Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
Locked
Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
 
|
I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at Friam, the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference of opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that is emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most equitable way for people to share what they know? What does it mean for something to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference. I have spent decades thinking about these things but no one knows everything and I am sure I have more to learn. These are important and timely issues. I think we should engage this conversation. I would like to invite anyone of you or someone you might know to have a conversation/discussion/debate about these issues. I have asked Mary Charlotte of KSFR?s Radio Café if she would be interested in hosting this conversation/discussion/debate on the Radio Café and she said she would. I have confidence that this interaction between us will likely enlighten both of us and the listeners as well. I am ready to proceed at any time. I look forward to your response. Best Wishes, Ann Racuya-Robbins Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
|
|
Emitted by Ann Racuya-Robbins circa 01/04/09 12:58 PM:
> I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at Friam, > the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a > fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference of > opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that is > emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when > people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most equitable > way for people to share what they know? What does it mean for something > to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference. I have spent > decades thinking about these things but no one knows everything and I am > sure I have more to learn. This is a bit cryptic. I presume the particulars of any disagreements have come to light in face-to-face conversations? How and when you do _you_ think people should be rewarded for what they know? How and when does your opposition think people should be rewarded for what they know? What do you think it means for something to be "free"? And what does the opposition think? Personally, I believe people _should_ do almost precisely what they already do. I.e. there are wide distributions for how and when people get rewarded for what they know and that's how it "should" be. From your using "should" in your question, I infer you think that (at least some) people are NOT rewarded in the way or at the time they _should_ be rewarded. Likewise, I tend to think that nothing is ever free. "Free" is a delusion we willingly engage in so as to "externalize costs and internalize profits". For example, "free software" is free in neither sense of the word (free beer or positive freedoms). Like proprietary software, the costs and benefits exist, they are just in different places and require attention at different times. If the above discussion is irrelevant to what you intended, then please elaborate and clarify! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
|
|
I agree with glen about the need for some explanation.
It's possible I would put my own spin on what is right or wrong with current reward systems based on my own prejudices. (I focus reward here purely on the financial.) Recently we saw horror at bailout funds used for bonuses and the resulting crucifiction of the target's employment/payment contracts - a secondary horror. Different political/social systems have different reward systems and safety-net systems. It's in the latter that I'd like to see some discussion. The current system attempts to reward productivity while reigning in excesses, with varying degrees of success in enforcement. Moral and legal judgments put boundaries on most of us to conform to the local perceptions. Some get rewarded for unethical but legal activities (selling credit default swaps). Some get rewarded for illegal but perhaps ethical activities (selling medical marijuana) and some get rewarded for illegal and unethical activities (robbing banks). On the other hand some don't get rewarded for legal and ethical activities (volunteerism). I don't think anyone gets rewarded for what they know. They only get rewarded when that knowledge is used in some _process_ when it is activated and acted on. It is labor that is rewarded. When the process is valued by society then it or it's members are willing to pay for it. Society or some subset ultimately sets the value. Perhaps this is obvious? Robert C. glen e. p. ropella wrote: Emitted by Ann Racuya-Robbins circa 01/04/09 12:58 PM: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
|
|
I strongly suspect that this is not universally the case.
--Doug On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
|
|
In reply to this post by Ann Racuya-Robbins-2
Ann -
I started to write one of my arbitrarily long and excruciatingly detailed responses to this and to your Seminar invitation. In fact, I did write it and then decided to try to write a concise summary instead. We'll see how that turns out (the first missive, just deleted, was about 5 screens worth, just for comparison). You have most of us at a disadvantage. While no two of us on this list are likely to agree on the details of much of anything, I think we all have differing levels of understanding and agreement on what we mean by Complex Systems (capitalization is mine). Despite these differences, most of us are roughly talking about the same concept, albeit in widely varying domains and with varying preferred formalisms and tools for simulating, generating, and studying them. I'm not sure we know what your ideas on the topic are, or if we are talking about the same thing. I think you may mean something different than I do when you say "complex system". It is evidenced both in your specific phrasing of "systems (complex)" and in the way I've heard you use the term. In particular, I don't think the phrase "creating a Complex System" is even a sensible phrase. In my use of the term, a Complex System is a system whose qualitative complexity arises or emerges, often out of a relatively simple (quantitatively not-complex) system. Created systems may be quantitatively simple or complex (by many measures) but the very definition of a Complex System in the sense that I use the term is that its qualitative complexity could not be designed, created, or even predicted in any detail. So I would never say that science nor art creates a Complex System though I would have to agree that many systems used by science (not created by science per se, but rather created by scientists in pursuit of understanding) are quantitatively complex, and that many types of artistic endeavors as I know them may create or generate quite quantitatively complex systems. I suppose, one could view what I call Complex Systems as having artistic value or interest, but I would have a hard time saying that the artist created these systems, and more to the point, certainly not saying that the artist created the exhibited Complexity in them. In the spirit of our former, former President, perhaps this depends on what create means. From some of the discussions I have observed you having during sfX presentations, I think you may mean something different by create, than I do. If I were to be pressed on the topic, I suppose I would often use the term discover when you would use create. This is germane to the question you pose about "how people should be rewarded for what they know". Since I don't think knowledge can be created, only discovered, it is hard for me to think of there being any absolute or intrinsic value to what I (or anyone else) might know at a given time. In a relative, context, I might know something that you do not, that you find useful and we might agree to exchange some other form of value for that knowledge, but I would not begrudge you the possibility of arriving at that knowing some other way (like discovering it yourself or having someone else share their own discovery with you). I might hold all kinds of knowledge which I might never be rewarded for. I might choose to share as freely as possible all knowledge I hold. So the notion that knowledge itself could have intrinsic value and the holder of the knowledge can have any specific expectation of reward is a little foreign to me. I know that in the pragmatic world, that secrets can be valuable, and their value can be realized both by holding them close and by sharing them selectively or broadly. I think before most of us would want to have a public discussion/debate/conversation (on air, in a very short time interval) on a topic, we would like to have some idea of the opposing viewpoint we are discussing/debating/conversing-about. You and I have had a number of very pleasant discussions online and in-person, and I've browsed through your World Knowledge Bank, but I do not yet have a sense of what your position (or what you refer to as a "differing opinion") is. Perhaps you have written some kind of position paper that would introduce us to your ideas and how they contrast with those which you believe you have fundamental philosophical differences with? I went to World Knowledge Bank tonight to see what you might have there on the topic, but alas, it seemed to be having technical difficulties. If there is such a description there (or elsewhere) please point me to it. I think something of the same nature (a concise description of the position you hold and how it contrasts with the positions you differ with) would help prepare folks considering your seminar series to decide if it is of interest to us, and to help us come up to speed on your ideas more easily. Anyone who has read this far in my "concise summary" is clearly a patient reader, and would likely find the same patience with reading any new way of thinking about complex systems and how we value knowledge and reward those who hold it, that you might offer. - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |