Re: Friam Digest, Vol 139, Issue 26

[Celeste Johnson]

Hi there,

Please unsubscribe me.

Thanks,
C

On 28 Jan 2015 7:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Send Friam mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

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
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: academic fields whose practitioners believe ...
      (Roger Critchlow)
   2. [ SPAM ] RE:  clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
      (Vladimyr Burachynsky)
   3. Re: [ SPAM ] RE:  clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
      (Frank Wimberly)
   4. Re: [ SPAM ] RE:  clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
      (Marcus G. Daniels)
   5. Re: [ SPAM ] RE:  clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? (glen)
   6. Re: [ SPAM ] RE:  clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? (Nick Thompson)
   7. Re: [ SPAM ] RE:  clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? (Grant Holland)
   8. [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
      (Marcus G. Daniels)
   9. [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
      (Marcus G. Daniels)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:51:40 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic fields whose practitioners believe ...

I was just pointing some others at this article and I found an author's reprint collection with links to commentary:

  http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~acimpian/reprints/

As the Economist understates:  "All this raises interesting and awkward questions."

-- rec --

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great article in Science this week: 

  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262.short

The more the practitioners of an academic field agree that "Being a top scholar of

[discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught",  the less successful women and african americans are in the field, as measured by the percentage of PhD's graduated.  Measured across all disciplines and in competition with three other hypotheses.

-- rec --

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vladimyr Burachynsky <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:25:32 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
To Marcus and Group,

If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are  all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion  how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of
numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right.
The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition.
Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the
brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping.
We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value
of the map is compromised.

Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only
one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction
and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been
squashed as the admission price) .

Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority"
and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal.
But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some.

There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer
in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position.
Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so
ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory
of his argument. ad hominem fallacy

Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or  an Atheist as if
there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to
adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any
group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they
appear.
The litigants have no right to enforce their  contrived rules on the judges,
or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye.
Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the
drive for literary quality may be very small.
vib



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

Glen writes:

"but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than
he seems to be."

It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals.  Does he want to
persuade anyone or just a certain type of person?
Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult
leader.

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:35:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Well said, Vladimyr.

Frank


Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email]     [hidden email]
Phone:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20995-8715" value="[phone]">[phone]      Cell:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]">[phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Burachynsky
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

To Marcus and Group,

If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are  all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion  how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of
numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right.
The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition.
Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the
brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping.
We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value
of the map is compromised.

Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only
one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction
and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been
squashed as the admission price) .

Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority"
and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal.
But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some.

There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer
in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position.
Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so
ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory
of his argument. ad hominem fallacy

Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or  an Atheist as if
there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to
adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any
group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they
appear.
The litigants have no right to enforce their  contrived rules on the judges,
or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye.
Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the
drive for literary quality may be very small.
vib



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

Glen writes:

"but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than
he seems to be."

It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals.  Does he want to
persuade anyone or just a certain type of person?
Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult
leader.

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:23:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:25 -0600, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:

> The litigants have no right to enforce their  contrived rules on the judges,
> or do they?

Yes, it is just a struggle for power.  There are no rules.

Marcus





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: glen <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:26:52 -0800
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

I agree with Marcus that the litigants do have the "right" to "enforce" their contrived rules on the judges (as usual, the scare quotes foreshadow my rhetoric).  I think this is mostly because there is no line between judge and litigant.  We can see this quite obviously with the rampant accusations of "activist judge" in punditville today.  Even if there is some sort of line, it's a fuzzy one.  The memes of the litigants infect the judges and the rulings of the judges infect the litigants.

I am quite taken (aback?) by the neoreactionary movement (e.g. http://www.moreright.net/why-nrx-is-winning/).  If you filter out the nonsense: misogyny, racism, etc., their criticism of democracy is interesting.  What it seems you do (in your criticism of consensus democracy) and what they do (in their criticism of populism) are to oversimplify the inverse and forward maps by which the high dimensional and low dimensional data relate.

Even within a single eyeball, there is no single perspective.  So, even in your parallax analogy, the oversimplification can be demonstrated. Perhaps the foveal blindspot thing works to demonstrate it?  The image generated by 1 eyeball is already a reduction from a higher dimensional image, as shown by the single eyeball consensus that there is nothing in that foveal area.  Adding the new eyeball just combines two pre-reduced consensuses to create an even further reduction... but thereby adding back the two blinded areas.

Similarly, the litigants are collectives; the judge is a collective; and their both collectives of collectives, all the way down and up.  Any instantaneous snapshot is open to some false clustering... the stability of any given consensus can be largely illusory, ready to vanish in an instant.

On 01/27/2015 01:25 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:

To Marcus and Group,

If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are  all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion  how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of
numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right.
The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition.
Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the
brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping.
We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value
of the map is compromised.

Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only
one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction
and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been
squashed as the admission price) .

Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority"
and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal.
But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some.

There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer
in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position.
Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so
ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory
of his argument. ad hominem fallacy

Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or  an Atheist as if
there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to
adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any
group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they
appear.
The litigants have no right to enforce their  contrived rules on the judges,
or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye.
Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the
drive for literary quality may be very small.

--
⇔ glen




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:40:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
FWIW, Charles Peirce has a rather novel solution to this problem.  First, he
writes as if there are such things as facts ... things that are true not
matter what you, or I, or any other person might think.  So, up to that
point he seems like a straight-on dualist: reality is distinct from human
thought.  But then he takes a sharp turn.  Facts are NOT independent of all
human thought.  Indeed, a fact is just what we, as inquiring creatures, are
fated to agree upon in the very long run.  Truth is that upon which
scientific thought will converge.  Thus there is no reality outside human
thought, just reality outside the thought of any particular set of persons.


Strange, huh?

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:36 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

Well said, Vladimyr.

Frank


Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email]     [hidden email]
Phone:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20995-8715" value="[phone]">[phone]      Cell:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]">[phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Burachynsky
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

To Marcus and Group,

If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are  all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion  how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of
numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right.
The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition.
Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the
brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping.
We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value
of the map is compromised.

Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only
one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction
and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been
squashed as the admission price) .

Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority"
and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal.
But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some.

There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer
in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position.
Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so
ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory
of his argument. ad hominem fallacy

Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or  an Atheist as if
there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to
adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any
group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they
appear.
The litigants have no right to enforce their  contrived rules on the judges,
or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye.
Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the
drive for literary quality may be very small.
vib



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

Glen writes:

"but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than
he seems to be."

It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals.  Does he want to
persuade anyone or just a certain type of person?
Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult
leader.

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Grant Holland <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 21:22:46 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
One either knows the answer (to whatever question) or one doesn't. You actually know that God exists, or you don't know. Pretending that you know when you don't is...well...pretense.  Accepting that you don't know when you don't and keeping an open mind usually leads to less self delusion.

I see no reason to adopt an idea as a belief when you know damn well that you don't know whether it is true or not. This goes for atheism as well as theism or any other idea.  FWIW I think that pretending to know when I don't - one way or the other - is simply unnecessary, fruitless and self-deluding.

Grant

On 1/27/15 3:35 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Well said, Vladimyr.

Frank


Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email]     [hidden email]
Phone:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20995-8715" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]      Cell:  <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Burachynsky
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

To Marcus and Group,

If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are  all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion  how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of
numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right.
The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition.
Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the
brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping.
We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value
of the map is compromised.

Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only
one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction
and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been
squashed as the admission price) .

Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority"
and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal.
But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some.

There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer
in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position.
Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so
ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the victory
of his argument. ad hominem fallacy

Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or  an Atheist as if
there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me to
adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any
group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they
appear.
The litigants have no right to enforce their  contrived rules on the judges,
or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye.
Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the
drive for literary quality may be very small.
vib



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

Glen writes:

"but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than
he seems to be."

It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals.  Does he want to
persuade anyone or just a certain type of person?
Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult
leader.

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 21:33:25 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
"I see no reason to adopt an idea as a belief when you know damn well that
you don't know whether it is true or not."

It's a question of what gets mental resources.   Rejection of a proposition
as inadequate is not the same thing as saying that it is false.  It's simply
uninteresting whether it is true or false.

Marcus





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:06:38 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
"I see no reason to adopt an idea as a belief when you know damn well that
you don't know whether it is true or not."

Consider counting boolean values.

Trial one gives `1', `0', `0'.

Trail two gives `1', `0', `0', and, `GodIsGreat'.

All tabulators count trial 1 to be 1/3 `1'.

Tabulator one counts trial 2 to be 1/3 `1'.
Tabulator two counts trial 2 to be 1/4 `1'.
Tabulator three counts trial 2 to be `unknown'.
Tabulator four counts trial 2 to be 1/2 heads.
Tabulator five counts trial 2 to be `GodIsGreat'.

Tabulator 1 preserves the evidence she is given.
Tabulator 2 opts for tails when there is no explanation given for missing
evidence.
Tabulator 3 throws away all the evidence.
Tabuatlor 4 opts for heads when there is no explanation given for missing
evidence.
Tabulator 5 is an evangelist.




_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen wrote:

> mgd circa Wed Jan 28 00:06:38 EST 2015:
> > Consider counting boolean values.
> > Trial one gives `1', `0', `0'.
> > Trail two gives `1', `0', `0', and, `GodIsGreat'.
>
> The practical question is whether or not its good or adequate practice
> to throw away the outlier.  Obviously, I tend to avoid throwing away
> the data even if it's nonsensical.  Were I one of the tabulators, I'd
> have to say it's either inconclusively between 1/4 and 1/3 or a broken
> experiment, probably both.

The practical question to me is whether it is good to tolerate the
design and proliferation of broken experiments.  It's not even an
outlier, because it is indeterminate.   If the type system was
inadequate it should have been redesigned before starting to state
constraints and relate them in a consensus language.  

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

To Glen or so it seems,

I have the distinct awkward feeling that, while I write, there is no compelling  evidence of my existence, only my utterings.
Perhaps my hollow ringing echoes are sufficient to serve as my fake evidence, should I choose to perjure myself in a court. Is there such a beast as the Inverted Solipsist ( everyone else is real but not himself)?

Does anyone recall washroom graffiti of the 60's and 70's sometimes eloquent sometimes rather vulgar and blunt.
Without a time line one could imagine a dialogue, at times, with penmanship the only distinguishing feature to support the fantasy.
At the next gas station, 100 miles further West, the conversation would resume, based only upon the very recognizable penmanship. The trans-Canada highway can be very long. Does the conversation take on a different tone when traveling , in reverse , West to East.
All completely arbitrary. So it seems are any and all emotional insights.
At a 4-way intersection without lights the first arrival becomes next to leave. But if none of the drivers can remember their arrival sequence there is calamity ahead.
Perhaps if a numbering system is used following a thread title, the Real sequence can be re-assembled. That  Implies that each quote also contains the number assignment.
Glen quoted Marcus but only gave a date Wed Jan 28... not the thread. I have not received the e-mail from Marcus containing that snippet. But I have found another Marcus Wed 28 in [Friam][External]Forum hacked... I suppose Marcus was stoked up that day and jumped from one thread to another, well done, what a nimble fox. I only wish that I could still be so quick on my feet.
I do wonder if this thread is soon to be discarded...
I serves my imagination to believe without evidence at times, at other times I do rely on evidence, lingering in my memory, to get through the four way intersection without a bump. Without memory what can anyone use to decide which case is truer than the other. Is truth an event or is it a sequence of truthful events? Self contained.
vib

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: January-28-15 4:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?


Heh, this time it seems even gmane failed:

http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.region.new-mexico.santa-fe.friam

Marcus G. Daniels Wed Jan 28 16:38:36 EST 2015:
> I suppose I could start giving them tags like [so-and-so
> topic].shard[0,1,etc] in the subject line to cope with the deficiency.

I bet there's at least some demand for a tool that would do that.
Perhaps a combination of an e-mail client plugin, web page monitor, subject/body parser, that would dynamically assemble threads from otherwise disorganized content.  Come to think of it, that's kinda what we tried to do for a client a few years back, except we were dicing up corporate annual reports looking for threads in those.

> But returning to the thread, I don't believe in making up for such
> deficiencies.  ;-)

Hm, I suppose that makes you a gnostic deficiencist ... I'd be more of an agnostic adeficiencist ... can't really _know_ deficiencies exist, but tend to disbelieve in them anyway.  I'm a bit of a Taoist... all of what is, is sufficient, it's just up to us to find our path in it.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Glen and others,
thank you,

Someone once claimed that as we age we become transparent.
That might frustrate the girl with the mirror fixation.
The link to the date.html works like a charm. GREAT.
I can see Myself and every one else.!

Now is anyone gifted on Graph Theory?.

I have a Circulant Graph that appears very Hamiltonian in 3D and not so in 2D, but still interesting?
It appears to cross it's own paths or tracks . (4 way intersections are nodes)
I am just starting to learn this discipline accidentally and reluctantly, against my stubborn nature.
I loaded an example onto One Drive
 https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=14A5CDB09AEE4237&id=14A5CDB09AEE4237%212315&v=3

One connected Graph with two isomorphs , blue and red , with one to one correspondence between nodes or vertices.
When I transfer the graphs to Eng. Software I can place strut/bridges/connections between two or more copies of the graph and build a skeleton out of a set of structures.
It can appear to be moving frame to frame.

