Getting You Libertarians' Goats

[Steve Smith]

EricC -

Thanks for your thought out, coherent summary/analysis.   I think you cover the issues (as I see them) well, conflating credentials with competence or capability (while there is a correlation, sometimes it is negative, and in fact it is just a tiny subdomain within a higher dimensional space).  

My own collapse/summary of the topic is that there is a complex tension between the instincts of the individual as organism and the individual as a member of a family/community/tribe/species/nation/culture/planet...   

I have been trying to let Glen's offering of Anarcho-Syndicalism settle in my heart/brain/soul a little more before I "respond-from-the-hip".   While I don't expect this particular convolution of the above issues to be "an answer", it does sound like a useful "stalking horse" to think from (closest idiom to what I previously used "strawman" to achieve).

- SteveS

On 9/18/20 6:20 AM, Eric Charles wrote:

So.... delayed response to the original... based on the longer reviews I've seen, this is partially a criticism of meritocracy itself, but also a very strong criticism of the neo-liberal bastardization of meritocracy. As it says in the opening line of the review in the original post: The thing being criticized are "pernicious assumptions" about merit. From what I can tell, his TED talk summarizes the book well: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_tyranny_of_merit 

He starts out with some discussion of moral luck, but in my opinion not a great discussion of it. Then he moves on to criticize a world where pieces of paper are confused for ability. In such a world, those without the right pieces of paper are deemed to lack merit and are told they can't have dignity. That part is criticizing a world in which our leaders continuously message that everyone should go to college, encouraging a false belief that a getting a degree somehow magically makes you successful, and encouraging the implicit (or sometimes explicit) judgement that not getting a degree somehow a personal failure and that getting a degree and then not succeeding is an incoherent position to be in. The failure of that program of thought has been huge. It is hard to explain how many of the students I taught at Penn State Altoona had their lives made worse by getting a degree. They are working the same jobs they could have worked out of high school, but with 4 years less experience, added shame and frustration, crippling debt, and a worse relationship with parents who can't understand why having a degree hasn't made their kids successful. And you can't try to defend this by hand-waving at education being virtuous in its own right, but it won't work, because by any reasonable measure they aren't very educated either. 

Even with as right as some parts of that critique are, it is all somehow seething with the suspect rhetoric of the protestant work ethic. There is nothing inherently virtuous in being exploited for your labor (in the Marxist sense of providing profit to a capitalist), and he is somehow lumping all "work" together in a way that obscures that. 

When all is said and done, it is an interesting argument, but my Libertarian Goat is doing fine, thank you :- )

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 1:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

This should do it!

 

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/michael-j-sandel/the-tyranny-of-merit/

 

The thesis is that “meritocracy” is the cause of the fact that the us is now the least socially mobile country among the western democracies. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Thanks, Eric.  He came off better on the podcast.  Glad to be corrected.  This American Life did one of it’s quixotic treatments of systems in which leaders are chosen at random, and, of course, was quite pleased by the result.  By the way, isn’t that how the Dali Lama is  chosen? 

 

I still think we should randomize all the babies at birth, take huge amounts of money off the top and pour it in at the bottom in the form of education and flat-out income adjustment so that no child is disadvantaged by the station of his/her birth. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 6:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

So.... delayed response to the original... based on the longer reviews I've seen, this is partially a criticism of meritocracy itself, but also a very strong criticism of the neo-liberal bastardization of meritocracy. As it says in the opening line of the review in the original post: The thing being criticized are "pernicious assumptions" about merit. From what I can tell, his TED talk summarizes the book well: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_tyranny_of_merit 

 

He starts out with some discussion of moral luck, but in my opinion not a great discussion of it. Then he moves on to criticize a world where pieces of paper are confused for ability. In such a world, those without the right pieces of paper are deemed to lack merit and are told they can't have dignity. That part is criticizing a world in which our leaders continuously message that everyone should go to college, encouraging a false belief that a getting a degree somehow magically makes you successful, and encouraging the implicit (or sometimes explicit) judgement that not getting a degree somehow a personal failure and that getting a degree and then not succeeding is an incoherent position to be in. The failure of that program of thought has been huge. It is hard to explain how many of the students I taught at Penn State Altoona had their lives made worse by getting a degree. They are working the same jobs they could have worked out of high school, but with 4 years less experience, added shame and frustration, crippling debt, and a worse relationship with parents who can't understand why having a degree hasn't made their kids successful. And you can't try to defend this by hand-waving at education being virtuous in its own right, but it won't work, because by any reasonable measure they aren't very educated either. 

 

Even with as right as some parts of that critique are, it is all somehow seething with the suspect rhetoric of the protestant work ethic. There is nothing inherently virtuous in being exploited for your labor (in the Marxist sense of providing profit to a capitalist), and he is somehow lumping all "work" together in a way that obscures that. 

 

When all is said and done, it is an interesting argument, but my Libertarian Goat is doing fine, thank you :- )

 

 

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 1:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

This should do it!

 

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/michael-j-sandel/the-tyranny-of-merit/

 

The thesis is that “meritocracy” is the cause of the fact that the us is now the least socially mobile country among the western democracies. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Is this the right question?    What does a society optimize for?

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 8:32 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Thanks, Eric.  He came off better on the podcast.  Glad to be corrected.  This American Life did one of it’s quixotic treatments of systems in which leaders are chosen at random, and, of course, was quite pleased by the result.  By the way, isn’t that how the Dali Lama is  chosen? 

 

I still think we should randomize all the babies at birth, take huge amounts of money off the top and pour it in at the bottom in the form of education and flat-out income adjustment so that no child is disadvantaged by the station of his/her birth. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 6:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

So.... delayed response to the original... based on the longer reviews I've seen, this is partially a criticism of meritocracy itself, but also a very strong criticism of the neo-liberal bastardization of meritocracy. As it says in the opening line of the review in the original post: The thing being criticized are "pernicious assumptions" about merit. From what I can tell, his TED talk summarizes the book well: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_tyranny_of_merit 

 

He starts out with some discussion of moral luck, but in my opinion not a great discussion of it. Then he moves on to criticize a world where pieces of paper are confused for ability. In such a world, those without the right pieces of paper are deemed to lack merit and are told they can't have dignity. That part is criticizing a world in which our leaders continuously message that everyone should go to college, encouraging a false belief that a getting a degree somehow magically makes you successful, and encouraging the implicit (or sometimes explicit) judgement that not getting a degree somehow a personal failure and that getting a degree and then not succeeding is an incoherent position to be in. The failure of that program of thought has been huge. It is hard to explain how many of the students I taught at Penn State Altoona had their lives made worse by getting a degree. They are working the same jobs they could have worked out of high school, but with 4 years less experience, added shame and frustration, crippling debt, and a worse relationship with parents who can't understand why having a degree hasn't made their kids successful. And you can't try to defend this by hand-waving at education being virtuous in its own right, but it won't work, because by any reasonable measure they aren't very educated either. 

 

Even with as right as some parts of that critique are, it is all somehow seething with the suspect rhetoric of the protestant work ethic. There is nothing inherently virtuous in being exploited for your labor (in the Marxist sense of providing profit to a capitalist), and he is somehow lumping all "work" together in a way that obscures that. 

 

When all is said and done, it is an interesting argument, but my Libertarian Goat is doing fine, thank you :- )

 

 

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 1:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

This should do it!

 

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/michael-j-sandel/the-tyranny-of-merit/

 

The thesis is that “meritocracy” is the cause of the fact that the us is now the least socially mobile country among the western democracies. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Eric Charles-2]

Nick, while I laud your motivation, I strongly disagree with your proposed solution. The desire for a basic fairness of some sort should be kept quite different the notion of creating a flatland. We WANT a society full of people who faced a variety of different struggles. 

This is a Peirce/Dewey democracy problem. IF the rationale for a democratic system is that we make better decisions when we bringing a variety of perspectives to bear on a problem, then the push for flat-land destroys the rationale for having a democratic system. While we might easily agree that those struggles should not include a risk of literal starvation, that doesn't mean we want them all to start out with access to identical fiscal resources and identical educational opportunities. That some people have more food than others, in a system that guarantees everyone a baseline amount of food to support development, is perfectly fine. 

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:32 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Eric.  He came off better on the podcast.  Glad to be corrected.  This American Life did one of it’s quixotic treatments of systems in which leaders are chosen at random, and, of course, was quite pleased by the result.  By the way, isn’t that how the Dali Lama is  chosen? 

 

I still think we should randomize all the babies at birth, take huge amounts of money off the top and pour it in at the bottom in the form of education and flat-out income adjustment so that no child is disadvantaged by the station of his/her birth. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 6:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

So.... delayed response to the original... based on the longer reviews I've seen, this is partially a criticism of meritocracy itself, but also a very strong criticism of the neo-liberal bastardization of meritocracy. As it says in the opening line of the review in the original post: The thing being criticized are "pernicious assumptions" about merit. From what I can tell, his TED talk summarizes the book well: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_tyranny_of_merit 

 

He starts out with some discussion of moral luck, but in my opinion not a great discussion of it. Then he moves on to criticize a world where pieces of paper are confused for ability. In such a world, those without the right pieces of paper are deemed to lack merit and are told they can't have dignity. That part is criticizing a world in which our leaders continuously message that everyone should go to college, encouraging a false belief that a getting a degree somehow magically makes you successful, and encouraging the implicit (or sometimes explicit) judgement that not getting a degree somehow a personal failure and that getting a degree and then not succeeding is an incoherent position to be in. The failure of that program of thought has been huge. It is hard to explain how many of the students I taught at Penn State Altoona had their lives made worse by getting a degree. They are working the same jobs they could have worked out of high school, but with 4 years less experience, added shame and frustration, crippling debt, and a worse relationship with parents who can't understand why having a degree hasn't made their kids successful. And you can't try to defend this by hand-waving at education being virtuous in its own right, but it won't work, because by any reasonable measure they aren't very educated either. 

 

Even with as right as some parts of that critique are, it is all somehow seething with the suspect rhetoric of the protestant work ethic. There is nothing inherently virtuous in being exploited for your labor (in the Marxist sense of providing profit to a capitalist), and he is somehow lumping all "work" together in a way that obscures that. 

 

When all is said and done, it is an interesting argument, but my Libertarian Goat is doing fine, thank you :- )

 

 

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 1:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

This should do it!

 

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/michael-j-sandel/the-tyranny-of-merit/

 

The thesis is that “meritocracy” is the cause of the fact that the us is now the least socially mobile country among the western democracies. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Steve Smith]

EricS -

I think this gives a good "hint" of part of what a fully Socialized or Communal system looks like to some (e.g. Libertarians), and why they resist what others of us might see as "reasonable attempts at leveling the playing field".  

I'm definitely ambivalent in the sense of being of "two minds".   I am a creature (ego?) shaped by the struggles and challenges I have experienced... and "what didn't kill me made me stronger" or maybe more to the point, I am a product of my experiences (nod to Glen's "diachronic" vs "episodic" thoughts).  

I have only the thinnest apprehension of Glen's "Anarcho Syndicalism" (sure I've read a little, but have far from had time to think through it all)  but it has some of the positive features I look for like "structure at all scales" and "self-similarity" possibilities, explaining not only how "history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes" (Clemens) but perhaps how cultural sub-units, "bubbles" if you will also rhyme across geography/culture as well as time.   A bit of a cultural/semantic version of the "multi-verse foam" ideas in physics/cosmology.

Also the best reason I can accept for a continued-to-expand humanity... with consciousness being not unlike the big-bang, expanding (in quality) right up to our current era where the likes of Musk and several nation-states are aspiring to begin to colonize the inner system (at least moon/mars) in our (their?) lifetimes.

- SteveS

Nick, while I laud your motivation, I strongly disagree with your proposed solution. The desire for a basic fairness of some sort should be kept quite different the notion of creating a flatland. We WANT a society full of people who faced a variety of different struggles. 

This is a Peirce/Dewey democracy problem. IF the rationale for a democratic system is that we make better decisions when we bringing a variety of perspectives to bear on a problem, then the push for flat-land destroys the rationale for having a democratic system. While we might easily agree that those struggles should not include a risk of literal starvation, that doesn't mean we want them all to start out with access to identical fiscal resources and identical educational opportunities. That some people have more food than others, in a system that guarantees everyone a baseline amount of food to support development, is perfectly fine. 

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:32 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Eric.  He came off better on the podcast.  Glad to be corrected.  This American Life did one of it’s quixotic treatments of systems in which leaders are chosen at random, and, of course, was quite pleased by the result.  By the way, isn’t that how the Dali Lama is  chosen? 

 

I still think we should randomize all the babies at birth, take huge amounts of money off the top and pour it in at the bottom in the form of education and flat-out income adjustment so that no child is disadvantaged by the station of his/her birth. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 6:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

So.... delayed response to the original... based on the longer reviews I've seen, this is partially a criticism of meritocracy itself, but also a very strong criticism of the neo-liberal bastardization of meritocracy. As it says in the opening line of the review in the original post: The thing being criticized are "pernicious assumptions" about merit. From what I can tell, his TED talk summarizes the book well: https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_tyranny_of_merit 

 

He starts out with some discussion of moral luck, but in my opinion not a great discussion of it. Then he moves on to criticize a world where pieces of paper are confused for ability. In such a world, those without the right pieces of paper are deemed to lack merit and are told they can't have dignity. That part is criticizing a world in which our leaders continuously message that everyone should go to college, encouraging a false belief that a getting a degree somehow magically makes you successful, and encouraging the implicit (or sometimes explicit) judgement that not getting a degree somehow a personal failure and that getting a degree and then not succeeding is an incoherent position to be in. The failure of that program of thought has been huge. It is hard to explain how many of the students I taught at Penn State Altoona had their lives made worse by getting a degree. They are working the same jobs they could have worked out of high school, but with 4 years less experience, added shame and frustration, crippling debt, and a worse relationship with parents who can't understand why having a degree hasn't made their kids successful. And you can't try to defend this by hand-waving at education being virtuous in its own right, but it won't work, because by any reasonable measure they aren't very educated either. 

 

Even with as right as some parts of that critique are, it is all somehow seething with the suspect rhetoric of the protestant work ethic. There is nothing inherently virtuous in being exploited for your labor (in the Marxist sense of providing profit to a capitalist), and he is somehow lumping all "work" together in a way that obscures that. 

 

When all is said and done, it is an interesting argument, but my Libertarian Goat is doing fine, thank you :- )

 

 

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 1:28 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

This should do it!

 

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/michael-j-sandel/the-tyranny-of-merit/

 

The thesis is that “meritocracy” is the cause of the fact that the us is now the least socially mobile country among the western democracies. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

I would go with this so long as we agree it's bidirectional.  I learn who I am from watching you and you learn who you are from watching me and we both learn who we are by watching them.  

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 7:17 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

I'd argue that, as long as there's common structure between the agents building and using the control layer models, then there will be shared concepts in and of those models. And it's not *only* the Libertarian who claims there's shared structure between the builders/users. As I've tried to *ask* w.r.t. to inter-species mind-reading, don't most complex animals "assume" some shared structure, not only between them and their kin, but between them and their predators/prey and symbiotic species? And if your dog does it, then it's likely Capitalists and Socialists also do it.

Of course, the extent to, and rate at, which such shared structures change through time is the gist of this conversation.

On 9/14/20 8:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable.  


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Frank Wimberly-2]

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Scratching oneself?  I'm not trying to be a pain.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:32 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

The bite causes the irritation causes the itch causes the slap causes the removal of the mosquito.   And the slap causes the mosquito to be gone and relieves the irritation.  So that is definitely downward causation.  But this is all in the context of a complex organization that has already been assembled and “designed” for self maintenance.  To it begs the question I was [ineptly] trying to ask.  How do such control systems get assembled in the first place if NOT through the mediation of group selection?

 

N

 

 

I suppose that the local irritation causes the itch is upward causation, that “itch” is a state of the whole. 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Scratching oneself?  I'm not trying to be a pain.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:32 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[gepr]

Well, the point I was making is that the physics Marcus is claiming must be exercised/computed *without* shared structure will *usually* result in shared structure. I.e. it'll be a rare thing for any component to be completely alien to another component.

Now, "recognition" of any extant common structure is a 2nd order structure. So any 1st order variation/error between the 2 (multi-order) structures may well compound and produce larger variation/error in that recognition of shared structure.

And it's that combinatorial *expansion* of error I'm relying on to assert the rarity of disjoint components (that don't share any structure). That we can simulate/model each other AT ALL indicates shared structure.

And this is how I'm explaining the "unreasonable effectiveness" of these higher order behaviors (like _mind_).

Whether it's crisply bidirectional (isomorphic, recursively invertible) or not is a question we could talk about. But, yes, it has to be at least a little bit bidirectional. That's what "shared structure" means. A can't be similar to B without B also being similar to A, even if the 1st "similar" is slightly different from the 2nd "similar".

My only suggestion for downward causation lies in the higher order patterns canalizing the space, constraining the variation of the lower order processes. It's a different kind of "causation" than upward causation. Upward is driven, generative. Downward is constraint, restrictive ... like a flow-formed arroyo that is both caused by and causes flow patterns.

On 10/28/20 12:14 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I would go with this so long as we agree it's bidirectional.  I learn who I am from watching you and you learn who you are from watching me and we both learn who we are by watching them.  
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 7:17 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats
>
> I'd argue that, as long as there's common structure between the agents building and using the control layer models, then there will be shared concepts in and of those models. And it's not *only* the Libertarian who claims there's shared structure between the builders/users. As I've tried to *ask* w.r.t. to inter-species mind-reading, don't most complex animals "assume" some shared structure, not only between them and their kin, but between them and their predators/prey and symbiotic species? And if your dog does it, then it's likely Capitalists and Socialists also do it.
>
> Of course, the extent to, and rate at, which such shared structures change through time is the gist of this conversation.
>
> On 9/14/20 8:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable.  

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[jon zingale]

Nick,

Let's say I have a language designed to work with sticks, where for
instance, it makes sense to name certain relations *Triangle*. Additionally,
let's assume that the language is detailed enough to include less obvious
relations such as those which relate sticks to trees to soil and water.
Would it be cheap to narrowly define *downward causation* as the
manipulation of the world in accordance with this language to produce new
sticks?

Consider as another example when one manipulates charge in bulk using analog
filters. Here, a circuit designer may not need to know about spin or
superposition or a lot of other details about the universe. In fact, the
designer may not know how to write a "mid-frequency ranged filter" if they
were only given a quantum mechanical view of the world. They may, however,
know how to build such a filter if they are given appropriately shaped
conductive surfaces and coils.

My apologies in advance if this characterization (that of reducing *downward
causation* to manipulation of a domain-specific language) is horribly
flawed, but I spent this much time writing a response. So, there.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[jon zingale]

dual fields, Nick, dual fields.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Prof David West]

A simple — stymergic — example. Write down your waking blood sugar measure; then everything you eat and the time you ate it; two hours after each intake, measure and record your sugar level; and finally, your sugar level as you retire to bed. Do this for several weeks. Your behavior will change in detail, to your betterment. You do not even need to look at what you wrote down or analyze it in any fashion. There is some degree of talisman magic in knowing that the recordings are stored somewhere and available for review if you ever wanted to, or if your clinician wanted to use it as data to develop a hypothesis.

Since you brought up the word and seem to think it has some meaning — I have never understood stymergy because it seems to be grounded in the notion that an organism is separate/apart from its environment. My understanding of reality would assert that each are constant and simultaneous co-mediators of each other. (Actually they are the same thing and any apparent differentiation is just illusion.)

The entire concept of autopoeisis and structural coupling, as I understand it, would seem to be an example of "something at a higher order improving itself by arranging its parts."

davew

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, at 1:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or

>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a

>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a

>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form

>on the basis of physics.

--

glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Prof David West]

Maturana and Varela use structural coupling at the "indiivual" before the "individual in context" before "group" before "control structures," e.g. "mind."

davew

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Prof David West wrote:

A simple — stymergic — example. Write down your waking blood sugar measure; then everything you eat and the time you ate it; two hours after each intake, measure and record your sugar level; and finally, your sugar level as you retire to bed. Do this for several weeks. Your behavior will change in detail, to your betterment. You do not even need to look at what you wrote down or analyze it in any fashion. There is some degree of talisman magic in knowing that the recordings are stored somewhere and available for review if you ever wanted to, or if your clinician wanted to use it as data to develop a hypothesis.

Since you brought up the word and seem to think it has some meaning — I have never understood stymergy because it seems to be grounded in the notion that an organism is separate/apart from its environment. My understanding of reality would assert that each are constant and simultaneous co-mediators of each other. (Actually they are the same thing and any apparent differentiation is just illusion.)

The entire concept of autopoeisis and structural coupling, as I understand it, would seem to be an example of "something at a higher order improving itself by arranging its parts."

davew

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, at 1:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or

>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a

>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a

>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form

>on the basis of physics.

--

glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

…which would explain why I have never quite understood auto poeisis.  It’s one of those Escher things … the hand drawing the hand. 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:53 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Maturana and Varela use structural coupling at the "indiivual" before the "individual in context" before "group" before "control structures," e.g. "mind."

 

davew

 

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Prof David West wrote:

A simple — stymergic — example. Write down your waking blood sugar measure; then everything you eat and the time you ate it; two hours after each intake, measure and record your sugar level; and finally, your sugar level as you retire to bed. Do this for several weeks. Your behavior will change in detail, to your betterment. You do not even need to look at what you wrote down or analyze it in any fashion. There is some degree of talisman magic in knowing that the recordings are stored somewhere and available for review if you ever wanted to, or if your clinician wanted to use it as data to develop a hypothesis.

 

Since you brought up the word and seem to think it has some meaning — I have never understood stymergy because it seems to be grounded in the notion that an organism is separate/apart from its environment. My understanding of reality would assert that each are constant and simultaneous co-mediators of each other. (Actually they are the same thing and any apparent differentiation is just illusion.)

 

The entire concept of autopoeisis and structural coupling, as I understand it, would seem to be an example of "something at a higher order improving itself by arranging its parts."

 

davew

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, at 1:32 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

 

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

 

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Marcus,

 

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand?

 

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable. 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

 

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or

>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a

>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a

>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form

>on the basis of physics.

 

--

glen ⛧

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

 

 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Jon,

Is a steam governor a case of downward causation?

This question will reveal, no doubt, that I don't understand  your previous
answer, but perhaps others will explain it to me.

I am always troubled by the notion of "self-assembly" since the self that is
assembling is never, by definition, the self that is assembled.

Perhaps I am getting tangled up in words again.

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:01 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Nick,

Let's say I have a language designed to work with sticks, where for
instance, it makes sense to name certain relations *Triangle*. Additionally,
let's assume that the language is detailed enough to include less obvious
relations such as those which relate sticks to trees to soil and water.
Would it be cheap to narrowly define *downward causation* as the
manipulation of the world in accordance with this language to produce new
sticks?

Consider as another example when one manipulates charge in bulk using analog
filters. Here, a circuit designer may not need to know about spin or
superposition or a lot of other details about the universe. In fact, the
designer may not know how to write a "mid-frequency ranged filter" if they
were only given a quantum mechanical view of the world. They may, however,
know how to build such a filter if they are given appropriately shaped
conductive surfaces and coils.

My apologies in advance if this characterization (that of reducing *downward
causation* to manipulation of a domain-specific language) is horribly
flawed, but I spent this much time writing a response. So, there.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[David Eric Smith]

Hi Nick,

I think something causes dreams to have the narrative order they have.  Whatever it is probably is put in place by all the other functions that the brain is asked to perform, along with the many constraints on how it is possible to make a brain.  So dreams receive all that structure to take the form they do.

I prefer that kind of example, where there are many inputs and a real thing (all the organization of the brain) that they create, which is then available to act “downwardly” on any one thing, particularly one that the structure probably wasn’t selected for.  Like, dreaming may be functional, but I’m not sure that whether dreams are entertaining would matter that much to evolutionary criteria.

What I prefer those examples to are the old trope of “magnetization downwardly causes spins to align”, since there is no additional thing that is “magnetization” than the aggregate effect of all the other spins.  So one hasn’t added anything by claiming “downward causation” to just saying “each spin affects all the others, and the net effect excludes entropy to the environment”.

Best,

Eric

On Oct 28, 2020, at 3:48 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

The bite causes the irritation causes the itch causes the slap causes the removal of the mosquito.   And the slap causes the mosquito to be gone and relieves the irritation.  So that is definitely downward causation.  But this is all in the context of a complex organization that has already been assembled and “designed” for self maintenance.  To it begs the question I was [ineptly] trying to ask.  How do such control systems get assembled in the first place if NOT through the mediation of group selection?

 

N

 

 

I suppose that the local irritation causes the itch is upward causation, that “itch” is a state of the whole.  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Scratching oneself?  I'm not trying to be a pain.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:32 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection.  

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus, 

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand? 

Nick 
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or 
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form 
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,WynifHZUs759PmOdwKODOo4hkmg-a1iYaBLNDLOxSi9veqNfPE-v1SVSZOWO0BUIQ8x2GuVkLv7xJMfJysdDC70Cwv61Fmd6izR1KNEvdDE,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,K7C-7ltI8HtOP7mITJVE5tCX_NThTOUsjfyKb1NBKQFgMEi7J_5uHGx7ZsVWZOd-olj2RTM18QHCL4uLx7fcQPxEdE0JYLUQ8-0fxJwGwnpzd1Q,&typo=1

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Thanks Eric.

 

Some unsophisticated “larding” below.

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Hi Nick,

 

I think something causes dreams to have the narrative order they have.  Whatever it is probably is put in place by all the other functions that the brain is asked to perform, along with the many constraints on how it is possible to make a brain.  So dreams receive all that structure to take the form they do.

[NST===>I am sure that everything I am about to say is wrong, but let’s see where it goes.  Let’s say, ex hypothesi, that sleeping is for tidying up the brain and the brain cannot tidy up without generating experiences, in the say that I cannot tidy up the mess of books, bills, and papers without reading them briefly to identify them and put them in some frame of reference.  Let it be the case that this goes on all night at a tremendous speed, and even though you are experiencing, you do nothing because you are asleep.  Now, upon awakening, you catch some of this processing in progress and you remember them along with phony narrative time stamps that attach them to earlier in the night.  Dreams are an epiphenomena of the waking brain catching the sleeping brain at its work.  I think I have just created a dualist monster here.  Oh, well. <===nst]

 

I prefer that kind of example, where there are many inputs and a real thing (all the organization of the brain) that they create, which is then available to act “downwardly” on any one thing, particularly one that the structure probably wasn’t selected for.  Like, dreaming may be functional, but I’m not sure that whether dreams are entertaining would matter that much to evolutionary criteria.

 

What I prefer those examples to are the old trope of “magnetization downwardly causes spins to align”, since there is no additional thing that is “magnetization” than the aggregate effect of all the other spins.  So one hasn’t added anything by claiming “downward causation” to just saying “each spin affects all the others, and the net effect excludes entropy to the environment”.

[NST===>So am I right that the magnetization is not an emergent; it is just the aggregate effect of the spins?<===nst]

 

Best,

 

Eric

 

On Oct 28, 2020, at 3:48 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

The bite causes the irritation causes the itch causes the slap causes the removal of the mosquito.   And the slap causes the mosquito to be gone and relieves the irritation.  So that is definitely downward causation.  But this is all in the context of a complex organization that has already been assembled and “designed” for self maintenance.  To it begs the question I was [ineptly] trying to ask.  How do such control systems get assembled in the first place if NOT through the mediation of group selection?

 

N

 

 

I suppose that the local irritation causes the itch is upward causation, that “itch” is a state of the whole.  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

Scratching oneself?  I'm not trying to be a pain.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:32 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

If one allows stygmergy as a form of downward causation, I can understand it.  So I guess I am looking for the simplest kind of example of self assembly: i.e., where something of a higher order improves itself by improving the arrangement of its parts.  Or places constraints on its parts to be good for itself. There may be a thousand examples.  I just can’t think of one that doesn’t involve group selection.  

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

 

I'm not Marcus but a classical example is mental events causing physical events.  Note the use of mental language.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:12 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus, 

 can't claim to understand you fully, here, but your use of the word, sovereignty, made me think you might have something to contribute to a quandary I found myself in recently.  I was on a zoom with a bunch of people.  First they talked about emergence, and I figured I understand that.  Wimsatt: a property is emergent if it is a property of a whole that depends on the order or arrangement of the parts.  So, the ability of sticks to bear weight depends  on their arrangement as triangles.   So far, so good.  But then the began to talk about "downward" causation, and I realized that I did not know, nor have I ever known, what people mean by "downward" causation.  Do you have some simple models of it in mind that even I could understand? 

Nick 
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems.   But even with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for control systems that could layer on top of it.   If there are no shared concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to simulating the physics to determine what could happen next.   Simulating these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy.    The Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes.   There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is acceptable.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats

Well, sure. But the assumptions and simplifications are piling up fast. With anarcho-capitalism, I was trying to suggest a governing system that relies on as few assumptions as possible. And my sense is that social democracy relies on more assumptions (like the existence of stable functional forms).

On September 14, 2020 6:13:33 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It depends whether you think of "static" as some circumscribed state or 
>"static" as a fixed functional form.  (The latter still allowing for a
>dynamical system.)   The appropriation/application of the notion of a
>"phase transition" would probably argue for the fixed functional form 
>on the basis of physics.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,WynifHZUs759PmOdwKODOo4hkmg-a1iYaBLNDLOxSi9veqNfPE-v1SVSZOWO0BUIQ8x2GuVkLv7xJMfJysdDC70Cwv61Fmd6izR1KNEvdDE,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,K7C-7ltI8HtOP7mITJVE5tCX_NThTOUsjfyKb1NBKQFgMEi7J_5uHGx7ZsVWZOd-olj2RTM18QHCL4uLx7fcQPxEdE0JYLUQ8-0fxJwGwnpzd1Q,&typo=1

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/