OK. That's funny.
Locked
 
|
Frank - Heinlein was up there with the likes of Clark and Asimov, leading
the Science Fiction community out of the Golden Age into the
Modern Age in the 50's and 60's and beyond. He also coined the
term "Speculative Fiction" to try to distinguish hard,
science-based speculation/extrapolatin in fiction from the
all-too-common loosey goosey style of the Golden Age. He also
pioneered injecting contemporary social issues into science
fiction, specifically with Stranger in a Strange Land. I'm not
surprised if you don't recognize his later works (e.g. Number of
the Beast 1980), but I'd have thunk that if you read Science
Fiction at all Heinlein would be a very familiar name. I have not read "La Biblioteca de Babel" in Spanish, but I have read the translation... given the theme, I'm curious how many languages it has been translated into. Give it a whirl if you might? It would appear that someone has built a "virtual" Biblioteca de
Babel online... I have not explored it in any way. I suppose
there are analyses somewhere of the signal/noise ratio which must
be diminishingly low, as it would seem most/many of the universii
to be explored by Heinlein's protaganists. With the Looking
Glass/Rabbit Hole side of the multiverse verging itself on madness
to anyone who might visit? - Steve
On 8/4/20 9:55 PM, Frank Wimberly
wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore
haha, yeah, and perhaps something analogous to Twitch crates.
-- 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Somehow this post reminds me of George Bataille's "L’informe":
"A dictionary begins when it no longer gives the meaning of words, but their tasks. Thus formless is not only an adjective having a given meaning, but a term that serves to bring things down in the world, generally requiring that each thing have its form. What it designates has no rights in any sense and gets itself squashed everywhere, like a spider or an earthworm. In fact, for academic men to be happy, the universe would have to take shape. All of philosophy has no other goal: it is a matter of giving a frock coat to what is, a mathematical frock coat. On the other hand, affirming that the universe resembles nothing and is only formless amounts to saying that the universe is something like a spider or spit." -- 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/ |
|
In reply to this post by gepr
FWIW, I'm not trying to *assert* collective intention (or higher-order intention). The idea that a collection of intentions exhibits a relatively closed "floor" or "logical layer of abstraction" below ... so that the structure of a collective of intentional agents may well be self-organized in the same way a group of non-intentional objects like molecules or grains of sand might self-organize.
But my intuition argues that that "floor" is not tightly closed ... that there is a LOT of leakage from the intentions of the agents into the "intention" of the collective. For that sort of reasoning, this paper is interesting: Collective (Telic) Virtue Epistemology https://philpapers.org/rec/CARCTV On 8/5/20 8:15 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > [...] > But the idea that corporations are self-organized is dissonant. Keeping my (tiny) company going all these years (we turn 20 next year!) has been anything *but* self-organized ... or even organized at all. 8^D It's very much an extension of my will power, from the state of OR trying to fine me $60k for claiming my out-of-state contractors were actually employees, to having years long negotiations collapse because we (apparently) don't use "standard accounting procedures", it's an *intentional* act at every turn. > > Now, a behemoth like Google or Bechtel might have some self-organizing elements somewhere in the middle scale, where bureacracy meets bureaucracy in the same corporation. But even there, I'm skeptical. It definitely has that stigmergic accumulation. But intention/will is ubiquitous in such beasts so that it doesn't feel like what we mean by "self-organization". -- ↙↙↙ 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/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ - I appreciate that, and wonder where it (this variation of fake/not-fake, fake news) fits in the realm of rhetoric? It seems to be something of an admixture of irony and satire with trace elements of many other things which get under the skin and are hard to let go of.I didn't verify Last's claims either. But it's not the truth or falsity of it that matters so much as it *triggers* in me an emotional response (the hope that Trump loses, is indicted, and maybe seeks asylum in Russia to wallow in rotten offal like Seagal and Depardieu). That's the mechanism of fake news, even if the news is not fake. Snowden is a different story. I'm torn. Me too... right from the beginning really. His predicament (was
one I imagined for myself many times after obtaining an SCI
clearance... my DOE-Q never put me at (significant) risk of
learning the kinds of things he had to sort, but the SCI was
fraught with those risks). He must be walking a strange
tightrope in Russia... I haven't heard much lately from/about Assange, a parallel but
(for me) much less sympathetic character. From wikipedia it seems
he's still in prison in the UK on a bail-jump thing, but due out
any time now? And this article (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/19/donald-trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-russia-hack-wikileaks)
had some ominous notes in it, with this (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/27/us-attorney-general-julian-assange-extradition-case-political-ends-uk-court-told)
providing an update with COVID19 playing an oblique part (delaying
his hearing until at least Sept 2020?) I generally like your gist that [hol|hier|heter]archy is not a strict disjunction between top-down, bottom-up, or middle-out, though I almost always argue for middle-out ... or, at least, start looking where your focus is the best. In that sense, diffusion limited aggregation strikes me as the best constructive algorithm for the *-archies. My instinct/experience (which is limited to what it is, and what
it has been informed by) is that hierarchies are an *easy* way to
satisfice multiple goals and constraints by developing scale
free-structure. I also believe, however, that multiple
hierarchies intersect or conjoin in complex emergent systems,
sometimes in obvious ways (the root and branch systems of a pinon
tree growing within the landscape of an arroyo system, the former
mildly constraining the latter (erosion control) and the latter
providing constraints (suitable conditions water/shade/soil
chemisty for germination and continued growth). A more muddled but poignant example might be mammalian (or any living system really) physiognomy: The cardio-vascular system doing primarily material, energy and heat transport, the lymph system augmenting the vascular system with policing functions, the neural system running comms, and other systems like skeletal, kidney/liver/spleen organs mostly providing support to the vascular, gastro-intestinal/lungs/skin providing chemical interfaces to their embedded environment, and the sensory mechanisms/organs interfacing with "information", etc. Multiple *-archies evolved with ?obvioius? (in hindsight) goals and constraints criss-crossing to yield yet-more-complex function than any strict hierarchy could likely support by itself? *This IS* what I'm interested in recognizing/discovering... a key perhaps to part of the holy grail of characterizing form/function duality.I don't *think* I agree that posets belong in that category, though. They seem a bit like abstractions, much like my rejection of Jon's goal-function construct. The accidental, stigmergic, accumulation of the *-archy can be optimized into a poset. But I don't think arose as a poset ... but I'm not sure of that. There's something akin to canalization in posets ... path of least resistance, historical-but-necessary dependence on past state. But the idea that corporations are self-organized is dissonant. Keeping my (tiny) company going all these years (we turn 20 next year!) has been anything *but* self-organized ... or even organized at all. 8^D It's very much an extension of my will power, from the state of OR trying to fine me $60k for claiming my out-of-state contractors were actually employees, to having years long negotiations collapse because we (apparently) don't use "standard accounting procedures", it's an *intentional* act at every turn. I agree with the intuitive dissonance, both as a small-business
(though only a "corporation", LLC in form) owner myself (3 times
in 3 different phases of life), and as an observer/critic of the
larger field of corporativity. The early history of incorporated (ad)ventures may be illustrative. Recently (re)reading Moby Dick, the references to the financing of whaling ventures in fractional parts owned by everyone from primary owners and captains to little-old-ladies-in-Nantucket to Ahab and Queequeg similar sailors/harpooners, I am reminded that corporations have a history, somewhat embedded in the history of mercantilism and subsequent industrialization. The mercantile-centric megacorps like Dutch East/West Indian and Hudson Bay company come to mind and I suspect proto-corporate examples from a millenia or more before with the Silk Road and other stylized trade routes presage what was more formalized with the Amsterdam Stock Exchange formed around commodities but then expanded into more abstract things... To the extent that corporations (latin corpus - body of
people) were formed under the permission/encouragement/regulation
of existing political bodies (monarchies, oligarchies,
parliaments, etc.) by and for individuals or small groups of
individuals, I agree that there is a huge element of *will*
involved.
Now, a behemoth like Google or Bechtel might have some self-organizing elements somewhere in the middle scale, where bureacracy meets bureaucracy in the same corporation. But even there, I'm skeptical. It definitely has that stigmergic accumulation. But intention/will is ubiquitous in such beasts so that it doesn't feel like what we mean by "self-organization". I suppose what I'm gesturing at is the extent to which it seems like corporations represent an emergent structure that channels that "will", with more tangible/tractable/concrete (yet still abstracted) concepts like money/currency and political influence. Perhaps in all (or most) cases, one can find that corporations are actually in the service of, and under the direction of, one or a small number of willful individuals. I suppose this is what founders, officers, boards, major shareholders are, while the rest of us, if we have a stake at all are simply pawns and tools in their games. Add an extra level of indirection through mutual funds, pensions, etc. and it all gets yet more muddy, though that is where the emergent structures might seem to form? Maybe it is another one of my (in)famous tangents, but I remember someone doing a fairly thorough analysis (over 10 years ago) on Apple fanBoi's, demonstrating (through a spreadsheet) if instead of purchasing an Apple Product in say 1984 or 1990 or 2000, that if they had invested the same $$ into the Apple Corporation, they would now (in many/most cases) be millionaires. The inverse of "for want of a nail, the war was lost"? "Forgoing a nail and purchasing a tiny share in the nail factory...". To all who read this far: I realize that my larding style/nature
combined with my fecund (if not actually fertile) style generates
multifurcating threads like Borges "Forking Paths", and am used to
only one (if that) of my fraying subthreads getting picked up. mumble, - Steve On 8/4/20 8:24 PM, Steve Smith wrote:I didn't fully verify your Bulwark link, but my first impulse was to think it was an Onion <https://www.theonion.com/> or Borowitz <https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report> article. Fascinating that absurd things like this can go right past us in the torrent of nonsense that this administration has brought to us. Lost in the cacophany of dog-whistles, as it were? Interesting juxtaposition of Trump, Seagal, Depardieu (/Zherar Depardyo!) /and Snowden... among other things, both Seagal and Depardieu's movies have been put on a banned list in Ukraine <https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/19/ukraine-bans-movies-starring-zelenskiy-seagal-depardieu-over-national-security-a69342>, and I'd guess Trump is not a very welcome person there either. I don't know what they feel about Snowden... he's more likely to be a hero than antihero there, in spite Russia being his bolt-hole location? <https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/19/ukraine-bans-movies-starring-zelenskiy-seagal-depardieu-over-national-security-a69342> These links remind me of several of the other frayed threads here... you referenced yet another previous thread discussing "means of production" and whether I acquiesced openly to your grumbling about that at the time, it did set me on a different tangent internally. It also juxtaposes with the various lines of discussion around self-organization and hierarchical systems. Many of us think first of political power structures when we think hierarchy. To the extent that these systems maintain their own coherence through a certain amount of top-down control (i.e. exercise of authority) we tend to associate hierarchies as "top-down" systems, but I think that is somewhat of an illusion, or an edge case among the many examples of hierarchy in self-organized systems. Heterarchy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy> and holarchy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy> come to mind, as does the generic poset <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set>. Snowden's rhetoric, which I generally approve/agree-with, includes an "othering" of gub'mint and corporations that doesn't seem to overtly take into account that both of these are self-organized, emergent structures, even if from an oft-individual point of view they seem antithetical to the good of the individual. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
Babel was Re: OK. That's funny.
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
So I visited the Library of Babel site. Fascinating and potentially a
productivity sink for the rest of the day for FRIAM types. Searching coherent English phrases, such as that last sentence, successfully found ~10^29 possible exact matches. Now the statistics don't worry my so much as how does the Search algorithm find them so quickly? - Robert Cordingley On 8/5/20 9:24 AM, Steve Smith wrote: ... https://libraryofbabel.info/ -- Cirrillian Web Design & Development Santa Fe, NM http://cirrillian.com 281-989-6272 (cell) - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by gepr
FWIW, I occasionally entertain the idea of a *Universal Grammar* for
belief[⍦]. The idea being that there may be some genetic component of the belief faculty, and that by analogy to universal grammar, one acquires competence in one's own beliefs through performance[⌂][◇]. At any moment, a person makes decisions and suffers the reality that they did or did not believe what they thought they might. Here, I am defining belief more narrowly than most. For me, beliefs are necessarily discovered, and not the kind of thing one 'discovers' by considering hypotheticals. Alternatively, it feels wonderful to reject *-archies in favor of rhizomatic thought[⍼], à la, "A Thousand Plateaus". Taken together, an invigorating experience akin to visiting a sauna with a cold plunge. [⍦] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [◇] The connection I am drawing to Glen's linked paper is to: 1. similarities between alethic and doxastic modalities. 2. highlighted tensions between constructivist and analytical modalities. [⌂] I think of a theory of this kind as weakly rejecting the notion of Peircean truth. Different individuals, with different biologically determined universal belief structures, would ultimately believe different things in the long run. What would be considered truth, in the long run, could only then be a tragedy of intersectional beliefs. [⍼] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy) |
|
|
Why tragedy? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 12:05 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote: FWIW, I occasionally entertain the idea of a *Universal Grammar* for - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
One extreme reason is that the intersection may be empty, excluding all
individual beliefs (even those that give rise to profitable action, ie. an apt belief[*]) from being true in the Peircean sense. [*] From the paper Glen posted: "A belief is apt if and only if it is successful (i.e., accurate) because competent." -- 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
I would be skeptical of the possibility. Studies in Neuro-Theology and Cognitive Anthropology might discover (and have)discovered) "universals:" e.g. suppression of activity in a specific brain location decreases one's sense of separation from the Universe; Xenophobia; etc. Other studies show interesting correlations: e.g. One's direct experience of "God" correlated with, what Sheldon called, Somatotype (endomorphs like St. Theresa experiences emotional/sexual rapture, ectomorphs like St. John as intellectual discourse). But there has, so far, been no evidence of any kind of "generative" link between universal primitives and the vast diversity of belief expressions. By the way, Chomsky was full of it. :) davew On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, at 12:04 PM, jon zingale wrote: > FWIW, I occasionally entertain the idea of a *Universal Grammar* for > belief[⍦]. > The idea being that there may be some genetic component of the belief > faculty, > and that by analogy to universal grammar, one acquires competence in one's > own > beliefs through performance[⌂][◇]. At any moment, a person makes decisions > and > suffers the reality that they did or did not believe what they thought they > might. Here, I am defining belief more narrowly than most. For me, beliefs > are > necessarily discovered, and not the kind of thing one 'discovers' by > considering > hypotheticals. Alternatively, it feels wonderful to reject *-archies in > favor > of rhizomatic thought[⍼], à la, "A Thousand Plateaus". Taken together, an > invigorating experience akin to visiting a sauna with a cold plunge. > > > [◇] The connection I am drawing to Glen's linked paper is to: > 1. similarities between alethic and doxastic modalities. > 2. highlighted tensions between constructivist and analytical modalities. > > [⌂] I think of a theory of this kind as weakly rejecting the notion of > Peircean > truth. Different individuals, with different biologically determined > universal > belief structures, would ultimately believe different things in the long > run. > What would be considered truth, in the long run, could only then be a > tragedy > of intersectional beliefs. > > > > > -- > 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/ |
|
|
For the record, Dave, I believe Chomsky agrees with you :) Still, my concern
persists even when we identify 'universals'. There may be whatever universals and yet remain 'apt beliefs' that we exploit for profit that can *never* be extended to be believed by another. This is to say that in the short-run we may all agree, but in the long-run, we will most probably all fail to agree. -- 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/ |
|
|
Further, if we only take what we will agree to in the long-run as truths,
then it is very likely that we all aptly believe things that can never be true. -- 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Jon -
Somehow this post reminds me of George Bataille's "L’informe": "A dictionary begins when it no longer gives the meaning of words, but their tasks. Thus formless is not only an adjective having a given meaning, but a term that serves to bring things down in the world, generally requiring that each thing have its form. What it designates has no rights in any sense and gets itself squashed everywhere, like a spider or an earthworm. In fact, for academic men to be happy, the universe would have to take shape. All of philosophy has no other goal: it is a matter of giving a frock coat to what is, a mathematical frock coat. On the other hand, affirming that the universe resembles nothing and is only formless amounts to saying that the universe is something like a spider or spit." "no longer gives the meaning of... but their tasks..." seems like
an echo of some of Glen's sentiments here? Which lead me to his: La Part
maudite (from Wikipedia): According to Bataille's theory of consumption, the accursed share is that excessive and non-recuperable part of any economy which must either be spent luxuriously and knowingly without gain in the arts, in non-procreative sexuality, in spectacles and sumptuous monuments, or it is obliviously destined to an outrageous and catastrophic outpouring, in the contemporary age most often in war, or in former ages as destructive and ruinous acts of giving or sacrifice, but always in a manner that threatens the prevailing system.... of which I was vaguely aware... it seems to have a place in SGuerin's application of "Least Action" to Socioeconomic systems? - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
FWIW, I'm not trying to *assert* collective intention (or higher-order intention). The idea that a collection of intentions exhibits a relatively closed "floor" or "logical layer of abstraction" below ... so that the structure of a collective of intentional agents may well be self-organized in the same way a group of non-intentional objects like molecules or grains of sand might self-organize. But my intuition argues that that "floor" is not tightly closed ... that there is a LOT of leakage from the intentions of the agents into the "intention" of the collective. For that sort of reasoning, this paper is interesting: Collective (Telic) Virtue Epistemology https://philpapers.org/rec/CARCTV Glen - I've been niggling about in my own noggin about the possibility
that "awareness precedes intention", particularly while
considering the collective versions of same, but your link here
yields a delicious confounding of that in the line: " through a (collective) intentional attempt to get it right aptly" which suggests that awareness/knowledge might not arise in the absence of intention? thanks for leading me (back) to Sosa... his work is such a rich vein that I keep dropping away from it in perplexity I think. Intuitively I agree that there is a LOT of leakage from agent's intentionality into a collective, or at least in the one's we speak of here. But what of cells forming organs forming organisms? If a cell has an intention (at least to remain coherent?) then the collective (organ) supports that intention (as a reward for it's symbiotic participation in the organ's functions?) of the cell, but the cell does not provide the higher intentions of the organ, but rather merely supports them as a byproduct? Or maybe I'm wrong... since you often speak of kidney/nephron function... is the intention of the cell somehow reflected in the intention of the nephron which then becomes or informs the intention of the kidney which -> other organs -> organism - > social groupings of organisms -> ... or perhaps I'm buggering the term "intention" badly here. BTW... this is not an attempt to be
argumentative, but rather reflects my own wonderment at the
implications that seem to arise from what you offered
here... - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Jon sed:
> Further, if we only take what we will agree to in the long-run as truths, > then it is very likely that we all aptly believe things that can never be > true. this seems like a specific example of overfitting? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
Maybe underfitting? Would you mind fleshing out the connection, more?
-- 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 - I misread your second message to be a restatement/elaboration of the last line in your first...JZ> Maybe underfitting? Would you mind fleshing out the connection, more? I was identifying "short run agreement at the expense of long-run agreement" as overfitting but I see now you said the converse. Now I'm confused by what you actually wrote! JZ> "it is very likely that we all aptly believe things that can never be true" I hate to be tangling this yet more... - Steve - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
Ha, yeah. Originally, I had only meant to compare two (potentially
hallucinatory) modalities that I find myself humoring. On the one hand, an arborescent ordering of my world (universal grammar of belief), and on the other something more like a nomadic exploration of a rhizome. As a sort of side comment to this, I mentioned a weak rejection of Peircean truth relative to such a universal grammar of belief (UGB). There were also caveats, I am talking about belief in a narrow sense. For these purposes, I claim beliefs to be things that we discover via performance (belief competence) and not the kind of things discoverable by reflecting on hypotheticals. Additionally, along the lines of Chomsky's universal grammar, UGBs are arbitrarily given by the historical accident of biology. This last point opens the door to a reasonable assumption that any two people will ultimately disagree on what they are capable of believing. What I find interesting in this characterization is that the collection of ones apt-beliefs (roughly, beliefs that one has and ought to have) may be part of the commons in the short run, but are likely to be ruled out in the long run, and so will be found false by a Peircean determination of truth. Again, the idea is that even if one can profit in the world by putting their apt-belief to work, these beliefs will generally be non-transferrable exactly because they will not be part of another's UGB. I personally have no emotional investment in these ideas (making no claim even in a broader sense to believe them), but the logic of it all seemed curious enough to post about. -- 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 -
Thanks! I think I followed all (most) of that... I wanted to comment on your introduction of rhizomal vs arborescent from another post/thread but got tangled in trying to untangle how much of those two "modalities" derive from their naming metaphors and how apt they are since they respond to my questioning of *archical structures and seeking alternatives to those, and/or an appreciation for how multiple, coupled hierarchies (*archies?) might yield a substrate where more complex dynamical structures can operate *without* necessarily requiring or generating evident structure. The interaction between mycorhizzal guilds and various tree roots would seem to be a good example. I do not believe that their structure is "arborescent" and don't know "yet" if the etymology of rhizome and mycorhiza imply similar structures... I think they both merely reference "rootness". I happen to be having a very good "sunchoke" year, which spread rhizomally and in fact it is the starchy rhizomes that *I* grow them for ( a nutty flavored rhizome that can be eaten raw like jicama or cooked like a potato or a turnip). They are apparently in the sunflower family (and the stalks/leaves/flowers are sunflowerish), suggesting to me that rhizomal propagation is more universal than I imagined before. I've been watching each year to try to understand better how the rhyzomes "propogate"... during the growing season I watch new shoots emerge at the periphery of the "bed" and then during harvest (starting in Fall, ensuing as-needed through winter) discovering the actual distribution and shape of the rhizomes, and then the resulting distribution of the "bits" i leave or return to the bed (or new beds). - Steve > Ha, yeah. Originally, I had only meant to compare two (potentially > hallucinatory) modalities that I find myself humoring. On the one hand, an > arborescent ordering of my world (universal grammar of belief), and on the > other something more like a nomadic exploration of a rhizome. As a sort of > side comment to this, I mentioned a weak rejection of Peircean truth > relative to such a universal grammar of belief (UGB). There were also > caveats, I am talking about belief in a narrow sense. For these purposes, I > claim beliefs to be things that we discover via performance (belief > competence) and not the kind of things discoverable by reflecting on > hypotheticals. Additionally, along the lines of Chomsky's universal grammar, > UGBs are arbitrarily given by the historical accident of biology. This last > point opens the door to a reasonable assumption that any two people will > ultimately disagree on what they are capable of believing. What I find > interesting in this characterization is that apt-beliefs (roughly, beliefs > that one has and ought to have) may be part of the commons in the short run, > but are likely to be ruled out in the long run, and so will be found false > by a Peircean determination of truth. Again, the idea is that even if one > can profit in the world by putting their apt-belief to work, these beliefs > will generally be non-transferrable exactly because they will not be part of > another's UGB. I personally have no emotional investment in these ideas > (making no claim even in a broader sense to believe them), but the logic of > it all seemed curious enough to post about. > > > > -- > 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/ |
|
|
Sunchokes are very tasty. Do they grow easily out where you are?
-- 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/ |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |