reductionism

Posted by Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Seminal-Papers-in-Complexity-tp524047p524107.html

Glen,
Well, the 'fault' of considering things from multiple points of view is
not contradiction, but confusing all those who don't!  

Speaking of your observation that "Internal loci of control are
sometimes useful" wouldn't it be wise for us to switch the exponential
growth of exploiting the earth to refining our uses of it before it's
too late?   I've been noticing mammoth errors seeming to stem from
people using concepts of change that are several centuries out of date
with respect to the changes in our real environment.  Did you know that
virtually all 'sustainable design' advocates thorough ally believe that
continually doubling output with a 10%-20% reduction in waste reduces
impacts on the earth if you just do it for the right purpose?  It's
stunning!   They actually think what they're 'talking about' is what
they're 'literally saying' when the two are whole worlds apart.

On whether this confusion we all experience between information and
action is robust or not, I certainly accept and observe some
inconsistency, but think most people remain hamstrung by generally not
knowing when.   The simple case in point is how easily and confidently
we understand some things going out of control, as with a singer's voice
cracking, or a businessman not getting expert help until it's too late,
or a party or a friendship erupting in thrill that changes to tragedy,
and see nothing wrong at all with  the speed, complexity and magnitude
of unknown impacts of decision-making about our permanent life support
system, doubling, regularly, forever.   It's the inconsistency!    All
forms of excess look to be much the same problem to me, and can be read
with the same metrics.  It shouldn't be a tough problem, well except for
confusing information and action.

just an idle thought, of course...   :,)



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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:38 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] reductionism
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > I think that's a very consistent argument, and very similar
> to the one
> > Bohr used as the basis for the Copenhagen convention and dumping
> > Einstein's idea of the physical world.  As I recall, the
> argument was
> > that science is information and so nothing exists for
> science except
> > what exists as scientific information, and so uncertainties that
> > define a limit to scientific knowledge also define a limit to any
> > meaningful scientific reality.  So as scientists, reality does not
> > exist beyond what is knowable.  I think it was that slim logical
> > thread that kept the otherwise very unsatisfying assertion that
> > phenomena are created by our observations from being tossed out as
> > ridiculous.
>
> Interesting.  Your paraphrase certainly seems analogous to
> what I submitted if information and action are taken as
> analogous fulcra.  But, I'm not sure the analogy is very
> robust.  My argument hinges on action and unity (discretion)
> where "things" are only things, separate from all the other
> goo in which we're bathed, by virtue of their being acted
> upon or acting upon as a unit.
>
> Hence, an "emergent thing" is fictitious if it cannot be
> acted upon separately from the other things to which it's
> related, including its constituents.  For example, an
> "emergent phenomenon", in order to be a real thing, would
> have to either act as a unit or be acted upon as a unit.  (By
> "act", I don't mean "ascribed thing-hood by an observer". I
> mean "does physical work"... moves objects around, generates
> heat, etc.)
>
> Now, personally, I tend to agree with G?nther and I don't
> rely on the word "emergence" for conversations I regard as
> important.  I have yet to see an emergent phenomenon.... and
> I doubt that I ever will.  Of course, that doesn't mean they
> don't exist.  It also doesn't mean that the concept is
> useless.  Unicorns may not exist either; but, it is important
> that we can think about them and perform thought experiments
> with them.
>
> Given these details (especially the descent into discretion
> begged by the action requirement), it's hard for me to
> maintain the analogy between my argument and information as
> scientific currency.
>
> > For most people the question comes down to which way they *like*
> > thinking about the world, since either one can be made
> satisfying if
> > that's what you like...  I prefer, and find more
> productive, thinking
> > that I'm exploring a world that exists without my knowledge
> of it, and
> > is built in such a complicated way that my descriptions
> will inevitably
> > be flawed.   That's the 'bad' part of it I suppose.   It
> also leaves me
> > always beginning my learning rather than trying to end it,
> and open to
> > being surprised.  
>
> Yes!  You've pointed out an extremely important part of the
> human condition (and science, as the search for truth).  
> Stated preference is a symptom of the historical accretion of
> (often accidental) experiences each of us goes through.  And
> so preference is a very important indicator that compresses
> (a lossy one) lots of information about a person's history
> into a digestible chunk.  The same can be said of a person's
> actions.  When presented with a situation and a suite of
> possible actions, those actions chosen by the subject are
> indicators of that person's historical accretion of experiences.
>
> Personally, I prefer to flip back and forth amongst various
> different points of view.  I arrogantly think that I can do
> this purposefully; but, it's probably more accidental than
> anything else.  If I can do it purposefully at all, it's
> probably more guided by intuition or instinct than anything
> conscious.  Reductionism is useful in many situations.
> Concepts like "emergence" are useful in many situations.  
> Internal loci of control are sometimes useful, likewise with
> external loci.  Sometimes it's handy for me to think that I
> created the universe to entertain myself. [grin]  And
> sometimes it's useful for me to think I'm an insignificant
> spec that can be faithfully modeled as an ideal gas molecule.
>  Such flip-flopping often leads others to think I contradict
> myself.  In reality, it is logically impossible for a person
> to contradict themselves because all their actions (including
> statements of
> preference) flow from their historically accreted experience.
>  The perceived contradictions come because partial models
> (usually ideal or
> abstracted) based on one subset of actions often contradict
> partial models based on some other subset of actions.
>
> It's also important to remember that evidence taken via
> self-reporting is highly suspect (and usually misleading or
> flawed).  So statements of preference are not to be trusted!  
> Hence, though I may _say_ my preference is to flip-flop, it's
> probably not true. [grin]
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> Men who are unhappy, like men who sleep badly, are always
> proud of the fact. -- Bertrand Russell
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGeUnKZeB+vOTnLkoRAityAJ9RrKtQrNHD3kZ2FNd1hdtx1wN53wCfTF5X
> MOLPElbaRRFOGGDPa3tzhTQ=
> =Zbmx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>