Semiannual Time Change
Locked
 
|
I haven't read the posts but I would have thought someone would have noticed it's not a bi-annual time change and corrected the subject line.
BTW, the petition doesn't say biannual, does it? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Yes, you would think. From long experience with FRIAM I have learned that it is best not to be lofty and wrong at the same time. Lofty, occasionally? Wrong, often! But never lofty AND wrong. See Dictionary.com Not to be confused with biennial. Nick -----Original Message----- I haven't read the posts but I would have thought someone would have noticed it's not a bi-annual time change and corrected the subject line. BTW, the petition doesn't say biannual, does it? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Lofty, only occasionally? That must be some other parallel universe FRIAM, Nick. Not to be confused with this one. --Doug On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick -
You hit the nail on the head... I'm in the midst of composing "yet another" Lofty and LONG e-mail that is probably *also* littered with some WRONG. And the subject of it is a corollary to what you said here. To summarize what you are about to receive and most will (for very good reasons) choose to skim or not read at all, this list is prone to lofty AND wrong. I remember quite well when Bruce corrected me (quite politely) on several of the details of my diatribe about the local history of Spanish-Native (mis)relations. I was being LOFTY, WRONG (and as usual LONG). Maybe it is just the nature of "coffee house chat" or "bar talk" or "armchair speculation", or maybe it is literally the stuff of "brainstorming"? - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ross Goeres
Ross -
Thanks for putting this straight. I was loathe to add *that* nitpick (it *is* substantive but I assumed collectively understood) but I'm glad you brought it up for one particular reason:I haven't read the posts but I would have thought someone would have noticed it's not a bi-annual time change and corrected the subject line. BTW, the petition doesn't say biannual, does it? Josh just pointed out to us that in fact the government(s) have the power to declare *official* time (and calendar and ...) note the Ge'ez Calendar ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_calendar ) as observed in Eritrea and Ethiopia... not all that different from our "own" but is it 2013 or is it 2006 this year? Who knows really? What probably irks me most about some of our discussions here is that while I'm sure we are all fairly well educated, learned, sophisticated people, we have a tendency to notice something that irks us (oops I might be getting recursive here) and we treat it (in this case the semiannual clock shift to create what we call Daylight Savings Time) as if it were not already carefully thought through... then we offer a *much more ill thought through* solution that *at best* optimizes one feature that we might be focused on at the time as if *that* actually helps anything. Not to pick on Owen (too much) but when he took exception to another hemisphere (not to mention culture yet) not aligning with us (or not negotiating with us until agreement was reached?) in the choice of timing of the clock change, he directly neglected the (obvious?) problem of north/south hemispheres, just as I think he did when he suggested year-round clock skew. He either is a natural early riser and doesn't find trying to make 8AM appointments in the dark hard or doesn't have 8AM expectations and neglected to imagine that many people need to start their day an hour or three before the rest of us (how else does your newspaper make your doorstep before you wake or the coffee and croissants be steaming hot when you arrive well before the magic 8AM, or ...). Nick I think, pointed out that school children trying to make a 7:30 or even 8:30 first period might be standing at the bus stop as much as an hour before sunrise if we kept the hour-skew through the dead of winter (at higher latitudes). Arlo suggested registering the clock to the sunrise (managed by the magic of computers I guess) might be more highly motivated and my instincts agree but without shifting the length of hours (stretching minutes and seconds with them?), we can't keep it registered on sunrise *and* sunset simultaneously (I think he suggested that). If anyone could do it, I suspect Arlo could actually build (or design anyway) an analog mechanism to model the sunrise/sunset throughout the year (though if you read the later diatribe on the Analemma, Apsides and Solstices, it is likely his analog model would be no less than a full Orrery with spinning, tilting, elliptically orbiting planets and moons and all!). The map is not the territory. My point, as much as I ever have (a succinct) one is that we seem to be a group of people quick to notice the obvious flaws in one thing or another (DST details, cell coverage, best plan, best phone, best design for a tinfoil hat, Google responsiveness to buggy HW/SW, etc.) then imply or even line out specifically our own remedy, which of course has obvious (or to be fair, mildly hidden) flaws of it's own. Or more to the point optimizes one or two features at the loss of *all of the others*. Is this arrogance (that we assume our immediate knee-jerk intuitive irritation and response-to-it is superior to more broadly considered solutions) or is it our general self-selection (as members of the list first and ones willing to speak up second) as optimizers and problems solvers? Some would suggest that the psuedonymity or asynchronousness of network communication supports this kind of brainstorming-as-problem-solving. Perhaps it is just that, what occurs here is really just brainstorming even if it often masquerades as problem solving? No diss to brainstorming, just noticing my own reactions to our discussions. Many here are professional "modelers" so we know that "all models are wrong, some are useful" which suggests we also understand that we can only optimize what we model and that multi-variate optimization is always a trade-off with combinations of muddied averages or hierarchies of deference within the model space minimizing distances to Pareto Frontiers or somesuch. For example, none of our DST discussions acknowledged Nick's early (last Autumn?) mention of the Lemniscate Analemma and the misalignment of our apsides with our solstices leading to the days getting longer or shorter asymmetrically throughout the year (sunrises shifting faster or slower than sunsets). I'm not really trying to bust anyone in particular (Owen and Doug can take the heat) but rather seeking a meta-discussion on the question of why/how groups like this (and we are our own Petri dish for observation/experimentation?) have this tendency. I enjoy the freewheeling nature of this list (why else would I often read it in it's entirety and respond so voluminously?) so I'm not necessarily trying to shut anything down or significantly change the narrative (dialogue, multi-monolog?), just get a deeper understanding/appreciation of it's true nature. Hmmm, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 03/19/2013 11:36 AM:
> Is this arrogance (that we assume our immediate knee-jerk intuitive > irritation and response-to-it is superior to more broadly considered > solutions) or is it our general self-selection (as members of the list > first and ones willing to speak up second) as optimizers and problems > solvers? Some would suggest that the psuedonymity or asynchronousness > of network communication supports this kind of > brainstorming-as-problem-solving. Perhaps it is just that, what occurs > here is really just brainstorming even if it often masquerades as > problem solving? I think it's more a feature of the openness of thought (and, for the realists among us, the openness of the universe). People tend to run with their own thoughts, regardless of whether the foundations of those thoughts couple nicely with reality. That sort of behavior is necessary for skills from good chess playing to sculpture, much less invention. And it also results in phenomena like groups of (usually men) who merely wait for others to quit talking so they can begin talking about something totally unrelated. To me, this ability to run forward with a set of assumptions is critical to exploring what can be said (and done). The only thing that irritates me is our self-centeredness, our facility with running forward with our own thoughts and our disability with respect to playing out _others'_ thoughts. Communities where you see lots of extended, playful, futile bitching and/or philosophy are refreshing because it indicates, to me, that the participants are willing and perhaps good at running others' thoughts/assumptions forward and seeing how it turns out. It's much more interesting than the communities where every stray thought is shut down and ridiculed the instant it shows up. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com http://meat.org ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard all day.
:) On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote: It's much more interesting than the communities where every stray Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On 3/19/13 1:53 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard all day. > > :) Shoosh, you Cat bowling, Peacock loving, Saxaphone playing, HPC-LINUX loving, Admiral-deposing, Blog posting, Whiskey snorting, Google bashing, Novel writing, Motorcycle touring, Iconoclastic wanker! ;^} ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
+1 On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts
[hidden email] ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Glen -
I agree, and this is the kind of meta-discussion (observation) I am seeking. I think it is a testimony to the safety and comfort the regular posters here feel to DO that freewheeling. Even though a few of us may pick at some of the others, it is mostly (if not all) in good humor I think. It may not be obvious but I'm interested in seeing the active participation in this list grow. We seem to be something like 10-20 voices with 300-500 (Owen or Stephen probably have the current subscribership numbers) listeners (lurkers?).I think it's more a feature of the openness of thought (and, for the realists among us, the openness of the universe). People tend to run with their own thoughts, regardless of whether the foundations of those thoughts couple nicely with reality. That sort of behavior is necessary for skills from good chess playing to sculpture, much less invention. And it also results in phenomena like groups of (usually men) who merely wait for others to quit talking so they can begin talking about something totally unrelated. To me, this ability to run forward with a set of assumptions is critical to exploring what can be said (and done). The only thing that irritates me is our self-centeredness, our facility with running forward with our own thoughts and our disability with respect to playing out _others'_ thoughts. Communities where you see lots of extended, playful, futile bitching and/or philosophy are refreshing because it indicates, to me, that the participants are willing and perhaps good at running others' thoughts/assumptions forward and seeing how it turns out. It's much more interesting than the communities where every stray thought is shut down and ridiculed the instant it shows up. Stephen Guerin said roughly what you said over beers recently and it really struck home. Paraphrasing: "We all just sit and nod politely to each other waiting for the other to finish so we can talk about what we really wanted to talk about!"It was an honest statement about the people we usually sit and talk with and of course, to a lesser acknowledged extent, ourselves (he and I). You note that this is "mostly men" and in fact, that does seem to be a correlate with what has been pop-diagnosed as Ausperger-Autism spectrum in many situations. Perhaps something about the sterility (ASCII-only) and psuedonymical (most folks here use their common names but that doesn't mean we have ever or will ever meet) and asynchronicity of this medium that supports manly-Auspergers vs something else? We have order 5 semi-active women on the list, all (as I know them) to be quite able to hold their own in "a man's world" but probably not as prone to this Ausperger's style as the rest of us. Thank you Pamela, Tory, Didi, Peggy, Morgan, Merle, ??? (I know I'm missing at least a few names here)! I myself indulge in the latter (asynch comm) a great deal. In person, I am usually pretty quiet in groups larger than 2 and even then generally spend as much time listening as talking. On this list, I can be very vocal (frequent and voluminous) because I trust that most of you will simply ignore me if you find what I'm saying boorish, poorly articulated or irrelevant. In person, there simply isn't that much real-estate for very many people to say very much without dominating the conversation. I might very well fit the image you and Stephen caste of simply waiting for the other person to quit speaking so I can say what I want to... but in the asynchronous world, I don't have to wait... and I don't have to interrupt... and I can't easily be interrupted. I don't have to ignore what others have said in order to hold the floor, I can acknowledge it, confront it, riff on it, and still talk about whatever I whimsically want to talk about. It is a blessing and probably a curse. In person, if I were to make some of the comments I do here and was met with as little response, I would probably take it as being completely ignored and quit talking. Fortunately here I have enough out-of-band communication with others to know that they are silently reading what I write, appreciating some of it, but declining to stir the pot themselves. It is not unlike a knowing glance or nod in an in-person group conversation. I read fast, write fast, and can context shift fairly easily, so being active on a list such as this one is not as onerous as it might seem. Also, if I need to chew something over for an hour or a day before responding, I have that freedom to. In person, there is usually a fairly small window where one can respond to another's statement or question before the opportunity is lost. I have friends who I enjoy the company of greatly because of this same cadence. We see each other every few days or perhaps weeks, and can both pick up a conversation where it was left days or weeks before... or even longer. I hold myself to reading *most* of the traffic on this list to obtain and maintain a fuller context. I'm sure I miss or forget things others have said and restate what has already been stated (usually when I do it, it is consciously, weaving a point already made into a larger context, or so I hope) or misunderstand someone because I didn't read the whole thread. I do seek more "playing out of other's ideas here"... which is one of the reasons I appreciate what Doug refers fondly to as Nick's "Big Bold Naivete". There is something about the way Nick (sometimes) asks what seem like naive questions that yields a fascinating conversation, if even only in the privacy of my own head. Last time-change (Autumn) or close to Solstice, I cannot remember, he brought up the Analemma and the asymmetry of sidereal time advance between morning and evening which led me to the the topic of Apsides and Solstices... etc. etc. etc. I think I spoke (out loud) to it then but nobody else took any of it up (out loud) but I'm guessing more than a few of our hundreds of readers here *did* probably take a deeper interest in some of that. Even though i might have appeared to be trying to "bust" Rich on his posting style recently, I was really trying to draw him out to a point where we could more easily appreciate what he was trying to tell us, not to shut him up. We have since taken the conversation offline and it seems to be mutually productive or at least entertaining. I am still interested in a larger engagement in the topics he is more comfortable with than others here seem to be. I was hoping, for example, that the likes of Russell Standish and his work on Complexity and Emergence and the "Theory of Nothing" would be cross referenced with Rich's somewhat more mystical but *I* believe relevant maunderings. I am glad that you *also* appreciate the list's freewheeling style and seek more engagement in a broader sense (if I read you correctly). Maybe this discussion will help encourage a broadening in the participation... - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
Glen sed:
I also am reminded of Bohm's Rheomode (as exposed in his Wholeness and the Implicate Order) and of James Carse's "Finite and Infinite Games" with "Zero Sum" and the distinction between "Boundaries" and "Horizons".I think it's more a feature of the openness of thought (and, for the realists among us, the openness of the universe). ============================================================ 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 |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve Smith wrote at 03/19/2013 01:20 PM:
> I am glad that you *also* appreciate the list's freewheeling style and > seek more engagement in a broader sense (if I read you correctly). > Maybe this discussion will help encourage a broadening in the > participation... I don't think of it so much as freewheeling. I think of it more as a compulsion. Owen's persistent attempts to find a homunculus inside Google is a better example than brain farts for a better definition of time. And it goes back to what I was trying to say in the last e-mail. We (humans, actors, initiators of causal chains of events) have only a SINGLE effector available to us: twitch. We spastically twitch about because that's the only thing we can do. The resulting patterns are NOT caused by any intelligence, plan, goal, objective, belief, intention, etc. within the actor. The resulting patterns are an artifact of the collection of actors twitching about in the open universe surrounding us. It's only in hindsight ... or with an epiphenomenal or finitely limited attention span that we "recognize" patterns and, post-hoc, impute intelligence, plans, objectives, etc. onto some arbitrarily sliced out kernel of the pattern. ---- Given that, I explain running forward with our own reality-disconnected systems of assumptions as life's imperative: we twitch and we just keep twitching. We just wiggle and squirm about in our own juices until some other wiggling squirming process changes the juices in some happenstance way. So, when you're quaffing pints with that guy who just won't shut up about, say, football, then you can see him for what he is: a twitch with few degrees of freedom. He must twitch and football is all he has to twitch about! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Shallow men believe in luck ... Strong men believe in cause and effect. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson ============================================================ 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 |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
Glen -
This is twitchin awesome! But for some unexplained reason, I feel pithed about it. (lame puns intended, punning being one of *my* twitches). I'm still enjoying my illusion of free-will and get a little skitchy around overstated pre-determination (or a fully mechanistic model of the universe?). This is probably just a twitch itself? I do think that a great deal of what we (think we) do consciously is some level of "twitch" as you call it. Coupled dynamical systems, all of us in one great grand ensemble of twitching frog-legs all wired together... or in Stephenson's Diamond Age like the "Drummers" (sorry Carl). I also accept the idea that *much* of what we think we understand or control is just a post-hoc rationalization of what happened without even our involvement much less understanding. You have referred to yourself in the past as a "simulant" which I took to mean that you are a professional creator of "simulations" (simulation scientist?) despite the fact that it was too close to "Replicant" from Blade Runner and sounded more like you were claiming that "you" were just a somewhat modularized region in a giant simulation. This of course wanders me into Fredkin/Wolfram/Chaitin land where their digitally updated version of Leibnitz' Monist Metaphysics is expressed variously as Digital Philosophy or Digital Physics. In some circles it is a truism the "we are what we eat"... which suggests that someone who "eats simulations" for a living is likely to "become a simulation" at least in their own mind. Or perhaps it is your twitch that you *are* a simulation scientist *because* you see the world as one grande simulation and the ones you create and execute are just modularized simulations within the simulation? In my offline conversations with Rich Murray, it is becoming apparent that we (he and I) share the feeling that by giving over to "consciousness" being *at best* the unique ability to observe (but maybe not to effect) the unfolding universe. It is why I am entertained by such as Bohm's Rheomode and of course Digital Physics/Philosophy... the possibility that even if "I" am mostly an illusion, "I" am also not completely an illusion. Oh Ego, twitch on you surly beast! - Steve > Steve Smith wrote at 03/19/2013 01:20 PM: >> I am glad that you *also* appreciate the list's freewheeling style and >> seek more engagement in a broader sense (if I read you correctly). >> Maybe this discussion will help encourage a broadening in the >> participation... > I don't think of it so much as freewheeling. I think of it more as a > compulsion. Owen's persistent attempts to find a homunculus inside > Google is a better example than brain farts for a better definition of > time. And it goes back to what I was trying to say in the last e-mail. > > We (humans, actors, initiators of causal chains of events) have only a > SINGLE effector available to us: twitch. We spastically twitch about > because that's the only thing we can do. > > The resulting patterns are NOT caused by any intelligence, plan, goal, > objective, belief, intention, etc. within the actor. The resulting > patterns are an artifact of the collection of actors twitching about in > the open universe surrounding us. > > It's only in hindsight ... or with an epiphenomenal or finitely limited > attention span that we "recognize" patterns and, post-hoc, impute > intelligence, plans, objectives, etc. onto some arbitrarily sliced out > kernel of the pattern. > > ---- > Given that, I explain running forward with our own reality-disconnected > systems of assumptions as life's imperative: we twitch and we just keep > twitching. We just wiggle and squirm about in our own juices until some > other wiggling squirming process changes the juices in some happenstance > way. > > So, when you're quaffing pints with that guy who just won't shut up > about, say, football, then you can see him for what he is: a twitch with > few degrees of freedom. He must twitch and football is all he has to > twitch about! > ============================================================ 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 |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 03/19/2013 03:08 PM:
> I'm still enjoying my illusion of free-will and get a little skitchy > around overstated pre-determination (or a fully mechanistic model of the > universe?). This is probably just a twitch itself? Well, the twitch ontology doesn't make any statements about free will or illusions or any of that. It only minimizes what would be inside an actor's boundary if such a boundary exists. That's why it will work for objectivists or constructivists. That minimal kernel is simply a source of "energy", the impetus to move, say, do, act in whatever way your constraints allow you to. If you only have 1 DoF, then every twitch will place you on points in that dimension. If you have N DsoF, then you'll (eventually) end up sampling the space bounded by those constraints. So, there are no types of twitch, there is only twitch. That doesn't imply any sort of determinism. In fact, it might argue for nondeterminism. > You have referred to yourself in the past as a "simulant" which I took > to mean that you are a professional creator of "simulations" (simulation > scientist?) despite the fact that it was too close to "Replicant" from > Blade Runner and sounded more like you were claiming that "you" were > just a somewhat modularized region in a giant simulation. I mean it in both senses, circularity, ambiguity. I am part of the simulations I help create. But I don't say it to distinguish me from anyone else. I actually think we're all simulants. The manifested effects of your twitch may seem to fall into an entirely different taxonomy (e.g. music or paper mache bagels with cream cheese), but it's still constructed and it's still _similar_ to something else. Hence everything we construct is a simulation of something. And everything we construct is a (complementary, reflective, inverted) simulation of ourselves, like a glove is a simulation of the hand. > In some circles it is a truism the "we are what we eat"... which > suggests that someone who "eats simulations" for a living is likely to > "become a simulation" at least in their own mind. Or perhaps it is your > twitch that you *are* a simulation scientist *because* you see the world > as one grande simulation and the ones you create and execute are just > modularized simulations within the simulation? Excellent! But, no. I'm the type of simulant I am because, for whatever ontogenic, hysterical constraints, the only/best thing I can manipulate is rhetoric (which includes deduction in the form of instructions for machines). That region of my constraint box was more open, perhaps more densely meshed than other regions. If my twitch had emerged in a baseball player's constraint box, then the simulations I'd be a part of would be much different. > "I" am also not completely an illusion. Right. You're a wiggly twitch exploring your constraints. So say we all. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella If there's something left of my spirit ============================================================ 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 |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
> Right. You're a wiggly twitch exploring your constraints. So say we all. Thanks... I think! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
>> I'm still enjoying my illusion of free-will and get a little skitchy >> around overstated pre-determination (or a fully mechanistic model of the >> universe?). This is probably just a twitch itself? > Well, the twitch ontology doesn't make any statements about free will or > illusions or any of that. It only minimizes what would be inside an > actor's boundary if such a boundary exists. That's why it will work for > objectivists or constructivists. do you have any references I could follow? The "Twitch Ontology" would be new to me (excepting what you just wrote). It felt as if it explained human behaviour as an automaton, but obviously more than that? > > That minimal kernel is simply a source of "energy", the impetus to move, > say, do, act in whatever way your constraints allow you to. If you only > have 1 DoF, then every twitch will place you on points in that > dimension. If you have N DsoF, then you'll (eventually) end up sampling > the space bounded by those constraints. > > So, there are no types of twitch, there is only twitch. That doesn't > imply any sort of determinism. In fact, it might argue for nondeterminism. I like to distinguish determinism from predictability. If I understand your concept of twitch, there is no choice to be made, but the outcome of coupled, cascading twitches (actors acting interactively?) can only be determined by running the twitching simulation forward? >> You have referred to yourself in the past as a "simulant" which I took >> to mean that you are a professional creator of "simulations" (simulation >> scientist?) despite the fact that it was too close to "Replicant" from >> Blade Runner and sounded more like you were claiming that "you" were >> just a somewhat modularized region in a giant simulation. > I mean it in both senses, circularity, ambiguity. I am part of the > simulations I help create. I think Rich and I (at least) would grant you that. > But I don't say it to distinguish me from > anyone else. I actually think we're all simulants. A given in the rhetoric of the discussion I think. > The manifested > effects of your twitch may seem to fall into an entirely different > taxonomy (e.g. music or paper mache bagels with cream cheese) yes... > , but it's > still constructed and it's still _similar_ to something else. Hence > everything we construct is a simulation of something. And everything we > construct is a (complementary, reflective, inverted) simulation of > ourselves, like a glove is a simulation of the hand. Echoes of echoes of reflections of folds of reflections of postive/negative space. >> In some circles it is a truism the "we are what we eat"... which >> suggests that someone who "eats simulations" for a living is likely to >> "become a simulation" at least in their own mind. Or perhaps it is your >> twitch that you *are* a simulation scientist *because* you see the world >> as one grande simulation and the ones you create and execute are just >> modularized simulations within the simulation? > Excellent! But, no. I'm the type of simulant I am because, for > whatever ontogenic, hysterical constraints, the only/best thing I can > manipulate is rhetoric (which includes deduction in the form of > instructions for machines). > That region of my constraint box was more > open, perhaps more densely meshed than other regions. If my twitch had > emerged in a baseball player's constraint box, then the simulations I'd > be a part of would be much different. Flingin spittballz? >> "I" am also not completely an illusion. > Right. You're a wiggly twitch exploring your constraints. So say we all. So say we all! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
Leaping Lizards !
hyperinfinity, which concepts can never span, by that reality gives concepts space to evolve freely forever -- actually timelessly (infinities of time lines criss crossing every which witch way -- we may say, all at once always) -- I'm pleased to see how metaphors are multiplying, proliferating, beyond true or false, as arbitrary art full wonder games -- I feel appreciated by Steve Smith's appreciations -- an encouraging experience for this soul stream -- as words become free and hyper tantalizing, so also follows the collaborative creativity we label as prosaic daily life -- words are the railroad tracks we hastily lay down before us as our loco motives charge forward, forward, through the days -- no boxes to think outside of, just vast sensitive supple potent space, within which living, moving, being evolve -- really, with increasing integrity, freedom, compassion, creativity, love, awareness, joy, as God is so helping us all... within the fellowship of service, Rich On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > Glen - > >>> I'm still enjoying my illusion of free-will and get a little skitchy >>> around overstated pre-determination (or a fully mechanistic model of the >>> universe?). This is probably just a twitch itself? >> >> Well, the twitch ontology doesn't make any statements about free will or >> illusions or any of that. It only minimizes what would be inside an >> actor's boundary if such a boundary exists. That's why it will work for >> objectivists or constructivists. > > do you have any references I could follow? The "Twitch Ontology" would be > new to me (excepting what you just wrote). It felt as if it explained human > behaviour as an automaton, but obviously more than that? > >> >> That minimal kernel is simply a source of "energy", the impetus to move, >> say, do, act in whatever way your constraints allow you to. If you only >> have 1 DoF, then every twitch will place you on points in that >> dimension. If you have N DsoF, then you'll (eventually) end up sampling >> the space bounded by those constraints. >> >> So, there are no types of twitch, there is only twitch. That doesn't >> imply any sort of determinism. In fact, it might argue for >> nondeterminism. > > I like to distinguish determinism from predictability. If I understand your > concept of twitch, there is no choice to be made, but the outcome of > coupled, cascading twitches (actors acting interactively?) can only be > determined by running the twitching simulation forward? > >>> You have referred to yourself in the past as a "simulant" which I took >>> to mean that you are a professional creator of "simulations" (simulation >>> scientist?) despite the fact that it was too close to "Replicant" from >>> Blade Runner and sounded more like you were claiming that "you" were >>> just a somewhat modularized region in a giant simulation. >> >> I mean it in both senses, circularity, ambiguity. I am part of the >> simulations I help create. > > I think Rich and I (at least) would grant you that. > >> But I don't say it to distinguish me from >> anyone else. I actually think we're all simulants. > > A given in the rhetoric of the discussion I think. > >> The manifested >> effects of your twitch may seem to fall into an entirely different >> taxonomy (e.g. music or paper mache bagels with cream cheese) > > yes... > >> , but it's >> still constructed and it's still _similar_ to something else. Hence >> everything we construct is a simulation of something. And everything we >> construct is a (complementary, reflective, inverted) simulation of >> ourselves, like a glove is a simulation of the hand. > > Echoes of echoes of reflections of folds of reflections of postive/negative > space. > >>> In some circles it is a truism the "we are what we eat"... which >>> suggests that someone who "eats simulations" for a living is likely to >>> "become a simulation" at least in their own mind. Or perhaps it is your >>> twitch that you *are* a simulation scientist *because* you see the world >>> as one grande simulation and the ones you create and execute are just >>> modularized simulations within the simulation? >> >> Excellent! But, no. I'm the type of simulant I am because, for >> whatever ontogenic, hysterical constraints, the only/best thing I can >> manipulate is rhetoric (which includes deduction in the form of >> instructions for machines). > > Well said. > >> That region of my constraint box was more >> open, perhaps more densely meshed than other regions. If my twitch had >> emerged in a baseball player's constraint box, then the simulations I'd >> be a part of would be much different. > > Flingin spittballz? > >>> "I" am also not completely an illusion. >> >> Right. You're a wiggly twitch exploring your constraints. So say we all. > > So say we all! > > - Steve > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM 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 |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 03/19/2013 07:03 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> do you have any references I could follow? The "Twitch Ontology" would > be new to me (excepting what you just wrote). It felt as if it > explained human behaviour as an automaton, but obviously more than that? No references. As far as I know, I made it up. 8^) I'm sure I've stolen it from somewhere, though. If I were to cite anyone, it would be Lima de Faria and "autoevolution". But it's also inspired by autopoiesis. And there's a good dose of this mixed in: http://www.gprolog.org/manual/gprolog.html#htoc342 I think I began thinking this way back in college when I eavesdropped on an argument between a physics and a chemistry major who were arguing about what "absolute zero" means. Sorry for not being a "scholar". I've long lamented my inability to keep track of where I get ideas. I wouldn't say it attempts to explain human behavior as automata. It's more an assertion that there is really only 1 source of all the variety we see around us, the impetus to fill/explore a space. I haven't yet decided if it's a categorically different thing that the rest of matter/energy. Human (or any, including quantum foam) behavior is just an artifact of the twitch sampling a constrained space. The constrained space has properties, including being more or less dense in various dimension. The denser the space, the more options/points the twitch has to explore. >> So, there are no types of twitch, there is only twitch. That doesn't >> imply any sort of determinism. In fact, it might argue for >> nondeterminism. > I like to distinguish determinism from predictability. If I understand > your concept of twitch, there is no choice to be made, but the outcome > of coupled, cascading twitches (actors acting interactively?) can only > be determined by running the twitching simulation forward? That's right, there is no choice to be made. However, the twitch might sample the space randomly or by some determined algorithm. I don't know. -- glen =><= Hail Eris! ============================================================ 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 |
Re: The nature of Discussion Fora
|
|
Glen -
> No references. As far as I know, I made it up. 8^) I'm sure I've > stolen it from somewhere, though. Thanks... I definitely don't need you to be a scholar and I'm completely comfortable with stuff people pull out of a dark place on their own.... while any given example may be total shite, every once in a while a true gem emerges. > If I were to cite anyone, it would be > Lima de Faria and "autoevolution". LIma de Faria is a great lead, this is the class of reference I was looking for... parallel work to your ideas and/or sources of inspiration and parallax. > But it's also inspired by > autopoiesis. And there's a good dose of this mixed in: > > http://www.gprolog.org/manual/gprolog.html#htoc342 Prolog was my first AI language after SNOBOL (if you can call SNOBOL that)... I'm sure with the pedigree of folks here I'm not the only one to have learned Griswold's SNOBOL... but can anyone claim to have learned ICON? > I wouldn't say it attempts to explain human behavior as automata. It's > more an assertion that there is really only 1 source of all the variety > we see around us, the impetus to fill/explore a space. I haven't yet > decided if it's a categorically different thing that the rest of > matter/energy. Human (or any, including quantum foam) behavior is just > an artifact of the twitch sampling a constrained space. The constrained > space has properties, including being more or less dense in various > dimension. The denser the space, the more options/points the twitch has > to explore. This seems parallel/related to Kauffman's "fourth law" and is compelling to me as my own observations have slowly converged on a sense (could totally be the iterative application of confirmation bias I fear) that *all* activity in the universe (there I go with the absolutes I wanted to bust Rich for) seems to be part of a grand ballroom dance of self-organization running directly upstream from the entropy gradient. I guess I'll twitch on all this a bit more... Thanks, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |