Friam

Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

Peter Lissaman

Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

When he was given a brief description of the learned theories of Dr. Freud,
and told that they accounted for all human behavior, Will Rogers stated
that: "he found it real interesting, but reckoned that in Oklahoma, folks
mainly did things jes' acause they felt like it". I gave a paper at AIAA
annual meeting in Reno earlier this week on birds extracting energy from
turbulence. There's a lot in it for the birdies, with their low flight
speeds, superb sensing and rapid response. Ravens in Santa Fe are
marvellous aerobats in the turbulence rolling off the Sangres. But why?
When you see them rolling off perfect chandelles, as with dolphins surfing
and gamboling in the bow wave, you have to admit that they're "jes' havin'
fun", contrary to these gloomy animal "behavioristos" who claim animals do
everything for a reason.

Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694

Hugh Trenchard

Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

I for one am rarely afraid to ask questions, stupid or otherwise, when my
curiosity is piqued.

Do the ravens in Sante Fe align in vee formations when they roll off
chandelles? If they do, then regardless of whether they are having fun, it
is an interesting pattern formation which causes one to ask reasonably why
they choose such a formation. Do they do it for the sheer pleasure of the
esthetics of the vee formation? This would, it seems, entail some "fun" of
the formation, although I doubt I would find many people who would argue
that is the fun they derive. So then why is it fun that they should align in
those formations?

I myself wouldn't claim to subscribe to a behaviourist school, unless you
can generalize the term to include analysis of the emergence of physical
patterns among collectives. Pattern formation within sandpiles is more akin
to my specific interests than the behaviour of individual animals. That is
always interesting too, but it isn't the focus of my inquiry here.

Hugh Trenchard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lissaman" <[hidden email]>
To: <friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

> When he was given a brief description of the learned theories of Dr.
> Freud,
> and told that they accounted for all human behavior, Will Rogers stated
> that: "he found it real interesting, but reckoned that in Oklahoma, folks
> mainly did things jes' acause they felt like it". I gave a paper at AIAA
> annual meeting in Reno earlier this week on birds extracting energy from
> turbulence. There's a lot in it for the birdies, with their low flight
> speeds, superb sensing and rapid response. Ravens in Santa Fe are
> marvellous aerobats in the turbulence rolling off the Sangres. But why?
> When you see them rolling off perfect chandelles, as with dolphins surfing
> and gamboling in the bow wave, you have to admit that they're "jes' havin'
> fun", contrary to these gloomy animal "behavioristos" who claim animals do
> everything for a reason.
>
> Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
>
> Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
>
> 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
> TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

David Breecker

Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

Hugh, I would propose that what we call "aesthetics" is derived from what
served our fitness over evolutionary time.

So the crows may very well be dancing, for all "practical" purposes...
db

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Trenchard" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

>I for one am rarely afraid to ask questions, stupid or otherwise, when my
> curiosity is piqued.
>
> Do the ravens in Sante Fe align in vee formations when they roll off
> chandelles? If they do, then regardless of whether they are having fun,
> it
> is an interesting pattern formation which causes one to ask reasonably why
> they choose such a formation. Do they do it for the sheer pleasure of the
> esthetics of the vee formation? This would, it seems, entail some "fun" of
> the formation, although I doubt I would find many people who would argue
> that is the fun they derive. So then why is it fun that they should align
> in
> those formations?
>
> I myself wouldn't claim to subscribe to a behaviourist school, unless you
> can generalize the term to include analysis of the emergence of physical
> patterns among collectives. Pattern formation within sandpiles is more
> akin
> to my specific interests than the behaviour of individual animals. That is
> always interesting too, but it isn't the focus of my inquiry here.
>
> Hugh Trenchard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:05 PM
> Subject: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
>
>
>> When he was given a brief description of the learned theories of Dr.
>> Freud,
>> and told that they accounted for all human behavior, Will Rogers stated
>> that: "he found it real interesting, but reckoned that in Oklahoma, folks
>> mainly did things jes' acause they felt like it". I gave a paper at AIAA
>> annual meeting in Reno earlier this week on birds extracting energy from
>> turbulence. There's a lot in it for the birdies, with their low flight
>> speeds, superb sensing and rapid response. Ravens in Santa Fe are
>> marvellous aerobats in the turbulence rolling off the Sangres. But why?
>> When you see them rolling off perfect chandelles, as with dolphins
>> surfing
>> and gamboling in the bow wave, you have to admit that they're "jes'
>> havin'
>> fun", contrary to these gloomy animal "behavioristos" who claim animals
>> do
>> everything for a reason.
>>
>> Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
>>
>> Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
>>
>> 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
>> TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Giles Bowkett

Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

> So the crows may very well be dancing, for all "practical" purposes...

there's lots of evidence of this sort of thing. early settlers in the
American west found bison running up to frozen lakes and then sliding
across the ice. they'd do it over and over again. otters play, dogs
dream, parrots have been very frequently reported formulating new
sentences with their limited vocabularies.

that doesn't necessarily invalidate the functional perspective, though.

--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
http://gilesgoatboy.blogspot.com

Phil Henshaw-2

Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

In reply to this post by Hugh Trenchard

I for one don't think emergent systems study requires choosing between
'sand piles' and animals having 'fun'. Playful experimentation is one
of the all time best natural systems for discovering natural structures
it seems to me, just a higher level version of jumping potential wells
like some grain of sand seems bound to have done at a critical point to
get a slide going. The range of complex system phenomena is
tremendous.

One thing that helps me is that there seem to be various scales you can
arrange the entire spectrum on, complexity of self-regulation for
example. Thermostats and sand piles are on the simple side and animal
acrobatics on the high side. You don't necessarily have to assign a
number to things to have a useful scale, of course, just have a way to
order things and make note of uncertainties. That's what the
paleontologists do with all their species branching diagrams (clad
notation). For those who like numbers, though, there's the rudimentary
numerical development scale, the number of doublings a system performs
in its development. Humans and the world economy thus far are about 30
doublings, for example. Yep, kind of an interestingly compressed
scale!

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Trenchard
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:05 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
>
>
> I for one am rarely afraid to ask questions, stupid or
> otherwise, when my
> curiosity is piqued.
>
> Do the ravens in Sante Fe align in vee formations when they roll off
> chandelles? If they do, then regardless of whether they are
> having fun, it
> is an interesting pattern formation which causes one to ask
> reasonably why
> they choose such a formation. Do they do it for the sheer
> pleasure of the
> esthetics of the vee formation? This would, it seems, entail
> some "fun" of
> the formation, although I doubt I would find many people who
> would argue
> that is the fun they derive. So then why is it fun that they
> should align in
> those formations?
>
> I myself wouldn't claim to subscribe to a behaviourist
> school, unless you
> can generalize the term to include analysis of the emergence
> of physical
> patterns among collectives. Pattern formation within
> sandpiles is more akin
> to my specific interests than the behaviour of individual
> animals. That is
> always interesting too, but it isn't the focus of my inquiry here.
>
> Hugh Trenchard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:05 PM
> Subject: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
>
>
> > When he was given a brief description of the learned theories of Dr.
> > Freud,
> > and told that they accounted for all human behavior, Will
> Rogers stated
> > that: "he found it real interesting, but reckoned that in
> Oklahoma, folks
> > mainly did things jes' acause they felt like it". I gave a
> paper at AIAA
> > annual meeting in Reno earlier this week on birds
> extracting energy from
> > turbulence. There's a lot in it for the birdies, with their
> low flight
> > speeds, superb sensing and rapid response. Ravens in Santa Fe are
> > marvellous aerobats in the turbulence rolling off the
> Sangres. But why?
> > When you see them rolling off perfect chandelles, as with
> dolphins surfing
> > and gamboling in the bow wave, you have to admit that
> they're "jes' havin'
> > fun", contrary to these gloomy animal "behavioristos" who
> claim animals do
> > everything for a reason.
> >
> > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
> >
> > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
> >
> > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
> > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Hugh Trenchard

fun and sandpiles

Thanks, Phil, and I definitely agree that sandpile phenomena and play
phenomena are not mutually exclusive in the domain of complexity.

I think I was only trying to emphasize the point that I started my thread
with a view to specific pattern formations of frigatebirds which result from
some specific rules of interaction. At the risk of misinterpretation here
(and no disrespect intended, if I am misinterpreting), an argument was
presented, it seemed, that there are no reasons for certain behaviours other
than that they are the result of having fun, but the argument was made in
the context of animals that were not necessarily in the pattern formations I
was looking at.

It may very well be that it is fun for frigatebirds to be in these
formations, but there are, I think, still physical reasons why they choose
those formations - and not other ones - related to the way in which they
couple due to the energy savings that certain formations allow (I
hypothesize).

Coming back to cyclists who interact, it is certainly satisfying when a
drafting cyclist finds the "sweetspot" in the draft zone, where maximal
drafting benefit is experienced. It also fun and satisfying to be part of
the peloton experience, to have engaged in a series of interactions with
other cyclists that result in emergent pattern formation. Even so, the
pattern formations can be traced primarily to physical coupling between
cyclists, namely the drafting benefit, collision avoidance and forward
motion.

Bicycle racing, is of course, a sport, so it also involves strategies and
directives from leaders, but you can remove those and there will still be
certain types of patterns which will arise by the basic rules I've noted
(I've simulated some by computer, although the results are still a bit
controversial).

In any event, I certainly agree that there is a broad scale of complexity,
since most types of interactions result in some sort of emergent phenomena.
I think, though, that it becomes increasingly difficult to identify even
what the emergent phenomena are when looking at complex interactions that
involve a multitude of factors and rules of interaction, let alone isolate
what the principles of interaction are that lead to the emergent phenomena.
What is the emergent phenomena of birds that are playing, in apparently
random configurations? I'm not suggesting there are any, they're just
difficult to see, that's all.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Henshaw" <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
<friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior

I for one don't think emergent systems study requires choosing between
'sand piles' and animals having 'fun'. Playful experimentation is one
of the all time best natural systems for discovering natural structures
it seems to me, just a higher level version of jumping potential wells
like some grain of sand seems bound to have done at a critical point to
get a slide going. The range of complex system phenomena is
tremendous.

One thing that helps me is that there seem to be various scales you can
arrange the entire spectrum on, complexity of self-regulation for
example. Thermostats and sand piles are on the simple side and animal
acrobatics on the high side. You don't necessarily have to assign a
number to things to have a useful scale, of course, just have a way to
order things and make note of uncertainties. That's what the
paleontologists do with all their species branching diagrams (clad
notation). For those who like numbers, though, there's the rudimentary
numerical development scale, the number of doublings a system performs
in its development. Humans and the world economy thus far are about 30
doublings, for example. Yep, kind of an interestingly compressed
scale!

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Phil Henshaw-2

fun and sandpiles

Sure, there's definitely a point to make that the inactive presence of
potential least energy patterns is frequently 'the reason' that patterns
form. That might make it seem that offering 'fun' as an alternative
(for the system exploring the options), is well, like it was said for
fun... I also see a much more difficult issue involved.

There's the significant question to raise about the difference between
abstract causation (which has the end effect as the cause) and
instrumental causation (which has the process leading there as the
cause). The former is a lot easier, and arguably much more useful since
it lets you give a causal value to abstractions like statistics for
other situations than the one you're actually considering. The latter
is a horrible nuisance by comparison, because it requires extensive
particular understanding of situations that will occur only once.
Because it's how nature does it, however (you can watch and see), the
latter still seems interesting.

In tracing instrumental causation there certainly are some common
mistakes to be made, and there's not much of a developed tradition for
guidance, either. What seems the worst of it is that trying to read
instrumental causes sometimes seems to largely lead modern minds to
conspiracy theory and magical thinking. Still, it gives one to wonder
why people are so very bad at it, and about the examples of natural
system steering where it's navigating the instrumental causes that
clearly seems to be the center of the fun.

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Trenchard
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:55 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] fun and sandpiles
>
>
> Thanks, Phil, and I definitely agree that sandpile phenomena and play
> phenomena are not mutually exclusive in the domain of complexity.
>
> I think I was only trying to emphasize the point that I
> started my thread
> with a view to specific pattern formations of frigatebirds
> which result from
> some specific rules of interaction. At the risk of
> misinterpretation here
> (and no disrespect intended, if I am misinterpreting), an
> argument was
> presented, it seemed, that there are no reasons for certain
> behaviours other
> than that they are the result of having fun, but the argument
> was made in
> the context of animals that were not necessarily in the
> pattern formations I
> was looking at.
>
> It may very well be that it is fun for frigatebirds to be in these
> formations, but there are, I think, still physical reasons
> why they choose
> those formations - and not other ones - related to the way in
> which they
> couple due to the energy savings that certain formations allow (I
> hypothesize).
>
> Coming back to cyclists who interact, it is certainly
> satisfying when a
> drafting cyclist finds the "sweetspot" in the draft zone,
> where maximal
> drafting benefit is experienced. It also fun and satisfying
> to be part of
> the peloton experience, to have engaged in a series of
> interactions with
> other cyclists that result in emergent pattern formation.
> Even so, the
> pattern formations can be traced primarily to physical
> coupling between
> cyclists, namely the drafting benefit, collision avoidance
> and forward
> motion.
>
> Bicycle racing, is of course, a sport, so it also involves
> strategies and
> directives from leaders, but you can remove those and there
> will still be
> certain types of patterns which will arise by the basic rules
> I've noted
> (I've simulated some by computer, although the results are
> still a bit
> controversial).
>
> In any event, I certainly agree that there is a broad scale
> of complexity,
> since most types of interactions result in some sort of
> emergent phenomena.
> I think, though, that it becomes increasingly difficult to
> identify even
> what the emergent phenomena are when looking at complex
> interactions that
> involve a multitude of factors and rules of interaction, let
> alone isolate
> what the principles of interaction are that lead to the
> emergent phenomena.
> What is the emergent phenomena of birds that are playing, in
> apparently
> random configurations? I'm not suggesting there are any, they're just
> difficult to see, that's all.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
>
>
> I for one don't think emergent systems study requires choosing between
> 'sand piles' and animals having 'fun'. Playful
> experimentation is one
> of the all time best natural systems for discovering natural
> structures it seems to me, just a higher level version of
> jumping potential wells like some grain of sand seems bound
> to have done at a critical point to
> get a slide going. The range of complex system phenomena is
> tremendous.
>
> One thing that helps me is that there seem to be various
> scales you can arrange the entire spectrum on, complexity of
> self-regulation for
> example. Thermostats and sand piles are on the simple side
> and animal
> acrobatics on the high side. You don't necessarily have to
> assign a number to things to have a useful scale, of course,
> just have a way to order things and make note of
> uncertainties. That's what the paleontologists do with all
> their species branching diagrams (clad notation). For those
> who like numbers, though, there's the rudimentary numerical
> development scale, the number of doublings a system performs
> in its development. Humans and the world economy thus far
> are about 30
> doublings, for example. Yep, kind of an interestingly compressed
> scale!
>
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Hugh Trenchard
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:05 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
> >
> >
> > I for one am rarely afraid to ask questions, stupid or
> otherwise, when
> > my curiosity is piqued.
> >
> > Do the ravens in Sante Fe align in vee formations when they
> roll off
> > chandelles? If they do, then regardless of whether they are having
> > fun, it is an interesting pattern formation which causes one to ask
> > reasonably why
> > they choose such a formation. Do they do it for the sheer
> > pleasure of the
> > esthetics of the vee formation? This would, it seems, entail
> > some "fun" of
> > the formation, although I doubt I would find many people who
> > would argue
> > that is the fun they derive. So then why is it fun that they
> > should align in
> > those formations?
> >
> > I myself wouldn't claim to subscribe to a behaviourist
> school, unless
> > you can generalize the term to include analysis of the emergence
> > of physical
> > patterns among collectives. Pattern formation within
> > sandpiles is more akin
> > to my specific interests than the behaviour of individual
> > animals. That is
> > always interesting too, but it isn't the focus of my inquiry here.
> >
> > Hugh Trenchard
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net>
> > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:05 PM
> > Subject: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
> >
> >
> > > When he was given a brief description of the learned
> theories of Dr.
> > > Freud, and told that they accounted for all human behavior, Will
> > Rogers stated
> > > that: "he found it real interesting, but reckoned that in
> > Oklahoma, folks
> > > mainly did things jes' acause they felt like it". I gave a
> > paper at AIAA
> > > annual meeting in Reno earlier this week on birds
> > extracting energy from
> > > turbulence. There's a lot in it for the birdies, with their
> > low flight
> > > speeds, superb sensing and rapid response. Ravens in Santa Fe are
> > > marvellous aerobats in the turbulence rolling off the
> > Sangres. But why?
> > > When you see them rolling off perfect chandelles, as with
> > dolphins surfing
> > > and gamboling in the bow wave, you have to admit that
> > they're "jes' havin'
> > > fun", contrary to these gloomy animal "behavioristos" who
> > claim animals do
> > > everything for a reason.
> > >
> > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
> > >
> > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
> > >
> > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
> > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>

Phil Henshaw-2

fun and sandpiles

On thing worth mentioning is the reason it's useful to consider the maze
of instrumental behaviors that constitute systems in the context of the
whole envelope of their developments (??.?? ? `?.??) from beginning to
end. It turns the mystery of complex developmental systems into the
puzzle of when and how they'll go through the classic switches and
display the key landmarks of doing so.

The growth to climax switch is one of the most interesting of them, and
of particular concern to systems designed not to allow it, for example.
Of course, a major preliminary question once the model is understood, is
whether the switches that completely reorient the developmental
processes originate from inside or out.

Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>
> Sure, there's definitely a point to make that the inactive
> presence of potential least energy patterns is frequently
> 'the reason' that patterns
> form. That might make it seem that offering 'fun' as an alternative
> (for the system exploring the options), is well, like it was said for
> fun... I also see a much more difficult issue involved.
>
> There's the significant question to raise about the
> difference between abstract causation (which has the end
> effect as the cause) and instrumental causation (which has
> the process leading there as the cause). The former is a lot
> easier, and arguably much more useful since it lets you give
> a causal value to abstractions like statistics for
> other situations than the one you're actually considering.
> The latter
> is a horrible nuisance by comparison, because it requires
> extensive particular understanding of situations that will
> occur only once. Because it's how nature does it, however
> (you can watch and see), the latter still seems interesting.
>
> In tracing instrumental causation there certainly are some
> common mistakes to be made, and there's not much of a
> developed tradition for guidance, either. What seems the
> worst of it is that trying to read instrumental causes
> sometimes seems to largely lead modern minds to conspiracy
> theory and magical thinking. Still, it gives one to wonder
> why people are so very bad at it, and about the examples of
> natural system steering where it's navigating the
> instrumental causes that clearly seems to be the center of the fun.
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Hugh Trenchard
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:55 AM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: [FRIAM] fun and sandpiles
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Phil, and I definitely agree that sandpile
> phenomena and play
> > phenomena are not mutually exclusive in the domain of complexity.
> >
> > I think I was only trying to emphasize the point that I
> > started my thread
> > with a view to specific pattern formations of frigatebirds
> > which result from
> > some specific rules of interaction. At the risk of
> > misinterpretation here
> > (and no disrespect intended, if I am misinterpreting), an
> > argument was
> > presented, it seemed, that there are no reasons for certain
> > behaviours other
> > than that they are the result of having fun, but the argument
> > was made in
> > the context of animals that were not necessarily in the
> > pattern formations I
> > was looking at.
> >
> > It may very well be that it is fun for frigatebirds to be in these
> > formations, but there are, I think, still physical reasons
> > why they choose
> > those formations - and not other ones - related to the way in
> > which they
> > couple due to the energy savings that certain formations allow (I
> > hypothesize).
> >
> > Coming back to cyclists who interact, it is certainly
> > satisfying when a
> > drafting cyclist finds the "sweetspot" in the draft zone,
> > where maximal
> > drafting benefit is experienced. It also fun and satisfying
> > to be part of
> > the peloton experience, to have engaged in a series of
> > interactions with
> > other cyclists that result in emergent pattern formation.
> > Even so, the
> > pattern formations can be traced primarily to physical
> > coupling between
> > cyclists, namely the drafting benefit, collision avoidance
> > and forward
> > motion.
> >
> > Bicycle racing, is of course, a sport, so it also involves
> > strategies and
> > directives from leaders, but you can remove those and there
> > will still be
> > certain types of patterns which will arise by the basic rules
> > I've noted
> > (I've simulated some by computer, although the results are
> > still a bit
> > controversial).
> >
> > In any event, I certainly agree that there is a broad scale
> > of complexity,
> > since most types of interactions result in some sort of
> > emergent phenomena.
> > I think, though, that it becomes increasingly difficult to
> > identify even
> > what the emergent phenomena are when looking at complex
> > interactions that
> > involve a multitude of factors and rules of interaction, let
> > alone isolate
> > what the principles of interaction are that lead to the
> > emergent phenomena.
> > What is the emergent phenomena of birds that are playing, in
> > apparently
> > random configurations? I'm not suggesting there are any,
> they're just
> > difficult to see, that's all.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
> >
> >
> > I for one don't think emergent systems study requires
> choosing between
> > 'sand piles' and animals having 'fun'. Playful
> > experimentation is one
> > of the all time best natural systems for discovering natural
> > structures it seems to me, just a higher level version of
> > jumping potential wells like some grain of sand seems bound
> > to have done at a critical point to
> > get a slide going. The range of complex system phenomena is
> > tremendous.
> >
> > One thing that helps me is that there seem to be various
> > scales you can arrange the entire spectrum on, complexity of
> > self-regulation for
> > example. Thermostats and sand piles are on the simple side
> > and animal
> > acrobatics on the high side. You don't necessarily have to
> > assign a number to things to have a useful scale, of course,
> > just have a way to order things and make note of
> > uncertainties. That's what the paleontologists do with all
> > their species branching diagrams (clad notation). For those
> > who like numbers, though, there's the rudimentary numerical
> > development scale, the number of doublings a system performs
> > in its development. Humans and the world economy thus far
> > are about 30
> > doublings, for example. Yep, kind of an interestingly compressed
> > scale!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040
> > tel: 212-795-4844
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > Behalf Of Hugh Trenchard
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:05 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
> > >
> > >
> > > I for one am rarely afraid to ask questions, stupid or
> > otherwise, when
> > > my curiosity is piqued.
> > >
> > > Do the ravens in Sante Fe align in vee formations when they
> > roll off
> > > chandelles? If they do, then regardless of whether they
> are having
> > > fun, it is an interesting pattern formation which causes
> one to ask
> > > reasonably why
> > > they choose such a formation. Do they do it for the sheer
> > > pleasure of the
> > > esthetics of the vee formation? This would, it seems, entail
> > > some "fun" of
> > > the formation, although I doubt I would find many people who
> > > would argue
> > > that is the fun they derive. So then why is it fun that they
> > > should align in
> > > those formations?
> > >
> > > I myself wouldn't claim to subscribe to a behaviourist
> > school, unless
> > > you can generalize the term to include analysis of the
> emergence of
> > > physical patterns among collectives. Pattern formation within
> > > sandpiles is more akin
> > > to my specific interests than the behaviour of individual
> > > animals. That is
> > > always interesting too, but it isn't the focus of my inquiry here.
> > >
> > > Hugh Trenchard
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net>
> > > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:05 PM
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Will Rogers and Animal Behavior
> > >
> > >
> > > > When he was given a brief description of the learned
> > theories of Dr.
> > > > Freud, and told that they accounted for all human behavior, Will
> > > Rogers stated
> > > > that: "he found it real interesting, but reckoned that in
> > > Oklahoma, folks
> > > > mainly did things jes' acause they felt like it". I gave a
> > > paper at AIAA
> > > > annual meeting in Reno earlier this week on birds
> > > extracting energy from
> > > > turbulence. There's a lot in it for the birdies, with their
> > > low flight
> > > > speeds, superb sensing and rapid response. Ravens in
> Santa Fe are
> > > > marvellous aerobats in the turbulence rolling off the
> > > Sangres. But why?
> > > > When you see them rolling off perfect chandelles, as with
> > > dolphins surfing
> > > > and gamboling in the bow wave, you have to admit that
> > > they're "jes' havin'
> > > > fun", contrary to these gloomy animal "behavioristos" who
> > > claim animals do
> > > > everything for a reason.
> > > >
> > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
> > > >
> > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what
> to look for.
> > > >
> > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
> > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > > > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures,
> > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>