I have been working on this for some time, on and off, and am entertaining a future public presentation. I had hoped to make a journey to your sunny climes.
Somewhere I have a structure with valence of 10 per node causing me some great anxiety.
Maybe by the time I figure it out I will be fully transparent, while the presentation has materialized.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: January-30-15 1:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?

On 01/29/2015 07:56 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
> I have the distinct awkward feeling that, while I write, there is no compelling  evidence of my existence, only my utterings.
> Perhaps my hollow ringing echoes are sufficient to serve as my fake evidence, should I choose to perjure myself in a court. Is there such a beast as the Inverted Solipsist ( everyone else is real but not himself)?

We have diagnostic criteria for everything under the sun.  So, there's bound to be one.  I read a fantasy novel a long time ago about a girl who was unsure of her existence.  So she surrounded herself with mirrors to remind her.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordant%27s_Need

I also have heard that many people feel "invisible".  And I know that, when I regularly eat meals in a pub or restaurant by myself, with the same wait staff and other regular customers, almost nobody gives any evidence they remember me.  No recognition at all.... at least it takes lots and lots of visits to get any recognition.  But my wife and I can go to a place _once_ and then return a month or so later, and seemingly everyone who was there last time recognizes us.  Ironically, I'm a stickler for eye contact and my wife doesn't seem to care about making eye contact with strangers.

> Does anyone recall washroom graffiti of the 60's and 70's sometimes eloquent sometimes rather vulgar and blunt.
> Without a time line one could imagine a dialogue, at times, with penmanship the only distinguishing feature to support the fantasy.
> At the next gas station, 100 miles further West, the conversation would resume, based only upon the very recognizable penmanship. The trans-Canada highway can be very long. Does the conversation take on a different tone when traveling , in reverse , West to East.
> All completely arbitrary. So it seems are any and all emotional insights.
> At a 4-way intersection without lights the first arrival becomes next to leave. But if none of the drivers can remember their arrival sequence there is calamity ahead.
> Perhaps if a numbering system is used following a thread title, the Real sequence can be re-assembled. That  Implies that each quote also contains the number assignment.

This depends fundamentally on what you think you're doing when you number something.  Are you indexing?  Ordering?  Merely tagging?  Are they metadata tags?

They type of music I like best tends to contain nearly nonsensical lyrics ... not only is it difficult to hear them, but even if you download them from the band, assuming they know what they are, they still make very little sense... at least to me.  That's why I enjoy[ed] placing them, line by line in my e-mail signature database and having it pseudo-randomly select single lines from all those lyrics to include in my e-mail signature.  Nick might think of such things as "postmodern".
I tend to think of them as cumulative sense-making ... e.g. the only complete way to understand a deck of cards is to shuffle them over and over and try to make sense of them in various new sequences and subsets.

If random re-ordering the _moments_ of your life/story make that story meaningless, then perhaps it's time to re-think the meaning of your story/life?

> Glen quoted Marcus but only gave a date Wed Jan 28... not the thread. I have not received the e-mail from Marcus containing that snippet. But I have found another Marcus Wed 28 in [Friam][External]Forum hacked... I suppose Marcus was stoked up that day and jumped from one thread to another, well done, what a nimble fox. I only wish that I could still be so quick on my feet.

He is nimble.  But it's more likely that the computer(s) that execute our lives are playing games with us ... selecting which information gets to us and which is filtered out.  See the archives for a more accurate verion (but by all means not _assuredly_ accurate):

    http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2015-January/date.html

> I do wonder if this thread is soon to be discarded...
> I serves my imagination to believe without evidence at times, at other times I do rely on evidence, lingering in my memory, to get through the four way intersection without a bump. Without memory what can anyone use to decide which case is truer than the other. Is truth an event or is it a sequence of truthful events? Self contained.

It's neither an event, nor a sequence of events, but a shufflable
(impredicative) set of events.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Vladimyr wrote:

"I have a Circulant Graph that appears very Hamiltonian in 3D and not so in 2D, but still interesting?"

Mathematica recently (ver 10) added a graph analysis capability.  It has a Hamiltonian predicate (HamiltonianGraphQ).  

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com