On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
Locked
On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
 
|
Quoting phil,
There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: "agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition) in the concrete." Ineffective, yes; but that is the way Darwinian evolution works, no? It is not that one is prescient. It is just that one is lucky. Nick > [Original Message] > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Date: 4/29/2008 10:01:26 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam at redfish.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > friam-request at redfish.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > friam-owner at redfish.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 3. Marketing research as futurology (Nicholas Thompson) > 4. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 5. Re: recap on Rosen (sy at synapse9.com) > 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > 7. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 8. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 9. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > 10. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 11. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > 12. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > 13. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > 14. Re: recap on Rosen (Ken Lloyd) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:36:37 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <4815FD15.4080701 at snoutfarm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > phil henshaw wrote: > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds' are > > different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we witness and say > something about the world that will be witnessed. > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. Of course, > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life vs. life > imitating art.. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:48 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <4815FF00.2070000 at tempusdictum.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > G?nther Greindl wrote: > > It is neither a mathematically rigorous nor an empirically grounded > > refutation, I agree, but rather in the sense of Occam's razor/Laplacean > > "I do not need this hypothesis". > > Excellent! We pretty much agree. The only area where I might disagree > is in attempts to develop measures of complexity. Forget the whole > "life <=> non-life" red herring. The simple <=> complex spectrum, > however, can be useful. > > And, in that sense, Rosen's attempts to formalize simple systems as > "defined from the outside" versus complex systems as "defined from the > inside" is interesting. Albeit, we may not NEED such a theorem because > we have plenty of measures of complexity which work to greater or lesser > extent in different contexts. (I'm fond of "logical depth" myself, > though I admit that I haven't used it successfully.) > > But I can imagine that certain concepts that are currently used all the > time in complexity circles, and which are always horribly vague despite > the credentials of the users, ... I can imagine that these concepts will > never become clear and concrete until we have such a theorem. > > And that's where non-well-founded set theory seems useful. What is the > ultimate difference between formalisms (models) requiring the foundation > axiom and those that do NOT require it? > > It seems to me that formalisms built without the foundation axiom will > lack some of the definiteness we find and expect in our mathematics. > And, surprise, we also see a lack of definiteness in complex systems. > Now, I'm not just trying to combine two unknowns in an attempt to use > one to explain the other. [grin] My point is that this circularity > Rosen points out is fundamentally related to cycles in non-well-founded > set theory. And it also seems related to the rampant abuse of concepts > like iteration (e.g. recursion). > > Anyway, my thoughts are a jumble of unjustified nonsense at this stage. > I need a sugar-momma to pay me to sit around and think. Any takers? > > > Have you perchance read > > > > Wells, A. J. In Defense of Mechanism Ecological Psychology, 2006, 18, 39-65 > > Nope. It sure sounds familiar, though. > > > ? He takes on Rosen's claims, I have queued the paper for reading, will > > probably get there in July (have a lot to do at the moment ;-)); and > > would be glad to continue the conversation. > > I'll add it to my queue, too, though I'm way beyond being able to commit > to it or estimate when I would ever read it. I've always been a slow > reader ... though when I do read something, I usually remember it. > It'll help if you spontaneously re-start the conversation when you get > to Wells' paper. Then make fun of me if I haven't read it, yet. > That'll coerce me into reading it. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully > is prepared to die at any time. -- Mark Twain > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIFf8ApVJZMHoGoM8RAt+gAKCB20DpxiyJ8nwVJeSXVYFG/xHR1wCfX5dG > w6gansrDVkGFmZ4GoCQIx5I= > =yHDb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:53:40 -0600 > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > Subject: [FRIAM] Marketing research as futurology > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <380-220084128165340577 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > David, > > As a Darwinian, I think a lot about the costs of success. A darwinian > system works because the benefits of success are not shared equally > those who try. One lineage suceeds, the others die. From a gigantic > batter of misery is baked one good cake. Whoopeee. > > Your story about Mercedes has two impacts. The first is that if you want > to predict the future, don't do a marketing survey, because, by and large, > people dont know what they want. Great message. > > But then there is a double take; MERCEDES, for all its early misjugement > of the auto market, is one of the most sucessful automakers, ever, right? > > So, what is it we learn from that story? That big stupid giants succeed > the end? > > I guess Ford didn't do SO bad. Somebody help me out, here. > > Nick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <48160A43.7010006 at tempusdictum.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed without a > > model to warn you about the approach of major environmental change. > > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing about... But I'll > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. [grin] > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that it > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't > an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition) > in the concrete. > > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel, > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible. And the best > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" (scenarios, > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis. The point is > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes contains a > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the risk > by practicing/training in as many different vignettes as possible. > > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning and > usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to any one model as > the Truth if you want to remain agile. > > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is the rule and > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times, exploration is the > rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be willing to > sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape starts to > destabilize. The committed end up dying because their, once true > enough, convictions are no longer true enough. > > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other organizational > strategies. The high attrition rate of small businesses allows us to > balance exploration and exploitation. When times are stable we grow big > behemoth exploiters. When times become more chaotic, those behemoths > come crashing down and us little guys scramble and wander like ants, > with all our various deviant models and expectations of the world, > exploring the dynamic landscape and hoping to stumble into a niche and > become the next behemoth exploiter. Then we hope to hoard enough > resources to skate through the next period of instability. > > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that we define > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we _cannot_ engineer a > world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A sustainable > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from the inside. > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted aspects/purposes > will eventually fail (or grow out of "control"). "Humanity" is an > abstract and pitifully impoverished _slice_ of Gaia (for lack of a > better term). So any design we put in place to preserve the system from > the perspective of the human slice will eventually fail or mutate into > something not so human friendly. > > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do believe is > that agility is the key to handling novelty and multi-modeling is the > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty). > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the > support of Paul -- George Bernard Shaw > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ= > =cZOR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:22:33 +0000 > From: sy at synapse9.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > bxe015.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> > > Content-Type: text/plain > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for a little fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are long range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > Phil > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 > To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed without a > > model to warn you about the approach of major environmental change. > > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing about... But I'll > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. [grin] > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that it > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't > an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition) > in the concrete. > > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel, > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible. And the best > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" (scenarios, > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis. The point is > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes contains a > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the risk > by practicing/training in as many different vignettes as possible. > > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning and > usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to any one model as > the Truth if you want to remain agile. > > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is the rule and > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times, exploration is the > rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be willing to > sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape starts to > destabilize. The committed end up dying because their, once true > enough, convictions are no longer true enough. > > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other organizational > strategies. The high attrition rate of small businesses allows us to > balance exploration and exploitation. When times are stable we grow big > behemoth exploiters. When times become more chaotic, those behemoths > come crashing down and us little guys scramble and wander like ants, > with all our various deviant models and expectations of the world, > exploring the dynamic landscape and hoping to stumble into a niche and > become the next behemoth exploiter. Then we hope to hoard enough > resources to skate through the next period of instability. > > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that we define > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we _cannot_ engineer a > world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A sustainable > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from the inside. > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted aspects/purposes > will eventually fail (or grow out of "control"). "Humanity" is an > abstract and pitifully impoverished _slice_ of Gaia (for lack of a > better term). So any design we put in place to preserve the system from > the perspective of the human slice will eventually fail or mutate into > something not so human friendly. > > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do believe is > that agility is the key to handling novelty and multi-modeling is the > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty). > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the > support of Paul -- George Bernard Shaw > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ= > =cZOR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:51:33 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <4816A955.2060606 at snoutfarm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Glen wrote: > > We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that it > > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't > > an effective tactic. > It's very effective if the population is large enough. 6.6 billion > humans is quite a few. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <48172510.1050005 at tempusdictum.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for a little > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are long > > range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish to avoid being > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. More time means > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise. > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter _when_ you sense > the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the disturbance, even if it's only > after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point of being agile is to > allow you a larger window and more options between the time of sensing > the disturbance and your subsequent action. > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes from being > deeply embedded in the context. > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate long-range patterns > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract patterns and > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic change. It > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change is waaaay too > big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- > Milton Friedman > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:42:58 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <481725E2.7010100 at tempusdictum.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > Glen wrote: > >> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > >> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that > >> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't > >> an effective tactic. > > > > It's very effective if the population is large enough. 6.6 billion > > humans is quite a few. > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a multi-farious > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources -- with an > explicit objective. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the > individual who can labor in freedom. -- Albert Einstein > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:53:20 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <48172850.8020706 at snoutfarm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > >> Glen wrote: > >> > >>> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > >>> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that > >>> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't > >>> an effective tactic. > >>> > >> It's very effective if the population is large enough. 6.6 billion > >> humans is quite a few. > >> > > > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a multi-farious > > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an > > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources -- with an > > explicit objective. > > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g. sustainability > efforts as it relates to survival of governments or the even the human > species? It seems to me a government or large company can be agile by > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful) than small but > agile groups -- economies of scale. A benefit of the exploitation > phase, also comes with the benefit of the diversification of those > exploitable specialists. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:31:47 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <48173153.10403 at tempusdictum.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g. > > efforts as it relates to survival of governments or the even the human > > species? > > Yes, we were. But, you cut out the context of my original comment, > which was that: It's true _some_ entities can seem, post hoc, to have > been pre-adapted to some context. I.e. Some entities may seem to have > successfully used _commitment_ to a single model (or small set of > models). But commitment and pre-adaptation are not an effective _tactic_. > > Then you said that "it" can be effective, wherein you conflated tactics > and strategy. Pre-adaptation and commitment to a single model (or small > set of models) is NOT an effective tactic for achieving an explicit > objective. On the contrary, however, agnostic multi-modeling can be a > strategy for achieving vague, abstract, or implicit objectives. > > "Sustainability" is, as yet, vague and abstract. And if we buy Rosen's > argument, it must be implicit. > > > It seems to me a government or large company can be agile by > > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful) than small but > > agile groups -- economies of scale. > > Only _if_ the overwhelming majority of those specialists are sacrificed > (or "re-used"). And only _if_ there are plenty of those specialists. > Which means pre-adaptation is not an effective tactic for an > overwhelming majority of those specialists. > > You're talking about a strategy, not a tactic. And, at that composite > (army, population, collective) level, you're also NOT talking about a > strategy of pre-adaptation/commitment. You're talking about a strategy > of agnosticism and multi-modeling. > > At the individual unit level (even if the unit is composite), the most > relevant tactic for surviving potentially catastrophic change is > maximized agility, not commitment to a given model. > > If you want to draw a _metaphor_ between "collective agility" and > agnostic multi-modeling, then go ahead. But be clear that it's a > metaphor. Agility comes from embeddedness and a tight feedback loop > with the environment. Large collectives cannot both be a very abstract > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment. Hence, saying > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national corporation" is either > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile". > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the > human mind to correlate all its contents. -- H. P. Lovecraft > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:15:19 -0400 > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <013301c8aa0b$d6edf3e0$84c9dba0$@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds' are > > > different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we witness and say > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. Of course, > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life vs. life > > imitating art.. > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles in our minds' > stitched together by personal and cultural values, and they have lots of > things of the world which are continually changing represented by fixed > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are organized around > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning system parts, which > learn by exploring pathways THEY find. The natural assumption then would be > for their design to always be changing in ways we can't see at all without > some hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems of knowledge. > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it, but it also > allows one to get a little warning about the systems of the world that are > behaving independent of our models for them. > > Does that help? > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:19 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <48173E57.4020809 at snoutfarm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > Large collectives cannot both be a very abstract > > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment. Hence, saying > > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national corporation" is either > > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile". > > > Given the fast and impressive beating that AMD just got at Intel's hand, > that example strikes me as weird! > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:00 -0400 > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <013a01c8aa0e$96bd46b0$c437d410$@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Glen, > > > sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for a little > > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making > > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the > > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are long > > > range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is > > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish to avoid being > > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. More time means > > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise. > > > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter _when_ you sense > > the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the disturbance, even if it's only > > after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point of being agile is to > > allow you a larger window and more options between the time of sensing > > the disturbance and your subsequent action. > > [ph] why make it so complicated? You don't need to explain why it's good > survive. It's good to survive. The agility only makes a difference in that > *before* being swallowed, when you have an ability to respond to the > information of *approaching danger*. No info, no avoidance of danger. > > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially > > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's > > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high > > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes from being > > deeply embedded in the context. > > > [ph] Yes, the apparent reason people are constantly walking blindly into > conflict is a lack of information on it's approach. The clear evidence, > like the whole environmental movement spending 30 years promoting energy > solutions that would trigger a world food crisis, is that we are missing > signals of approaching danger. We read 'disturbances in the force' (i.e. > alien derivatives like diminishing returns) very skillfully in one > circumstance and miss them entirely in others. We constantly walk smack > into trouble because we do something that selectively blocks that kind of > information. The evidence seems to closely fit the 'functional fixation' > of using fixed representations for changing things in our models. > > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate long-range patterns > > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract patterns and > > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic change. It > > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change is waaaay too > > big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key. > > [ph] again, agility only helps avoid the catastrophe *before* the > catastrophe. Here you're saying it mainly helps after, and that seems to > incorrect. > > Phil > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- > > Milton Friedman > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:54:17 -0600 > From: "Ken Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <003d01c8aa11$4b348c00$6501a8c0 at wattp4> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Phil, > > Thank you for acknowledging the Popper / Penrose "Three Worlds" context. > > Models exist in what Penrose refers to as the "Platonic world of > mathematical forms". Better models reflect both the spatio-temporal > of the context in which they exist and the mereology of their components - > meaning that often examining localized model components reveal little of the > nature of the system of the models. > > While I am unqualified to address art imitating life, I can address models > of life imitating life. This is where the science of Compositional Pattern > Producing Networks holds advantage over more tradition methods. In effect, > we evolve a Platonic world which discovers the mathematical forms, > independent of our subjective interpretation. > > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of phil henshaw > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:15 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds' > > > > are different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we > > witness and say > > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. > > Of course, > > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life > > vs. life > > > imitating art.. > > > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles in > > our minds' are stitched together by personal and cultural > > values, and they have lots of things of the world which are > > continually changing represented by fixed > > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are > > organized around > > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning > > system parts, which learn by exploring pathways THEY find. > > The natural assumption then would be for their design to > > always be changing in ways we can't see at all without some > > hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems of knowledge. > > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it, > > but it also allows one to get a little warning about the > > systems of the world that are > > behaving independent of our models for them. > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28 > ************************************* |
On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
|
|
I think there is another way to prepare for catastrophic change, besides agility - complexification. C.f.Reuben McDaniels or Ken Stanley. This allows for failure in one or more set of features to be ameliorated by other sets, and resembles trends in the evolution of species. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:47 AM > To: friam at redfish.com > Subject: [FRIAM] On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen > > Quoting phil, > > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: > "agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity > (lineage, organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for > some change such that it _seemed_ like that entity somehow > predicted the change. But this isn't an effective tactic. > Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition) in the concrete." > > Ineffective, yes; but that is the way Darwinian evolution > works, no? It is not that one is prescient. It is just that > one is lucky. > > Nick > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 4/29/2008 10:01:26 AM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam at redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 3. Marketing research as futurology (Nicholas Thompson) > > 4. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 5. Re: recap on Rosen (sy at synapse9.com) > > 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 7. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 8. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 9. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 10. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 11. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > > 12. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 13. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > > 14. Re: recap on Rosen (Ken Lloyd) > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:36:37 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4815FD15.4080701 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds' > > > are different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we > witness and say > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. > Of course, > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life > vs. life > > imitating art.. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:48 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4815FF00.2070000 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > G?nther Greindl wrote: > > > It is neither a mathematically rigorous nor an > empirically grounded > > > refutation, I agree, but rather in the sense of Occam's > > > razor/Laplacean "I do not need this hypothesis". > > > > Excellent! We pretty much agree. The only area where I might > > disagree is in attempts to develop measures of complexity. > Forget the > > whole "life <=> non-life" red herring. The simple <=> complex > > spectrum, however, can be useful. > > > > And, in that sense, Rosen's attempts to formalize simple systems as > > "defined from the outside" versus complex systems as > "defined from the > > inside" is interesting. Albeit, we may not NEED such a theorem > > because we have plenty of measures of complexity which work > to greater > > or lesser extent in different contexts. (I'm fond of > "logical depth" > > myself, though I admit that I haven't used it successfully.) > > > > But I can imagine that certain concepts that are currently used all > > the time in complexity circles, and which are always horribly vague > > despite the credentials of the users, ... I can imagine that these > > concepts will never become clear and concrete until we have > such a theorem. > > > > And that's where non-well-founded set theory seems useful. What is > > the ultimate difference between formalisms (models) requiring the > > foundation axiom and those that do NOT require it? > > > > It seems to me that formalisms built without the foundation > axiom will > > lack some of the definiteness we find and expect in our mathematics. > > And, surprise, we also see a lack of definiteness in > complex systems. > > Now, I'm not just trying to combine two unknowns in an > attempt to use > > one to explain the other. [grin] My point is that this circularity > > Rosen points out is fundamentally related to cycles in > > non-well-founded set theory. And it also seems related to > the rampant > > abuse of concepts like iteration (e.g. recursion). > > > > Anyway, my thoughts are a jumble of unjustified nonsense at > this stage. > > I need a sugar-momma to pay me to sit around and think. > Any takers? > [grin] > > > > > Have you perchance read > > > > > > Wells, A. J. In Defense of Mechanism Ecological Psychology, 2006, > > > 18, > 39-65 > > > > Nope. It sure sounds familiar, though. > > > > > ? He takes on Rosen's claims, I have queued the paper for > reading, > > > will probably get there in July (have a lot to do at the moment > > > ;-)); and would be glad to continue the conversation. > > > > I'll add it to my queue, too, though I'm way beyond being able to > > commit to it or estimate when I would ever read it. I've > always been > > a slow reader ... though when I do read something, I > usually remember it. > > It'll help if you spontaneously re-start the conversation > when you get > > to Wells' paper. Then make fun of me if I haven't read it, yet. > > That'll coerce me into reading it. > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > The fear of > > death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully > is prepared > > to die at any time. -- Mark Twain > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIFf8ApVJZMHoGoM8RAt+gAKCB20DpxiyJ8nwVJeSXVYFG/xHR1wCfX5dG > > w6gansrDVkGFmZ4GoCQIx5I= > > =yHDb > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:53:40 -0600 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Marketing research as futurology > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <380-220084128165340577 at earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > David, > > > > As a Darwinian, I think a lot about the costs of success. > A darwinian > > system works because the benefits of success are not shared equally > amongst > > those who try. One lineage suceeds, the others die. From > a gigantic > > batter of misery is baked one good cake. Whoopeee. > > > > Your story about Mercedes has two impacts. The first is > that if you > > want to predict the future, don't do a marketing survey, > because, by and large, > > people dont know what they want. Great message. > > > > But then there is a double take; MERCEDES, for all its early > > misjugement of the auto market, is one of the most > sucessful automakers, ever, right? > > > > So, what is it we learn from that story? That big stupid giants > > succeed > in > > the end? > > > > I guess Ford didn't do SO bad. Somebody help me out, here. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48160A43.7010006 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed > > > without a model to warn you about the approach of major > environmental change. > > > > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing > about... But I'll > > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. > > [grin] > > > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially > catastrophic change: > > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change > such that > > it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. > But this > > isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by > > definition) in the concrete. > > > > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel, > > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible. > And the best > > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" > (scenarios, > > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis. > The point is > > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes > contains a > > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the > > risk by practicing/training in as many different vignettes > as possible. > > > > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple > > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning > > and usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to > any one model > > as the Truth if you want to remain agile. > > > > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is > the rule and > > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times, > exploration is > > the rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be > > willing to sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape > > starts to destabilize. The committed end up dying because > their, once > > true enough, convictions are no longer true enough. > > > > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of > > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other > > organizational strategies. The high attrition rate of small > > businesses allows us to balance exploration and exploitation. When > > times are stable we grow big behemoth exploiters. When > times become > > more chaotic, those behemoths come crashing down and us little guys > > scramble and wander like ants, with all our various deviant > models and > > expectations of the world, exploring the dynamic landscape > and hoping > > to stumble into a niche and become the next behemoth > exploiter. Then > > we hope to hoard enough resources to skate through the next > period of instability. > > > > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that > we define > > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I > > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we > _cannot_ engineer > > a world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A > > sustainable > > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from > the inside. > > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted > > aspects/purposes will eventually fail (or grow out of "control"). > > "Humanity" is an abstract and pitifully impoverished > _slice_ of Gaia > > (for lack of a better term). So any design we put in place to > > preserve the system from the perspective of the human slice will > > eventually fail or mutate into something not so human friendly. > > > > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't > > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do > believe is > > that agility is the key to handling novelty and > multi-modeling is the > > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty). > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com A > government > > which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the > support of Paul > > -- George Bernard Shaw > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt > > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ= > > =cZOR > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:22:33 +0000 > > From: sy at synapse9.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: > > > > <1205479468-1209439418-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.ne > t-248446329-@ > bxe015.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain > > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for > a little > > fish > after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making excuses... > briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the 'disturbance' > and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are long range > indicators of out of model events approaching. > > > > Phil > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 > > To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed > > > without a model to warn you about the approach of major > environmental change. > > > > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing > about... But I'll > > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. > > [grin] > > > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially > catastrophic change: > > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change > such that > > it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. > But this > > isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by > > definition) in the concrete. > > > > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel, > > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible. > And the best > > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" > (scenarios, > > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis. > The point is > > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes > contains a > > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the > > risk by practicing/training in as many different vignettes > as possible. > > > > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple > > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning > > and usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to > any one model > > as the Truth if you want to remain agile. > > > > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is > the rule and > > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times, > exploration is > > the rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be > > willing to sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape > > starts to destabilize. The committed end up dying because > their, once > > true enough, convictions are no longer true enough. > > > > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of > > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other > > organizational strategies. The high attrition rate of small > > businesses allows us to balance exploration and exploitation. When > > times are stable we grow big behemoth exploiters. When > times become > > more chaotic, those behemoths come crashing down and us little guys > > scramble and wander like ants, with all our various deviant > models and > > expectations of the world, exploring the dynamic landscape > and hoping > > to stumble into a niche and become the next behemoth > exploiter. Then > > we hope to hoard enough resources to skate through the next > period of instability. > > > > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that > we define > > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I > > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we > _cannot_ engineer > > a world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A > > sustainable > > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from > the inside. > > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted > > aspects/purposes will eventually fail (or grow out of "control"). > > "Humanity" is an abstract and pitifully impoverished > _slice_ of Gaia > > (for lack of a better term). So any design we put in place to > > preserve the system from the perspective of the human slice will > > eventually fail or mutate into something not so human friendly. > > > > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't > > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do > believe is > > that agility is the key to handling novelty and > multi-modeling is the > > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty). > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com A > government > > which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the > support of Paul > > -- George Bernard Shaw > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt > > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ= > > =cZOR > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:51:33 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4816A955.2060606 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Glen wrote: > > > We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such > > > that it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the > change. But > > > this isn't an effective tactic. > > It's very effective if the population is large enough. > 6.6 billion > > humans is quite a few. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48172510.1050005 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility > for a little > > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making > > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the > > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives > are long > > > range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is > > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish to > avoid being > > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. More > time means > > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise. > > > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter _when_ you > > sense the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the > disturbance, even if > > it's only after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point > of being > > agile is to allow you a larger window and more options between the > > time of sensing the disturbance and your subsequent action. > > > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially > > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's > > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high > > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes from being > > deeply embedded in the context. > > > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate > long-range patterns > > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract > patterns and > > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic > change. It > > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change is waaaay > > too big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key. > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com There is > > nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- Milton > > Friedman > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:42:58 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <481725E2.7010100 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > Glen wrote: > > >> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > >> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such > > >> that > it > > >> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. > But this > > >> isn't an effective tactic. > > > > > > It's very effective if the population is large enough. > 6.6 billion > > > humans is quite a few. > > > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a multi-farious > > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an > > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources -- with an > > explicit objective. > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Everything > > that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who > > can labor in freedom. -- Albert Einstein > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:53:20 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48172850.8020706 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > > > >> Glen wrote: > > >> > > >>> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > >>> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some > change such > > >>> that > it > > >>> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. > But this > isn't > > >>> an effective tactic. > > >>> > > >> It's very effective if the population is large enough. > 6.6 billion > > >> humans is quite a few. > > >> > > > > > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a > multi-farious > > > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an > > > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources > -- with an > > > explicit objective. > > > > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g. > > sustainability efforts as it relates to survival of > governments or the even the human > > species? It seems to me a government or large company can > be agile by > > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful) > than small but > > agile groups -- economies of scale. A benefit of the > exploitation > > phase, also comes with the benefit of the diversification of those > > exploitable specialists. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:31:47 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48173153.10403 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g. > sustainability > > > efforts as it relates to survival of governments or the > even the human > > > species? > > > > Yes, we were. But, you cut out the context of my original comment, > > which was that: It's true _some_ entities can seem, post > hoc, to have > > been pre-adapted to some context. I.e. Some entities may > seem to have > > successfully used _commitment_ to a single model (or small set of > > models). But commitment and pre-adaptation are not an > effective _tactic_. > > > > Then you said that "it" can be effective, wherein you > conflated tactics > > and strategy. Pre-adaptation and commitment to a single > model (or small > > set of models) is NOT an effective tactic for achieving an explicit > > objective. On the contrary, however, agnostic > multi-modeling can be a > > strategy for achieving vague, abstract, or implicit objectives. > > > > "Sustainability" is, as yet, vague and abstract. And if we > buy Rosen's > > argument, it must be implicit. > > > > > It seems to me a government or large company can be agile by > > > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful) > than small but > > > agile groups -- economies of scale. > > > > Only _if_ the overwhelming majority of those specialists > are sacrificed > > (or "re-used"). And only _if_ there are plenty of those > specialists. > > Which means pre-adaptation is not an effective tactic for an > > overwhelming majority of those specialists. > > > > You're talking about a strategy, not a tactic. And, at > that composite > > (army, population, collective) level, you're also NOT > talking about a > > strategy of pre-adaptation/commitment. You're talking > about a strategy > > of agnosticism and multi-modeling. > > > > At the individual unit level (even if the unit is > composite), the most > > relevant tactic for surviving potentially catastrophic change is > > maximized agility, not commitment to a given model. > > > > If you want to draw a _metaphor_ between "collective agility" and > > agnostic multi-modeling, then go ahead. But be clear that it's a > > metaphor. Agility comes from embeddedness and a tight feedback loop > > with the environment. Large collectives cannot both be a > very abstract > > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment. > Hence, saying > > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national > corporation" is either > > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile". > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the > inability of the > > human mind to correlate all its contents. -- H. P. Lovecraft > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 11 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:15:19 -0400 > > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <013301c8aa0b$d6edf3e0$84c9dba0$@com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in > our minds' are > > > > different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we > witness and say > > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. > Of course, > > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating > life vs. life > > > imitating art.. > > > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles > in our minds' > are > > stitched together by personal and cultural values, and they > have lots of > > things of the world which are continually changing > represented by fixed > > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are > organized around > > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning > system parts, > which > > learn by exploring pathways THEY find. The natural > assumption then would > be > > for their design to always be changing in ways we can't see > at all without > > some hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems > of knowledge. > > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it, > but it also > > allows one to get a little warning about the systems of the > world that are > > behaving independent of our models for them. > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 12 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:19 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48173E57.4020809 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > > Large collectives cannot both be a very abstract > > > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment. > Hence, saying > > > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national > corporation" is either > > > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile". > > > > > Given the fast and impressive beating that AMD just got at > Intel's hand, > > that example strikes me as weird! > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 13 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:00 -0400 > > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <013a01c8aa0e$96bd46b0$c437d410$@com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > Glen, > > > > > sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility > for a little > > > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making > > > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the > > > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. > Derivatives are long > > > > range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > > > > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is > > > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish > to avoid being > > > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. > More time means > > > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise. > > > > > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter > _when_ you sense > > > the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the disturbance, > even if it's only > > > after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point of > being agile is to > > > allow you a larger window and more options between the > time of sensing > > > the disturbance and your subsequent action. > > > > [ph] why make it so complicated? You don't need to explain > why it's good > to > > survive. It's good to survive. The agility only makes a > difference in > that > > *before* being swallowed, when you have an ability to respond to the > > information of *approaching danger*. No info, no > avoidance of danger. > > > > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially > > > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's > > > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high > > > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes > from being > > > deeply embedded in the context. > > > > > [ph] Yes, the apparent reason people are constantly walking > blindly into > > conflict is a lack of information on it's approach. The > clear evidence, > > like the whole environmental movement spending 30 years > promoting energy > > solutions that would trigger a world food crisis, is that > we are missing > the > > signals of approaching danger. We read 'disturbances in > the force' (i.e. > > alien derivatives like diminishing returns) very skillfully in one > > circumstance and miss them entirely in others. We > constantly walk smack > > into trouble because we do something that selectively > blocks that kind of > > information. The evidence seems to closely fit the > 'functional fixation' > > of using fixed representations for changing things in our models. > > > > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate > long-range patterns > > > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract > patterns and > > > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic > change. It > > > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change > is waaaay too > > > big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key. > > > > [ph] again, agility only helps avoid the catastrophe *before* the > > catastrophe. Here you're saying it mainly helps after, and > that seems to > be > > incorrect. > > > > Phil > > > > > > -- > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government > program. -- > > > Milton Friedman > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 14 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:54:17 -0600 > > From: "Ken Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <003d01c8aa11$4b348c00$6501a8c0 at wattp4> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Phil, > > > > Thank you for acknowledging the Popper / Penrose "Three > Worlds" context. > > > > Models exist in what Penrose refers to as the "Platonic world of > > mathematical forms". Better models reflect both the spatio-temporal > dynamics > > of the context in which they exist and the mereology of > their components - > > meaning that often examining localized model components > reveal little of > the > > nature of the system of the models. > > > > While I am unqualified to address art imitating life, I can > address models > > of life imitating life. This is where the science of > Compositional Pattern > > Producing Networks holds advantage over more tradition methods. In > effect, > > we evolve a Platonic world which discovers the mathematical forms, > > independent of our subjective interpretation. > > > > Ken > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of phil henshaw > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:15 AM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles > in our minds' > > > > > are different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we > > > witness and say > > > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. > > > Of course, > > > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life > > > vs. life > > > > imitating art.. > > > > > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles in > > > our minds' are stitched together by personal and cultural > > > values, and they have lots of things of the world which are > > > continually changing represented by fixed > > > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are > > > organized around > > > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning > > > system parts, which learn by exploring pathways THEY find. > > > The natural assumption then would be for their design to > > > always be changing in ways we can't see at all without some > > > hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems of > knowledge. > > > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it, > > > but it also allows one to get a little warning about the > > > systems of the world that are > > > behaving independent of our models for them. > > > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Friam mailing list > > Friam at redfish.com > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28 > > ************************************* > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > |
On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Quoting phil, Actually, I think you quoted me. Phil was arguing more for sensitivity being the important factor. > Glen wrote: >> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this >> isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by >> definition) in the concrete." > > but that is the way Darwinian evolution works, no? Not really. I'm talking about unitary entities, not the amorphous blob of the entirety of life involved in Darwinian evolution. Individuals within an evolutionary system don't use pre-adaptation as a tactic for surviving change. That's my point. There are a number of related claims. For example, "pre-adaptation" is a label we apply to past situations. So, not only can it not be a tactic used by an entity to survive upcoming change, it doesn't really exist at all except as a pattern we perceive when looking at the evolutionary process as it proceeds. A single individual _might_ use commitment to one particular model as a tactic for survival, though. And that commitment is real. So, my argument in this thread has been that either multi-modeling or agility is _required_ to survive unanticipated potentially catastrophic change, thereby denying that commitment to one particular model is an _effective_ tactic. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson |
On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
|
|
In reply to this post by Kenneth Lloyd
Ken Lloyd wrote:
> I think there is another way to prepare for catastrophic change, besides > agility - complexification. C.f.Reuben McDaniels or Ken Stanley. > > This allows for failure in one or more set of features to be ameliorated by > other sets, and resembles trends in the evolution of species. I agree. But, it's not that significant of a statement, really. A complex system will be amenable to the ascription (or attribution) of sub-systems, many of which will be partially redundant or where one (set of) sub-system(s) will be satisficing when another (set of) sub-system(s) fails. But this is just another way of saying that a robust system will be embedded in its context. Going back to Rosen, his definition of "mechanism" and discussion of "closure to efficient cause" are rhetorical devices to talk explicitly about how embedded a specified unit is in the whole context. He identified one type of "closure" that is necessary for his definition of "complexity", that is the closure of the agency by which an entity is created and maintained. But this sort of closure would only be robust to certain types of context change and not other types. These closures would constitute the actual ("property" vs. "attribute") boundaries between sub-systems in any system. If you break any closure, a larger "entailment structure" would provide the safety net and if, within that larger structure, there was pressure and capability to restore the previous closure, it would be restored with other materials. (Under the assummption that efficient cause is independent of material cause; so the same closure to efficient cause could be restored using different materials.) What Marcus and I were talking about when using the word "physics" or "forcing structures" is that larger entailment structure within which any closure might be restored. So, a system is "complex" when it has at least the one type of closure. But a system could be more and more complex if the closures are embedded inside larger closures. Embeddedness (and by extension robustness) could then be measured by how easily it is to realize a closure within an entailment structure. How close to the larger context is the entity? The closer the entity -- a particular type or set of closures -- is to the larger entailment structure, the more easily it is to re-constitute (or maintain) that entity when the entailment structure changes, assuming the entity is still _possible_ in the changed context. But, the closer the entity is to its context, the less significant it is! So, the trick is: How do we maintain a significant entity (e.g. Intel) when the context changes drastically? The answer is the strategy of multi-modeling. Note that this is all stuff I've inferred from what I've read of Rosen's work. I make no warrants as to what any Rosenites, including Rosen himself, might think of my comments here (or anywhere else). So keep your rock salt handy when you read the above. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com What luck for rulers that men do not think. -- Adolf Hitler |
On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick, That's quoting Glen, but yes it's roughly a Darwinian perspective. When considering systems as learning processes, which we hope includes humans, you're taking a non-Darwinian perspective. I think it's the difference between shaping things by developmental versus decay processes. When learning is used as an adaptive strategy your sensitivity to change helps determine how successful you'll will be. You know, if the kids are in the basement and you notice it's too quiet it may be a good time to bring them snacks as an excuse to break up any mischief that may be developing. My observation is that humans are rather exceptionally sensitive to hints of change and can see things coming a long way off when they don't have a fixed definitions or explanations to get in the way. We have lots of cultural and logical fixations, though, and are frequently unaware of it. Our cultural definition of good as continual growing wealth is an example. The thermodynamic meaning is actually using energy to exponentially pump energy. That part has no cultural meaning to us though, so we're blithely unaware of how remaking the earth ever faster to do it is stepping on life all over the world or the ever steeper learning curve that we're failing to climb. Phil > > Quoting phil, > > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: > "agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that > it > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this isn't > an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition) > in the concrete." > > Ineffective, yes; but that is the way Darwinian evolution works, no? > It is > not that one is prescient. It is just that one is lucky. > > Nick > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 4/29/2008 10:01:26 AM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam at redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 3. Marketing research as futurology (Nicholas Thompson) > > 4. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 5. Re: recap on Rosen (sy at synapse9.com) > > 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 7. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 8. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 9. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 10. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > > 11. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > > 12. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 13. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > > 14. Re: recap on Rosen (Ken Lloyd) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:36:37 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4815FD15.4080701 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds' > are > > > different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we witness and > say > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. Of > course, > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life vs. life > > imitating art.. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:48 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4815FF00.2070000 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > G?nther Greindl wrote: > > > It is neither a mathematically rigorous nor an empirically grounded > > > refutation, I agree, but rather in the sense of Occam's > razor/Laplacean > > > "I do not need this hypothesis". > > > > Excellent! We pretty much agree. The only area where I might > disagree > > is in attempts to develop measures of complexity. Forget the whole > > "life <=> non-life" red herring. The simple <=> complex spectrum, > > however, can be useful. > > > > And, in that sense, Rosen's attempts to formalize simple systems as > > "defined from the outside" versus complex systems as "defined from > the > > inside" is interesting. Albeit, we may not NEED such a theorem > because > > we have plenty of measures of complexity which work to greater or > lesser > > extent in different contexts. (I'm fond of "logical depth" myself, > > though I admit that I haven't used it successfully.) > > > > But I can imagine that certain concepts that are currently used all > the > > time in complexity circles, and which are always horribly vague > despite > > the credentials of the users, ... I can imagine that these concepts > will > > never become clear and concrete until we have such a theorem. > > > > And that's where non-well-founded set theory seems useful. What is > the > > ultimate difference between formalisms (models) requiring the > foundation > > axiom and those that do NOT require it? > > > > It seems to me that formalisms built without the foundation axiom > will > > lack some of the definiteness we find and expect in our mathematics. > > And, surprise, we also see a lack of definiteness in complex systems. > > Now, I'm not just trying to combine two unknowns in an attempt to use > > one to explain the other. [grin] My point is that this circularity > > Rosen points out is fundamentally related to cycles in non-well- > founded > > set theory. And it also seems related to the rampant abuse of > concepts > > like iteration (e.g. recursion). > > > > Anyway, my thoughts are a jumble of unjustified nonsense at this > stage. > > I need a sugar-momma to pay me to sit around and think. Any takers? > [grin] > > > > > Have you perchance read > > > > > > Wells, A. J. In Defense of Mechanism Ecological Psychology, 2006, > 18, > 39-65 > > > > Nope. It sure sounds familiar, though. > > > > > ? He takes on Rosen's claims, I have queued the paper for reading, > will > > > probably get there in July (have a lot to do at the moment ;-)); > and > > > would be glad to continue the conversation. > > > > I'll add it to my queue, too, though I'm way beyond being able to > commit > > to it or estimate when I would ever read it. I've always been a slow > > reader ... though when I do read something, I usually remember it. > > It'll help if you spontaneously re-start the conversation when you > get > > to Wells' paper. Then make fun of me if I haven't read it, yet. > > That'll coerce me into reading it. > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives > fully > > is prepared to die at any time. -- Mark Twain > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIFf8ApVJZMHoGoM8RAt+gAKCB20DpxiyJ8nwVJeSXVYFG/xHR1wCfX5dG > > w6gansrDVkGFmZ4GoCQIx5I= > > =yHDb > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:53:40 -0600 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Marketing research as futurology > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <380-220084128165340577 at earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > David, > > > > As a Darwinian, I think a lot about the costs of success. A > darwinian > > system works because the benefits of success are not shared equally > amongst > > those who try. One lineage suceeds, the others die. From a gigantic > > batter of misery is baked one good cake. Whoopeee. > > > > Your story about Mercedes has two impacts. The first is that if you > want > > to predict the future, don't do a marketing survey, because, by and > large, > > people dont know what they want. Great message. > > > > But then there is a double take; MERCEDES, for all its early > misjugement > > of the auto market, is one of the most sucessful automakers, ever, > right? > > > > So, what is it we learn from that story? That big stupid giants > succeed > in > > the end? > > > > I guess Ford didn't do SO bad. Somebody help me out, here. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48160A43.7010006 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed > without a > > > model to warn you about the approach of major environmental change. > > > > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing about... But > I'll > > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. > [grin] > > > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: > > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that > it > > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this > isn't > > an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by > definition) > > in the concrete. > > > > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel, > > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible. And the > best > > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" (scenarios, > > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis. The point > is > > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes contains > a > > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the > risk > > by practicing/training in as many different vignettes as possible. > > > > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple > > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning > and > > usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to any one model as > > the Truth if you want to remain agile. > > > > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is the rule and > > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times, exploration is > the > > rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be willing > to > > sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape starts to > > destabilize. The committed end up dying because their, once true > > enough, convictions are no longer true enough. > > > > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of > > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other > organizational > > strategies. The high attrition rate of small businesses allows us to > > balance exploration and exploitation. When times are stable we grow > big > > behemoth exploiters. When times become more chaotic, those behemoths > > come crashing down and us little guys scramble and wander like ants, > > with all our various deviant models and expectations of the world, > > exploring the dynamic landscape and hoping to stumble into a niche > and > > become the next behemoth exploiter. Then we hope to hoard enough > > resources to skate through the next period of instability. > > > > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that we define > > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I > > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we _cannot_ > engineer a > > world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A > sustainable > > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from the inside. > > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted > aspects/purposes > > will eventually fail (or grow out of "control"). "Humanity" is an > > abstract and pitifully impoverished _slice_ of Gaia (for lack of a > > better term). So any design we put in place to preserve the system > from > > the perspective of the human slice will eventually fail or mutate > into > > something not so human friendly. > > > > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't > > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do believe is > > that agility is the key to handling novelty and multi-modeling is the > > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty). > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the > > support of Paul -- George Bernard Shaw > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt > > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ= > > =cZOR > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:22:33 +0000 > > From: sy at synapse9.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: > > > <1205479468-1209439418-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net- > 248446329-@ > bxe015.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain > > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for a little > fish > after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making excuses... > briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the 'disturbance' and avoid > the > attack entirely. Derivatives are long range indicators of out of model > events approaching. > > > > Phil > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 > > To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed > without a > > > model to warn you about the approach of major environmental change. > > > > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing about... But > I'll > > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. > [grin] > > > > There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change: > > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that > it > > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this > isn't > > an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by > definition) > > in the concrete. > > > > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel, > > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible. And the > best > > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" (scenarios, > > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis. The point > is > > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes contains > a > > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the > risk > > by practicing/training in as many different vignettes as possible. > > > > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple > > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning > and > > usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to any one model as > > the Truth if you want to remain agile. > > > > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is the rule and > > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times, exploration is > the > > rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be willing > to > > sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape starts to > > destabilize. The committed end up dying because their, once true > > enough, convictions are no longer true enough. > > > > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of > > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other > organizational > > strategies. The high attrition rate of small businesses allows us to > > balance exploration and exploitation. When times are stable we grow > big > > behemoth exploiters. When times become more chaotic, those behemoths > > come crashing down and us little guys scramble and wander like ants, > > with all our various deviant models and expectations of the world, > > exploring the dynamic landscape and hoping to stumble into a niche > and > > become the next behemoth exploiter. Then we hope to hoard enough > > resources to skate through the next period of instability. > > > > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that we define > > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I > > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we _cannot_ > engineer a > > world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A > sustainable > > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from the inside. > > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted > aspects/purposes > > will eventually fail (or grow out of "control"). "Humanity" is an > > abstract and pitifully impoverished _slice_ of Gaia (for lack of a > > better term). So any design we put in place to preserve the system > from > > the perspective of the human slice will eventually fail or mutate > into > > something not so human friendly. > > > > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't > > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do believe is > > that agility is the key to handling novelty and multi-modeling is the > > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty). > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the > > support of Paul -- George Bernard Shaw > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt > > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ= > > =cZOR > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:51:33 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4816A955.2060606 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Glen wrote: > > > We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such > that it > > > _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this > isn't > > > an effective tactic. > > It's very effective if the population is large enough. 6.6 billion > > humans is quite a few. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48172510.1050005 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for a > little > > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making > > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the > > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are long > > > range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is > > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish to avoid > being > > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. More time > means > > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise. > > > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter _when_ you > sense > > the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the disturbance, even if it's > only > > after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point of being agile is > to > > allow you a larger window and more options between the time of > sensing > > the disturbance and your subsequent action. > > > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially > > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's > > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high > > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes from being > > deeply embedded in the context. > > > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate long-range patterns > > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract patterns and > > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic change. It > > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change is waaaay > too > > big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key. > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- > > Milton Friedman > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:42:58 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <481725E2.7010100 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > Glen wrote: > > >> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > >> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such > that > it > > >> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this > isn't > > >> an effective tactic. > > > > > > It's very effective if the population is large enough. 6.6 > billion > > > humans is quite a few. > > > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a multi-farious > > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an > > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources -- with an > > explicit objective. > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the > > individual who can labor in freedom. -- Albert Einstein > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:53:20 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48172850.8020706 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > > > >> Glen wrote: > > >> > > >>> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage, > > >>> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such > that > it > > >>> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this > isn't > > >>> an effective tactic. > > >>> > > >> It's very effective if the population is large enough. 6.6 > billion > > >> humans is quite a few. > > >> > > > > > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a multi-farious > > > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an > > > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources -- with an > > > explicit objective. > > > > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g. > sustainability > > efforts as it relates to survival of governments or the even the > human > > species? It seems to me a government or large company can be agile > by > > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful) than small > but > > agile groups -- economies of scale. A benefit of the exploitation > > phase, also comes with the benefit of the diversification of those > > exploitable specialists. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:31:47 -0700 > > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48173153.10403 at tempusdictum.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g. > sustainability > > > efforts as it relates to survival of governments or the even the > human > > > species? > > > > Yes, we were. But, you cut out the context of my original comment, > > which was that: It's true _some_ entities can seem, post hoc, to > have > > been pre-adapted to some context. I.e. Some entities may seem to > have > > successfully used _commitment_ to a single model (or small set of > > models). But commitment and pre-adaptation are not an effective > _tactic_. > > > > Then you said that "it" can be effective, wherein you conflated > tactics > > and strategy. Pre-adaptation and commitment to a single model (or > small > > set of models) is NOT an effective tactic for achieving an explicit > > objective. On the contrary, however, agnostic multi-modeling can be > a > > strategy for achieving vague, abstract, or implicit objectives. > > > > "Sustainability" is, as yet, vague and abstract. And if we buy > Rosen's > > argument, it must be implicit. > > > > > It seems to me a government or large company can be agile by > > > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful) than small > but > > > agile groups -- economies of scale. > > > > Only _if_ the overwhelming majority of those specialists are > sacrificed > > (or "re-used"). And only _if_ there are plenty of those specialists. > > Which means pre-adaptation is not an effective tactic for an > > overwhelming majority of those specialists. > > > > You're talking about a strategy, not a tactic. And, at that > composite > > (army, population, collective) level, you're also NOT talking about a > > strategy of pre-adaptation/commitment. You're talking about a > strategy > > of agnosticism and multi-modeling. > > > > At the individual unit level (even if the unit is composite), the > most > > relevant tactic for surviving potentially catastrophic change is > > maximized agility, not commitment to a given model. > > > > If you want to draw a _metaphor_ between "collective agility" and > > agnostic multi-modeling, then go ahead. But be clear that it's a > > metaphor. Agility comes from embeddedness and a tight feedback loop > > with the environment. Large collectives cannot both be a very > abstract > > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment. Hence, > saying > > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national corporation" is > either > > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile". > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of > the > > human mind to correlate all its contents. -- H. P. Lovecraft > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 11 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:15:19 -0400 > > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <013301c8aa0b$d6edf3e0$84c9dba0$@com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] > On > > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds' > are > > > > different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we witness and > say > > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. Of > course, > > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life vs. > life > > > imitating art.. > > > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles in our > minds' > are > > stitched together by personal and cultural values, and they have lots > of > > things of the world which are continually changing represented by > fixed > > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are organized > around > > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning system > parts, > which > > learn by exploring pathways THEY find. The natural assumption then > would > be > > for their design to always be changing in ways we can't see at all > without > > some hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems of > knowledge. > > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it, but it > also > > allows one to get a little warning about the systems of the world > that are > > behaving independent of our models for them. > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 12 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:19 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <48173E57.4020809 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > > Large collectives cannot both be a very abstract > > > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment. Hence, > saying > > > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national corporation" is > either > > > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile". > > > > > Given the fast and impressive beating that AMD just got at Intel's > hand, > > that example strikes me as weird! > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 13 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:00 -0400 > > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <013a01c8aa0e$96bd46b0$c437d410$@com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > Glen, > > > > > sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for a > little > > > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making > > > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the > > > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are > long > > > > range indicators of out of model events approaching. > > > > > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is > > > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish to avoid > being > > > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. More time > means > > > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise. > > > > > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter _when_ you > sense > > > the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the disturbance, even if it's > only > > > after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point of being agile is > to > > > allow you a larger window and more options between the time of > sensing > > > the disturbance and your subsequent action. > > > > [ph] why make it so complicated? You don't need to explain why it's > good > to > > survive. It's good to survive. The agility only makes a difference > in > that > > *before* being swallowed, when you have an ability to respond to the > > information of *approaching danger*. No info, no avoidance of > danger. > > > > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially > > > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's > > > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high > > > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes from being > > > deeply embedded in the context. > > > > > [ph] Yes, the apparent reason people are constantly walking blindly > into > > conflict is a lack of information on it's approach. The clear > evidence, > > like the whole environmental movement spending 30 years promoting > energy > > solutions that would trigger a world food crisis, is that we are > missing > the > > signals of approaching danger. We read 'disturbances in the force' > (i.e. > > alien derivatives like diminishing returns) very skillfully in one > > circumstance and miss them entirely in others. We constantly walk > smack > > into trouble because we do something that selectively blocks that > kind of > > information. The evidence seems to closely fit the 'functional > fixation' > > of using fixed representations for changing things in our models. > > > > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate long-range > patterns > > > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract patterns > and > > > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic change. > It > > > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change is waaaay > too > > > big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key. > > > > [ph] again, agility only helps avoid the catastrophe *before* the > > catastrophe. Here you're saying it mainly helps after, and that > seems to > be > > incorrect. > > > > Phil > > > > > > -- > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- > > > Milton Friedman > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 14 > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:54:17 -0600 > > From: "Ken Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <003d01c8aa11$4b348c00$6501a8c0 at wattp4> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Phil, > > > > Thank you for acknowledging the Popper / Penrose "Three Worlds" > context. > > > > Models exist in what Penrose refers to as the "Platonic world of > > mathematical forms". Better models reflect both the spatio-temporal > dynamics > > of the context in which they exist and the mereology of their > components - > > meaning that often examining localized model components reveal little > of > the > > nature of the system of the models. > > > > While I am unqualified to address art imitating life, I can address > models > > of life imitating life. This is where the science of Compositional > Pattern > > Producing Networks holds advantage over more tradition methods. In > effect, > > we evolve a Platonic world which discovers the mathematical forms, > > independent of our subjective interpretation. > > > > Ken > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of phil henshaw > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:15 AM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our > minds' > > > > > are different from the 'bubbles in the world'... > > > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we > > > witness and say > > > > something about the world that will be witnessed. > > > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation. > > > Of course, > > > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life > > > vs. life > > > > imitating art.. > > > > > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles in > > > our minds' are stitched together by personal and cultural > > > values, and they have lots of things of the world which are > > > continually changing represented by fixed > > > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are > > > organized around > > > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning > > > system parts, which learn by exploring pathways THEY find. > > > The natural assumption then would be for their design to > > > always be changing in ways we can't see at all without some > > > hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems of > knowledge. > > > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it, > > > but it also allows one to get a little warning about the > > > systems of the world that are > > > behaving independent of our models for them. > > > > > > Does that help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Friam mailing list > > Friam at redfish.com > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28 > > ************************************* > > > > ============================================================ > 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 |