IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
Locked
1 ...
4567
1 ...
4567
 
|
On 06/15/2017 08:27 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> " It's the writer's job to balance and judge the amount of control ... ." > > So I, as a writer, have to be very slow to be aggrieved when I am not understood. > > It's like the salesman blaming the customers for his not making the sale. I don't know if it can be sourced. But I really like the aphorism: The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Aha! http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/31/illusion/ > LET US RECAPITULATE A BIT: The great enemy of communication, we find, is the illusion of it. We have talked enough; but we have not listened. And by not listening we have failed to concede the immense complexity of our society–and thus the great gaps between ourselves and those with whom we seek understanding. Note the emphasis on _listening_ rather than on speaking. >8^D On 06/15/2017 08:57 AM, glen ☣ wrote: > On 06/15/2017 08:27 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> " It's the writer's job to balance and judge the amount of control ... ." >> >> So I, as a writer, have to be very slow to be aggrieved when I am not understood. >> >> It's like the salesman blaming the customers for his not making the sale. > > > I don't know if it can be sourced. But I really like the aphorism: The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists. > > -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick writes:
"So I, as a writer, have to be very slow to be aggrieved when I am not understood." Tech companies usually distinguish between marketing and R&D. Marketing is about connecting with the customer. R&D is about creating the magical device that doesn't even need to be explained at a technical level. So what if it apparently breaks the laws of physics or reads your mind.. 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 06/15/2017 10:19 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Tech companies usually distinguish between marketing and R&D. Marketing is about connecting with the customer. R&D is about creating the magical device that doesn't even need to be explained at a technical level. So what if it apparently breaks the laws of physics or reads your mind.. I don't know if I agree with you about the purpose of R&D. Yes, it's about creating the magic device. But I think one of the key insights to all the yaddayadda around innovation and disruption is not that it doesn't need to be explained (in words). It's about the "phase" change the market goes through as they grok it (fully digest it in behavior as well as thought). Some weirdly configured people speak/listen and become convinced that a (hypothetical or prototypical) device will cause such a phase change. And in that sub-population, language matters, both listening and speaking. But the important point is that I agree that this is a counter-argument to Nick's. Nick's impetus to write to the specifications of the reader imply the analogous engineering to optimally fit the user/usage. But engineering the device to optimally fit the user/usage isn't what tech companies want. What they want is to create the device and have the percolation of it out into the world, change the world. I.e. the creation isn't constricted to fit the audience. The creation is intended to _change_ the audience. Mikhail Epstein makes exactly this point in "Transformative Humanities": http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14619587-the-transformative-humanities, a book I'm being forced to read by one of my friends. It is as vitriolic about postmodernism as some on this mailing list. So, I recommend it to anyone who cares about the uncertain state of the humanities. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
|
Glen writes:
"But I think one of the key insights to all the yaddayadda around innovation and disruption is not that it doesn't need to be explained (in words). It's about the "phase" change the market goes through as they grok it (fully digest it in behavior as well as thought). Some weirdly configured people speak/listen and become convinced that a (hypothetical or prototypical) device will cause such a phase change. And in that sub-population, language matters, both listening and speaking." It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at a VC meeting with a company like, say, Tri Alpha Energy. The VC firms must have some access to some of those weirdly configured people who determine if milestones make any sense. But as for consumers of some product like Shazam, I can't imagine that most have any interest at all in how or why it works. 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 06/15/2017 11:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> But as for consumers of some product like Shazam, I can't imagine that most have any interest at all in how or why it works. Excellent! I keep finding nits to pick. 8^) Again, I'm not so sure. I had a difficult conversation today with Renee'. She normally doesn't take her phone to work because cell phones aren't allowed outside the locker room and the battery just drains away hunting for signal anyway. But today she had to find a way to record a video (I assume for school). She knows the phone can do it because I've done it. But she didn't know how to go from stills to video. I tried "Swipe to the right." But that didn't work because she thinks "Swipe to the right" means move your finger to the right. I meant move your finger to the left so that you can see what's on the right side of the 3D object being rendered. In my weirdly configured head, I'm manipulating the thing behind the interface, not my finger ... so I swipe the image to the right by moving my finger to the left. I'm certain my language is wrong, but whatever. We could make the same argument for things like Twitter or Slack. What is that icon? What does it do? Etc. Of course, people like me just click and see what happens ... swipe this way, that way, bang it on the ground, whatever it takes to make the thing do something interesting. People like Renee' _want_ to know what they're supposed to do. And in that, they want to learn just enough about how/why it works so that they can know what they can do and how they can do it. Anyhoo ... I suppose I could have simply said: interfaces aren't as operationally closed as we like to assume. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
|
Shall we assume Renee' is Mrs. Glen? Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 15, 2017 12:40 PM, "glen ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote: On 06/15/2017 11:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 06/15/2017 11:57 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Shall we assume Renee' is Mrs. Glen? Yes, sorry ... another instance of me inscribing myself on the world. However, our partnership is neither condoned nor authorized by any religion or government. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
"And in that, they want to learn just enough about how/why it works so that they can know what they can do and how they can do it." With regard to my original remark to Nick, I claim that usually people really don't want to know something down to the quantum mechanics -- that is what I'd call a complete exposition. They want to have practical operational knowledge. Maybe they want to understand how to build a radio that uses a different frequency or modulation scheme, or they want to use a radio to control a remote device, or they want a remote device to operate autonomously in some hostile environment. There are assumptions about the primitives of the conversation, and usually it is a function of the individuals' vocation or specialty. Those that don't come equipped or accept those primitives are just not spoken to. 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Good job (narrowly) avoiding premature registration! From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Shall we assume Renee' is Mrs. Glen? Frank Wimberly On Jun 15, 2017 12:40 PM, "glen
☣" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
- On 6/15/17 8:29 AM, Nick Thompson
wrote:
Or to put it even more simply, an onion is never an onion. And the finger pointing is not the moon. Responding to Glen's *mis* vs *pre*... I still contend that I understood Glen to still be discussing *Complex Systems* rather than the simple distinction of "level" vs "layer" as an abstraction using the analogy of (or should we say metaphor) of the Onion as the *source* and various types of structure such as "layer" and "level".- Kuei-feng Tsung-mi (780-841) So I accept the claim that I tend to see most (if not all) language as rooted in metaphor... but that was not what lead me to *mis*register Glen's point. From my point of view, Glen Zigged, while I remained on course. Of course, from Glen's frame of reference, *he* was on a straight course and * Zagged. That is why iterative discussion is required for conversation?
n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen? Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 9:31 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sometimes an onion is just an onion... On 06/14/2017 05:36 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:Hairsplitting here (again), but I don't see what Nick or I did as *premature* registration, maybe *mis*registration? Or am I being "premature" again?Well, you could be right. But I do think it's premature, not merely mis-. What I think happened was y'all had been pre-adapted to perceive the onion as a source and complex systems as the target. Because of the conversation we were having, your perception was oriented that way. All your conceptual categories were ready, waiting to filter/parse any incoming signals according to that structure. You were a "complex systems perception machine". So, pretty much _anything_ I said would have been interpreted/filtered according to that pre-adapted conceptual structure. Hence, when you started reading that email (wherein I tried to distinguish level vs layer with the onion example), your registration machinery was already engaged. A way to avoid that _premature_ classification of what you saw would have been for you or Nick to read the email and ask whether that was the intention. If, after asking, you had still decided it was what I intended, despite my saying it wasn't, then maybe it would be more correct to call it (merely) mis-registration. BC Smith's point is simply that we don't approach reality with a (completely) open mind. We are structured to impute an organization on the ambient milieu. And the fact that it was so difficult to break out of that preconceived structure of what we were talking about is evidence that it was premature, not merely mis-. We all do it. It's the human/animal condition. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 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 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 06/15/2017 12:52 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> From my point of view, Glen Zigged, while I remained on course. Of course, from Glen's frame of reference, *he* was on a straight course and * Zagged. That is why iterative discussion is required for conversation? If you agree that iteration is necessary, then that implies that registration is always a process, never an instantaneous, atomic event. Therefore we have to ask whether this process is always monotonic. I.e. if Bob and Sally discuss topic X, will the differences in their understanding at time t ≥ that at time t+1? If not, then we have to allow a difference between premature and mis-registration, which allows you to be right. [†] If, however, it is monotonic, then we have to ask whether the process is, in principle, infinite. I.e. when registration concludes, is it because the Bob and Sally difference in understanding is = 0.0 or merely arbitrarily close to 0.0. But in either case, you can't be right. If the difference = 0.0, then there's no possibility of mis-registration. If it's infinite, then we must have a shunt a cut-off threshold beyond which Bob or Sally calls it good enough and quits the iteration. If the process is cut off before Bob and Sally agree well enough (within some error ball), enough for that to qualify as mis-registration, then that _is_ premature registration. So, it seems to me you've cornered yourself, here. If you know the process is iterative, yet you still mis-registered, why is it not premature registration? What is it about that concept you don't like? [†] But if you take that route, you'll be forced to allow that even with an infinite amount of yapping at each other, Bob and Sally's understanding _might_ grow further and further apart. And, I believe, that results in a contradiction with the premise that iterative discussion is required. So, even if we allow it, we've proved your argument invalid. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Waterboarding a dead Horse in a Desert with no name.
|
|
On 6/15/17 2:46 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > On 06/15/2017 12:52 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> From my point of view, Glen Zigged, while I remained on course. Of course, from Glen's frame of reference, *he* was on a straight course and * Zagged. That is why iterative discussion is required for conversation? > If you agree that iteration is necessary, then that implies that registration is always a process, never an instantaneous, atomic event. Therefore we have to ask whether this process is always monotonic. I.e. if Bob and Sally discuss topic X, will the differences in their understanding at time t ≥ that at time t+1? If not, then we have to allow a difference between premature and mis-registration, which allows you to be right. [†] If, however, it is monotonic, then we have to ask whether the process is, in principle, infinite. I.e. when registration concludes, is it because the Bob and Sally difference in understanding is = 0.0 or merely arbitrarily close to 0.0. But in either case, you can't be right. If the difference = 0.0, then there's no possibility of mis-registration. If it's infinite, then we must have a shunt a cut-off threshold beyond which Bob or Sally calls it good enough and quits the iteration. If the process is cut off before Bob and Sally agree well enough (within some error ball), enough for that to qualify as mis-registration, then that _is_ premature registration > > So, it seems to me you've cornered yourself, here. If you know the process is iterative, yet you still mis-registered, why is it not premature registration? What is it about that concept you don't like? sure... we can call it premature registration by that measure but that undermines the utility of even having the concept of a *mis*registration as a possibility. By your logic, any mis-registration I might make along the way is a pre-registration. As a fan of "late binding" in many contexts, I would agree that *all* registration risks being *pre* registration. What I don't like about pre-registration is that i think I KNOW what it would have been if I had "jumped to a conclusion" rather than to have simply misunderstood your intention/context. When YOU misunderstand me, I don't always suspect you of "jumping the gun", I sometimes recognize that we were not talking about the same thing, and it is likely that unless there was an obvious *mis*registration, the *mis*registration would have stood. And of course, if we yapp on about it long enough and we come to understand what that misunderstanding was, we could (in hindsight now) *call* it premature registration... but I think that is an artifact? Somehow this discussion reminds me of the line (repeated often) in the movie Twins with "Arnold and Danny": "You move too soon!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGstM8QMCjQ > [†] But if you take that route, you'll be forced to allow that even with an infinite amount of yapping at each other, Bob and Sally's understanding _might_ grow further and further apart. And, I believe, that results in a contradiction with the premise that iterative discussion is required. So, even if we allow it, we've proved your argument invalid. I didn't say that Iterative Discussion always lead to convergence. I only meant to imply that without iteration, any mis-registration of concept has to hold. If we doubt the validity of our registration, it would seem to make sense to discuss said registration further until we either converge enough to agree, diverge to the point of giving up, or coin a meta-discussion like this and risk repeating mis/pre-registrations! This sometimes degenerates into another great pair of lines from the clip above: "you have no respect for logic!" "but he's got an axe!" When Frank asked the question "is Renee Mrs. Glen", I would say (from what I know of you two) the assumption of his question was about 80% correct... you are a committed couple who lives together in the manner once reserved for married couples. Marcus suggests that Frank ducked premature registration by asking... had he taken the assumption that you and Renee are married and never commented on it, I would call that 'at worst" mis-registration... a simple mistake, but one of legal/religious technicalities rather than one of the general nature of your relationship? Had he stated it as a direct assumption and you had corrected him, then we'd be back to "was that *mis* or was that *pre*?" and perhaps to split the last? hair, if Frank continued to consider Renee as "Mrs. Glen" even after you pointed out that there was no legal nor religious marriage between you, then you would grant it as *mis*registration? Or just a difference of opinion of what it means to be referred to as "Mrs. Glen"? And if Renee were a man, then you might have chosen to correct him that the closest preferred salutation might be "Mr. Glen", and while I have met you both, I have enough transgendered friends to recognize that either or both of you could be living your lives according to your gender identification rather than that implied by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome without me necessarily recognizing such... long before we get into XYY and XXY Jacobs/Klinefelters syndrome, or better yet Chimeric Hermaphrodites? Without investigating all of these alternatives, I'd say that we have *all* preregistered the implications of "just who is this Renee Glen speaks of?" But I don't think there has been a particular *mis* registration (if such a concept is even admissible in this discussion)? I'm sure Renee's ears are burning by now! <aside> I have been legally (and religiously) married once... that union was dissolved after 12 years and 2 children by Catholic Annullment and Legal Divorce... so I have not since bothered with the benefit of the blessings of the Church nor the State since... I can't say it makes a lot of difference one way or the other except the amount of paperwork and the likelihood of sharing the booty with lawyers, which seems reason enough. But for all practical purposes (and perhaps according to Common Law in NM) I have been "in a state of marriage" a total of 3 times, despite not having *married* the last two. As an aside, neither of the last two would have answered to the salutation "Mrs. Steve" and generally preferred not to be referred to as "the wife", or horrors "wifey"! When UC offered benefits to "same sex" unmarried partners, but refused it to "opposite sex" partners, I asked the (semi) serious question of HR if one of us had a sex change, if THAT would qualify my life partner? They pretended to take my question seriously but was not surprised when they never got back to me. </aside> "you can waterboard a dead horse, but that won't make him into a talking horse" - Mr. Ed Carry On, - Steve > ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Waterboarding a dead Horse in a Desert with no name.
|
|
I know this is irrelevant but there is no common law marriage in NM. My daughter was married by an imam without a marriage license. Consulting a family law attorney taught us that a religious ceremony yields a legal marriage but that for practical reasons you should get a marriage license, which my daughter and her husband have since done. The sentence "there is no common law marriage in NM" was spoken in that consultation by the attorney. My uncertainty is what led me to say Mrs. Glen instead of Mrs. Ropella. It seemed less official. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 15, 2017 3:36 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 06/15/2017 02:36 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > sure... we can call it premature registration by that measure but that undermines the utility of even having the concept of a *mis*registration as a possibility. By your logic, any mis-registration I might make along the way is a pre-registration. As a fan of "late binding" in many contexts, I would agree that *all* registration risks being *pre* registration. Not by _my_ logic! 8^) I was using my inferences from your logic, those implied by "iteration is necessary for conversation". My logic is that regitration is _not_ a process. It's an atomic event, which allows there to be a distinction between premature and mis-registration. > What I don't like about pre-registration is that i think I KNOW what it would have been if I had "jumped to a conclusion" rather than to have simply misunderstood your intention/context. When YOU misunderstand me, I don't always suspect you of "jumping the gun", I sometimes recognize that we were not talking about the same thing, and it is likely that unless there was an obvious *mis*registration, the *mis*registration would have stood. And of course, if we yapp on about it long enough and we come to understand what that misunderstanding was, we could (in hindsight now) *call* it premature registration... but I think that is an artifact? I'm not a philosopher. But I think registration is more primitive than language. It happens instantaneously and organizes concepts, not words. It happens a LOT, though, probably even spontaneously, without intention on the part of the person. In this sense, the existence of premature registration assumes that we can be in an ambiguous (superposed?) state that doesn't resolve/collapse to an unambiguous state. When I speak complete gibberish to you and end with an upward lilt, you _should_ be in an ambiguous state and not have collapsed to a registered state. When I say something you immediately _understand_, then you have properly registered, even if you collapsed onto something I didn't intend. So, pre-registration is a state of not having registered. Mis-registered would be the situation where it was appropriate for you to collapse, but you collapsed to the "wrong" state. Premature registration would be if you collapsed inappropriately ... i.e. too soon. Late registration would be like giggling to a joke you heard 20 minutes ago. > I didn't say that Iterative Discussion always lead to convergence. I only meant to imply that without iteration, any mis-registration of concept has to hold. I know you didn't say that. That's why I explained my inference to the consideration of monotonicity of the iteration. Even if it is monotonic, the error could stay outside the error ball forever. But that whole discussion ensued from _your_ idea that registration is a process, which I don't think it is. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Waterboarding a dead Horse in a Desert with no name.
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
That settles it then! I *haven't* been in a state of marriage (in the eyes of the law
(who would know how, anyway?) ) 3 times... nor were any shotguns
involved! Better Half/Other Half/Significant Other the ambiguity is
Yuuuuge! So much room for pre-registration! Or is it mere
mis-apprehension? Or a difference in values and preferred use of
various terminology? On 6/15/17 3:51 PM, Frank Wimberly
wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: sometimes an onion is just an onion...
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
George Bernard Shaw Quotes. "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:57 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sometimes an onion is just an onion... On 06/15/2017 08:27 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > " It's the writer's job to balance and judge the amount of control ... ." > > So I, as a writer, have to be very slow to be aggrieved when I am not understood. > > It's like the salesman blaming the customers for his not making the sale. I don't know if it can be sourced. But I really like the aphorism: The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Model, Metaphor, Analogy
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Alaska Air was fine, I rescheduled from the red-eye flight to the late evening arrival. The word I was groping after to describe the character -- or lack of character -- of pattern matchers was: ------ op·por·tun·is·tic ˌäpərt(y)o͞oˈnistik/<input src="" height="14" type="image" width="14" style="font-size:small;font-family:Roboto,arial,sans-serif"> adjective
The latest issue of Science is a special issue on AI in scientific research. This article, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6346/22, is about making deep neural nets interpretable. -- rec -- On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |