Graal VM
Locked
12
12
 
|
I've recently used the Graal VM <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GraalVM> for its inclusion of FastR <https://github.com/oracle/fastr>. As always, this provoked a lot of churning amongst my Homunculi. I keep my Stay-Liberated Homunculi at bay by pointing out the GPL of the community edition. But they launched a mild riot this morning when I read this:
Oracle employees plan to walk off the job after boss holds pro-Trump fundraiser https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees Ordinarily (pre-Citizens United <https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/>), I give corporate charters the benefit of the doubt that their officers and owners are somewhat separated from the company. But with the continuing trend toward the Unitary Executive <https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/william-barr-donald-trump-mueller-report-1295273> and Celebrity-King <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/beyonce-coachella-blackness.html> (or Queen, but gender is fluid), it seems naive of me to *continue* giving them that benefit of the doubt. Just as Trump has rerouted all pardoning/commutation from "the deep state" to his personal Celebrity-Self, corporate smoky-back-room players like Ellison (or Thiel, or Musk, or whichever celebrity executive/advisor/loan-shark/Great-Man you may want to cite) are flexing their unitary executive muscles in a variety of ways. I doubt that this is anything new. But with our [dis]information-freeflow culture, along with the surge of conspiracy theories, we also have a bit more visibility on their exercising of their powers ... there are more windows into the smoky back rooms. If your officers/owners do something, then your employees are also *doing* that thing. The question is whether the employees are unaware of their complicity. So, some of my Homunculi are arguing: See! The contributers to Graal are *not* useful idiots! It doesn't matter whether they like Trump or not. What matters is they *know* Oracle supports Trump. -- glen ep ropella 971-599-3737 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Glen writes:
< Oracle employees plan to walk off the job after boss holds pro-Trump fundraiser https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21136577/larry-ellison-fundraiser-donald-trump-oracle-employees > Looking at it from the perspective of the gig economy, where employees are human resources to be expended, employees should absorb as much of the resources as possible from employers like these and then move on. The Queen is simply a vessel for capital and maximizing the rate at which it drains is an ethic professionals can collectively adopt. In this way, those organizations that don't act this way will have a dramatic competitive advantage. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
On first skim, I agreed with you. But now I think I disagree. My point was that the rise of the Celebrity-Queen (e.g. Trump), where power is further focused into the hands of whichever cheeper-by-the-dozen human that occupies that seat, willing or not, we're further consolidating *all* organizations' powers into the hands of that one human. So, it *used* to be the case that the Queen was a mere vessel (vassal?), whether to the occult mechanism (capitalism) or to the corporation. But now, that era is coming to an end. It's more true now that Turkey *is* Erdoğan, the US *is* Trump, Oracle is Ellison, etc.
On 2/20/20 8:36 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Looking at it from the perspective of the gig economy, where employees are human resources to be expended, employees should absorb as much of the resources as possible from employers like these and then move on. The Queen is simply a vessel for capital and maximizing the rate at which it drains is an ethic professionals can collectively adopt. In this way, those organizations that don't act this way will have a dramatic competitive advantage. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
< But now, that era is coming to an end. It's more true now that Turkey *is* Erdoğan, the US *is* Trump, Oracle is Ellison, etc. >
My point, putting on my anarchist hat, is that is less bad if the organizations are deeply compromised in the process. If Oracle doesn't make it in light of Microsoft and Postgres, etc. then life goes on. Eventually Ellison dies or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders take his money, etc. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Right. But if I'm right and the *trend* is toward unitarity in the executive, then the trend is *against* breaking up the organizations for which they are vessels. The Oracle (and Google) employees are tilting at windmills in a hopeless quest. They *are* useful idiots because they don't know the tidal wave (of unitary executive) is about to crush them.
I certainly hope I'm wrong. I've spent most of my professional life in nanoscale companies, fighting alongside the anarchists, but in a guise palatable by many of the gigascale organizations who've used me. But is it hopeless? Should I just get a job at a multinational, take some microdoses of nootropics to make my work for The Man more productive, and hope my non-productive elder years are at least blindingly happy? Or should I die on the battlefield, whacking at the tsunami with my broken paddle? On 2/20/20 9:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > < But now, that era is coming to an end. It's more true now that Turkey *is* Erdoğan, the US *is* Trump, Oracle is Ellison, etc. > > > My point, putting on my anarchist hat, is that is less bad if the organizations are deeply compromised in the process. If Oracle doesn't make it in light of Microsoft and Postgres, etc. then life goes on. Eventually Ellison dies or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders take his money, etc. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Great discussions as always (or at least often) here.
What I find missing in both this thread and the Peirce/Pragmatist one Dave started is the structural aspects of our sociopolitical scene that creates a low-dimensional (often just one), polarizing landscape where those with more power (economic, political, rhetorical, ???) are more able to "herd" the unwashed masses (all of us included) at-will, possibly to our own (economic/political/personal-liberty?) slaughter. This game-drive technique is not new, and probably not new in the sociopoliticaleconomic scene. The conceit of Democracy seems to be that people want to be and can be self-governing and that the "will of the people" can be consolidated into something manageable through "voting". Add the layer of indirection of a *representative* government, and you get some conveniences and efficiencies in exchange for some lack of sensitivity and precision. Parliamentary systems (adopted broadly, compared to our own) mix it up a little, preventing what I think Glen refers to as a premature binding... presumably a little more agile with artifacts such as "coalition building/dissolving" and the "vote of no-confidence". So much of our contemporary sociopolitical rhetoric seems to be confined to this arbitrary? left-right axis which is at best a projection from at least a *handful* of additional dimensions. What *of* a more sophisticated dimensional analysis (as Marcus put the name on it) of our sociopolitics? Are we really (individually and collectively) that dumb that we can only think (or at least argue) in one dimension? Or is it in the best interest of "the powers that be" that we remain confined to that (over)simplification of "life, the universe and everything"? Trump has tumbled the Republican party off-axis in a certain way and seems to have found another somewhat stable mode which paradoxically may have actually created the conditions for Bernie (and Elizabeth to a lesser extent) to tumble the Democrats into yet-another stable spin. Or to extend the metaphor, has he just "tumbled our gyros" in a way that will never recover? Maybe it is time to quit watching the artificial horizon (polling, punditry, ???), look out the window and recover "by the seat of our pants"? Ramble, - Steve On 2/20/20 10:24 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Right. But if I'm right and the *trend* is toward unitarity in the executive, then the trend is *against* breaking up the organizations for which they are vessels. The Oracle (and Google) employees are tilting at windmills in a hopeless quest. They *are* useful idiots because they don't know the tidal wave (of unitary executive) is about to crush them. > > I certainly hope I'm wrong. I've spent most of my professional life in nanoscale companies, fighting alongside the anarchists, but in a guise palatable by many of the gigascale organizations who've used me. But is it hopeless? Should I just get a job at a multinational, take some microdoses of nootropics to make my work for The Man more productive, and hope my non-productive elder years are at least blindingly happy? Or should I die on the battlefield, whacking at the tsunami with my broken paddle? > > On 2/20/20 9:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> < But now, that era is coming to an end. It's more true now that Turkey *is* Erdoğan, the US *is* Trump, Oracle is Ellison, etc. > >> >> My point, putting on my anarchist hat, is that is less bad if the organizations are deeply compromised in the process. If Oracle doesn't make it in light of Microsoft and Postgres, etc. then life goes on. Eventually Ellison dies or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders take his money, etc. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
< Right. But if I'm right and the *trend* is toward unitarity in the executive, then the trend is *against* breaking up the organizations for which they are vessels. The Oracle (and Google) employees are tilting at windmills in a hopeless quest. They *are* useful idiots because they don't know the tidal wave (of unitary executive) is about to crush them. >
I'm claiming a mismanaged organization that is burning through a lot of money is more likely to have a rapid unplanned disassembly event. The unitarity in the executive increases the probability of that happening because there are less people that actually care what happens to it. Burn baby burn. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Re: the *need* to reduce -- This post comes to mind:
Richard Dawkins Claims Eugenics Works. He’s Wrong. https://skepchick.org/2020/02/richard-dawkins-claims-eugenics-works-hes-wrong/ > You can’t get a lot of attention by talking about them 280 characters at a time on Twitter. Even though she's using reduction to point out that over-reducers like Dawkins use the tool for Evil, other over-reducers like Bernie Sanders, use over-reduction for Good. But tools can be used for Good or Evil. That they're used for one or the other does not refute the *need* for them. Sometimes things *must* be over-reduced in order to make some decision and to avoid the implicit decision of making no decision. But your larger point is well-taken. Sometimes, the full swath of (high dimensional) exploratory search is more appropriate than low-dimensional reducing collectivism of exploitation. But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode of exploration? On 2/20/20 10:07 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > What *of* a more > sophisticated dimensional analysis (as Marcus put the name on it) of our > sociopolitics? Are we really (individually and collectively) that dumb > that we can only think (or at least argue) in one dimension? Or is it > in the best interest of "the powers that be" that we remain confined to > that (over)simplification of "life, the universe and everything"? > > Trump has tumbled the Republican party off-axis in a certain way and > seems to have found another somewhat stable mode which paradoxically may > have actually created the conditions for Bernie (and Elizabeth to a > lesser extent) to tumble the Democrats into yet-another stable spin. > Or to extend the metaphor, has he just "tumbled our gyros" in a way that > will never recover? Maybe it is time to quit watching the artificial > horizon (polling, punditry, ???), look out the window and recover "by > the seat of our pants"? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Ha! Yeah, OK. Said that way, I have no choice but to agree.
On 2/20/20 10:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I'm claiming a mismanaged organization that is burning through a lot of money is more likely to have a rapid unplanned disassembly event. The unitarity in the executive increases the probability of that happening because there are less people that actually care what happens to it. Burn baby burn. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
WeWork comes to mind On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, at 7:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > < Right. But if I'm right and the *trend* is toward unitarity in the > executive, then the trend is *against* breaking up the organizations > for which they are vessels. The Oracle (and Google) employees are > tilting at windmills in a hopeless quest. They *are* useful idiots > because they don't know the tidal wave (of unitary executive) is about > to crush them. > > > I'm claiming a mismanaged organization that is burning through a lot of > money is more likely to have a rapid unplanned disassembly event. The > unitarity in the executive increases the probability of that happening > because there are less people that actually care what happens to it. > Burn baby burn. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen -
> But your larger point is well-taken. Sometimes, the full swath of (high dimensional) exploratory search is more appropriate than low-dimensional reducing collectivism of exploitation. But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode of exploration? thanks for this quick-apprehension-reduction-response of/to my point... my work has evolved over the last decade to include/embrace work in ensemble-steering... growing out of (more) simple analysis of high-dimensional data (often generated by simulation models). This informs my interest/awareness in the evolving socioeconomicpoliticalregulatoryrhetorical system/milieu/landscape that we live (participate) in (co-create)... In the (recent) past I have referenced Tensor Decomposition and Self Organizing Map techniques we are exploring which I agree (re: offline exchanges) are a bit too esoteric/rarified/specialized to be introducing into everyday discussion without a LOT more background. However *both* are techniques for dimensionality *ordering* which supports *reduction* through simple thresholding and vector projection. Single-issue voters are the ultimate in dimension reducers (via a thresholding to 1) and stable genii like the Donald seem to have a good intuition (or suite of more formal techniques?) for game-driving these people into voting for him based on the illusion/promise/hope that *their* single-issue (abortion, xenophobia, homophobia, extractive-industry-of-choice-expansion, Stock Market temperature) prospects will be maximized. The Trump Train has carloads of single-issue voters but it also has a huge population of those who have comfortably/happily reduced a handful of issues into a single-measure nominally described as Right-Wing or Republican or Conservative, even though this projection might only superficially look like the same labels of say 40 (Reagan) or even 10 (Bush II) years ago. Certainly not 150 (Lincoln). And of course, it seems not to matter to most of those riding (fueling?) his train that the Engineer doesn't personally believe-in or demonstrate most of the features in their preferred feature-vector... they are just happy that he (currently?) presents a high-magnitude vector (build-the-wall, lock-her-up, drill-baby-drill, punch-em-in-the-face, grab-em-by-the-hoohoo, ec.) that seems to project well onto theirs (christian values, social conservatism, financial conservatism, etc.) while ignoring how poorly his crypto-language/behaviour might reduce in an entirely antithetical way (cut-tax-and-still spend, corporate/wealthy welfare, squeeze the have-nots, etc...) You ask: "But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode of exploration?" I don't know the term off the top of my head, but I think there is one which fits a similar role to that of annealing (both in materials science and computer simulation) where the dimensionality is "pulsed" or "phased". To some extent, I think that is what our political system (used to?) provides... forcing us to pull back and look at the big picture, then focus in on a subset of the problem at hand and work hard to "get 'er done". This is where I think *good* congresspeople might excel when they are acting properly as *statespeople*. I personally do this myself *all the time*. In the spirit of your froth of homunculii, I allow my own to form coalitions/factions to cajole me on one topic or another until the dead horse is reduced to dust but then pull them back and require them to acknowledge one another's best points (oscillate from straw-man to steel-man arguments to use your terminology?) I would like to live in (or recognize where I do) a world where I have more company in this, where the goal isn't *always* to collapse (reduce?) dimensionality. My conspiratorial innuendo in the original response on this thread is that (collectively if not individually) the "powers that be" understand this very well and manipulate it (premature reduction/collapse of dimensionality) to their own benefit. - Steve > On 2/20/20 10:07 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> What *of* a more >> sophisticated dimensional analysis (as Marcus put the name on it) of our >> sociopolitics? Are we really (individually and collectively) that dumb >> that we can only think (or at least argue) in one dimension? Or is it >> in the best interest of "the powers that be" that we remain confined to >> that (over)simplification of "life, the universe and everything"? >> >> Trump has tumbled the Republican party off-axis in a certain way and >> seems to have found another somewhat stable mode which paradoxically may >> have actually created the conditions for Bernie (and Elizabeth to a >> lesser extent) to tumble the Democrats into yet-another stable spin. >> Or to extend the metaphor, has he just "tumbled our gyros" in a way that >> will never recover? Maybe it is time to quit watching the artificial >> horizon (polling, punditry, ???), look out the window and recover "by >> the seat of our pants"? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Steve writes:
< "But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode of exploration?" I don't know the term off the top of my head, but I think there is one which fits a similar role to that of annealing (both in materials science and computer simulation) where the dimensionality is "pulsed" or "phased". > With quantum annealing, one distinguishes between the energy of the problem (goodness, defined somehow) and the energy of a transverse field which is used to conduct the search for solutions. The two are different axes of angular momentum. When the transverse field is high, proposition are both true and false, when it is low they must be true or false. One can perform this procedure from things that are true or false toward things that are true and false or the vice versa. The anarchist in this metaphor turns up the x axis amplitude like the Men in Black would activate their Neuralyzers. Classically, one might turn up the temperature to get propositions bouncing between true and false at different rates. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
OK. But the question remains *when* to increase the field. Steve's answer (if I understand it -- maintain a quasi-periodic pulsing field) is *generally* good, but particularly bad. I think one of the issues the Right has with things like Political Correctness has to do with our inability to maintain a high swappability between true and false. Witness those of us who spend a *lot* of time referencing science fiction (particularly authors like Heinlein) or fantasy (particularly like the Lord of the Rings). Our metaphors carry us away into an inability to distinguish what-is from what-if. The "adjacent possible" smacks of that same inability. In may be just dandy for super-intelligent god-people with disposable income, time, and cognitive power, lucky enough to be "paid to think". But normal people have things that need to get done ... like ... NOW. And tomorrow comes with a whole new set of things that need to get done, now.
Inspired by this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps, what we normal people need are specific and particular *triggers* which, when identified, launch the field/heat increase to re-dimensionalize the discussion. Similarly, I'd argue we need specific and particular triggers to launch a dampening effort to cool down, reduce, the discussion from a high dimensional riot into more gelatinous cohesion. On 2/20/20 1:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Steve writes: > > < "But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode > of exploration?" I don't know the term off the top of my head, but I think there is one > which fits a similar role to that of annealing (both in materials > science and computer simulation) where the dimensionality is "pulsed" or > "phased". > > > With quantum annealing, one distinguishes between the energy of the problem (goodness, defined somehow) and the energy of a transverse field which is used to conduct the search for solutions. The two are different axes of angular momentum. When the transverse field is high, proposition are both true and false, when it is low they must be true or false. One can perform this procedure from things that are true or false toward things that are true and false or the vice versa. > > The anarchist in this metaphor turns up the x axis amplitude like the Men in Black would activate their Neuralyzers. Classically, one might turn up the temperature to get propositions bouncing between true and false at different rates. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< But the question remains *when* to increase the field. >
With thermal (simulated) annealing, there's a protocol that starts hot and gets cold over time. The inspiration comes from metallurgy where the range and schedule of the temperature sweep has to encompass the phase transitions of the material in question.
If you want to see the ice melt, you better sweep above 0 C. It is less clear what the phase transitions of a population's `goodness' function would look like. For a given constituency, it could have many phase transitions and they could be hard to find.
Quantum annealing is a similar protocol which is typically to start with all things be both true and false, and then over time (while tunnelling and entanglement occurs) one slowly reduces the field toward definite states.
Both are unsatisfactory because the `goodness' function is constantly evolving. People are born and die, for one thing. Taking an agent-centric approach would be one way to rationalize the literal use of these protocols because people often get more rigid
as they age. (Pity the diachronic personality.) Liberals would run hotter and longer and conservatives would quench rapidly.
A related technique is parallel tempering (PT). Here there are many temperatures at once and replicas move between temperatures from time to time, temperatures can even be added to be hotter or colder as needed. PT avoids the possibility of having the
optimizer mis-calibrated to the phase transitions of the referent. This would be social engineering, if purposely applied to human populations, but clearly it happens anyway since some people have traumatic violent lives (or just dynamic lives) and for others
every day is a lot like the last. Swapping temperatures would be like the move Trading Places.
Another technique is population annealing where many individual solutions compete for survival during the cooling process. Roughly, an evolutionary technique or capitalism without a safety net.
Then there is reverse quantum annealing, where one starts out with some solution and then perturbs it to make it better. The size of the perturbation is simply how big of the field is activated, and for how long. I think this the kind of protocol most
people want from governance. Small experiments that may improve things in their neighborhood. Trump and other fascists like to identify some subspace, fix everything not in that subspace, and then erase it with massive uncontrolled perturbations.
It would better to have a bottom-up approach where people would learn to recognize being stuck-in-a-rut and subject themselves to a higher perturbation, rather than appealing to a monster to scramble other people who are already operating at high temperature.
That requires emotional intelligence that demagogues don't nurture.
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 8:37 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Graal VM OK. But the question remains *when* to increase the field. Steve's answer (if I understand it -- maintain a quasi-periodic pulsing field) is *generally* good, but particularly bad. I think one of the issues the Right has with things like
Political Correctness has to do with our inability to maintain a high swappability between true and false. Witness those of us who spend a *lot* of time referencing science fiction (particularly authors like Heinlein) or fantasy (particularly like the Lord
of the Rings). Our metaphors carry us away into an inability to distinguish what-is from what-if. The "adjacent possible" smacks of that same inability. In may be just dandy for super-intelligent god-people with disposable income, time, and cognitive power,
lucky enough to be "paid to think". But normal people have things that need to get done ... like ... NOW. And tomorrow comes with a whole new set of things that need to get done, now.
Inspired by this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps, what we normal people need are specific and particular *triggers* which, when identified, launch the field/heat increase to re-dimensionalize the discussion. Similarly, I'd argue we need specific and particular triggers to launch a dampening effort to cool down, reduce, the discussion from a high dimensional riot into more gelatinous cohesion. On 2/20/20 1:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Steve writes: > > < "But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode > of exploration?" I don't know the term off the top of my head, but I think there is one > which fits a similar role to that of annealing (both in materials > science and computer simulation) where the dimensionality is "pulsed" or > "phased". > > > With quantum annealing, one distinguishes between the energy of the problem (goodness, defined somehow) and the energy of a transverse field which is used to conduct the search for solutions. The two are different axes of angular momentum. When the transverse field is high, proposition are both true and false, when it is low they must be true or false. One can perform this procedure from things that are true or false toward things that are true and false or the vice versa. > > The anarchist in this metaphor turns up the x axis amplitude like the Men in Black would activate their Neuralyzers. Classically, one might turn up the temperature to get propositions bouncing between true and false at different rates. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
OK. I initially thought you hadn't addressed the question at all. But the 2 included paragraphs do seem to a bit. It's difficult to work with the liberal/conservative dichotomy because I don't think anyone's *actually* liberal or conservative. Those are post-hoc attributes ascribed by some observer. From their internal perspective, people are taking whatever action their circumstances corral them into.
So, the 2nd paragraph is on target. Whether the trigger is a concretization of "stuck in a rut" or some other thing (the spare tire around one's waist, that 40 year old inceb playing video games in the basement, overwhelming feeling of doom every day all day, ... whatever) might be irrelevant. What matters is identifying the triggers. After a brief conversation about this with Renee', I don't even think the bins the triggers (and actions) are disambiguating matter that much. What matters is "what triggers you to act?" I'm not sure if it really takes emotional intelligence in the hoity-toity sense of that phrase. I think it merely takes recognition that you do have triggers. Anyone who's done something rash and has regrets should be capable of understanding they have triggers. I'm a fan of Street Epistemology <https://streetepistemology.com/>. But the Socratic method (whichever way you interpret it) is expensive ... great for college students and those "paid to think", but not feasible for normals. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) can help. But, again, it's "Therapy. OMG!" The atheists have a pretty good question to force the trigger in Theists (and vice versa): What would it take to convince you god doesn't exist? That seems to get the theist thinking a little deeper about their own triggers (or lack thereof). Maybe there exist questions of that sort for every dynamic? What would it take for me to actually sit down and give "sadboi rap" a good critical listen? Ha! -- nothing ... there's no way I'm gonna do that. -- maybe that's my trigger to turn up the heat a little, fire up spotify and do it ... That sort of thinking can get you in all sorts of trouble, though. E.g. what would it take to get you to kill someone? Etc. On 2/21/20 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Both are unsatisfactory because the `goodness' function is constantly evolving. People are born and die, for one thing. Taking an agent-centric approach would be one way to rationalize the literal use of these protocols because people often get more rigid as they age. (Pity the diachronic personality.) Liberals would run hotter and longer and conservatives would quench rapidly. > [...] > It would better to have a bottom-up approach where people would learn to recognize being stuck-in-a-rut and subject themselves to a higher perturbation, rather than appealing to a monster to scramble other people who are already operating at high temperature. That requires emotional intelligence that demagogues don't nurture. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus -
Thanks for that great example... I didn't want to invoke Quantum Superposition, but this very real/practical application from the domain of QC makes it less esoteric. It reminds me that the last time I looked very closely at QC, it was all pretty nascent and theoretical and that there is now significant experience, offering real, tangible results as well as new metaphors for thinking about problems in other domains. I also like your MiB reference. As much as I resent many of the implications of the Trump/FoxNews post-Truthiness, it does feel like the experience of trying to take in the news (or have any significant public discourse today) while many players in the game have low-grade Neuralyzers focused on you, scrambling conventional logic enough to provide something akin to annealing as you might be suggesting. This takes me sideweize to Nick's questioning of Dave's endorsement of hallucinagenics/entheogens for their contribution to "quality of life". Nick tends to characterize (all?) mood/perception-altering/psychoactive drugs as simply being damaging/disruptive of the structure/function of the brain/mind. Dave is less specific about the qualities of these substances/experiences and *how* they improve Quality of Life, but I think it is fair to say he endorses them (with various qualifications). I've not read Michael Pollan's "How to Change your Mind", but I have read Oliver Sacks widely including notably "Hallucinations" which does make a case for the value of psychoactive drugs and other hallucination-inducing experiences. Others here are surely much better prepared for defending/framing these things, but in the light of Post-Truthiness, Neuralyzers, and Quantum Annealing, I see a clear *potential* value to introducing noise (both dimensions of Marcus' annealing energies) in the search... but I am also interested in what an everyday interpretation of Quantum Superposition might be when applied to collective knowledge/consciousness/decision-making. My recurrent harping on ranked-choice voting is a very thin appeal in that direction... a reduction/projection/collapse of these more esoteric idea(l)s into something more practical/pedestrian? - Steve > Steve writes: > > < "But when and how do we force the system into an anarchist mode > of exploration?" I don't know the term off the top of my head, but I think there is one > which fits a similar role to that of annealing (both in materials > science and computer simulation) where the dimensionality is "pulsed" or > "phased". > > > With quantum annealing, one distinguishes between the energy of the problem (goodness, defined somehow) and the energy of a transverse field which is used to conduct the search for solutions. The two are different axes of angular momentum. When the transverse field is high, proposition are both true and false, when it is low they must be true or false. One can perform this procedure from things that are true or false toward things that are true and false or the vice versa. > > The anarchist in this metaphor turns up the x axis amplitude like the Men in Black would activate their Neuralyzers. Classically, one might turn up the temperature to get propositions bouncing between true and false at different rates. > > Marcus > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
< I'm not sure if it really takes emotional intelligence in the hoity-toity sense of that phrase. I think it merely takes recognition that you do have triggers. Anyone who's done something rash and has regrets should be capable of understanding they have triggers. > Ok, there's always going to be someone that objects-to or dismisses a person using a new term or any degree of abstraction in an argument. If EI is not a thing, then conduct a depth-first exploration on what EI is or is not. Free variable, bind it. Bad binding, unbind it. Oh, but that would be the Socratic method, so I guess they don't have time because they have to dig a ditch or something. It's not for `normal' people. I would say one indicator of EI is the ability to control and diminish triggers without ongoing intervention. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. But for contrast, what to do when others are prone to triggering and make no effort to regulate? One way is to create a controlled environment that imposes costs (broadly defined) but limits consequences. Let them see what an escalated level of triggering looks like -- scare them straight. That won't work when the person prone to triggering is POTUS. But triggering is only one side of it. How does one self-detect degraded performance, insular thinking, habituation? In the case of depression, the homunculi advisors will be depressed as well. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Hm. I must have dropped the ball, here. I'm talking about a) being *aware* of one's triggers and b) where there are none, *installing* them. You're talking about triggering the way the right wingers talk about it ... as if it's a bad thing. My point in arguing with Steve's position is that reduction, triggering is a Good Thing. Maybe it's a Kierkegaardian argument. IANAP (I am not a philosopher. >8^)
EI isn't about diminishing triggers ... or it shouldn't be, anyway. It should be about being aware of triggers, both yours and others'. The righties' PC problems reflect their trigger-awareness *disability*. It's just too difficult for them to keep track of what pronoun you want others to use ... or whether we have to put stalls around every toilet ... or why can't blatant Nazi's spout their hatred in the square without being ridiculed themselves. But you don't need to launch into a pompous lecture about EI in order to get people to think reflectively about themselves and others. People have been thinking reflectively for 10,000 years. The self-detection of vague things like degraded performance, insular thinking, etc. *is* about defining and installing particular and specific triggers. That's what I've been trying to claim, however incompetently. On 2/21/20 10:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I would say one indicator of EI is the ability to control and diminish triggers without ongoing intervention. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. But for contrast, what to do when others are prone to triggering and make no effort to regulate? One way is to create a controlled environment that imposes costs (broadly defined) but limits consequences. Let them see what an escalated level of triggering looks like -- scare them straight. That won't work when the person prone to triggering is POTUS. > > But triggering is only one side of it. How does one self-detect degraded performance, insular thinking, habituation? In the case of depression, the homunculi advisors will be depressed as well. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< I'm talking about a) being *aware* of one's triggers and b) where there are none, *installing* them. You're talking about triggering the way the right wingers talk about it ... as if it's a bad thing. My point in arguing with Steve's position is that reduction, triggering is a Good Thing. > No problem with that, provided it is a actively and skeptically curated set of triggers. If one has to call the police every time a trigger fires, then that's a crude trigger that should be replaced with a better one. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Well, it's not really the curation of triggers that you raise. You're raising the curation of possible actions/bins the trigger disambiguates. My claim is that will (largely) take care of itself if people think hard about the triggers.
As silly as it may seem for, say, some middle class white woman to call 911 when she sees a crowd of black teens using the swimming pool, if we could somehow encourage her to *consciously* consider that trigger, the crowd of black teens at the pool, I claim that such consideration *automatically* curates the triggered action. The more she thinks about her triggers, the less likely she is to assign an unreasonable action to that trigger. And it's not clear to me that you really need curation of the triggers. The trigger can remain for the rest of one's life. For example, I suspect I have trypophobia <https://www.google.com/search?q=trypophobia&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wPbzsOPnAhXVsJ4KHfiIDusQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1489&bih=861>. But having a *name* for the trigger helps me a lot, even if I can't help that my heart races and I start sweating when I look at that set of google images. On 2/21/20 11:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > No problem with that, provided it is a actively and skeptically curated set of triggers. If one has to call the police every time a trigger fires, then that's a crude trigger that should be replaced with a better one. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |