > From: rholmes62 at gmail.com [mailto:rholmes62 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Robert Holmes > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:06 AM > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] JASSS (and despair) > > > Read the articles and tell me what you think. But I believe the answer > to your last question is "No". > > Robert > > > On 7/3/07, Phil Henshaw < sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > The task of associating abstract and real things is rather complicated, > and often made more so by using the same names for them, so it appears > that when you're referring to a physical system you're discussing > entirely some network of abstract rules, for example. Even though you > say the article refers to physical systems, is it possible they just > switch back and forth between ways of referring to things, while being > consistent with an 'information world' model they assume everyone > understands to be the baseline of abstract discussion? > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070706/6b46 > 8548 > /attachment-0001.html > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 > ************************************ > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed > it." > > > Bertrand Russell > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pamela McCorduck
I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately about
those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since it seems the fault in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an indigenous culture, because it mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the violent objectors to our occupation as if they were stragglers in Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of hatred for us that had not been there before, people should speak plainly about it and not defer to the rules of polite conversation when perpetuates a war crime of any large or small proportion. We should be truthful when we know the truth. Accepting the right of anyone to have any opinion does not mean that you need to not state the facts you know yourself with their full value. You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some reason. Comity is the way to getting along with people, and hides a lot of what goes into the sausage of government, a glue that holds all kinds of things together. I'm not suggesting we abandon that, but for speaking plane and true where it matters, dropping the polite 'well you may be right' nod of deference for people who are clearly committing great crimes. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter, most professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is too nice a word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of facts. If you follow it at all, you know that the present administration has gutted scientific committees meant to advise or make scientific policy for the government and loaded them with politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, foreign policy generally. I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues? On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious permanent psycological dammage. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling it science? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical observation served well enough. As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell ============================================================ 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 "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070710/6160a33f/attachment.html |
|
|
Sorry, Phil, I misread and hence misquoted. My mistake.
I personally know no one, scientist or otherwise, who does not speak out against this war. (No, that's not true. I am acquainted with some people who feel so invested in this administration and Republicanism in general that they think the majority of us have simply failed to see the light, and history will show, blah blah blah. There's no arguing with such people. That's their "truth.") As for the tales the members of the administration who promulgated this war tell their mirrors, I have no idea. They got orders from God? I'm told that after Vietnam, the junior officers who had watched the senior officers lie their way through light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel stuff until the last moment said to each other: we will never do that; we will resign first. Some did. Some told the truth to power and were quickly replaced (Shinseki, for example). Others understood that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces under our constitution, and however wrong-headed his ideas might be, it was their duty to follow those orders, because that was an oath they had taken. It's never easy. On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:18 PM, phil henshaw wrote: > I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately > about those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since it > seems the fault in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an > indigenous culture, because it mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the > violent objectors to our occupation as if they were stragglers in > Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of hatred for us that > had not been there before, people should speak plainly about it and > not defer to the rules of polite conversation when perpetuates a > war crime of any large or small proportion. We should be truthful > when we know the truth. Accepting the right of anyone to have any > opinion does not mean that you need to not state the facts you know > yourself with their full value. > > You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of > political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some > reason. Comity is the way to getting along with people, and hides > a lot of what goes into the sausage of government, a glue that > holds all kinds of things together. I'm not suggesting we abandon > that, but for speaking plane and true where it matters, dropping > the polite 'well you may be right' nod of deference for people who > are clearly committing great crimes. > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] > On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of > political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter, > most professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is > too nice a word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of > facts. If you follow it at all, you know that the present > administration has gutted scientific committees meant to advise or > make scientific policy for the government and loaded them with > politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in > many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, > foreign policy generally. > > I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation > of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues? > > > On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: > >> Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use >> then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure >> (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike >> the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge >> harm in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that >> come bask with serious permanent psycological dammage. http:// >> content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. >> I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to >> mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't >> break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/ >> military deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's >> the point of calling it science? >> >> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >> NY NY 10040 >> tel: 212-795-4844 >> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com >> explorations: www.synapse9.com >> -----Original Message----- >> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] >> On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck >> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. >> >> >> On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: >> >>> Good observation, about using young mend when they are most >>> maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the >>> opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, >>> people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I >>> don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of >>> genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the >>> confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a >>> developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the >>> fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the >>> ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that >>> reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. >>> Bad for armies! >> >> I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) >> whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies >> understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for >> centuries, empirical observation served well enough. >> >> As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the >> military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old >> cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled >> at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a >> guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who >> understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about >> it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked >> have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the >> direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when >> the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they >> have failed in this instance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack >> religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I >> have not noticed it." >> >> Bertrand Russell >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I > have not noticed it." > > Bertrand Russell > > > ============================================================ > 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 "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070710/662a09a1/attachment.html |
|
|
While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco
presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' truth more highly than 'their' truth. There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting party' as they say in the police logs.) It can certainly be argued that 'truth' is entirely subjective. That it is dependent upon the initial conditions or context of the observer (culture, education, personal experience, etc.); the rules (what the CAS believes it must pay attention to and assign meaning to depending on its own unique heuristics); and relationship (what other agents or systems the CAS holds in high enough regard that it will allow itself to assign meaning to data and rules they offer that are outside its normal parameters and would otherwise be rejected). Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' On 7/10/07, Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com> wrote: > > Sorry, Phil, I misread and hence misquoted. My mistake. > > I personally know no one, scientist or otherwise, who does not speak out > against this war. (No, that's not true. I am acquainted with some people > who feel so invested in this administration and Republicanism in general > that they think the majority of us have simply failed to see the light, and > history will show, blah blah blah. There's no arguing with such people. > That's their "truth.") As for the tales the members of the administration > who promulgated this war tell their mirrors, I have no idea. They got > orders from God? > > > I'm told that after Vietnam, the junior officers who had watched the > senior officers lie their way through light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel stuff > until the last moment said to each other: we will never do that; we will > resign first. Some did. Some told the truth to power and were quickly > replaced (Shinseki, for example). Others understood that the president is > commander in chief of the armed forces under our constitution, and however > wrong-headed his ideas might be, it was their duty to follow those orders, > because that was an oath they had taken. > > > It's never easy. > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:18 PM, phil henshaw wrote: > > I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately about > those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since it seems the fault > in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an indigenous culture, because it > mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the violent objectors to our occupation as if > they were stragglers in Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of > hatred for us that had not been there before, people should speak plainly > about it and not defer to the rules of polite conversation when perpetuates > a war crime of any large or small proportion. We should be truthful when > we know the truth. Accepting the right of anyone to have any opinion does > not mean that you need to not state the facts you know yourself with their > full value. > > You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of > political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some reason. > Comity is the way to getting along with people, and hides a lot of what goes > into the sausage of government, a glue that holds all kinds of things > together. I'm not suggesting we abandon that, but for speaking plane and > true where it matters, dropping the polite 'well you may be right' nod of > deference for people who are clearly committing great crimes. > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com<friam-bounces at redfish.com>] > *On Behalf Of *Pamela McCorduck > *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of > political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter, most > professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is too nice a > word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of facts. If you follow it > at all, you know that the present administration has gutted scientific > committees meant to advise or make scientific policy for the government and > loaded them with politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same > pattern in many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, > foreign policy generally. > > I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation of > Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues? > > > On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: > > Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use then? > We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure (because of > strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike the one actually > interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add > the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious permanent > psycological dammage. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from > New Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more > senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article > doesn't break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military > deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling > it science? > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com<friam-bounces at redfish.com>] > *On Behalf Of *Pamela McCorduck > *Sent:* Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: > > Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for > making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent > structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that > makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden > self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the > confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental > process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the > men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises > the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think > more. Bad for armies! > > > > I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it > was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or > grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical > observation served well enough. > > > As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military > understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a > member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A > field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the > officers who understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything > about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have > been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of > civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as > egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." > > > Bertrand Russell > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." > > > Bertrand Russell > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, > because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." > > > Bertrand Russell > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070710/3624b199/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pamela McCorduck
I do appreciate that, and full well understand the pain of having clear
understandings rebuffed by the contorted fears of others that they could not be expected to untangle with even the clearest of simple information provided. What I'm talking about is the 'go along' concession in either casual or formal communication that reduces all opinion to equal validity, when that is incorrect. When speaking things one knows, the quality of your own clarity an full comprehension should be part of the message, and not withdrawn for the sake of being pleasant. Learning how to speak truthfully without being argumentative is another part of the trick, because turbulent word throwing isn't usually helpful, of course. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:56 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. Sorry, Phil, I misread and hence misquoted. My mistake. I personally know no one, scientist or otherwise, who does not speak out against this war. (No, that's not true. I am acquainted with some people who feel so invested in this administration and Republicanism in general that they think the majority of us have simply failed to see the light, and history will show, blah blah blah. There's no arguing with such people. That's their "truth.") As for the tales the members of the administration who promulgated this war tell their mirrors, I have no idea. They got orders from God? I'm told that after Vietnam, the junior officers who had watched the senior officers lie their way through light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel stuff until the last moment said to each other: we will never do that; we will resign first. Some did. Some told the truth to power and were quickly replaced (Shinseki, for example). Others understood that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces under our constitution, and however wrong-headed his ideas might be, it was their duty to follow those orders, because that was an oath they had taken. It's never easy. On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:18 PM, phil henshaw wrote: I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately about those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since it seems the fault in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an indigenous culture, because it mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the violent objectors to our occupation as if they were stragglers in Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of hatred for us that had not been there before, people should speak plainly about it and not defer to the rules of polite conversation when perpetuates a war crime of any large or small proportion. We should be truthful when we know the truth. Accepting the right of anyone to have any opinion does not mean that you need to not state the facts you know yourself with their full value. You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some reason. Comity is the way to getting along with people, and hides a lot of what goes into the sausage of government, a glue that holds all kinds of things together. I'm not suggesting we abandon that, but for speaking plane and true where it matters, dropping the polite 'well you may be right' nod of deference for people who are clearly committing great crimes. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. I must have missed where science was deferring to the "comity of political/military defeat." Most scientists, and for that matter, most professional military people, deplore this gap, though gap is too nice a word for blindly pursuing ideology in the face of facts. If you follow it at all, you know that the present administration has gutted scientific committees meant to advise or make scientific policy for the government and loaded them with politically safe ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in many significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, foreign policy generally. I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a nation of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of ideologues? On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical use then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain failure (because of strategies modeled on attacking a phantom enemy unlike the one actually interfering with our plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add the 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious permanent psycological dammage. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would be more senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would expect, but this article doesn't break that out. If sci defers to the 'comity of plotical/military deceit' , as it would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling it science? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: Good observation, about using young mend when they are most maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies! I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time) whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical observation served well enough. As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have--or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to understand things as they have failed in this instance. "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell ============================================================ 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 "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell ============================================================ 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 "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." Bertrand Russell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070710/6eef3b04/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Goekler-2
I think you are saying that societies use enculturation to apply their
own rules as part of a self-organizing, self programming CAS. And it takes a lot of (human) energy or pain to change direction, assuming the CAS that we are part of is actually non-deterministic. Robert C. John Goekler wrote: > > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting party' as > they say in the police logs.) > > > > It can certainly be argued that 'truth' is entirely subjective. That > it is dependent upon the initial conditions or context of the observer > (culture, education, personal experience, etc.); the rules (what the > CAS believes it must pay attention to and assign meaning to depending > on its own unique heuristics); and relationship (what other agents or > systems the CAS holds in high enough regard that it will allow itself > to assign meaning to data and rules they offer that are outside its > normal parameters and would otherwise be rejected). > > > > Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' > > > > On 7/10/07, *Pamela McCorduck* <pamela at well.com > <mailto:pamela at well.com>> wrote: > > Sorry, Phil, I misread and hence misquoted. My mistake. > > > I personally know no one, scientist or otherwise, who does not > speak out against this war. (No, that's not true. I am > acquainted with some people who feel so invested in this > administration and Republicanism in general that they think the > majority of us have simply failed to see the light, and history > will show, blah blah blah. There's no arguing with such people. > That's their "truth.") As for the tales the members of the > administration who promulgated this war tell their mirrors, I have > no idea. They got orders from God? > > > I'm told that after Vietnam, the junior officers who had watched > the senior officers lie their way through > light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel stuff until the last moment said to > each other: we will never do that; we will resign first. Some > did. Some told the truth to power and were quickly replaced > (Shinseki, for example). Others understood that the president is > commander in chief of the armed forces under our constitution, and > however wrong-headed his ideas might be, it was their duty to > follow those orders, because that was an oath they had taken. > > > It's never easy. > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:18 PM, phil henshaw wrote: > >> I guess I think science is mostly an art of speaking accurately >> about those things it is possible to be accurate about. Since >> it seems the fault in Iraq, is that our army is at war with an >> indigenous culture, because it mistakenly tried to 'clean-up' the >> violent objectors to our occupation as if they were stragglers in >> Saddam's army, and so stirred up a firestorm of hatred for us >> that had not been there before, people should speak plainly about >> it and not defer to the rules of polite conversation when >> perpetuates a war crime of any large or small proportion. We >> should be truthful when we know the truth. Accepting the right >> of anyone to have any opinion does not mean that you need to not >> state the facts you know yourself with their full value. >> >> You did slightly misquote me, though, my phrase "comity of >> political/military deceit" you substituted 'defeat' for some >> reason. Comity is the way to getting along with people, and >> hides a lot of what goes into the sausage of government, a glue >> that holds all kinds of things together. I'm not suggesting we >> abandon that, but for speaking plane and true where it matters, >> dropping the polite 'well you may be right' nod of deference for >> people who are clearly committing great crimes. >> >> >> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >> NY NY 10040 >> tel: 212-795-4844 >> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> >> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com >> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> >> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pamela >> McCorduck >> *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2007 10:05 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. >> >> I must have missed where science was deferring to the >> "comity of political/military defeat." Most scientists, and >> for that matter, most professional military people, deplore >> this gap, though gap is too nice a word for blindly pursuing >> ideology in the face of facts. If you follow it at all, you >> know that the present administration has gutted scientific >> committees meant to advise or make scientific policy for the >> government and loaded them with politically safe >> ignoramuses. But you find the same pattern in many >> significant areas--health care, the drug problem, education, >> foreign policy generally. >> >> >> I put it to an historian I know: when did we stop being a >> nation of Yankee pragmatists and start being a nation of >> ideologues? >> >> >> >> On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:03 AM, phil henshaw wrote: >> >>> Well, where's the gap between knowledge and it's practical >>> use then? We're using a method in Iraq designed for certain >>> failure (because of strategies modeled on attacking a >>> phantom enemy unlike the one actually interfering with our >>> plans) and causing huge harm in every direction. add the >>> 15% of our own soldiers that come bask with serious >>> permanent psycological dammage. >>> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13 from New >>> Eng J of Med. I was looking to see if young soldiers would >>> be more senstitive to mental damage from it, as i would >>> expect, but this article doesn't break that out. If sci >>> defers to the 'comity of plotical/military deceit' , as it >>> would look to me is the problem, what's the point of calling >>> it science? >>> >>> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >>> NY NY 10040 >>> tel: 212-795-4844 >>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> >>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com >>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> >>> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Pamela >>> McCorduck >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:02 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote: >>> >>>> Good observation, about using young mend when they are >>>> most maleable for making platoons and follow >>>> commands. It's the opportunity for emergent >>>> structure, as well as in this case, people who wish to >>>> exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't >>>> generally buy the evolutionary value laden self >>>> interest of genes idea for what makes systems powerful, >>>> but how the confluence of diverse factors and a >>>> catalyst actually engage a developmental process. And >>>> it's often contradictions like the fact that these are >>>> not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb >>>> enough for the job, that raises the questions that >>>> reveal what's actually going on. Older men would >>>> think more. Bad for armies! >>> >>> >>> I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at >>> the time) whether it was empirical observation all >>> senior officers in armies understood, or grounded in >>> biology. Both, apparently, but for centuries, empirical >>> observation served well enough. >>> >>> >>> As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many >>> in the military understand the situation completely--my >>> 80-year-old cousin, who served as a member of the >>> British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on the phone last >>> night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla army." >>> It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it >>> have--or once had--the power to do anything about it I >>> don't know, but it seems unlikely. Those who once >>> balked have been replaced. Our military is quite >>> properly under the direction of civilians. I hope it >>> will always be so, even when the civilians fail as >>> egregiously to understand things as they have failed in >>> this instance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to >>> attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. >>> So I am told; I have not noticed it." >>> >>> >>> Bertrand Russell >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 <http://www.friam.org/> >> >> "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack >> religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; >> I have not noticed it." >> >> >> Bertrand Russell >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> <http://www.friam.org/> > > "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack > religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I > have not noticed it." > > > Bertrand Russell > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > <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 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070710/00d15b60/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Goekler-2
On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > ? > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > ? > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > of the CAS we might call the observer?? (Or the 'reporting party' as > they say in the police logs.) This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in the sense that every observer can see something different, so much as subjective in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > ?Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth?? Which truth?' This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex systems. As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally have no use for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies are better than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me in that I am sympathetic with their spirit). Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. I wonder what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as compared to Truths. |
|
|
I don?t think the issue is how to know what the 'truth' is, but whether
one speaks with the clarity of one's own understanding of things. Whatever anyone else says, I want to hear what people genuinely believe they understand, not some miss mash of compromises intended to make them appear to be 'considerate' or 'balanced' or whatever. Anyone who observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq developed can't possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous culture, however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is meeting widespread vigorous rejection. It's unequivocal that we are using entirely the wrong tools for entirely the wrong purposes, totally disgracing the ideals of democracy, and that lots and lots of people see this clearly and are not speaking their own clear understanding of it. I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service outline, www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of steve smith > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:55 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > > On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > > > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > ? > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > ? > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > > of the CAS we might call the observer?? (Or the 'reporting > party' as > > they say in the police logs.) > This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an > emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. > > One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it > inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in > the sense > that every observer can see something different, so much as > subjective > in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > > > ?Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth?? Which truth?' > This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really > awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a > more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex > systems. > > > As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle > and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their > nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally > have no use > for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the > rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but > most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up > their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies > are better > than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me > in that I > am sympathetic with their spirit). > > Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. > I wonder > what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as > compared to Truths. > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > |
|
|
Well, lots of absolutes there, Phil. Let me just pick up on a couple.
First, don't most ideologues (and that would be all of us in some context or other, wouldn't it?) speak with the 'clarity of one's own understanding' of things? Economist, anarchist, Christian, Muslim, phrenologist, eugenicist, intelligent design aficionado. . . (Dang, I wish that last term hadn't been co-opted.) What does that have to do with any kind of objective 'truth'? Unless, as I suggested in my earlier post, 'truth' is simply whatever matches up to the pattern seeking heuristics of the culture / creature that claims it. We could perhaps also flip it, and frame it in terms of an identity group or possibly even the organizing principles of a CAS ? or more properly, a CASS, a Complex Adaptive *Social* System, since I don't think 'natural' (non-human) systems really worry much about such things. So, again, I would suggest that 'truth' is an emergent property of the culture / system that births (or, one might say, 'fabricates') it. First example that springs to mind here is, 'We hold these truths to be self evident. . . ' In that case, the answer to 'Whose truth, which truth?' is simply, 'Ours'. Whatever random belief / operating system / imaginary being that might encompass. It's self-validating without any objective reference points. (And it's better than yours, so there!) > *Anyone who observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq developed can't possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous culture*, however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is meeting widespread vigorous rejection. Oh, gosh. I could. A few points here ? One, I think you vastly oversimplify the 'insurgency'. (As do the bushistas.) It's hardly homogeneous, nor even indigenous. It embraces, and at times has been driven by the actions of, a significant number of salafists from beyond the borders of Iraq. Saudis, Algerians, Syrians, Jordanians (remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 'face' of the insurgency and his Egyptian successor?), Afghanis, Pakistanis, Chechens . . . It also includes the *Saddam Fedayeen* (who were planning for this and laying in logistics well before the invasion, which kind of kills the entirely organic theory), various tribal / ideological entities trying to get ahead or get even, bored young men with no other vision of a future, and no small amount of enterprising gangs, kidnapper / extortionists and other random criminals. I certainly do agree that we're using the wrong tools for the wrong purposes. We're fighting an emergent fourth and fifth generation war using an awkward blend of third and fourth generation strategies and tactics. 4/5GW for a state actor is essentially armed social work, or armed propaganda. Since you can't fight ideas with firepower, increasing the number of air strikes five-fold is more than a bit counterintuitive. (But we must! How else can we justify our absurd defense budget and investing in big, spendy, redundant and largely useless weapon systems?) But 'disgracing the ideals of democracy'? Well . . . Let me suggest that 'democracy' is another 'truth' or 'perceived common good' that has emerged from the collective narrative ? something we tell ourselves to justify our actions. Or were you thinking of the good old days in Athens, when the slaves carried the patricians down to the Agora for a little civilized debate? (Often over whom to invade next, if I remember my history.) > I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service outline, www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. Well . . . is 'perception' not just another word for 'my truth'? (Or worldview, mental model or paradigm?) Ummm . . . interesting page. A little predictive for a simple country complexity head. (Or perhaps it's just the altitude here in Santa Fe.) In 'truth', I've kind of given up on 'systems engineering'. That damn nonlinearity thing keeps screwing up my best laid plans. I'm also kind of unclear on how you use a 'rigorous exploratory technique for seeing things coming' in a CASS. Doesn't shi(f)t sometimes just happen? Are there really no Black Swans? Can we simply reduce them to ugly ducklings? > 'You just trace the continuities . . .' It's actually the discontinuities I find more interesting. What if they are really the orderly manifestation of some fractal pattern or algorithm we haven't yet perceived? What if all the fun stuff is going on at the edges? What if entropy is irrelevant in scale free networks? What if Elvis has not left the building? OK, I'm ranting. No more caffeine and pastries at Cloud Cliff on Sunday mornings before opening FRIAM mail. Please recycle these electrons. jdg On 7/14/07, phil henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > I don't think the issue is how to know what the 'truth' is, but whether > one speaks with the clarity of one's own understanding of things. > Whatever anyone else says, I want to hear what people genuinely believe > they understand, not some miss mash of compromises intended to make them > appear to be 'considerate' or 'balanced' or whatever. Anyone who > observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq developed can't > possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous > culture, however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that > literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred > honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is > meeting widespread vigorous rejection. It's unequivocal that we are > using entirely the wrong tools for entirely the wrong purposes, totally > disgracing the ideals of democracy, and that lots and lots of people see > this clearly and are not speaking their own clear understanding of it. > > > I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these > complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful > rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to > see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You > just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The > best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service > outline, www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening > with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of steve smith > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:55 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > > > > > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > > > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > > > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > > > > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > > > > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > > > of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting > > party' as > > > they say in the police logs.) > > This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an > > emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. > > > > One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it > > inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in > > the sense > > that every observer can see something different, so much as > > subjective > > in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > > > > > Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' > > This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really > > awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a > > more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex > > systems. > > > > > > As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle > > and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their > > nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally > > have no use > > for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the > > rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but > > most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up > > their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies > > are better > > than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me > > in that I > > am sympathetic with their spirit). > > > > Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. > > I wonder > > what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as > > compared to Truths. > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/1bfca61e/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Hey, Steve:
In addition to the points raised in my response to Phil, let me expand a bit on my 'truth' rant. First, I wrote this in Word, so asked Encarta to define 'truth' for me. It returned several definitions, including 'God'. I like that one a lot because it calls to mind a story told by a pal who is a retired dean of religious studies and philosophy. While leading a world tour of religious sites for youth from various traditions, he observed the following conversation over dinner. Christian: Let's talk about the character of God. Hindu: Which god? Buddhist: Who cares? As I got further into the list, I encountered these 'definitions': (I've dropped the redundant ones and numbered the remainder for reference.) 1. Something factual - something that corresponds to fact or reality 1. Obvious fact - something that is so clearly true that it hardly needs to be stated 1. Something generally believed - a statement that is generally believed to be true 1. Descriptive accuracy - accuracy in description or portrayal 1. Conformity - adherence to a standard or law Without going totally epistemological, let me say that numbers 1 and 2 deal with truth as an accurate representation of fact, while 3 and 5 are relative to culture. Using 3 and 5, we can say that in Galileo's time, it was 'true' that the sun revolved around the earth, because it was generally believed by his culture and ratified by canonical law. It was 'true' in the sense of these definitions, but 'untrue' according to our current observations and understanding of astronomy. So 'the truth' in that situation, was an emergent property of a system of belief imposed by the Church. The Arabs knew at the time that the earth revolved around the sun, so to them, the Church's position was 'untrue'. (Interestingly, so was theirs in that the heliocentric model they believed in was not contained in a larger system. Perhaps we might label it a 'half truth'. Eeek!) The problems with numbers 1 and 2 seem obvious to me. Facts shift. Old ones are reinterpreted. New ones emerge. DNA was destiny 10 years ago and RNA was junk material just hanging around to give shape to the genome packets. Imagine the careers in tatters over that one today. So in 1, 2, 3 and 5, truth is a squishy and relative thing. Nothing more, really, than an expression of whatever the dominant culture ? scientific, theological or secular ? believes at the moment. The 'truth' emerges from the cultural context. (The oppressed or counter culture may well have a very different truth.) Number 4 is a little more interesting, and we have to push further into semantics to explore it. If you and I are standing looking across a river at a house on the other side, and I say, 'That's a blue house,' is it 'true'? What if you're colorblind? What if I am? What if it's the angle of the sun on a green house or the reflection off the river on a white house that makes me see it as blue? If we want to parse it, we can use a descriptive language system (the name of which I've now forgotten) that uses an entirely different frame. In it, my 'truthful' statement would be, 'I perceive a house across the river that appears to be blue on the surfaces I can see.' Entirely accurate. And entirely subjective. No assumptions built in, even if I'm on acid and / or it's 'really' a very large armadillo. I still see it as a house, and it still appears to me to be blue on those surfaces within my view. Your truth, however, may be entirely different. Perhaps your glasses are at home and you can't see a house at all. Perhaps you see it as an armadillo. Perhaps I have a history of lying to you, and you refuse to believe anything I say. In any case, the 'truth' whether there is a house and whether it's blue, is an emergent property of the CAS known as the observer. (An elephant is rather like a tree.) AND the acceptance of the other agents in the system. If you don't accept it, it's 'not true'. (We'll leave out 'reserving judgment' for this discussion.) > One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in the sense that every observer can see something different, so much as subjective in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. Yes. And it might also be said that a CAS studies phenomena subjectively. While the human body gives us certain sensors and the dominant culture gives us certain models, overlays and filters (we might also say prejudices), these are further narrowed or enhanced by our own experiences and neural patterns based on individual realities ? education, upbringing, being dropped on our heads as a child . . . They can also be diminished or enhanced by other interventions. You have binoculars and corrected your astigmatism with lasik. I'm astigmatic and wearing scratched sunglasses. > Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. I wonder what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as compared to Truths. I would suggest that 'lies' in a CAS (I would actually prefer 'untruths' or 'not truths' in this context) are any input / stimuli that perturb the system but do not match the validation heuristics of the system. (Whatever those may be ? they vary with the system in question.) For example: Derek Jeter is the best player of his generation. Can't be. I hate the f'ing Yankees. That was the point of my original post. 'Truth' is squishy, relative, judgmental and primarily negating. Our claim to it is most often to self-justify, rather than enhance wisdom or relationship. Personally, I would like to get away from the whole concept of truth and lies / untruth and talk instead about accuracy, validity and fitness of visions, concepts and models. Especially regarding the observable realities of the nested and multiple CAS's in which we live and work ? initial conditions, rules, relationship, identity and network ? and how we intervene at those levels in an attempt to create a better future for our children. On 7/14/07, steve smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > > > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > > of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting party' as > > they say in the police logs.) > This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an > emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. > > One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it > inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in the sense > that every observer can see something different, so much as subjective > in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > > > Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' > This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really > awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a > more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex > systems. > > > As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle > and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their > nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally have no use > for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the > rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but > most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up > their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies are better > than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me in that I > am sympathetic with their spirit). > > Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. I wonder > what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as > compared to Truths. > > > ============================================================ > 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 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/e33cc38c/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Goekler-2
I guess what you're saying is that it seems inevitable that we each
speak from our own image of the world. The one somewhat significant distinction I would make is whether that image is self-aware as a patch on reality, or confused by the belief that it's the same as the reality that everyone else is part of too. That's all too frequently the case, one of the deepest of phenomenological confusions indicated by the conviction that explanations are causations, and things like that, and not always hard to distinguish. What does it mean, anyway, about one's understanding of the true complexity of the world to think that reality is whatever we agree it to be? So, is sincerity possible for people who think reality is an agreement? I'd say no, definitely not. I think sincerity is much more a physical state of mind, like all the other indefinable physical states of mind we can identify but can't define, concerning how you represent your own uncertainties about the greater whole of a complex world together with your own images. This idea so popular in politics that reality is 100% negotiable is my problem. Every possible real steering system for a real world if foiled by that. I start with accepting that everyone has a different take on things, but if they're drawing their conclusions from their own original interpretation of the complex 'world without meanings' we all do, then any complaint they might have, or insight, etc. will have some real meaning in it for me, if I can find it, just because the common world from which we all draw our perspectives is so complexly intertwined. On the particular phenomenon of the 'insurgency' in Iraq. Can you describe how and where it grew? If you could, would that help you understand what it was that grew, whether a scheme hatched by some planner with central direction of the kind that military force can silence, or was it a broad based deep cultural revulsion to our singling out 'dead-ender' religious fanatics and defenders of 'the hood' and anyone else that got in our way, to be hunted down in their own homes? Have you really looked into the feedbacks of the process by which this huge, clearly self-organizing process developed to see what the real internal organization of the bizarre creature that did develop, or are you, like most of the media and all the politicians happy with the hopelessly unscientific method of supporting your analysis based on nothing but the gut appeal of the final picture-book image? We're aggressively out there stirring a hornets' nest masquerading a delusion that that will somehow make it go away, but the clear evidence is that it has very consistently had exactly the opposite effect, for the very obvious reasons. There's a huge subculture of Iraqi's who are offended by our being over there stomping on them and their friends. What other rule of the playground did you not learn in 3rd grade, anyway? This is not intellectual debate this is murder upon murder upon murder, strung together with feeble excuses and false morals. It just never helps to stomp on people, particularly not simply because they despise you and would seek to do you harm in direct response to your own uncontrollable urge to do so to them. Have you not noticed that the fire storm that we set off in Iraq has everyone in Iraq defending their sacred honor, and that we as prime movers in it are the only ones who have no standing in that land to do so ourselves? We, for whatever reason, went over there and made a mess and our job as outsiders inserting ourselves in another land is to be a healer, but what we've chosen to do is little more than run around finding people to torture. It's the wrong method. I don't mean to be argumentative, really, just thought if you had not heard these questions it might be worth the reality check to ask. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Goekler Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:23 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. Well, lots of absolutes there, Phil. Let me just pick up on a couple. First, don't most ideologues (and that would be all of us in some context or other, wouldn't it?) speak with the 'clarity of one's own understanding' of things? Economist, anarchist, Christian, Muslim, phrenologist, eugenicist, intelligent design aficionado. . . (Dang, I wish that last term hadn't been co-opted.) What does that have to do with any kind of objective 'truth'? Unless, as I suggested in my earlier post, 'truth' is simply whatever matches up to the pattern seeking heuristics of the culture / creature that claims it. We could perhaps also flip it, and frame it in terms of an identity group or possibly even the organizing principles of a CAS ? or more properly, a CASS, a Complex Adaptive Social System, since I don't think 'natural' (non-human) systems really worry much about such things. So, again, I would suggest that 'truth' is an emergent property of the culture / system that births (or, one might say, 'fabricates') it. First example that springs to mind here is, 'We hold these truths to be self evident. . . ' In that case, the answer to 'Whose truth, which truth?' is simply, 'Ours'. Whatever random belief / operating system / imaginary being that might encompass. It's self-validating without any objective reference points. (And it's better than yours, so there!) > Anyone who observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq developed can't possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous culture , however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is meeting widespread vigorous rejection. Oh, gosh. I could. A few points here ? One, I think you vastly oversimplify the 'insurgency'. (As do the bushistas.) It's hardly homogeneous, nor even indigenous. It embraces, and at times has been driven by the actions of, a significant number of salafists from beyond the borders of Iraq. Saudis, Algerians, Syrians, Jordanians (remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 'face' of the insurgency and his Egyptian successor?), Afghanis, Pakistanis, Chechens . . . It also includes the Saddam Fedayeen (who were planning for this and laying in logistics well before the invasion, which kind of kills the entirely organic theory), various tribal / ideological entities trying to get ahead or get even, bored young men with no other vision of a future, and no small amount of enterprising gangs, kidnapper / extortionists and other random criminals. I certainly do agree that we're using the wrong tools for the wrong purposes. We're fighting an emergent fourth and fifth generation war using an awkward blend of third and fourth generation strategies and tactics. 4/5GW for a state actor is essentially armed social work, or armed propaganda. Since you can't fight ideas with firepower, increasing the number of air strikes five-fold is more than a bit counterintuitive. (But we must! How else can we justify our absurd defense budget and investing in big, spendy, redundant and largely useless weapon systems?) But 'disgracing the ideals of democracy'? Well . . . Let me suggest that 'democracy' is another 'truth' or 'perceived common good' that has emerged from the collective narrative ? something we tell ourselves to justify our actions. Or were you thinking of the good old days in Athens, when the slaves carried the patricians down to the Agora for a little civilized debate? (Often over whom to invade next, if I remember my history.) > I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service outline, <http://www.synapse9.com/hds.htm> www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. Well . . . is 'perception' not just another word for 'my truth'? (Or worldview, mental model or paradigm?) Ummm . . . interesting page. A little predictive for a simple country complexity head. (Or perhaps it's just the altitude here in Santa Fe.) In 'truth', I've kind of given up on 'systems engineering'. That damn nonlinearity thing keeps screwing up my best laid plans. I'm also kind of unclear on how you use a 'rigorous exploratory technique for seeing things coming' in a CASS. Doesn't shi(f)t sometimes just happen? Are there really no Black Swans? Can we simply reduce them to ugly ducklings? > 'You just trace the continuities . . .' It's actually the discontinuities I find more interesting. What if they are really the orderly manifestation of some fractal pattern or algorithm we haven't yet perceived? What if all the fun stuff is going on at the edges? What if entropy is irrelevant in scale free networks? What if Elvis has not left the building? OK, I'm ranting. No more caffeine and pastries at Cloud Cliff on Sunday mornings before opening FRIAM mail. Please recycle these electrons. jdg On 7/14/07, phil henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: I don't think the issue is how to know what the 'truth' is, but whether one speaks with the clarity of one's own understanding of things. Whatever anyone else says, I want to hear what people genuinely believe they understand, not some miss mash of compromises intended to make them appear to be 'considerate' or 'balanced' or whatever. Anyone who observes the process by which the 'insurgency' in Iraq developed can't possibly conclude it was not an organic response of the indigenous culture, however counter productive it may appear to us, or deny that literally everyone in Iraq is valiantly defending their own sacred honor, and that the imposition of our culture on their way of life is meeting widespread vigorous rejection. It's unequivocal that we are using entirely the wrong tools for entirely the wrong purposes, totally disgracing the ideals of democracy, and that lots and lots of people see this clearly and are not speaking their own clear understanding of it. I perhaps speak with more conviction of my own perceptions about these complex natural system (cultural) events because I have a very helpful rigorous method of observing the development of events in such things to see what's coming and where it came from. I highly recommend it. You just trace the continuities and it tells you oceans of things. The best starting point I can offer at the present my consulting service outline, www.synapse9.com/hds.htm If you want to know what's happening with complex natural systems all you need to do is learn how to watch. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of steve smith > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:55 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ants and Bees, Oh My. > > > > On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:32 AM, John Goekler wrote: > > > While I don't disagree with the broad assessments of the Iraq fiasco > > presented here, I think we have to very careful about valuing 'our' > > truth more highly than 'their' truth. > > > > There is, after all, a universe for every physicist. > > > > Is it not possible that 'truth' is no more than an emergent property > > of the CAS we might call the observer? (Or the 'reporting > party' as > > they say in the police logs.) > This is a very interesting thread... considering "truth" to be an > emergent property... it seems compelling on first blush. > > One of the important features of CAS would seem to be that it > inherently studies subjective phenomena. Not subjective in > the sense > that every observer can see something different, so much as > subjective > in the sense of highly contextual up to and including the observer. > > > Or as they say in the spook biz, 'Whose truth? Which truth?' > This kind of relativism (especially in the spook business) is really > awkward "spiritually" but I do look to CAS, etc. to help provide a > more scientific handle on epistimological considerations of complex > systems. > > > As for the Iraq war, I know plenty who are pro-war, both on principle > and in practice with this war. They are either hawkish in their > nature or overly pragmatic (in my opinion). I personally > have no use > for this war (or any systematic act of violence) and find most of the > rhetoric and value systems around it extremely questionable... but > most of my anti-war friends are not much help either... they make up > their own lies about the lies and then believe *those* lies > are better > than the ones they are fighting (they are only better for me > in that I > am sympathetic with their spirit). > > Lies and Truths are "duals" but not opposites, not symmetric. > I wonder > what your (collective and individual) take on what Lies are in CAS as > compared to Truths. > > > ============================================================ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/7154a939/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |