Few of you ...
Locked
1234
1234
 
|
Steve writes:
< There may be psychochemical dynamical systems inside her body involved in maintaining "sight of you" and there likely *were* complex feedback loops in the intentional breeding of her ancestors as well as the natural selection environments that lead her first ancestor (whatever that is) to be chosen as "good stock to start a herding breed from". > I thought we were talking about the cause of chanting and this sort of thing. I claim it is tendency to seek out similar people and that the affinity has essentially been bred-into some populations. It isn't a conscious decision or something that needs short-horizon dynamics. It just works out that they show up with people of the same color, economic, or religious background and start chanting about people that are not like them. Explainable with near-zero intelligence agents. The "near" part being that it takes some negotiation to make up the similarity function, if ready-made ones like ethnicity are not evident. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve,
As a good friend, I would like to gently chide you for the implicit assumption that a the assignment of any behavioral automism to a particular physiological cause makes it more plausible as an automism. It is what it is however it comes to be, isn't it? Could it not have been imprinted in the few minutes after the puppies first opened their eyes and later transferred from Mom to owner as part of a normal developmental process? Either way, it now is a behavioral automism, and like all behavior is the result of a physiological machine operating in a physical environment. Nick Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ... I appreciate the point: It's not the result of a dynamical system that occurs has occurred on the timescale of her life. There may be psychochemical dynamical systems inside her body involved in maintaining "sight of you" and there likely *were* complex feedback loops in the intentional breeding of her ancestors as well as the natural selection environments that lead her first ancestor (whatever that is) to be chosen as "good stock to start a herding breed from". On 1/16/19 4:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I think of the "experience being with other people" as sort of like how my herding dog follows me from room to room. There's a knob in her head that is set to keep a visual distance with her people. It's what she expects and it comes from her breed. It's not the result of a dynamical system that occurs has occurred on the timescale of her life. It is a reductionist/thin/flat explanation for the dog and the basketball player and the choir singer. > > On 1/16/19, 3:56 PM, "uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > That's fine. But it doesn't directly address the point. Is experience-being-with-other-people really an "attractor" in the sense we usually use that term? I don't think so. I think the normal (complexity fanboi) sense of "attractor" is at least somewhat reductionist/thin/flat and not commensurate with phrases like "experience being with other people". > > If we simply decided these things are not attractors, then I think my problem dissolves. > > On 1/16/19 2:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Some people participate in intramural sports or sing in a choir. Such participation isn't about being the best at the sport, or aspiring to be the most talented musician. As far as I can tell, they just like performing with other people. It is about experience and participation. It is an excuse to get together. It is about being around people they recognize as similar to them. (I feel like Commander Data observing the behavior of humans here..) > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus -
Ok... I think I did tangent on your point about your dog (as I sit with two very different dogs at my feet, neither of which have herding instincts but each with very acute instincts of their own (1 purebred Akita and doberman mix). My own experience with mob-behaviour is that there is something about *my* behaviour/instincts/breeding that has me avoiding mob behaviour. I get very uncomfortable even at a sporting event which to me looks like two acute mobs (teams) backed up by two larger, looser mobs (fans), even when the general mood is festive. My own daughter's pre-teen soccer experiences weren't too bad, but by the time they reached high-school and were playing volleyball, I could hardly stand to be among the other parents roaring for their daughter/team and haranguing the ref and impugning players on the other team. Mind you, this was Los Alamos, where the likelihood of food or punches thrown was very low and the language, while inflammatory was never name-calling or cursing. I've wondered if I am *more* prone to entrainment in these situations which is why I get so uncomfortable. There is also a contrarian/underdog current for me that has ME wanting to interfere with my "own side's" vitriol. When I was young and likely to be in bars where there WERE bar-fights on an occasional basis, I was the one likely patron to step between the pugilists if management wasn't on the spot, always facing the more belligerent of the two. I have always found it hard to be around other people's belligerence without feeling belligerent toward the source myself. This is probably just a minor tweak on the instincts that (also) turn a barfight between two drunk losers into a brawl among dozens. It never turned out badly but I grew out of wanting to be amongst that kind of energy by the time I was in my 30s. My older daughter was active in the 2004 MoveOn actions in Albuquerque and was upset a the Police behaviour which was obviously designed to try to quash any street violence before it started and she naturally felt as if they were making the street violence more likely by coming out in riot-gear before any of the protesters had thrown a rock. I tended to agree with her on that belief, yet at the same time she acknowledged that her organization (local MoveOn) seemed to attract hotheads who wouldn't be happy in the streets until there *was* a physical confrontation with police. She acknowledged that THAT made her very uncomfortable at every rally when she couldn't be sure when one of those characters would arrive and throw the first bottle or directly threaten the Police (or any counter-protestor). At first she wanted to claim these were "plants" by the police set there do discredit her movement, but eventually she acknowledged that while there probably were a *few* of those, the bulk of the offenders were home-grown in the organization. Sadly (I guess) it burned her out pretty bad about political action. As she approaches 40 (and is a parent) her views on movements like Occupy have become almost conservative... seeking order over change I suppose. - Steve On 1/16/19 4:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Steve writes: > > < There may be psychochemical dynamical systems inside her body involved > in maintaining "sight of you" and there likely *were* complex feedback > loops in the intentional breeding of her ancestors as well as the > natural selection environments that lead her first ancestor (whatever > that is) to be chosen as "good stock to start a herding breed from". > > > I thought we were talking about the cause of chanting and this sort of thing. > I claim it is tendency to seek out similar people and that the affinity has essentially been bred-into some populations. > It isn't a conscious decision or something that needs short-horizon dynamics. It just works out that they show up with people of the same color, economic, or religious background and start chanting about people that are not like them. Explainable with near-zero intelligence agents. The "near" part being that it takes some negotiation to make up the similarity function, if ready-made ones like ethnicity are not evident. > > Marcus > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Steve writes:
< My own experience with mob-behaviour is that there is something about *my* behaviour/instincts/breeding that has me avoiding mob behaviour. > When it was a matter of survival to have a pack for food and defense, it is not hard to see how a preference for membership in pack would be bred-in. But there could also be a niche for individuals that bridged multiple groups, like traders. Part of being able to bridge groups is not getting too involved in the pathologies of any one of them. Standoffishness could have an evolutionary benefit as well, or there could be a predisposition for learning that would give an evolutionary advantage to those that modulated the tendency to be a joiner. In generations past, the crazy parents yelling at coaches and refs could have been warriors and even dominant in some tribes. I think of the reactionary voters as being kind like that -- the big fish in the little pond. Their crude impulses worked in an environment with little risk, but at some point they become targets for the bigger alpha dog. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick -
I can acknowledge your point "it is what it is", but still hold that there is a reason there is a never ending nature/nurture debate. Regarding dogs (and other domesticated animals), I don't think it is an illusion that "breeding matters" in behaviour and temperament as much as it does in physical characteristics. The distinction between "learned" and "instinctual" behaviours in this context, as a practical matter, seems to be how malleable the behaviours are. While a "hot blooded" horse *can be* made to be manageable by a trained rider/handler, there are bloodlines/breeds which need only the lightest amount of conditioning/training to become good companion/trail horses. My Akita is unusual in some ways for his breed but will always and forever show an aloofness found only in cats otherwise among housepets. My doberman mix came from the shelter at 6 mos and was indistinguishable from a chocolate lab in every way (and was in fact labeled such by the shelter). As she grew, her legs and nose got longer and longer until we could no longer recognize much if any lab in her. We puzzled over her appearance but also her temperament. As a puppy she was full of boundless energy and Labs are generally thought to be slow maturers, continuing to be a bit puppy-like for the longest time. She fit that description, but rather than transforming her wild friendliness into an energetic/curious friendliness, she transformed it into a much more territorial/aggressive full-grown dog than i've every experienced. Among the many dogs I've had in my life, I've never had one as A) subservient to me; nor B) as aggressive toward strangers. Early on she began to exhibit a "love of heights" which indoors exhibited as a desire to spring to the top of a couch-back (at 50 lbs) and outdoors as a desire to climb the trunks of partly downed trees. This was reminiscent of the famed catahoula hound but she had none of that appearance. She also developed a habit of barking three times, turning in a circle, barking three times, turning in a circle, etc. when excited. Soon after i noticed there was a traditional doberman guard-dog in a yard in Santa Fe near 2nd street which exhibited exactly the same friendly/aggressive move. It was not until someone dumped an older full-grown doberman on our property (uncut ears/tail) and I took a picture of the two sitting side-by side, that i realized my "chocolate lab" had the precise profile of a doberman. Soon after, I saw a red-doberman in the back of a truck and realized mine was the spitting image of this one excepting she didn't have the lighter-colorations of a full red-dobey and her coat was one shade browner than the reds. I'm probably missing your point as an opportunity to compulsively reel out "yet another" anecdote. Re-reading your note, I guess I can just say "sure", some of these things can be nurture as easily as nature and for many practical purposes it doesn't matter. Perhaps the only difference, using your language is that the resulting "behavioural automism" would seem to be more fragile when the result of nurture. I doubt that my dobey-mix was taught the spin-bark or the hyper (by my standards) aggressiveness by her mother (or others in her pack) since those behaviours didn't present for well over a year after we got her... they seemed to come on with her adolescent maturity. - Steve On 1/16/19 6:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Steve, > > As a good friend, I would like to gently chide you for the implicit assumption that a the assignment of any behavioral automism to a particular physiological cause makes it more plausible as an automism. It is what it is however it comes to be, isn't it? Could it not have been imprinted in the few minutes after the puppies first opened their eyes and later transferred from Mom to owner as part of a normal developmental process? Either way, it now is a behavioral automism, and like all behavior is the result of a physiological machine operating in a physical environment. > > Nick > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Few of you ... > > I appreciate the point: > > It's not the result of a dynamical system that occurs has occurred on the timescale of her life. > > There may be psychochemical dynamical systems inside her body involved in maintaining "sight of you" and there likely *were* complex feedback loops in the intentional breeding of her ancestors as well as the natural selection environments that lead her first ancestor (whatever that is) to be chosen as "good stock to start a herding breed from". > > > On 1/16/19 4:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I think of the "experience being with other people" as sort of like how my herding dog follows me from room to room. There's a knob in her head that is set to keep a visual distance with her people. It's what she expects and it comes from her breed. It's not the result of a dynamical system that occurs has occurred on the timescale of her life. It is a reductionist/thin/flat explanation for the dog and the basketball player and the choir singer. >> >> On 1/16/19, 3:56 PM, "uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> That's fine. But it doesn't directly address the point. Is experience-being-with-other-people really an "attractor" in the sense we usually use that term? I don't think so. I think the normal (complexity fanboi) sense of "attractor" is at least somewhat reductionist/thin/flat and not commensurate with phrases like "experience being with other people". >> >> If we simply decided these things are not attractors, then I think my problem dissolves. >> >> On 1/16/19 2:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> > Some people participate in intramural sports or sing in a choir. Such participation isn't about being the best at the sport, or aspiring to be the most talented musician. As far as I can tell, they just like performing with other people. It is about experience and participation. It is an excuse to get together. It is about being around people they recognize as similar to them. (I feel like Commander Data observing the behavior of humans here..) >> >> >> -- >> ☣ uǝlƃ >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe >> at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"Roles, topics, and attractors" = Culture.
For me, Steven's comments and the conversation that ensued, pretty much explain the kind of "analysis" and "explanation" found in Cultural Anthropology 101.
"Attractors," again from my perspective, would be cross-cultural 'patterns'. Examples of these patterns would be the three forms of reciprocity (generalized, balanced, and negative - with markets being a sub-type of either balanced [very rare] or negative); or marriage (polygyny [70+% of cultures], serial monogamy [29.9% of cultures], and polyandry [less than a dozen cultures].
I see a kind of simplicity here that may or may not be consistent with the heavy thinking evident in the discussion.
davew
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 1:13 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
"Automism" is a funky word. But if it means something like knee-jerk reaction, then I get it. The important question you ask evaluates negative, though. No, nothing "is what it is however it comes to be." This is an instance of the logical abstraction layer I've been mentioning (that has no traction, apparently). To violently slice a thing out of its context and then assume that thing has some existence, reality, effect, etc. separate from its history, is just plain wrong. At the very least, the speed with which the "automism" was programmed in, the extent to which it's tethered/bound to things outside it, and the speed with which it could be deprogrammed are all violated by the slicing out.
So, one of our cats died on Wednesday. She went in for exploratory surgery to investigate a mass that was preventing food from moving from her stomach to her intestines. It was a pyloric adenoma the surgeon saw no good way to fix. So we killed her. The important question is: To what extent did we destroy any happiness, good will, comfort, etc. by putting her through a 2 week process of changing her diet, forcing barium down her throat, poking her for blood draws, etc? She was a super happy cat for ~5 years. But her life ended in terror and pain (despite the relatively humane way we did things compared to what it could have been). If, paraphrasing, she is what she is however she came to be, then she was a terrified and suffering animal and the 5 preceding years were entirely washed away by the 2 week ending. On 1/16/19 5:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > As a good friend, I would like to gently chide you for the implicit assumption that a the assignment of any behavioral automism to a particular physiological cause makes it more plausible as an automism. It is what it is however it comes to be, isn't it? Could it not have been imprinted in the few minutes after the puppies first opened their eyes and later transferred from Mom to owner as part of a normal developmental process? Either way, it now is a behavioral automism, and like all behavior is the result of a physiological machine operating in a physical environment. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< So, one of our cats died on Wednesday. She went in for exploratory surgery to investigate a mass that was preventing food from moving from her stomach to her intestines. It was a pyloric adenoma the surgeon saw no good way to fix. So we killed her. The important question is: To what extent did we destroy any happiness, good will, comfort, etc. by putting her through a 2 week process of changing her diet, forcing barium down her throat, poking her for blood draws, etc? She was a super happy cat for ~5 years. But her life ended in terror and pain (despite the relatively humane way we did things compared to what it could have been). > I have a different view of going to extreme means to help a pet than I once did. It is easy to look back in hindsight with diagnostic knowledge that was hard to come by and say it could/should have gone another way. It's harder for a young animal that might get back to normal and be happy again. I had a 13 year old dog once that did recover for about six months but then sure enough the cancer came back even worse, along with other degenerative processes that made her life hard. I should have thought more about the average lifetime for that breed and the severity of her condition and let her go earlier, but the diagnosis had come as a surprise. I don't know about cats, but dogs I think recognize what is happening. This discussion of humans is also interesting. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/how-do-people-communicate-before-death/580303/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Well, hearkening back to our discussion about cross-species "mind reading", I do know Amy knew *something* was happening. Around the turn of the new year, she started puking up all her solid food (because it couldn't get past the adenoma). For the 1st 2 days, having had cats for my entire life and Renee's adult life, we thought: Cat's puke sometimes. But it was so violent and a complete disgorging that we took her in and started the diagnostic process.
During this time, Amy *learned* not to eat solid food, seemingly all on her own. We offered a lot of wet food and she simply licked the gravy out. So, that tells me she knows something's up and is trying to compensate. And, of course, she hates going to the doctor (so say we all) and hides when she hears the carrier rattle. But, that's the extent of my confidence in what she does or doesn't know. I can't say she recognizes *what* is happening, only that something bad is happening. I can say much the same thing about my fellow cancer patients. Sitting in the infusion chair for 8 hours once a month for 2.5 years gives you a lot of time to get to know your fellow patients. They mostly had *zero* idea *what* was happening, despite the doctor's best efforts. Hell, the nurses didn't even know what was happening most of the time. They only know their protocol. My oncologist got very tired of me asking questions and my persnickety "logging" of what was happening to me. I can fit what I know about follicular lymphoma and my treatment (bendamustine and obinutuzumab) in perhaps a 2 page document. But I still knew WAY more about what was happening than my fellow patients knew about their conditions. The point being my guess is that one's comfort with sickness, dying, treatment, healing, etc. have little to nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence. There's some other dimension at play. On 1/18/19 9:51 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I don't know about cats, but dogs I think recognize what is happening. This discussion of humans is also interesting. > > https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/how-do-people-communicate-before-death/580303/ -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< I can say much the same thing about my fellow cancer patients. Sitting in the infusion chair for 8 hours once a month for 2.5 years gives you a lot of time to get to know your fellow patients. They mostly had *zero* idea *what* was happening, despite the doctor's best efforts. Hell, the nurses didn't even know what was happening most of the time. They only know their protocol. > I haven't spent much time at an infusion center. The one I have visited has two chairs per room. And at some point during a long infusion, there will be two or three other patients that have shorter infusions. It was surprising to me how so many people seem to be on autopilot. Even if they sort of look distraught, when they chat they don't reflect in any sort of analytical or reflective way about what they perceive is going on or what will happen next. Especially mind-blowing to me when the infusion bag they are receiving is worth > $10k. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yep. Not as mind-blowing, but absolutely OUTRAGEOUS was the fact that none of them knew how much *work* went into the creation of that mysterious fluid. Whenever I saw it, I thought of the untold number of bench scientists who worked on it and its predecessors, as well as all the animals we sacrificed to make and test it. This sort of *infrastructure* was inconceivable to my fellow patients. You're right. They'd rather talk about their roast beef sandwich than the miracle of socialism being pumped into their veins.
But, that does nicely target the topic of the thread. I purposely switched your "recognize" with "know" in order to evoke the violent slicing out of (prematurely) registered _things_. This predatory ontologizing we always, seemingly must, engage in has done more damage to our ability to understand the world than anything else. Because my fellow patients were mostly very old, they had experience with the white lab coat telling them things they didn't understand and kindly attendants (nurses) guiding them through the ever-more-familiar protocols. So, had Amy been to the vet more than a handful of times, then there's reason to believe she would recognize a sickness-treatment-health process. But there's no way she could recognize the dying process. Perhaps those who have died and been resuscitated might. Is this an explanation for self-asphyxiation? Affinity for high doses of psychedelics? Or any psychotropic including opium? ... to gain familiarity with death? On 1/18/19 10:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I haven't spent much time at an infusion center. The one I have visited has two chairs per room. And at some point during a long infusion, there will be two or three other patients that have shorter infusions. It was surprising to me how so many people seem to be on autopilot. Even if they sort of look distraught, when they chat they don't reflect in any sort of analytical or reflective way about what they perceive is going on or what will happen next. Especially mind-blowing to me when the infusion bag they are receiving is worth > $10k. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< So, had Amy been to the vet more than a handful of times, then there's reason to believe she would recognize a sickness-treatment-health process. But there's no way she could recognize the dying process. > I suppose I am defining the dying process in an ordinary, practical way: The trend of one day being less-than or more miserable-than the previous day, and where attempts at fixing that fail. Maxy liked going to the vet. She was prone to getting into to trouble and had her share of injuries. Going to the vet was more people to see and (I think) meant to her an expected relief from pain. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Heh, I'm imagining the logic where injuries result in more (good) social interaction ... like the way we felt about soccer as a kid. But I take issue with your words "ordinary, practical". I hurt myself a lot in various different ways. And I think anyone who does so, has a practical understanding that there are a huge number of types of degradation-regeneration processes. E.g. the difference between tennis elbow versus a broken bone, or a concussion versus sun stroke. None of these translate to dying.
My guess is the only people who have ordinary, practical understandings of the dying process are (critical care) nurses, hospice workers, etc. who see it often. And even though they aren't dying, our (intra-species) "mind reading" might give them enough to work on. So, this is yet another case where subjective awareness is just plain broken and the perspective from outside is more ordinary and practical. Yet another reason why Wouk is wrong about the Navy. On 1/18/19 11:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I suppose I am defining the dying process in an ordinary, practical way: The trend of one day being less-than or more miserable-than the previous day, and where attempts at fixing that fail. Maxy liked going to the vet. She was prone to getting into to trouble and had her share of injuries. Going to the vet was more people to see and (I think) meant to her an expected relief from pain. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< My guess is the only people who have ordinary, practical understandings of the dying process are (critical care) nurses, hospice workers, etc. who see it often. And even though they aren't dying, our (intra-species) "mind reading" might give them enough to work on. > The subjective can certainly be illusory, such as with suicidal ideation. I am not claiming that dogs become suicidal, but they do shift their habits around. Getting read for a daily activity, but then not engaging in it. Not socializing with people or other dogs, withdrawing. Finally, not eating. It's not just instantaneous. The habits fade over time. I have another dog that was trending down, but now he takes thyroid pills and he's fine. A person could say "I'm sad", and don't really have any more reason to believe them than I do by comparing their behavior to a dog's. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
"Automism" is a funky word. But if it means something like knee-jerk reaction, then I get it. The important question you ask evaluates negative, though. No, nothing "is what it is however it comes to be." This is an instance of the logical abstraction layer I've been mentioning (that has no traction, apparently). To violently slice a thing out of its context and then assume that thing has some existence, reality, effect, etc. separate from its history, is just plain wrong. At the very least, the speed with which the "automism" was programmed in, the extent to which it's tethered/bound to things outside it, and the speed with which it could be deprogrammed are all violated by the slicing out. I haven't stayed on top of the thread(s) closely of late to know
precisely what you refer regarding logical abstraction layers, but
in this context, I'll bite quite happily. I don't know if "Automism" is a reserved term in Nick's Lexicon, it seems to be. I'm also wondering Nick, if you might have meant "Automatism" (Psychology: the performance of an act or actions without the performer's awareness or conscious volition.) That said, I think the point of
your (Glen) abstraction layers is the kind of abstraction
scaffolding that happens with every bit of exaptation? A
structure (or autonomic process/behavior) emerges as a response
(adaptation) to some particular evolutionary pressure/condition
which in turn becomes highly useful in solving a challenge
unrelated to the original? The *robustness* of the
structure/process that made it useful/useable in the first place
is a key to it's fitness in the second (exapted) case.
Two (possibly disproven/lame)
examples: A proto-sea-mammal develops a thick layer of blubber
to obtain neutral bouyancy, but ends up being able to expand
territory to more northerly seas due to the insulative
effects. A proto-herd-dog develops an obsessive behaviour of
trailing it's human closely to avoid missing any opportunity to
scavenge foodscraps but then is much more prepared to be
imprinted on keeping close track a herd of livestock.
The classic example in biology
might be the self-organization of phospholipids into bilayer
sheets, vesicles, micelles and supermicelle structures. If
protolife researchers (e.g. Packard and Rasmussen) use some more
directed technique for building a vesicle for drug-delivery,
will it not nevertheless function enough like an "empty" vesicle
created by statistical self-organization?
I *think* this is roughly what
Nick is referring to about with "it is what it is"... this
qualitative chunking, this level of abstraction being robust
enough to be useful, not "just" a trick of semantics? I'll try
to respond to your "Premature Ontologizing" separately, but they
are entertwined?
I know I'm flailing a bit
here... but I'm trying to find some traction on at least your
(Glen) and Nick's terminology to either connect it or co-align
it or reject it as appropriate.
- Steve
So, one of our cats died on Wednesday. She went in for exploratory surgery to investigate a mass that was preventing food from moving from her stomach to her intestines. It was a pyloric adenoma the surgeon saw no good way to fix. So we killed her. The important question is: To what extent did we destroy any happiness, good will, comfort, etc. by putting her through a 2 week process of changing her diet, forcing barium down her throat, poking her for blood draws, etc? She was a super happy cat for ~5 years. But her life ended in terror and pain (despite the relatively humane way we did things compared to what it could have been). If, paraphrasing, she is what she is however she came to be, then she was a terrified and suffering animal and the 5 preceding years were entirely washed away by the 2 week ending. On 1/16/19 5:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:As a good friend, I would like to gently chide you for the implicit assumption that a the assignment of any behavioral automism to a particular physiological cause makes it more plausible as an automism. It is what it is however it comes to be, isn't it? Could it not have been imprinted in the few minutes after the puppies first opened their eyes and later transferred from Mom to owner as part of a normal developmental process? Either way, it now is a behavioral automism, and like all behavior is the result of a physiological machine operating in a physical environment. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Right. But that was my original point.You can't distinguish the early parts of a remedial sickness from a dying process. And, with cats at least, many things, like struvite crystals in males, if you don't intervene they withdraw and die ... i.e. dying versus merely getting sick are not isolable based on their final state. The idea I was complaining about is the isolation of a thing now from its historical development. Such separation can't really be done.
On January 18, 2019 11:42:16 AM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: >The subjective can certainly be illusory, such as with suicidal >ideation. I am not claiming that dogs become suicidal, but they do >shift their habits around. Getting read for a daily activity, but >then not engaging in it. Not socializing with people or other dogs, >withdrawing. Finally, not eating. It's not just instantaneous. >The habits fade over time. I have another dog that was trending >down, but now he takes thyroid pills and he's fine. A person could >say "I'm sad", and don't really have any more reason to believe them >than I do by comparing their behavior to a dog's. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
OK. But the conception you're using requires a notion of function/purpose/telos, where the original context was 'what it's for' and the new context is a reuse. And as long as you allow that sort of dualism, then fine. But if you admit that the equivalence classes assumed by reusability are fragile to the memoried historicity and fine-grained structure of the reused thing, then the illusion shatters. Things always reduce to dynamically stable pockets of foam, artificially promoted to objects.
FWIW, I have this argument on a regular basis professionally. We just call it "replacability". A good enough simulation or analog is judged good enough by cross-model validation. And the validation criteria MUST be externally sourced. I think the strongest argument you (or Nick) might have comes from neutral networks and the gen-phen duality. In such we have not only robustness but also polyphenism. Although that conception (with which all complexity fans are familiar), I would claim it doesn't actually work. The map is never perfectly robust nor perfectly polyphenic. Different generators always show different phenomena if you look closely enough. The equivalence class we think we've identified is a fiction, albeit useful. And, yes, my accusation of premature registration is intimately related to the psychological induction of illusory equivalence classes. You know me too well, now. 8^) On January 18, 2019 11:56:17 AM PST, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > >I haven't stayed on top of the thread(s) closely of late to know >precisely what you refer regarding logical abstraction layers, but in >this context, I'll bite quite happily. > >I don't know if "Automism" is a reserved term in Nick's Lexicon, it >seems to be. I'm also wondering Nick, if you might have meant >"Automatism" (/Psychology: //the ////performance //of an //act //or >//actions ////without ////the ////performer's ////awareness //or >//conscious ////volition./) > >That said, I think the point of your (Glen) abstraction layers is the >kind of abstraction scaffolding that happens with every bit of >exaptation? A structure (or autonomic process/behavior) emerges as a >response (adaptation) to some particular evolutionary >pressure/condition >which in turn becomes highly useful in solving a challenge unrelated to >the original? The *robustness* of the structure/process that made it >useful/useable in the first place is a key to it's fitness in the >second >(exapted) case. > >Two (possibly disproven/lame) examples: A proto-sea-mammal develops a >thick layer of blubber to obtain neutral bouyancy, but ends up being >able to expand territory to more northerly seas due to the insulative >effects. A proto-herd-dog develops an obsessive behaviour of >trailing >it's human closely to avoid missing any opportunity to scavenge >foodscraps but then is much more prepared to be imprinted on keeping >close track a herd of livestock. > >The classic example in biology might be the self-organization of >phospholipids into bilayer sheets, vesicles, micelles and supermicelle >structures. If protolife researchers (e.g. Packard and Rasmussen) use >some more directed technique for building a vesicle for drug-delivery, >will it not nevertheless function enough like an "empty" vesicle >created >by statistical self-organization? > >I *think* this is roughly what Nick is referring to about with "it is >what it is"... this qualitative chunking, this level of abstraction >being robust enough to be useful, not "just" a trick of semantics? >I'll >try to respond to your "Premature Ontologizing" separately, but they >are >entertwined? > >I know I'm flailing a bit here... but I'm trying to find some traction >on at least your (Glen) and Nick's terminology to either connect it or >co-align it or reject it as appropriate. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
So, I stumbled on this today:
The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4 Transcript here: http://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/182302598987/new-video-essay-internet-reactionaries-argue-as And my ignorance forced me to find out which "Stanislavski" they were referring to at 8:37, where they define the "Stanislavski Opinion" - "the opinion you entertain so completely that you functionally believe it, while you express it, no matter the possibility that you will express - and, to an extent, believe - an opposite opinion later." I *guess* it's this guy: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/apr/17/modern-drama-konstantin-stanislavsky Once again, FriAM has helped me reduce the cone of uncertainty in my own opinion about, say, why I think Tom Cruise is such a bad actor compared to someone like, say, Chloë Sevigny. I just don't intuit that Cruise plays the role, so much as "talks" on topic. I once (like, 20 years ago) got into a rather heated argument with a mentor about the difference between a simulation and an emulation. He was *trying*, I think, to make this same point to that younger version of myself. On 1/15/19 10:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Why do there have to be roles and not just topics? -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.
|
|
Is there an important difference between Stanislavski method acting and convincing insincerity? Similar skill set to vice cops and spies.
On 1/28/19, 10:14 AM, "Friam on behalf of ∄ uǝʃƃ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: So, I stumbled on this today: The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4 Transcript here: http://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/182302598987/new-video-essay-internet-reactionaries-argue-as And my ignorance forced me to find out which "Stanislavski" they were referring to at 8:37, where they define the "Stanislavski Opinion" - "the opinion you entertain so completely that you functionally believe it, while you express it, no matter the possibility that you will express - and, to an extent, believe - an opposite opinion later." I *guess* it's this guy: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/apr/17/modern-drama-konstantin-stanislavsky Once again, FriAM has helped me reduce the cone of uncertainty in my own opinion about, say, why I think Tom Cruise is such a bad actor compared to someone like, say, Chloë Sevigny. I just don't intuit that Cruise plays the role, so much as "talks" on topic. I once (like, 20 years ago) got into a rather heated argument with a mentor about the difference between a simulation and an emulation. He was *trying*, I think, to make this same point to that younger version of myself. On 1/15/19 10:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Why do there have to be roles and not just topics? -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I think so. It strikes me that committed actors try to authentically *be* the role, fill the role. I say this because they (in interviews and such) often use words like "bring humanity to the character" and "see the world from the character's perspective". They seem to do this *not* because they want to trick the audience (seemingly), but because they're acting like defense attorneys. Even the most horrible *person* deserves to be treated like a person.
I suspect many/most (?) LEOs are pretending to be some person in order to *stop* that person from playing that role, whatever it is. The common trope is that an undercover LEO or spy might have to commit their own small crimes/sincerities in order to focus on the larger crimes/insincerities. A method actor would, I think, want to at least simulate the entire person, with no intention of *preventing* some aspects of the person from coming through. I think we can distinguish a spy whose purpose is to do something like "regime building" versus a spy whose intent is to, say, catch a mole. A spy who wants to, say, set/prop up a particular form of government, e.g. the Saudi Prince, would be more like the method actor and less like a LEO. On 1/28/19 10:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Is there an important difference between Stanislavski method acting and convincing insincerity? Similar skill set to vice cops and spies. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |