(advice needed!)
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi All,
Hope this finds you fine. Just a quick (semi-desperate!) note from a lurker, who's perhaps reached the point of reaching out & communicating, finally! A brief backgrounder - I was trained in Architecture/Urbanism and then completed a Masters in Design (Visual Communication- think HCI, UI/UX, InfoViz with additional/parallel explorations in Film, Graphics, New Media), moving on to rural development projects at Media Lab Asia - all in India. A few other places/projects since, I took up a teaching position at a Design school (again in India); after which I got into some short term projects with Nokia- their new Systems Research Center in Bangalore & more recently, their Emerging Markets' Services (that addresses needs of rural systems, via real-time data, viz weather, market prices etc). I'm now at the Spatial Information Architecture Lab in Melbourne- on the verge of plunging myself into a PhD, though am not sure if this is the right space, and I've really drawn a blank on possible alternates. To explain - I wish to take up something along the lines of my longstanding personal interests in the overlap of Systems Sciences (comprehending, visualizing systems), Evolution (of complexity, of consciousness), and Design Research ('interventions' at the scales of the macro/planetary/ecological through to the micro/personal/biological - yes, rather too ambitious for now!). I haven't been able to make this transition yet, especially in the absence of learning at spaces/labs that are truly open to these areas of work; and hence most concepts/ideas have remained largely philosophical/theoretical or even observational. My personal website www.emergentX.net contains some examples that outline my thoughts into a comprehensive research intent/direction. I am currently on the lookout for apt places to be for this and would appreciate any thoughts/advice on the same, and if this would be of interest to any of the research spaces you're in contact with. (To reiterate- I'm not from the traditional backgounds that seem to operate in these domains- hence no engineering, computer science, biology, social science background to fall back on!)... Hope to hear from some of you, and looking forward to some feedback/advice! Many thanks in advance, Kind regards/ siddharth www.emergentX.net ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Hello Siddarth,
Lurking is relatively unrewarding, especially if you have a compulsion to do something. I imagine you have a difficult time, as I did, trying to engage anyone locally in a meaningful discussion.
I was advised to start playing with Net Logo, no doubt it will grow from that seed. It is remarkable that those with the most computer skills often have the poorest skills with observing large systems. It would not surprise me to discover that these new areas of research require broader range of backgrounds than traditional research.
I jumped from Biology to Engineering and survived, but will admit that the biggest challenge was language usage. Each specialty uses language in such a peculiar manner that simple words can mislead easily. Case in point “Tendon” in biology crosses an articulated joint applying a variable force. In Civil it is just a synonym for a cable, steady force no joints, it could have been called a ligament but not so. I had an argument with a Prof. once about the legitimacy of using a word to mean something entirely different simply because the Biology labs were a few hundred metres away from the Civil Eng. Labs.
Once people from different disciplines start collaborating we will see much anxiety over the usage of simple words. A little philosophy might help create a willingness to cooperate. Academic territorialism will raise its head at some point and different groups will align to attempt control of language. It would be very easy to see people begin arguments about wording as Wittgenstein called “Word Games”.
My intention is to learn the established language by working through the existing body of work with help, at some later time I hope to strike off in new directions. My father spoke ten languages and told me the only way to learn was to immerse oneself and cut off the connections with old languages until the new one was well established. I hope the members of the Group will forgive us when we use the wrong words or appear to jabber nonsense upon occasion. Reminds me of trying to buy cigarettes along the French German border and pausing to consider which language I was supposed to use. Lucky for me the clerk spoke 4 languages.
Good luck
Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
-----Original Message-----
Hi All,
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 03/22/2010 08:53 AM:
> Once people from different disciplines start collaborating we will see > much anxiety over the usage of simple words. A little philosophy might > help create a willingness to cooperate. Academic territorialism will > raise its head at some point and different groups will align to attempt > control of language. It would be very easy to see people begin arguments > about wording as Wittgenstein called “Word Games”. > > My intention is to learn the established language by working through the > existing body of work with help, at some later time I hope to strike off > in new directions. My father spoke ten languages and told me the only > way to learn was to immerse oneself and cut off the connections with old > languages until the new one was well established. I hope the members of > the Group will forgive us when we use the wrong words or appear to > jabber nonsense upon occasion. Reminds me of trying to buy cigarettes > along the French German border and pausing to consider which language I > was supposed to use. Lucky for me the clerk spoke 4 languages. You may want to look back at the friam archives for our recurring discussions of language and emergence. There is a robust contingent of people, some of whom are on this list, who (seem to) believe that much of "complexity theory" is nothing but word games. Now, that contingent breaks into 2 (overlapping) sub-groups. Some of them (seem to) feel that the word games occlude reality and get in the way of understanding. But others (seem to) feel that it is this very mismatch of languages that give rise to interesting phenomena in the world, not just between humans trying to understand the world. As such, your father's advice is both good and bad. It's good because even when studying the interaction of incommensurate languages, it's effective to gain a concrete understanding of all of them by immersion, first. Then abstract away and consider them all. But it's bad in the sense that people, whose pattern matching powers come by way of historical dependence (experience and intuition), can become very trapped by constraints set and reinforced in them through past experiences. Hence, your approach upon the subject matters just as much as (if not more than) your final arrival to the subject. And although we don't yet know if some paths of approach are somehow "better" than others, we can hypothesize that serial immersion may not be the best (or only) way to do it because there may be some languages that are canalizing "attractors", suck your mind in, and never let you go... resulting in stubborn curmudgeons (like me) who always percolate back to the same rhetoric, even if expressing that rhetoric in other languages makes the rhetoric look like a Rube Goldberg machine. [grin] Anyway, you will find a certain impatience with words and how they're used on this list, as with any other. But deep down, it seems like everyone here appreciates the journey as much or more than the destination. And word games are always a part of that journey. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 |
|
Administrator
|
Glen mentioned the archives. There are fairly easily searched
versions here: http://n2.nabble.com/Friam-f471366.html http://friam.org/ You can also search the mailman archive http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ Secondly, we are building a self-paced Netlogo tutorial we use in our class at the Santa Fe Institute's summer school: http://backspaces.net/wiki/NetLogo_Tutorial If you find problems with the tutorial, let us know, we can fix it and you'll be helping this year's class by improving it! Thirdly .. we *really* need to create a site with pages with all the projects we've done over the last several years. Its been our intension to do so, but its extra overhead and we're often off on another project by then. But with the Complex becoming very active, we want to capture its project history, and that may be the biggest help of all: how to approach interesting problems from the "complexity" point of view. In a way, your input on help you would like to have would be useful. A "three wishes" approach. If you had three wishes Friam could grant to make complexity more approachable, what would they be? -- Owen ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
To be given three wishes is an absolutely frightening proposition, I was
raised on tales of the misfortunes given to those granted such powers! Thanks for the offer but Right now I am hiding under a chair waiting for you to forget the offer. I will work my way methodically and report my progress without incurring the wrath of the Genii. Thanks for the offer but please retract it or I may be tempted and god only knows what would happen then. Let me stumble a bit on my own, short cuts never work for me. Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: March 22, 2010 11:58 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (advice needed!) Glen mentioned the archives. There are fairly easily searched versions here: http://n2.nabble.com/Friam-f471366.html http://friam.org/ You can also search the mailman archive http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ Secondly, we are building a self-paced Netlogo tutorial we use in our class at the Santa Fe Institute's summer school: http://backspaces.net/wiki/NetLogo_Tutorial If you find problems with the tutorial, let us know, we can fix it and you'll be helping this year's class by improving it! Thirdly .. we *really* need to create a site with pages with all the projects we've done over the last several years. Its been our intension to do so, but its extra overhead and we're often off on another project by then. But with the Complex becoming very active, we want to capture its project history, and that may be the biggest help of all: how to approach interesting problems from the "complexity" point of view. In a way, your input on help you would like to have would be useful. A "three wishes" approach. If you had three wishes Friam could grant to make complexity more approachable, what would they be? -- Owen ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Thank you Glen Ropella,
I opened a lid and are you the surprise in side? Language issues are extremely complex and I am not sure which position you take, In fact I suspect you do not subscribe to either. I always suspected my father was slightly mad when he would begin laughing at something someone said, He explained that it sounded like something obscene in Finnish or Yiddish. I agree with your comments but unfortunately we often have to make choices between two bad options since there is nothing better. If we recognize the language trap how do we escape? Creating a new language such as mathematics did not solve our difficulties if anything it helped illuminate the issues. I am overwhelmed with your response, Thank you. Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: March 22, 2010 11:43 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (advice needed!) Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 03/22/2010 08:53 AM: > Once people from different disciplines start collaborating we will see > much anxiety over the usage of simple words. A little philosophy might > help create a willingness to cooperate. Academic territorialism will > raise its head at some point and different groups will align to attempt > control of language. It would be very easy to see people begin arguments > about wording as Wittgenstein called "Word Games". > > My intention is to learn the established language by working through the > existing body of work with help, at some later time I hope to strike off > in new directions. My father spoke ten languages and told me the only > way to learn was to immerse oneself and cut off the connections with old > languages until the new one was well established. I hope the members of > the Group will forgive us when we use the wrong words or appear to > jabber nonsense upon occasion. Reminds me of trying to buy cigarettes > along the French German border and pausing to consider which language I > was supposed to use. Lucky for me the clerk spoke 4 languages. You may want to look back at the friam archives for our recurring discussions of language and emergence. There is a robust contingent of people, some of whom are on this list, who (seem to) believe that much of "complexity theory" is nothing but word games. Now, that contingent breaks into 2 (overlapping) sub-groups. Some of them (seem to) feel that the word games occlude reality and get in the way of understanding. But others (seem to) feel that it is this very mismatch of languages that give rise to interesting phenomena in the world, not just between humans trying to understand the world. As such, your father's advice is both good and bad. It's good because even when studying the interaction of incommensurate languages, it's effective to gain a concrete understanding of all of them by immersion, first. Then abstract away and consider them all. But it's bad in the sense that people, whose pattern matching powers come by way of historical dependence (experience and intuition), can become very trapped by constraints set and reinforced in them through past experiences. Hence, your approach upon the subject matters just as much as (if not more than) your final arrival to the subject. And although we don't yet know if some paths of approach are somehow "better" than others, we can hypothesize that serial immersion may not be the best (or only) way to do it because there may be some languages that are canalizing "attractors", suck your mind in, and never let you go... resulting in stubborn curmudgeons (like me) who always percolate back to the same rhetoric, even if expressing that rhetoric in other languages makes the rhetoric look like a Rube Goldberg machine. [grin] Anyway, you will find a certain impatience with words and how they're used on this list, as with any other. But deep down, it seems like everyone here appreciates the journey as much or more than the destination. And word games are always a part of that journey. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Thus spake Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky circa 10-03-22 10:43 AM:
> I opened a lid and are you the surprise in side? > Language issues are extremely complex and I am not sure which position you > take, In fact I suspect you do not subscribe to either. I'm just an Eddington style typewriter. I read a bunch of stuff. It percolates around randomly. Then I spew it back out without really knowing anything about what I'm saying. [grin] And in the great tradition of psychological reflexion, I assume everyone else is the same. > I always suspected my father was slightly mad when he would begin laughing > at something someone said, He explained that it sounded like something > obscene in Finnish or Yiddish. Exactly! Those interested in language mismatch claim that lots of "interestingness" seems to come from language mismatches, including lots of humor. > I agree with your comments but unfortunately we often have to make choices > between two bad options since there is nothing better. If we recognize the > language trap how do we escape? I tend to keep reminding myself that my grasp of reality is very tenuous regardless of my (frequent) sporadic descents into the conviction that I have a very good understanding of it. By continually reminding myself, I find that almost every time I remind myself while stuck in that conviction, the conviction is a direct result of being ensconced in a particular language. As I age, however, I'm finding my own reminders more and more difficult to maintain. So, I sporadically start arguments with people like those on this list and enlist them to help me remind myself. (Yes, that's totally selfish ... But you'll rarely find me arguing that altruism is natural. ;-) I confess, though, that these constant reminders make me a jack of many trades, master of none. And that can be a very bad thing. Luckily, I'm a simulant and my job requires that I be that way. > Creating a new language such as mathematics did not solve our difficulties > if anything it helped illuminate the issues. Yes! I firmly agree with that! Math is a language for disambiguation. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Siddharth-3
Glen,
you wrote " Math is a language for disambiguation". Forgive me if I have asked you this before: Have you ever read Byers HOW MATHEMATICIANS THINK? If so, could you rub those two rocks together a little for me? Thx, N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 3/22/2010 12:20:16 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (advice needed!) > > Thus spake Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky circa 10-03-22 10:43 AM: > > I opened a lid and are you the surprise in side? > > Language issues are extremely complex and I am not sure which position you > > take, In fact I suspect you do not subscribe to either. > > I'm just an Eddington style typewriter. I read a bunch of stuff. It > percolates around randomly. Then I spew it back out without really > knowing anything about what I'm saying. [grin] And in the great > tradition of psychological reflexion, I assume everyone else is the same. > > > I always suspected my father was slightly mad when he would begin laughing > > at something someone said, He explained that it sounded like something > > obscene in Finnish or Yiddish. > > Exactly! Those interested in language mismatch claim that lots of > "interestingness" seems to come from language mismatches, including lots > of humor. > > > I agree with your comments but unfortunately we often have to make choices > > between two bad options since there is nothing better. If we recognize the > > language trap how do we escape? > > I tend to keep reminding myself that my grasp of reality is very tenuous > regardless of my (frequent) sporadic descents into the conviction that I > have a very good understanding of it. By continually reminding myself, > I find that almost every time I remind myself while stuck in that > conviction, the conviction is a direct result of being ensconced in a > particular language. As I age, however, I'm finding my own reminders > more and more difficult to maintain. So, I sporadically start arguments > with people like those on this list and enlist them to help me remind > myself. (Yes, that's totally selfish ... But you'll rarely find me > arguing that altruism is natural. ;-) > > I confess, though, that these constant reminders make me a jack of many > trades, master of none. And that can be a very bad thing. Luckily, I'm > a simulant and my job requires that I be that way. > > > Creating a new language such as mathematics did not solve our > > if anything it helped illuminate the issues. > > Yes! I firmly agree with that! Math is a language for disambiguation. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10-03-22 12:35 PM:
> Forgive me if I have asked you this before: Have you ever read Byers HOW > MATHEMATICIANS THINK? I bought it specifically for the seminar; but I don't recall any assignments from it; so now it's on my "to read" list... keeping company with the thousands ... well, ok 10s of other books waiting patiently. [grin] -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
On 22 Mar 2010 at 10:58, Owen Densmore wrote:
> In a way, your input on help you would like to have would be useful. > A "three wishes" approach. If you had three wishes Friam could grant > to make complexity more approachable, what would they be? First of all, I wish complexity was simple! <Lee disappears in a puff of logic, with a balance of two wishes on his account> ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky
Vladimir -
(lurking does perhaps help in today's date, atleast only for those not located in the proximity of such location-specific lists? and ofcourse, its also a default position when your interests cut across numerous domains- and hence lists!) you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood slightly differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things totally different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean things almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make things, well, complex-er! thanks! All - still waiting for some advice, if there exists some magical place that allows non-traditional paths to learning/immersing into studies of complexity, and then feeding that back into other disciplines...via a Masters/PhD...(after all the claims of complexity being inherently trans/multi-disciplinary, its a bit disheartening to know the doors arent totally open to alternate backgrounds...!) (hm, Owen- perhaps that could be my first wish! a Friam resource page for courses/labs/schools, and a list of interdisciplinary global 'research projects' for those interested, from the list, to collaborate/participate - the many pathways to complexity...!) oh wait, that's 2 wishes.. :-) cheers, siddharth ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Siddharth,
You might want to take a look at Portland State's Systems Science program. It might have the multi-disciplinary angle you are wanting. There was mention of Melanie Mitchell's Complexity book on a previous post...She is a professor at PSU in the computer science department. She is involved with the systems science program via this computer science link. Though I believe she is going on sabbatical for a year. On Mar 22, 2010, at 4:22 PM, siddharth wrote: Vladimir - ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Siddharth-3
Glen,
Yes. I am sorry. That was my fault. There was a bit of a slipup between the "provost" and the professor. Byers main point is that it is AMBIGUITY that makes maths great! But its a subtle argument because what he is really saying is ironic: as mathematicians strive to reduce amibiguity they inevitably generate more, and thus, against their feverish and futile resistance, does math progress. nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 3/22/2010 4:09:05 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (advice needed!) > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10-03-22 12:35 PM: > > Forgive me if I have asked you this before: Have you ever read Byers HOW > > MATHEMATICIANS THINK? > > I bought it specifically for the seminar; but I don't recall any > assignments from it; so now it's on my "to read" list... keeping company > with the thousands ... well, ok 10s of other books waiting patiently. [grin] > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 |
|
|
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10-03-22 04:58 PM:
> Yes. I am sorry. That was my fault. There was a bit of a slipup between > the "provost" and the professor. No worries! It looks like a great book and I expect I'll enjoy it when I pop it off the queue. > Byers main point is that it is AMBIGUITY that makes maths great! But its a > subtle argument because what he is really saying is ironic: as > mathematicians strive to reduce amibiguity they inevitably generate more, > and thus, against their feverish and futile resistance, does math progress. Very interesting. If there's one conviction I'm actually guilty of, it's believing that irony (or, more accurately, paradox) is the ultimate teacher. And ambiguity is closely coupled with paradox. (Warning: the broken record begins again.) That's why I'm so fond of "Vicious Circles" by Barwise and Moss. It's the closest body of math I've found that tries to explain how cycles impact the definiteness of math. But it's wrapped in other stories, too. I remember once looking up "impredicative definition" in the index of some overly large math reference book in some library somewhere. (I lose track sometimes. ;-) It told me to look at a particular page. That page made a vague reference to the term "vicious circle". So, I looked up "vicious circle". It took me to another particular page, which made a vague reference to "impredicative definitions". If it hadn't been such a large book, it would have been funny. Instead, I learned a valuable lesson. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Mirly
David,
Many thanks! Sounds like a good place to start... Was looking up their pages- they seem to have 3 separate PhD tracks - Core, Interdisciplinary, and Departmental (focusing on just one department)- which make it sound quite interesting...Good to know of Melanie Mitchell's involvement as well... Thanks again! Cheers, Siddharth On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, David Mirly <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Siddharth-3
siddharth wrote:
> > you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the > complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood slightly > differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things totally > different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean things > almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make things, > well, complex-er! > thanks! For what it is worth, I've been working with Dr. Deana Pennington of UNM on this very topic... a joint UNM/Santa Fe Complex proposal to the NSF was just declined, but had it been funded, we would have been extending work done on a related NSF grant just ending this month on the topic of "the Science of Collaboration". Central to this work is the notion that each discipline (and subdiscipline and individual) has a distinct but complementary set of concept and terms that they use to understand and share their work. One of the tools to be developed is a collaborative tool for eliciting and resolving the terms and concepts across cross-disciplinary teams and projects. We are still seeking funding and opportunities to continue this work and it is an obvious project to carry forth at the Santa Fe Complex (in collaboration with UNM, etc.) if possible. We (Santa Fe Complex) just hosted a workshop for this team on Agent Based and Cellular Automata Modeling. It did not address the problem of language directly but indirectly did by providing a variety of practitioners with a common working vocabulary (to whit, NetLogo) for expressing and exploring simulations. Of course, within the context of this course, we immediately encountered terminology conflicts (when is a "patch" a "cell"? etc.) Seconding the spirit of Nick's point, it is this very ambiguity that provides the expressiveness and the leverage. If you constrained everyone to a controlled vocabulary, you would have nothing more useful than an efficient bureaucracy within a fascist government. Things would generally be unambiguous, but rarely useful! - Steve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Dear Glen Ropella,
I wish I had you in tow at cocktail parties, I would pay to watch you argue in public! What a hoot, it is like attending a Go tournament and having the crap beat out of you with a style never seen before. I once got beat so bad I laughed for weeks ( actually I still laugh 25 years later). Now personally I have often noticed that when engineering solutions to a problem are required that I find discussion particularly frustrating. My solution over the decades was to just build the damn thing and get it running. After hearing how it was impossible, I would start the device or run a simulation. However it only convinced about half the members of the audience, the remaining half persisted in repeating the same mantra. This reticence to believe the evidence before their senses always ticked me off and certainly I was not amused and did not hide my contempt. Some will believe others simply refuse. It is not simply language in this case. There is a twisted belief that the symbolic statements uttered have more validity than the underlying concepts. This seems to get into the realm of semiotics and I am just a dummy on such issues. But these intransigent beliefs about meaning seem to condemn the owner to disregard reality. Such a behavior seems absolutely contrary to any evolutionary model. This makes me very curious indeed. Being a bit of a dummy, I used to play cards on weekends to pay for tuition, I learned a lot observing the strange decisions players made about the wagers before them. It struck me that all decisions are moderated not by reason but by the momentary emotion dominant at that instant. A puff of smoke in the eyes could make an individual switch from a good choice to a bad choice. A buxom waitress could disturb choices. There was apparently no method to weigh choices based on risk or returns. The choice appeared to be made after an emotional reward had already been obtained. If a choice makes one feel good then the individual will make that choice in real life and damn the consequences. If emotions vary through a period of time the quality of decisions also varies accordingly. Many individuals are satisfied with their choice in spite of the wreckage at their feet. Conformal behavior seems to fit the example, where the choice to conform is the reward while the consequences are denied or are considered irrelevant. I don't ask people what they were thinking anymore simply to avoid bad or degenerate arguments. My interest in Agents is in part about getting agents to vary the quality of their decisions randomly or periodically. Hence my interest in stupid agents. I suspect ( well more than suspect )that I personally have been victimized by my own inherent stupid choices after a long life of tinkering with machines and loose women. If we are all victims of flawed cognition then what do we do to protect ourselves if even the brightest of us can not be trusted at critical moments? As I got older I thought perhaps my judgment might improve but clearly that was a vain notion and I still enjoy argument and women. Age does not appear to lead to wisdom. Perhaps the flaw is deeper than language mismatch, perhaps there is no reconciliation for an emotional biological entity and an abstract intellectual fabrication or construct . I am just a dumb card counter, but maybe the intellect is simply a delusion of a cunning mind. Knowing ahead of time I was going to be beaten in a game of Black Jack did not make me feel much better about the loss of coin. Looking at gambling addicts it always struck me as interesting how they persisted playing even though the house was crooked. I have doubts that decisions are actually based on monetary issues. The language trap might just be a symptom of a much deeper problem. The lower intellect may not have an identity or self awareness and the concept of self is constructed at a higher level based on language itself. Perhaps the structure of the language/beliefs is the structure of the self identity. Back to agents, could an agent fabricate a belief system? Flawed or otherwise... Would self awareness reside in the collection of disparate belief systems? Is it conceivable that the self is nothing more than the struggle between flawed belief systems in constant conflict? Perhaps the Self is nothing more than the noise above a battlefield? As a footnote, the arguments about Language you mentioned, how do I find them? Please excuse my manner, I get a little carried away with a good old fashioned discussion, it makes me nostalgic for bad hamburgers and insipid coffee at the campus dungeon. Vlad. Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: March 22, 2010 1:20 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (advice needed!) Thus spake Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky circa 10-03-22 10:43 AM: > I opened a lid and are you the surprise in side? > Language issues are extremely complex and I am not sure which position you > take, In fact I suspect you do not subscribe to either. I'm just an Eddington style typewriter. I read a bunch of stuff. It percolates around randomly. Then I spew it back out without really knowing anything about what I'm saying. [grin] And in the great tradition of psychological reflexion, I assume everyone else is the same. > I always suspected my father was slightly mad when he would begin laughing > at something someone said, He explained that it sounded like something > obscene in Finnish or Yiddish. Exactly! Those interested in language mismatch claim that lots of "interestingness" seems to come from language mismatches, including lots of humor. > I agree with your comments but unfortunately we often have to make choices > between two bad options since there is nothing better. If we recognize the > language trap how do we escape? I tend to keep reminding myself that my grasp of reality is very tenuous regardless of my (frequent) sporadic descents into the conviction that I have a very good understanding of it. By continually reminding myself, I find that almost every time I remind myself while stuck in that conviction, the conviction is a direct result of being ensconced in a particular language. As I age, however, I'm finding my own reminders more and more difficult to maintain. So, I sporadically start arguments with people like those on this list and enlist them to help me remind myself. (Yes, that's totally selfish ... But you'll rarely find me arguing that altruism is natural. ;-) I confess, though, that these constant reminders make me a jack of many trades, master of none. And that can be a very bad thing. Luckily, I'm a simulant and my job requires that I be that way. > Creating a new language such as mathematics did not solve our difficulties > if anything it helped illuminate the issues. Yes! I firmly agree with that! Math is a language for disambiguation. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Siddharth-3
Glen R wrote:
>>Very interesting. If there's one conviction I'm actually guilty of, it's believing that irony (or, more accurately, paradox) is the ultimate teacher. And ambiguity is closely coupled with paradox.<< Well, in that case, Byers is your book. You might even move it up the queue. >>That page made a vague > reference to the term "vicious circle". So, I looked up "vicious > circle". It took me to another particular page, which made a vague > reference to "impredicative definitions". If it hadn't been such a > large book, it would have been funny. Instead, I learned a valuable lesson.<< Much of my socalled career was spent trying to disentangle the vicious circularity in the explanations that biologists and psychologists offered for animal form and behavior. But circularity in explanations is such a satisfying vice that few are willing to abandon it. Examples of my efforts can be found at http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/1980-1984/Toward_a_falsifiable_theory_of_evolution.pdf and
Wonderful to think that you, glen, within your very own hands, have the power to double the readership of these articles.
all the best,
Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 3/22/2010 6:06:58 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (advice needed!) > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10-03-22 04:58 PM: > > Yes. I am sorry. That was my fault. There was a bit of a slipup between > > the "provost" and the professor. > > No worries! It looks like a great book and I expect I'll enjoy it when > I pop it off the queue. > > > Byers main point is that it is AMBIGUITY that makes maths great! But its a > > subtle argument because what he is really saying is ironic: as > > mathematicians strive to reduce amibiguity they inevitably generate more, > > and thus, against their feverish and futile resistance, does math progress. > > Very interesting. If there's one conviction I'm actually guilty of, > it's believing that irony (or, more accurately, paradox) is the ultimate > teacher. And ambiguity is closely coupled with paradox. (Warning: the > broken record begins again.) That's why I'm so fond of "Vicious > Circles" by Barwise and Moss. It's the closest body of math I've found > that tries to explain how cycles impact the definiteness of math. > > But it's wrapped in other stories, too. I remember once looking up > "impredicative definition" in the index of some overly large math > reference book in some library somewhere. (I lose track sometimes. ;-) > It told me to look at a particular page. That page made a vague > reference to the term "vicious circle". So, I looked up "vicious > circle". It took me to another particular page, which made a vague > reference to "impredicative definitions". If it hadn't been such a > large book, it would have been funny. Instead, I learned a valuable lesson. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: multiple tool kits [was (advice needed!)]
|
|
In reply to this post by Siddharth-3
Steve,
As a partial endorsement of your argument, I was trained as a comparative psychologist (comparing between species) and an ethologist (the European branch of animal behavior that showed we could treat behaviors as evolved phenomenon in the same way we treat anatomy). I was specifically trained in these as two separate, but related traditions. When I arrived at at U.C. Davis, which has (or at least had) the premier graduate training program in Animal Behavior in the country, and as I started attending more of the Animal Behavior Society national conferences, I noticed a disturbing trend: There was a conscious attempt to create a generic study of animal behavior in which everyone did basically the same thing from the same perspective (though with variation in species studied and behavior focused on). I kept trying to explain to people, most forcibly to the grad students, as I thought I had a chance with them, that this was bad. They were trading in several hard-won and highly-specialized tool kits (those of comparative psych, ethology, behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, etc.) for a 101 piece toolkit from Walmart. If they were trying to encourage collaboration, I would have been all for it, but instead they were trying to create a shared language by destroying the uniqueness of the distinct approaches. Yuck! Anyway, just an endorsement of your project from a very different context, Eric On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 08:26 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charlessiddharth wrote: > > you're right about the language issue - even a basic word in the > complexity debate- eg. 'modeling'- is interpreted/understood slightly > differently in architecture..its easier when they mean things totally > different, like your example- its really tricky when they mean things > almost the same, yet not - these micro-shifts in meaning make things, > well, complex-er! > thanks! For what it is worth, I've been working with Dr. Deana Pennington of UNM on this very topic... a joint UNM/Santa Fe Complex proposal to the NSF was just declined, but had it been funded, we would have been extending work done on a related NSF grant just ending this month on the topic of "the Science of Collaboration". Central to this work is the notion that each discipline (and subdiscipline and individual) has a distinct but complementary set of concept and terms that they use to understand and share their work. One of the tools to be developed is a collaborative tool for eliciting and resolving the terms and concepts across cross-disciplinary teams and projects. We are still seeking funding and opportunities to continue this work and it is an obvious project to carry forth at the Santa Fe Complex (in collaboration with UNM, etc.) if possible. We (Santa Fe Complex) just hosted a workshop for this team on Agent Based and Cellular Automata Modeling. It did not address the problem of language directly but indirectly did by providing a variety of practitioners with a common working vocabulary (to whit, NetLogo) for expressing and exploring simulations. Of course, within the context of this course, we immediately encountered terminology conflicts (when is a "patch" a "cell"? etc.) Seconding the spirit of Nick's point, it is this very ambiguity that provides the expressiveness and the leverage. If you constrained everyone to a controlled vocabulary, you would have nothing more useful than an efficient bureaucracy within a fascist government. Things would generally be unambiguous, but rarely useful! - Steve ============================================================ 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 Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky
Heh, I am handy as a kind of party trick. But I often don't get invited back after I wreak my havoc. [grin] I think the issue you're raising is fairly important, especially regarding zero intelligence agents. I tend to approach the problem with the following framework: Persistent processes build momentum by being historically dependent. Every iteration at every scale depends on the outcome of the last iteration at that and all the other scales. For any object that has a semi-permeable boundary (e.g. an animal), historical dependence builds up inside the boundary. That momentum allows it to barrel forward without regard to its environment. For example, an animal can plunge from a warm environment into a cold environment and maintain its warmth for quite awhile before its momentum bleeds off. The momentum often results in a bit of hysteresis. The mantra chanted by disbelieving members of your audience is akin to the creaking of a spring when you push or pull it too far. Systems with lots of little hysterical(?) processes can result in some interesting behavior even if there's no complexity or complicatedness within each little process. Hence, my recommendation would not be to start with anything complicated like tweaking the "quality of a decision process". I'd start with very simple, historically dependent processes. But there are 2 fundamental paths to take: 1) homogenous agents or 2) heterogeneous agents. I tend to think (1) is more interesting if you can provide an external source of variation. For example, place the homogenous agents in a varied environment so that their internal state is, initially, set by that environment. Then when they interact with one another, despite their being exactly the same process, their historical dependence will prevent them from syncing completely. It's interesting because with a tiny bit of, tightly controlled variation (and perhaps all determined), you can get strange behavior. But if your point is to _model_ some actual system, then you have to go with (2). There are simply too many sources of variation to tightly control where and when that variation enters the system. So, when modeling, you place enough of the right distributions to generate the phenomena you want to test against and then use validation data to guide the research. The language mismatch can enter with both (1) and (2). In (1), the mismatch is mostly in the sentences arrived at in the little formal systems inside the agents' skins. In (2) the mismatch can be very deep. Each agent can have its own formal system as long as the environment provides some sort of input into some part of the formal system, alphabet, grammar, or axioms. To search the archives, use the links Owen posted (nabble or mailman) or perhaps gmane: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.region.new-mexico.santa-fe.friam And search for emergence, language, models, or whatever. Of course, that's all so ... fossilized. Near synchronous discussions are always more fun. But looking at the archives gives you a sense of the reaction you'll (probably) get to various hot-button words and phrases. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 03/22/2010 05:35 PM: > I wish I had you in tow at cocktail parties, I would pay to watch you argue > in public! What a hoot, it is like attending a Go tournament and having the > crap beat out of you with a style never seen before. I once got beat so bad > I laughed for weeks ( actually I still laugh 25 years later). > > Now personally I have often noticed that when engineering solutions to a > problem are required that I find discussion particularly frustrating. My > solution over the decades was to just build the damn thing and get it > running. After hearing how it was impossible, I would start the device or > run a simulation. However it only convinced about half the members of the > audience, the remaining half persisted in repeating the same mantra. This > reticence to believe the evidence before their senses always ticked me off > and certainly I was not amused and did not hide my contempt. > Some will believe others simply refuse. > > It is not simply language in this case. There is a twisted belief that the > symbolic statements uttered have more validity than the underlying concepts. > This seems to get into the realm of semiotics and I am just a dummy on such > issues. But these intransigent beliefs about meaning seem to condemn the > owner to disregard reality. Such a behavior seems absolutely contrary to any > evolutionary model. This makes me very curious indeed. > > Being a bit of a dummy, I used to play cards on weekends to pay for tuition, > I learned a lot observing the strange decisions players made about the > wagers before them. It struck me that all decisions are moderated not by > reason but by the momentary emotion dominant at that instant. A puff of > smoke in the eyes could make an individual switch from a good choice to a > bad choice. A buxom waitress could disturb choices. There was apparently no > method to weigh choices based on risk or returns. The choice appeared to be > made after an emotional reward had already been obtained. If a choice makes > one feel good then the individual will make that choice in real life and > damn the consequences. If emotions vary through a period of time the quality > of decisions also varies accordingly. Many individuals are satisfied with > their choice in spite of the wreckage at their feet. Conformal behavior > seems to fit the example, where the choice to conform is the reward while > the consequences are denied or are considered irrelevant. I don't ask people > what they were thinking anymore simply to avoid bad or degenerate arguments. > > My interest in Agents is in part about getting agents to vary the quality of > their decisions randomly or periodically. Hence my interest in stupid > agents. I suspect ( well more than suspect )that I personally have been > victimized by my own inherent stupid choices after a long life of tinkering > with machines and loose women. > > If we are all victims of flawed cognition then what do we do to protect > ourselves if even the brightest of us can not be trusted at critical > moments? As I got older I thought perhaps my judgment might improve but > clearly that was a vain notion and I still enjoy argument and women. Age > does not appear to lead to wisdom. > > Perhaps the flaw is deeper than language mismatch, perhaps there is no > reconciliation for an emotional biological entity and an abstract > intellectual fabrication or construct . I am just a dumb card counter, but > maybe the intellect is simply a delusion of a cunning mind. > > Knowing ahead of time I was going to be beaten in a game of Black Jack did > not make me feel much better about the loss of coin. Looking at gambling > addicts it always struck me as interesting how they persisted playing even > though the house was crooked. I have doubts that decisions are actually > based on monetary issues. > > The language trap might just be a symptom of a much deeper problem. The > lower intellect may not have an identity or self awareness and the concept > of self is constructed at a higher level based on language itself. Perhaps > the structure of the language/beliefs is the structure of the self identity. > > Back to agents, could an agent fabricate a belief system? Flawed or > otherwise... Would self awareness reside in the collection of disparate > belief systems? Is it conceivable that the self is nothing more than the > struggle between flawed belief systems in constant conflict? Perhaps the > Self is nothing more than the noise above a battlefield? > > As a footnote, the arguments about Language you mentioned, how do I find > them? > > Please excuse my manner, I get a little carried away with a good old > fashioned discussion, it makes me nostalgic for bad hamburgers and insipid > coffee at the campus dungeon. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |