Trapped in the house. Was: Seminal Papers in Complexity

[Robert Holmes]

On 6/27/07, Glen E. P. Ropella <gepr at tempusdictum.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>

p.s. My argument above does not make the word "mathematician" useless by

> ascribing it to _everyone_ (as Bristol did when implying that every
> thing is emergent).  It is only ascribed to those who attempt to form
> rigorous conceptions of the things around them and use those conceptions
> to interact with the world.


You are correct, your definition of a mathematician does not include
everyone; however it does include everyone you are likely to meet on the
street. Those who do not "attempt to form rigorous conceptions of the things
around then and use those conceptions to interact the world" often have
difficulty getting out of their houses because (i) they do not  (by
definition) have a conception of where their front-doors are and (ii) even
if they do find them they cannot (again by the above definition) work out
how to interact with them.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070627/e365da6c/attachment.html 

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Holmes wrote:
> You are correct, your definition of a mathematician does not include
> everyone; however it does include everyone you are likely to meet on
> the street. Those who do not "attempt to form rigorous conceptions of
> the things around then and use those conceptions to interact the
> world" often have difficulty getting out of their houses because (i)
> they do not  (by definition) have a conception of where their
> front-doors are and (ii) even if they do find them they cannot (again
> by the above definition) work out how to interact with them.

Buzz!  Thanks for playing. [grin]

Perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of "rigorous"?  "Rigor" means
strict or rigid.  "Rigorous" means rigidly accurate or precise.

I would posit that only a proper subset (odd how math keeps creeping
into the conversation) of people one is likely to meet on the street is
actually rigorous in their concepts.  And even fewer are rigorous in
their application of their concepts to the world.

I've met many many fuzzy-thinking people on the street.  I presume you
have too.  So, you're wrong.  My definition does NOT include everyone
you are likely to meet on the street.

My definition only includes those people who take their jobs/roles
seriously and make strong attempts to be good at what they do.

Let's take skaters as an example.  Some of them are so precise in their
tacit understanding of their board, the surfaces upon which they skate,
and their own bodies that they can perform stunts that would send the
rest of us to the hospital.  Then there are others who simply can't be
that rigorous, regardless of how often they try or how intently they try
to focus.

Now.  What does that say about the poor schlubs who can't skate very
well?  Are they mathematicians?   Well, maybe not.  Or maybe they're
just not good at that _type_ of math.  I.e. they are not good at forming
rigorous conceptions of skating.  But, they might be excellent at some
other form, e.g. writing enforceable legislation or cooking.  There are
plenty of people who are excellent at formulating and manipulating some
particular formalisms but notoriously bad at others.

Then there are the people who don't seem to think clearly no matter what
domain they enter.  But there are other ways to get your body to do
things in a predictable way without forming and applying rigorously
developed conceptions.  Much of what we do as animals is learned in the
form of the more primitive:  habit.  It is less about forming concepts
and more about receiving positive and negative feedback to govern trial
and error.  These people can not only get out of the house; but, they
can drive cars, work steady jobs, even hold conversations.  But, they
always fall back on knee-jerk [re]actions to perverse or novel ideas,
because knee-jerk reactions work so well for them in their other activities.

Can one tell the difference between a mathematician and a trial-by-error
person?  I think so.  We often use words like "professionalism",
"competence", and "facile" to get at this boundary.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
Seek simplicity, and distrust it. -- Alfred North Whitehead

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGgtLgZeB+vOTnLkoRAhfGAKCo/ZmpuzrViLa4o8Ja1ipV6xLfrgCg2v7m
BsWB7molwLcDmNNRFLmJQ18=
=2c/W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Phil Henshaw-2]

hmm, that set off a string.

or "rigorous" = "makes the catch" or "works" or "fails to be
self-deceiving" or "somehow manages to be real" or "actually
responsive".   The mind and imagery are so tremendously persuasive, so
very free, fluid and flexible in creating a beautiful seamless universe
from discordant evidence, it then also becomes most difficult for mind
and information to directly feel the direct physical resistance of
anything beyond themselves, as in a dreamworld.   It's like how an
artist learns to create a texture, by drawing the fluid of his pigments
with such responsive, delicate and yielding intuitive effort that he
draws the pigment itself to explode in color as a Van Gogh's sensitive
touch a starry night, not an evidence of control but of connection.
"rigorous" = "being able to feel what's real"   ;-)


Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:13 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trapped in the house. Was: Seminal
> Papers in Complexity
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Holmes wrote:
> > You are correct, your definition of a mathematician does not include
> > everyone; however it does include everyone you are likely to meet on
> > the street. Those who do not "attempt to form rigorous
> conceptions of
> > the things around then and use those conceptions to interact the
> > world" often have difficulty getting out of their houses because (i)
> > they do not  (by definition) have a conception of where their
> > front-doors are and (ii) even if they do find them they
> cannot (again
> > by the above definition) work out how to interact with them.
>
> Buzz!  Thanks for playing. [grin]
>
> Perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of "rigorous"?  
> "Rigor" means strict or rigid.  "Rigorous" means rigidly
> accurate or precise.
>
> I would posit that only a proper subset (odd how math keeps
> creeping into the conversation) of people one is likely to
> meet on the street is actually rigorous in their concepts.  
> And even fewer are rigorous in their application of their
> concepts to the world.
>
> I've met many many fuzzy-thinking people on the street.  I
> presume you have too.  So, you're wrong.  My definition does
> NOT include everyone you are likely to meet on the street.
>
> My definition only includes those people who take their
> jobs/roles seriously and make strong attempts to be good at
> what they do.
>
> Let's take skaters as an example.  Some of them are so
> precise in their tacit understanding of their board, the
> surfaces upon which they skate, and their own bodies that
> they can perform stunts that would send the rest of us to the
> hospital.  Then there are others who simply can't be that
> rigorous, regardless of how often they try or how intently
> they try to focus.
>
> Now.  What does that say about the poor schlubs who can't skate very
> well?  Are they mathematicians?   Well, maybe not.  Or maybe they're
> just not good at that _type_ of math.  I.e. they are not good
> at forming rigorous conceptions of skating.  But, they might
> be excellent at some other form, e.g. writing enforceable
> legislation or cooking.  There are plenty of people who are
> excellent at formulating and manipulating some particular
> formalisms but notoriously bad at others.
>
> Then there are the people who don't seem to think clearly no
> matter what domain they enter.  But there are other ways to
> get your body to do things in a predictable way without
> forming and applying rigorously developed conceptions.  Much
> of what we do as animals is learned in the form of the more
> primitive:  habit.  It is less about forming concepts and
> more about receiving positive and negative feedback to govern
> trial and error.  These people can not only get out of the
> house; but, they can drive cars, work steady jobs, even hold
> conversations.  But, they always fall back on knee-jerk
> [re]actions to perverse or novel ideas, because knee-jerk
> reactions work so well for them in their other activities.
>
> Can one tell the difference between a mathematician and a
> trial-by-error person?  I think so.  We often use words like
> "professionalism", "competence", and "facile" to get at this boundary.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> Seek simplicity, and distrust it. -- Alfred North Whitehead
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGgtLgZeB+vOTnLkoRAhfGAKCo/ZmpuzrViLa4o8Ja1ipV6xLfrgCg2v7m
> BsWB7molwLcDmNNRFLmJQ18=
> =2c/W
> -----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
>
>