Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves
my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the
near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |
pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine
that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than
and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with
useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an
exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -
establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall
performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance
is bound to suffer.

davew



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave sez:
> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> >
> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,
> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to
> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than
> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they
> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a
> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a
> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And
> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as
> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units
> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of
> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore
> only *partially* defective/faulty?
>
> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a
> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in
> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical
> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not
> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly
> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One
> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect
> of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose
> dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??
>
> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"
> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".
>
> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a
> language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia
>
> - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Fans of Radiohead, for example, probably would not agree. 

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

 

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves
my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the
near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |
pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine
that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than
and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with
useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an
exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -
establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall
performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance
is bound to suffer.

davew



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave sez:
> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> >
> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,
> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to
> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than
> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they
> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a
> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a
> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And
> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as
> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units
> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of
> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore
> only *partially* defective/faulty?
>
> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a
> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in
> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical
> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not
> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly
> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One
> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect
> of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose
> dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??
>
> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"
> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".
>
> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a
> language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia
>
> - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

 

[hidden email]
mobile:  [phone]
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Dave writes:

 

<Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
System fault.>

 

It is not a system fault if the signal is irrelevant to survival.

It could be good to dispose of the need to keep the sensor running, and reallocate the axons for combining other, more relevant signals.

< Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not. >

 

Dedicated pathways, like for detecting visual orientation of an object, or for discriminating hot and cold, or narrow frequency ranges of sound, are surely valuable for detecting risks to survival.   (You should see my dog go nuts when the doorbell rings or a yapping coyote is nearby.)  Only in a lower risk environments would synesthesia be a good thing -- like if you are a recording artist like Lorde.   If one high-value pathway must have high fidelity for survival reasons, there are surely plenty of other pathways that could be allocated to deliver other more nuanced information. 

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Nick,

Yeah, the model is pretty obtuse - because I was trying to avoid using
terminology like mind, brain, etc. But it was probably a futile effort.

I define lower-case truth as a particular state of a mechanism, an
impaired state. So my sensor-connection web - effector mechanism was
designed/evolved to be absolutely dynamic and flexible so that it can
respond to any possible combination of inputs by activating any and all
appropriate outputs. If a sensor or an effector fails, the abilities of
the system are diminished. If a specific pathway through the web of
pathways becomes fixed and inflexible, the abilities of the system are
diminished.

I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
diminishing 'failures' of the system.

Because the failure is within the system, it is local - hence 'local
truth'.

This is not a "belief" in the usual sense of that word, because the word
implies a "believer," and I speak of nothing except a mechanism and
particular states of that mechanism.

Upper-case Truth simply does not exist.

Now,application of  my model, use of my definition of 'truth', to
understand the individual mechanism and its behavior in a large context
I need to take small steps. So let me say that my mechanism is what
underlies a human individual and look at one aspect of that individual's
behavior - the use of language.

A language like English is extraordinarily fluid and dynamic. That
fluidity and dynamism is diminished, significantly, when individuals
increasingly rely on linguistic constructs of the form: A IS B. You have
heard me say, many times that the verb 'to be' is the root of all
linguistic evil. I made that exact point in my model when asserting that
a channelized circuit equated to A (a set of inputs) = B (a set of
outputs).

At some point, the application of my model/definition to a system
containing multiple individual systems would be in order, but I have not
approached that topic as yet. Primarily because my intent so far has
just to provide the definition of 'truth' that you said was missing from
the discussion.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 01:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,
>
> Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it
> sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by
> "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".  
>
> So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say
> doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth  
> Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I
> would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around
> a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared
> beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)
>
> Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as
> of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything
> beyond local truth.  
>
> 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 Prof David
> West
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
> Steve,
>
> My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
> complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
> sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
> the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.
>
> I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
> the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
> system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
> to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.
>
> I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
> to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves my
> purpose for the moment.
>
> The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
> infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
> combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the near
> INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
> pathways) number of routes (circuits).
>
> Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
> some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of | pattern
> of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine that this
> system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than and and all
> input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with useful being
> simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
> The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
> in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.
>
> Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
> over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
> the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same input
> value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
> System fault.
>
> Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more often
> when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
> channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability of
> the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident if
> the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that the
> pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.
>
> Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
> A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
> be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
> condition/state of the individual system.
>
> Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
> band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
> the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
> part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
> are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the 'right'
> outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an exquisite
> performance. But when individual systems start to fail - establish
> truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall performance,
> the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance is bound to
> suffer.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > Dave sez:
> > > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine
> > > to "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate
> > > the behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing
> > > more than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> > >
> > It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase
> > locking, tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems
> > to interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting
> > than more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if
> > they are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a
> > *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following
> > a choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  
> > And I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as
> > "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units
> > (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of
> > the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and
> > therefore only *partially* defective/faulty?
> >
> > I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of
> > a shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in
> > dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical
> > expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does
> > not mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly
> > circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    
> > One
> > *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic
> > dialect of "the same language", and that interaction amongst
> > individuals whose dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??
> >
> > I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"
> > and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".
> >
> > This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of
> > a language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-
> > A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Langua
> > ge-Use-in-Swabia
> >
> > - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished by fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you listen to a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece (or playing it the first X number of times) everyone is doing 'improv' i.e. actively listening to each other and their instruments and making deliberative and intentional actions towards their own instrument - that is really great. But, the thousandth time the same piece is played in the same concert hall, much of that active/deliberative/intentional aspect is lost and the performers merely act by rote. They could be asleep and rely on muscle memory to produce the sounds, which, by the way, start to sound exactly like the notes on the sheet of paper, technically correct but without soul.

Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same - it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not

intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything

external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a

complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the

sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to

the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within

the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my

system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and

to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,

to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves

my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near

infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any

combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the

near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of

pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of

some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |

pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine

that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than

and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with

useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.

The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.

in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and

over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay

the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same

input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.

System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more

often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways

channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability

of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident

if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that

the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if

A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to

be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a

condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching

band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of

the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply

part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems

are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the

'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an

exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -

establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall

performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance

is bound to suffer.

davew

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> Dave sez:

> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to

> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the

> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more

> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

> >

> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,

> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to

> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than

> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they

> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a

> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a

> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And

> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as

> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units

> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of

> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore

> only *partially* defective/faulty?

>

> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a

> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in

> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical

> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not

> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly

> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One

> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect

> of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose

> dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??

>

> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"

> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".

>

> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a

> language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia

>

> - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]

mobile:  [phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Something you say reminds me of the difference between grey matter and white matter in the brain.  What's wrong with mentioning brains?  White matter influence increases with age as I recall.

Frank

On Oct 19, 2017 1:07 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick,

Yeah, the model is pretty obtuse - because I was trying to avoid using
terminology like mind, brain, etc. But it was probably a futile effort.

I define lower-case truth as a particular state of a mechanism, an
impaired state. So my sensor-connection web - effector mechanism was
designed/evolved to be absolutely dynamic and flexible so that it can
respond to any possible combination of inputs by activating any and all
appropriate outputs. If a sensor or an effector fails, the abilities of
the system are diminished. If a specific pathway through the web of
pathways becomes fixed and inflexible, the abilities of the system are
diminished.

I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
diminishing 'failures' of the system.

Because the failure is within the system, it is local - hence 'local
truth'.

This is not a "belief" in the usual sense of that word, because the word
implies a "believer," and I speak of nothing except a mechanism and
particular states of that mechanism.

Upper-case Truth simply does not exist.

Now,application of  my model, use of my definition of 'truth', to
understand the individual mechanism and its behavior in a large context
I need to take small steps. So let me say that my mechanism is what
underlies a human individual and look at one aspect of that individual's
behavior - the use of language.

A language like English is extraordinarily fluid and dynamic. That
fluidity and dynamism is diminished, significantly, when individuals
increasingly rely on linguistic constructs of the form: A IS B. You have
heard me say, many times that the verb 'to be' is the root of all
linguistic evil. I made that exact point in my model when asserting that
a channelized circuit equated to A (a set of inputs) = B (a set of
outputs).

At some point, the application of my model/definition to a system
containing multiple individual systems would be in order, but I have not
approached that topic as yet. Primarily because my intent so far has
just to provide the definition of 'truth' that you said was missing from
the discussion.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 01:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it
> sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by
> "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".
>
> So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say
> doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth
> Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I
> would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around
> a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared
> beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)
>
> Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as
> of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything
> beyond local truth.
>
> 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 Prof David
> West
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
> Steve,
>
> My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
> complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
> sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
> the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.
>
> I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
> the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
> system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
> to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.
>
> I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
> to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves my
> purpose for the moment.
>
> The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
> infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
> combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the near
> INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
> pathways) number of routes (circuits).
>
> Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
> some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of | pattern
> of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine that this
> system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than and and all
> input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with useful being
> simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
> The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
> in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.
>
> Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
> over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
> the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same input
> value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
> System fault.
>
> Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more often
> when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
> channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability of
> the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident if
> the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that the
> pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.
>
> Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
> A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
> be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
> condition/state of the individual system.
>
> Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
> band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
> the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
> part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
> are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the 'right'
> outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an exquisite
> performance. But when individual systems start to fail - establish
> truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall performance,
> the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance is bound to
> suffer.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > Dave sez:
> > > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine
> > > to "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate
> > > the behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing
> > > more than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> > >
> > It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase
> > locking, tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems
> > to interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting
> > than more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if
> > they are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a
> > *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following
> > a choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.
> > And I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as
> > "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units
> > (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of
> > the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and
> > therefore only *partially* defective/faulty?
> >
> > I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of
> > a shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in
> > dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical
> > expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does
> > not mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly
> > circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".
> > One
> > *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic
> > dialect of "the same language", and that interaction amongst
> > individuals whose dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??
> >
> > I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"
> > and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".
> >
> > This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of
> > a language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-
> > A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Langua
> > ge-Use-in-Swabia
> >
> > - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Merle Lefkoff-2]

Thanks.  I'm quite relieved to read this, since I think it to be "true."  And the term "mail in" is now part of my lexicon.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished by fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you listen to a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece (or playing it the first X number of times) everyone is doing 'improv' i.e. actively listening to each other and their instruments and making deliberative and intentional actions towards their own instrument - that is really great. But, the thousandth time the same piece is played in the same concert hall, much of that active/deliberative/intentional aspect is lost and the performers merely act by rote. They could be asleep and rely on muscle memory to produce the sounds, which, by the way, start to sound exactly like the notes on the sheet of paper, technically correct but without soul.

Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same - it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not

intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything

external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a

complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the

sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to

the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within

the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my

system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and

to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,

to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves

my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near

infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any

combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the

near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of

pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of

some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |

pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine

that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than

and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with

useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.

The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.

in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and

over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay

the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same

input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.

System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more

often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways

channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability

of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident

if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that

the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if

A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to

be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a

condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching

band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of

the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply

part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems

are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the

'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an

exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -

establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall

performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance

is bound to suffer.

davew

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> Dave sez:

> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to

> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the

> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more

> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

> >

> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,

> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to

> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than

> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they

> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a

> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a

> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And

> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as

> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units

> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of

> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore

> only *partially* defective/faulty?

>

> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a

> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in

> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical

> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not

> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly

> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One

> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect

> of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose

> dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??

>

> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"

> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".

>

> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a

> language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia

>

> - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]

mobile:  <a href="tel:(303)%20859-5609" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

But, as Marcus indirectly points out, your defn of truth as a capability failure, then holds everywhere, all the time.  Any system with any temporal delay will exhibit it.  E.g. the inputs come at time t0 and the reaction comes at time t1, during that delay Δt, the system is failing ... adhering to some truth.  And any system with any sort of spatial extent will exhibit it.  E.g. an input comes in at position x0 and the output exits at position x1, the space in Δx will be failing, adhering to some truth as you define it.

The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme embedded/responsive constraints you've put in place for "non-failure" will be completely "ordered" in the sense of having no depth or structure, including faster than light communication.  This makes your definition a bit useless because it makes truth ubiquitous.


On 10/19/2017 12:07 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
> diminishing 'failures' of the system.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

But hailing back to the "doubt" thread, we *all* "mail it in" all the time.  As Nick argues, when you get out of bed in the morning, you're "mailing it in" to some (or other) extent.  When a jazz musician relies on muscle memory to do its job ("mail it in") so that a more reflective neural pathway can synthesize higher-order patterns over those "mailed in" processes, we call that *not* "mailing it in".  But good jazz musicians, presumably, practice "not mailing it in" so that "not mailing it in" becomes easier and more like "mailing it in" over time.  So, "not mailing it in" becomes a higher order "mailing it in".

Unless we're willing to parse your defn of truth into things like "homeostatic truth", "memory truth", "attractor truth", vs "social truth" etc, it will be no more useful than the concepts we already have for those things.  And if we do that, and it turns out those don't reflect the way others (everyone else) uses the term, then it won't be very useful.

On 10/19/2017 07:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>     Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same - it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

< The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme embedded/responsive constraints you've put in place for "non-failure" will be completely "ordered" in the sense of having no depth or structure, including faster than light communication.  This makes your definition a bit useless because it makes truth ubiquitous. >

If we change to using classical mechanics, instead of a set of momentary persistent states, to characterize a signal propagating through a network, can't that hold the place as the local `true' thing?   If so, it is just an approximation that doesn't hold given more context.   The reason the neuron and axons do what they do is only approximated by a model, that could involve stuff like apparent FTL communication through many body entanglement, or at least exhibit entanglement-like behavior (e.g. mirror neurons).

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Dave, et alii -

Our language around "Truthiness" lead me to consider the following:

When Christiaan Huygens recognized injection locking between two of his pendulum clocks, he referred to it as "a Strange Sympathy", perhaps more strange because they had phase-locked 180 degrees out or "counter synchronous"?   This type of "Strange Sympathy" is suggestive to me of the "Contrarian" nature of many of the discussions on this list.  

A "friend of FriAM" worked on the "Closer to Truth" series when he first moved to Santa Fe.  I think working use of the term "Truth" is apt for this conversation... that one *can* approach "Truth" but not *reach* it, and that there is not a singular "Truth"... like "THE Truth" which is reminiscent (for me) of our language here about "local Truth" and my preference of "contingent Truth".

With your most recent implied examples of "improv" and "riffing" and "jamming", I am reminded of our discussion of Metaphor at Jenny's this summer.   My contention is that the value of a metaphor is that it provides a target to break from.   A *perfect* metaphorical mapping would be a perfect isomorphic analogy between the metaphor's source and target domain.  This alone is relatively unuseful and uninteresting.   WHAT makes a metaphor useful (or at least interesting)?   Perhaps it is the structure provided by the elements that *do* map directly that allows the elements that don't to provide hints or gestures at "more Truth"?  Of course, the very use of "Truth" in this sense implies that there is a *singular Truth*, a "Platonic Truth", even if it is not attainable in the *real* world, a Transcendent Truth if you will?

I am trying to understand if we are "converging on" the idea that *convergence* or *resonance* or *synchrony* or *phase locking* or *mode locking* is somehow a "bad thing"?  Of course, such an idea is self-contradictory... "if there is *Truth*, it exists in not trying to name it"?

I suspect I will be told how I am wrong about this, but your rhetoric on this topic suggests that in fact, you DO believe in some kind of meta-Truth which is also transcendent and is "the Quality without a Name" (Christopher Alexander) or the idea of "Je ne sais Quoi"  or "Wabi Sabi".   It seems to have a lot in common with the idea of "the Tao"?

- Steve

On 10/19/17 8:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Thanks.  I'm quite relieved to read this, since I think it to be "true."  And the term "mail in" is now part of my lexicon.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished by fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you listen to a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece (or playing it the first X number of times) everyone is doing 'improv' i.e. actively listening to each other and their instruments and making deliberative and intentional actions towards their own instrument - that is really great. But, the thousandth time the same piece is played in the same concert hall, much of that active/deliberative/intentional aspect is lost and the performers merely act by rote. They could be asleep and rely on muscle memory to produce the sounds, which, by the way, start to sound exactly like the notes on the sheet of paper, technically correct but without soul.

Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same - it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not

intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything

external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a

complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the

sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to

the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within

the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my

system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and

to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,

to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves

my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near

infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any

combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the

near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of

pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of

some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |

pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine

that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than

and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with

useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.

The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.

in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and

over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay

the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same

input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.

System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more

often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways

channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability

of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident

if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that

the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if

A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to

be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a

condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching

band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of

the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply

part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems

are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the

'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an

exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -

establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall

performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance

is bound to suffer.

davew

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> Dave sez:

> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to

> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the

> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more

> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

> >

> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,

> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to

> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than

> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they

> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a

> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a

> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And

> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as

> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units

> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of

> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore

> only *partially* defective/faulty?

>

> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a

> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in

> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical

> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not

> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly

> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One

> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect

> of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose

> dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??

>

> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"

> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".

>

> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a

> language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia

>

> - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]

mobile:  <a href="tel:%28303%29%20859-5609" value="[phone]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">[phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

glen,I should have been more specific - lower case truth is nothing more
than one of those three specific types of failure, i.e. sensor fatigue,
sensor or effector lock, or channelization of a circuit through the web.
My model is deliberately simple and not intended to say anything about
systems in general or failures of systems in general.

Although I did day in an earlier post that the only possible time that
upper-case Truth might exist is when the universe achieves heat death
and is completely ordered which is, of course simultaneously completely
disordered.

davew


On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 10:09 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:

> But, as Marcus indirectly points out, your defn of truth as a capability
> failure, then holds everywhere, all the time.  Any system with any
> temporal delay will exhibit it.  E.g. the inputs come at time t0 and the
> reaction comes at time t1, during that delay Δt, the system is failing
> ... adhering to some truth.  And any system with any sort of spatial
> extent will exhibit it.  E.g. an input comes in at position x0 and the
> output exits at position x1, the space in Δx will be failing, adhering to
> some truth as you define it.
>
> The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme
> embedded/responsive constraints you've put in place for "non-failure"
> will be completely "ordered" in the sense of having no depth or
> structure, including faster than light communication.  This makes your
> definition a bit useless because it makes truth ubiquitous.
>
>
> On 10/19/2017 12:07 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
> > diminishing 'failures' of the system.
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> ============================================================
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Frank, nothing is wrong with mentioning brains, except the number of potential diversions the use of such vocabulary introduces, increasing the scattering of conversational threads. my only hope was to establish a kind of specific definition for truth, as requested by Nick.

Nick's definition was operational and involved a system of interacting individuals and the possibility of (non)convergence while mine is at a more fundamental level as a condition of a single system. Nick's definition arises at the level of a group, while mine is restricted to the condition of a single entity.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 06:50 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Something you say reminds me of the difference between grey matter and white matter in the brain.  What's wrong with mentioning brains?  White matter influence increases with age as I recall.

Frank

Frank Wimberly

Phone [phone]

On Oct 19, 2017 1:07 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick,

Yeah, the model is pretty obtuse - because I was trying to avoid using

terminology like mind, brain, etc. But it was probably a futile effort.

I define lower-case truth as a particular state of a mechanism, an

impaired state. So my sensor-connection web - effector mechanism was

designed/evolved to be absolutely dynamic and flexible so that it can

respond to any possible combination of inputs by activating any and all

appropriate outputs. If a sensor or an effector fails, the abilities of

the system are diminished. If a specific pathway through the web of

pathways becomes fixed and inflexible, the abilities of the system are

diminished.

I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability

diminishing 'failures' of the system.

Because the failure is within the system, it is local - hence 'local

truth'.

This is not a "belief" in the usual sense of that word, because the word

implies a "believer," and I speak of nothing except a mechanism and

particular states of that mechanism.

Upper-case Truth simply does not exist.

Now,application of  my model, use of my definition of 'truth', to

understand the individual mechanism and its behavior in a large context

I need to take small steps. So let me say that my mechanism is what

underlies a human individual and look at one aspect of that individual's

behavior - the use of language.

A language like English is extraordinarily fluid and dynamic. That

fluidity and dynamism is diminished, significantly, when individuals

increasingly rely on linguistic constructs of the form: A IS B. You have

heard me say, many times that the verb 'to be' is the root of all

linguistic evil. I made that exact point in my model when asserting that

a channelized circuit equated to A (a set of inputs) = B (a set of

outputs).

At some point, the application of my model/definition to a system

containing multiple individual systems would be in order, but I have not

approached that topic as yet. Primarily because my intent so far has

just to provide the definition of 'truth' that you said was missing from

the discussion.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 01:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> David,

>

> Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it

> sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by

> "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".

>

> So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say

> doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth

> Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I

> would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around

> a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared

> beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)

>

> Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as

> of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything

> beyond local truth.

>

> 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 Prof David

> West

> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM

> To: [hidden email]

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely

> Nothing!”

>

> Steve,

>

> My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not

> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything

> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a

> complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the

> sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to

> the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

>

> I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within

> the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my

> system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and

> to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

>

> I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,

> to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves my

> purpose for the moment.

>

> The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near

> infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any

> combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the near

> INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of

> pathways) number of routes (circuits).

>

> Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of

> some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of | pattern

> of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine that this

> system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than and and all

> input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with useful being

> simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.

> The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.

> in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

>

> Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and

> over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay

> the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same input

> value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.

> System fault.

>

> Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more often

> when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways

> channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability of

> the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident if

> the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that the

> pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

>

> Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if

> A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to

> be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a

> condition/state of the individual system.

>

> Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching

> band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of

> the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply

> part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems

> are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the 'right'

> outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an exquisite

> performance. But when individual systems start to fail - establish

> truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall performance,

> the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance is bound to

> suffer.

>

> davew

>

>

>

> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> > Dave sez:

> > > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine

> > > to "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate

> > > the behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing

> > > more than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

> > >

> > It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase

> > locking, tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems

> > to interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting

> > than more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if

> > they are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a

> > *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following

> > a choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.

> > And I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as

> > "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units

> > (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of

> > the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and

> > therefore only *partially* defective/faulty?

> >

> > I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of

> > a shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in

> > dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical

> > expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does

> > not mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly

> > circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".

> > One

> > *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic

> > dialect of "the same language", and that interaction amongst

> > individuals whose dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??

> >

> > I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"

> > and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".

> >

> > This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of

> > a language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.

> >

> > https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-

> > A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Langua

> > ge-Use-in-Swabia

> >

> > - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

>

> ============================================================

> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

>

>

> ============================================================

> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Steve,

So far, at least as far as my definition of truth is concerned it is confined to a singular entity(system). Phase locking, et. al. are phenemona of multiple interacting systems - as is convergence.

Except for the brief discussion of marching bands and acting troupes in my response to Merle, I have made no claims nor espoused any theory regarding collectives of interacting systems and it is only in the collective that such things as synchrony, resonance, convergence etc. would occur.

It will be necessary to move to the group level before considering the the "truth" "Truth" concepts as presented by Nick channeling Pierce - but to date I am merely offering a definition of 'truth' as a condition of an individual system.

Of course, you are correct that I adhere to any number of contingent truths and even behave as if they were meta-truths or even Truth - Vedic/Buddhist metaphysics and epistemology for two. Not to mention all the little things like not jumping off a roof and expecting to float like a cloud.

davew

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Dave, et alii -

Our language around "Truthiness" lead me to consider the following:

When Christiaan Huygens recognized injection locking between two of his pendulum clocks, he referred to it as "a Strange Sympathy", perhaps more strange because they had phase-locked 180 degrees out or "counter synchronous"?   This type of "Strange Sympathy" is suggestive to me of the "Contrarian" nature of many of the discussions on this list.  

A "friend of FriAM" worked on the "Closer to Truth" series when he first moved to Santa Fe.  I think working use of the term "Truth" is apt for this conversation... that one *can* approach "Truth" but not *reach* it, and that there is not a singular "Truth"... like "THE Truth" which is reminiscent (for me) of our language here about "local Truth" and my preference of "contingent Truth".

With your most recent implied examples of "improv" and "riffing" and "jamming", I am reminded of our discussion of Metaphor at Jenny's this summer.   My contention is that the value of a metaphor is that it provides a target to break from.   A *perfect* metaphorical mapping would be a perfect isomorphic analogy between the metaphor's source and target domain.  This alone is relatively unuseful and uninteresting.   WHAT makes a metaphor useful (or at least interesting)?   Perhaps it is the structure provided by the elements that *do* map directly that allows the elements that don't to provide hints or gestures at "more Truth"?  Of course, the very use of "Truth" in this sense implies that there is a *singular Truth*, a "Platonic Truth", even if it is not attainable in the *real* world, a Transcendent Truth if you will?

I am trying to understand if we are "converging on" the idea that *convergence* or *resonance* or *synchrony* or *phase locking* or *mode locking* is somehow a "bad thing"?  Of course, such an idea is self-contradictory... "if there is *Truth*, it exists in not trying to name it"?

I suspect I will be told how I am wrong about this, but your rhetoric on this topic suggests that in fact, you DO believe in some kind of meta-Truth which is also transcendent and is "the Quality without a Name" (Christopher Alexander) or the idea of "Je ne sais Quoi"  or "Wabi Sabi".   It seems to have a lot in common with the idea of "the Tao"?

- Steve

On 10/19/17 8:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Thanks.  I'm quite relieved to read this, since I think it to be "true."  And the term "mail in" is now part of my lexicon.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished by fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you listen to a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece (or playing it the first X number of times) everyone is doing 'improv' i.e. actively listening to each other and their instruments and making deliberative and intentional actions towards their own instrument - that is really great. But, the thousandth time the same piece is played in the same concert hall, much of that active/deliberative/intentional aspect is lost and the performers merely act by rote. They could be asleep and rely on muscle memory to produce the sounds, which, by the way, start to sound exactly like the notes on the sheet of paper, technically correct but without soul.

Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same - it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not

intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything

external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a

complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the

sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to

the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within

the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my

system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and

to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,

to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves

my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near

infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any

combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the

near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of

pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of

some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |

pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine

that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than

and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with

useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.

The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.

in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and

over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay

the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same

input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.

System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more

often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways

channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability

of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident

if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that

the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if

A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to

be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a

condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching

band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of

the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply

part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems

are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the

'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an

exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -

establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall

performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance

is bound to suffer.

davew

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> Dave sez:

> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to

> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the

> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more

> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

> >

> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,

> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to

> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than

> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they

> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a

> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a

> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And

> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as

> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units

> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of

> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore

> only *partially* defective/faulty?

>

> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a

> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in

> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical

> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not

> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly

> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One

> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect

> of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose

> dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??

>

> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers"

> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".

>

> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a

> language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia

>

> - 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]

mobile:  <a href="tel:%28303%29%20859-5609">[phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.

President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy

emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]

mobile:  [phone]

skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Dave -

So far, at least as far as my definition of truth is concerned it is confined to a singular entity(system). Phase locking, et. al. are phenemona of multiple interacting systems - as is convergence.

My Bad...
    I got distracted by the imagination that we were discussing whether multiple entities (as part of a larger system) could converge on "Truth" and the relationship between their various contingent "working" truths and some kind of shared (and therefore useful to the group, not just the individual) "truth".

I was lost in the world/anti-world of Fake News and Alt.Facts, and the implications of Science V. Fundamentalist Religions.

Of course, you are correct that I adhere to any number of contingent truths and even behave as if they were meta-truths or even Truth - Vedic/Buddhist metaphysics and epistemology for two. Not to mention all the little things like not jumping off a roof and expecting to float like a cloud.

Not everyone believes that gravity applies to them...

    http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/2017/04/mixin-it-up.html

- 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

But when you say "single entity", you're also implying a universe in which that single entity sits.  I think in one of your posts, you put off talking about where the inputs/outputs come from/go to.  We don't have to go all the way to multiple entities in order to continue the comparison of the 3 defns we have so far: 1) Nick's asymptote, 2) naive realist's "out there", and 3) your fatigue, lock, channelization.

We can go the route of comparing the sensor-web-effector's (SWE) structure as a *model* of the universe in which the entity sits, assuming there's only 1 SWE entity.

1) When the interactive/adaptive SWE settles on a stable pattern, that's true according to (1).
2) When the SWE's structure matches the universe's structure, that's true according to (2).
3) When the SWE's structure decouples from its universe in one of those 3 ways, that's a truth/failure according to (3).

If we can begin discussing in this way, we can address things like Marcus' recent post, and relations between (1), (2), and (3), as well as the distinction Frank raised awhile back about validity vs. soundness of a model (as well as all the other people/ideas we've mentioned).  I also think we can get to the ideas Steve wants to address without adding multiple SWEs.  At least in agent-based modeling, we distinguish one type of inter-agent communication as purely environment-mediated.  So, the model effectively reduces to only 1 agent and its environment, regardless of the structure of that environment.


On 10/19/2017 11:34 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick's definition arises at the level of a group, while mine is restricted to the condition of a single entity.


--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Steve writes:

 

< This type of "Strange Sympathy" is suggestive to me of the "Contrarian" nature of many of the discussions on this list. >

 

Prefer the term Divergent…

 

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove