http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/On-Rosen-On-Donder-On-Blitzen-tp526152p526156.html
agility - complexification. C.f.Reuben McDaniels or Ken Stanley.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:47 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] On Rosen, On Donder, On Blitzen
>
> Quoting phil,
>
>
> There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change:
> "agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity
> (lineage, organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for
> some change such that it _seemed_ like that entity somehow
> predicted the change. But this isn't an effective tactic.
> Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition) in the concrete."
>
> Ineffective, yes; but that is the way Darwinian evolution
> works, no? It is not that one is prescient. It is just that
> one is lucky.
>
> Nick
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > Date: 4/29/2008 10:01:26 AM
> > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28
> >
> > Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> > friam at redfish.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > friam-request at redfish.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > friam-owner at redfish.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 3. Marketing research as futurology (Nicholas Thompson)
> > 4. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 5. Re: recap on Rosen (sy at synapse9.com)
> > 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > 7. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 8. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 9. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > 10. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 11. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> > 12. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > 13. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> > 14. Re: recap on Rosen (Ken Lloyd)
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:36:37 -0600
> > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <4815FD15.4080701 at snoutfarm.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in our minds'
> > > are different from the 'bubbles in the world'...
> > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we
> witness and say
> > something about the world that will be witnessed.
> > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation.
> Of course,
> > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life
> vs. life
> > imitating art..
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:48 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <4815FF00.2070000 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > G?nther Greindl wrote:
> > > It is neither a mathematically rigorous nor an
> empirically grounded
> > > refutation, I agree, but rather in the sense of Occam's
> > > razor/Laplacean "I do not need this hypothesis".
> >
> > Excellent! We pretty much agree. The only area where I might
> > disagree is in attempts to develop measures of complexity.
> Forget the
> > whole "life <=> non-life" red herring. The simple <=> complex
> > spectrum, however, can be useful.
> >
> > And, in that sense, Rosen's attempts to formalize simple systems as
> > "defined from the outside" versus complex systems as
> "defined from the
> > inside" is interesting. Albeit, we may not NEED such a theorem
> > because we have plenty of measures of complexity which work
> to greater
> > or lesser extent in different contexts. (I'm fond of
> "logical depth"
> > myself, though I admit that I haven't used it successfully.)
> >
> > But I can imagine that certain concepts that are currently used all
> > the time in complexity circles, and which are always horribly vague
> > despite the credentials of the users, ... I can imagine that these
> > concepts will never become clear and concrete until we have
> such a theorem.
> >
> > And that's where non-well-founded set theory seems useful. What is
> > the ultimate difference between formalisms (models) requiring the
> > foundation axiom and those that do NOT require it?
> >
> > It seems to me that formalisms built without the foundation
> axiom will
> > lack some of the definiteness we find and expect in our mathematics.
> > And, surprise, we also see a lack of definiteness in
> complex systems.
> > Now, I'm not just trying to combine two unknowns in an
> attempt to use
> > one to explain the other. [grin] My point is that this circularity
> > Rosen points out is fundamentally related to cycles in
> > non-well-founded set theory. And it also seems related to
> the rampant
> > abuse of concepts like iteration (e.g. recursion).
> >
> > Anyway, my thoughts are a jumble of unjustified nonsense at
> this stage.
> > I need a sugar-momma to pay me to sit around and think.
> Any takers?
> [grin]
> >
> > > Have you perchance read
> > >
> > > Wells, A. J. In Defense of Mechanism Ecological Psychology, 2006,
> > > 18,
> 39-65
> >
> > Nope. It sure sounds familiar, though.
> >
> > > ? He takes on Rosen's claims, I have queued the paper for
> reading,
> > > will probably get there in July (have a lot to do at the moment
> > > ;-)); and would be glad to continue the conversation.
> >
> > I'll add it to my queue, too, though I'm way beyond being able to
> > commit to it or estimate when I would ever read it. I've
> always been
> > a slow reader ... though when I do read something, I
> usually remember it.
> > It'll help if you spontaneously re-start the conversation
> when you get
> > to Wells' paper. Then make fun of me if I haven't read it, yet.
> > That'll coerce me into reading it.
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com
> The fear of
> > death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully
> is prepared
> > to die at any time. -- Mark Twain
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org> >
> > iD8DBQFIFf8ApVJZMHoGoM8RAt+gAKCB20DpxiyJ8nwVJeSXVYFG/xHR1wCfX5dG
> > w6gansrDVkGFmZ4GoCQIx5I=
> > =yHDb
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:53:40 -0600
> > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> > Subject: [FRIAM] Marketing research as futurology
> > To: friam at redfish.com
> > Message-ID: <380-220084128165340577 at earthlink.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> > David,
> >
> > As a Darwinian, I think a lot about the costs of success.
> A darwinian
> > system works because the benefits of success are not shared equally
> amongst
> > those who try. One lineage suceeds, the others die. From
> a gigantic
> > batter of misery is baked one good cake. Whoopeee.
> >
> > Your story about Mercedes has two impacts. The first is
> that if you
> > want to predict the future, don't do a marketing survey,
> because, by and large,
> > people dont know what they want. Great message.
> >
> > But then there is a double take; MERCEDES, for all its early
> > misjugement of the auto market, is one of the most
> sucessful automakers, ever, right?
> >
> > So, what is it we learn from that story? That big stupid giants
> > succeed
> in
> > the end?
> >
> > I guess Ford didn't do SO bad. Somebody help me out, here.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48160A43.7010006 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed
> > > without a model to warn you about the approach of major
> environmental change.
> >
> > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing
> about... But I'll
> > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years.
> > [grin]
> >
> > There is only one way to prepare for potentially
> catastrophic change:
> > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage,
> > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change
> such that
> > it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change.
> But this
> > isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by
> > definition) in the concrete.
> >
> > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel,
> > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible.
> And the best
> > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes"
> (scenarios,
> > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis.
> The point is
> > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes
> contains a
> > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the
> > risk by practicing/training in as many different vignettes
> as possible.
> >
> > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple
> > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning
> > and usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to
> any one model
> > as the Truth if you want to remain agile.
> >
> > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is
> the rule and
> > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times,
> exploration is
> > the rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be
> > willing to sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape
> > starts to destabilize. The committed end up dying because
> their, once
> > true enough, convictions are no longer true enough.
> >
> > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of
> > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other
> > organizational strategies. The high attrition rate of small
> > businesses allows us to balance exploration and exploitation. When
> > times are stable we grow big behemoth exploiters. When
> times become
> > more chaotic, those behemoths come crashing down and us little guys
> > scramble and wander like ants, with all our various deviant
> models and
> > expectations of the world, exploring the dynamic landscape
> and hoping
> > to stumble into a niche and become the next behemoth
> exploiter. Then
> > we hope to hoard enough resources to skate through the next
> period of instability.
> >
> > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that
> we define
> > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I
> > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we
> _cannot_ engineer
> > a world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A
> > sustainable
> > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from
> the inside.
> > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted
> > aspects/purposes will eventually fail (or grow out of "control").
> > "Humanity" is an abstract and pitifully impoverished
> _slice_ of Gaia
> > (for lack of a better term). So any design we put in place to
> > preserve the system from the perspective of the human slice will
> > eventually fail or mutate into something not so human friendly.
> >
> > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't
> > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do
> believe is
> > that agility is the key to handling novelty and
> multi-modeling is the
> > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty).
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com A
> government
> > which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the
> support of Paul
> > -- George Bernard Shaw
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org> >
> > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt
> > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ=
> > =cZOR
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:22:33 +0000
> > From: sy at synapse9.com
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID:
> >
>
> <1205479468-1209439418-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.ne
> t-248446329-@
> bxe015.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> >
> > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility for
> a little
> > fish
> after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making excuses...
> briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the 'disturbance'
> and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives are long range
> indicators of out of model events approaching.
> >
> > Phil
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> >
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51
> > To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed
> > > without a model to warn you about the approach of major
> environmental change.
> >
> > It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing
> about... But I'll
> > offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years.
> > [grin]
> >
> > There is only one way to prepare for potentially
> catastrophic change:
> > agility. We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage,
> > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change
> such that
> > it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change.
> But this
> > isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by
> > definition) in the concrete.
> >
> > The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel,
> > abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible.
> And the best
> > way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes"
> (scenarios,
> > use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis.
> The point is
> > not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes
> contains a
> > semblance of the coming change, however. The point is to smear the
> > risk by practicing/training in as many different vignettes
> as possible.
> >
> > And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple
> > models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning
> > and usefulness any of those models. You don't commit to
> any one model
> > as the Truth if you want to remain agile.
> >
> > Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is
> the rule and
> > exploration is the exception. But in unstable times,
> exploration is
> > the rule and exploitation is the exception. The trick is to be
> > willing to sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape
> > starts to destabilize. The committed end up dying because
> their, once
> > true enough, convictions are no longer true enough.
> >
> > This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of
> > capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other
> > organizational strategies. The high attrition rate of small
> > businesses allows us to balance exploration and exploitation. When
> > times are stable we grow big behemoth exploiters. When
> times become
> > more chaotic, those behemoths come crashing down and us little guys
> > scramble and wander like ants, with all our various deviant
> models and
> > expectations of the world, exploring the dynamic landscape
> and hoping
> > to stumble into a niche and become the next behemoth
> exploiter. Then
> > we hope to hoard enough resources to skate through the next
> period of instability.
> >
> > The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that
> we define
> > "sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs. What I
> > think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we
> _cannot_ engineer
> > a world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs. A
> > sustainable
> > ("living") system can only be designed holistically, from
> the inside.
> > Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted
> > aspects/purposes will eventually fail (or grow out of "control").
> > "Humanity" is an abstract and pitifully impoverished
> _slice_ of Gaia
> > (for lack of a better term). So any design we put in place to
> > preserve the system from the perspective of the human slice will
> > eventually fail or mutate into something not so human friendly.
> >
> > Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective. I don't
> > personally believe it wholeheartedly. The only part I do
> believe is
> > that agility is the key to handling novelty and
> multi-modeling is the
> > key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty).
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com A
> government
> > which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the
> support of Paul
> > -- George Bernard Shaw
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org> >
> > iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt
> > 8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ=
> > =cZOR
> > -----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> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:51:33 -0600
> > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <4816A955.2060606 at snoutfarm.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > Glen wrote:
> > > We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage,
> > > organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such
> > > that it _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the
> change. But
> > > this isn't an effective tactic.
> > It's very effective if the population is large enough.
> 6.6 billion
> > humans is quite a few.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:39:28 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48172510.1050005 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > sy at synapse9.com wrote:
> > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility
> for a little
> > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making
> > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the
> > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely. Derivatives
> are long
> > > range indicators of out of model events approaching.
> >
> > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is
> > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish to
> avoid being
> > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings. More
> time means
> > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise.
> >
> > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter _when_ you
> > sense the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the
> disturbance, even if
> > it's only after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point
> of being
> > agile is to allow you a larger window and more options between the
> > time of sensing the disturbance and your subsequent action.
> >
> > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially
> > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's
> > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high
> > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes from being
> > deeply embedded in the context.
> >
> > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate
> long-range patterns
> > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract
> patterns and
> > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic
> change. It
> > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change is waaaay
> > too big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key.
> >
> > --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com There is
> > nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- Milton
> > Friedman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:42:58 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <481725E2.7010100 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > > Glen wrote:
> > >> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage,
> > >> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such
> > >> that
> it
> > >> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change.
> But this
> > >> isn't an effective tactic.
> > >
> > > It's very effective if the population is large enough.
> 6.6 billion
> > > humans is quite a few.
> >
> > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a multi-farious
> > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an
> > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources -- with an
> > explicit objective.
> >
> > --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com
> Everything
> > that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who
> > can labor in freedom. -- Albert Einstein
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:53:20 -0600
> > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48172850.8020706 at snoutfarm.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > >> Glen wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage,
> > >>> organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some
> change such
> > >>> that
> it
> > >>> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change.
> But this
> isn't
> > >>> an effective tactic.
> > >>>
> > >> It's very effective if the population is large enough.
> 6.6 billion
> > >> humans is quite a few.
> > >>
> > >
> > > No, a suite of trials is an effective strategy for a
> multi-farious
> > > composite (e.g. an army or a species); but pre-adaptation is an
> > > ineffective tactic for a small unit -- limited resources
> -- with an
> > > explicit objective.
> > >
> > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g.
> > sustainability efforts as it relates to survival of
> governments or the even the human
> > species? It seems to me a government or large company can
> be agile by
> > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful)
> than small but
> > agile groups -- economies of scale. A benefit of the
> exploitation
> > phase, also comes with the benefit of the diversification of those
> > exploitable specialists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:31:47 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48173153.10403 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > > I thought we were sort of talking about large units, e.g.
> sustainability
> > > efforts as it relates to survival of governments or the
> even the human
> > > species?
> >
> > Yes, we were. But, you cut out the context of my original comment,
> > which was that: It's true _some_ entities can seem, post
> hoc, to have
> > been pre-adapted to some context. I.e. Some entities may
> seem to have
> > successfully used _commitment_ to a single model (or small set of
> > models). But commitment and pre-adaptation are not an
> effective _tactic_.
> >
> > Then you said that "it" can be effective, wherein you
> conflated tactics
> > and strategy. Pre-adaptation and commitment to a single
> model (or small
> > set of models) is NOT an effective tactic for achieving an explicit
> > objective. On the contrary, however, agnostic
> multi-modeling can be a
> > strategy for achieving vague, abstract, or implicit objectives.
> >
> > "Sustainability" is, as yet, vague and abstract. And if we
> buy Rosen's
> > argument, it must be implicit.
> >
> > > It seems to me a government or large company can be agile by
> > > through use of non-agile specialists (and more powerful)
> than small but
> > > agile groups -- economies of scale.
> >
> > Only _if_ the overwhelming majority of those specialists
> are sacrificed
> > (or "re-used"). And only _if_ there are plenty of those
> specialists.
> > Which means pre-adaptation is not an effective tactic for an
> > overwhelming majority of those specialists.
> >
> > You're talking about a strategy, not a tactic. And, at
> that composite
> > (army, population, collective) level, you're also NOT
> talking about a
> > strategy of pre-adaptation/commitment. You're talking
> about a strategy
> > of agnosticism and multi-modeling.
> >
> > At the individual unit level (even if the unit is
> composite), the most
> > relevant tactic for surviving potentially catastrophic change is
> > maximized agility, not commitment to a given model.
> >
> > If you want to draw a _metaphor_ between "collective agility" and
> > agnostic multi-modeling, then go ahead. But be clear that it's a
> > metaphor. Agility comes from embeddedness and a tight feedback loop
> > with the environment. Large collectives cannot both be a
> very abstract
> > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment.
> Hence, saying
> > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national
> corporation" is either
> > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile".
> >
> > --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> > The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the
> inability of the
> > human mind to correlate all its contents. -- H. P. Lovecraft
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 11
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:15:19 -0400
> > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <013301c8aa0b$d6edf3e0$84c9dba0$@com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > >
> > > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles in
> our minds' are
> > > > different from the 'bubbles in the world'...
> > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we
> witness and say
> > > something about the world that will be witnessed.
> > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation.
> Of course,
> > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating
> life vs. life
> > > imitating art..
> >
> > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles
> in our minds'
> are
> > stitched together by personal and cultural values, and they
> have lots of
> > things of the world which are continually changing
> represented by fixed
> > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are
> organized around
> > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning
> system parts,
> which
> > learn by exploring pathways THEY find. The natural
> assumption then would
> be
> > for their design to always be changing in ways we can't see
> at all without
> > some hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems
> of knowledge.
> > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it,
> but it also
> > allows one to get a little warning about the systems of the
> world that are
> > behaving independent of our models for them.
> >
> > Does that help?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > 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> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 12
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:19 -0600
> > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48173E57.4020809 at snoutfarm.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> > > Large collectives cannot both be a very abstract
> > > unit/entity _and_ be tightly coupled to the environment.
> Hence, saying
> > > something like "Intel is an agile multi-national
> corporation" is either
> > > a self-contradiction or an equivocation on the word "agile".
> > >
> > Given the fast and impressive beating that AMD just got at
> Intel's hand,
> > that example strikes me as weird!
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:00 -0400
> > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <013a01c8aa0e$96bd46b0$c437d410$@com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >
> > Glen,
> >
> > > sy at synapse9.com wrote:
> > > > That's closer I think. There's little point to agility
> for a little
> > > > fish after it has been swallowed. All that helps then is making
> > > > excuses... briefly. Agility only helps if you sense the
> > > > 'disturbance' and avoid the attack entirely.
> Derivatives are long
> > > > range indicators of out of model events approaching.
> > >
> > > No, there's much point to agility even if the little fish is
> > > _eventually_ swallowed. Agility allows the little fish
> to avoid being
> > > swallowed for a longer time than her clumsy siblings.
> More time means
> > > more chances to mate, which is the whole point of the exercise.
> > >
> > > As for sensing the disturbance, agility helps no matter
> _when_ you sense
> > > the disturbance. (You _always_ sense the disturbance,
> even if it's only
> > > after the teeth sink into your flesh.) The point of
> being agile is to
> > > allow you a larger window and more options between the
> time of sensing
> > > the disturbance and your subsequent action.
> >
> > [ph] why make it so complicated? You don't need to explain
> why it's good
> to
> > survive. It's good to survive. The agility only makes a
> difference in
> that
> > *before* being swallowed, when you have an ability to respond to the
> > information of *approaching danger*. No info, no
> avoidance of danger.
> >
> > > The larger point is that the best methods for handling potentially
> > > catastrophic change derive from a tight feedback loop with one's
> > > environment. Abstraction is the enemy. Embeddedness and high
> > > interactivity are key. Agility is an ability that comes
> from being
> > > deeply embedded in the context.
> > >
> > [ph] Yes, the apparent reason people are constantly walking
> blindly into
> > conflict is a lack of information on it's approach. The
> clear evidence,
> > like the whole environmental movement spending 30 years
> promoting energy
> > solutions that would trigger a world food crisis, is that
> we are missing
> the
> > signals of approaching danger. We read 'disturbances in
> the force' (i.e.
> > alien derivatives like diminishing returns) very skillfully in one
> > circumstance and miss them entirely in others. We
> constantly walk smack
> > into trouble because we do something that selectively
> blocks that kind of
> > information. The evidence seems to closely fit the
> 'functional fixation'
> > of using fixed representations for changing things in our models.
> >
> > > It's true that abstraction allows one to estimate
> long-range patterns
> > > and long-term trends. But commitment to those abstract
> patterns and
> > > trends does NOT help one survive potentially catastrophic
> change. It
> > > can only help one avoid such change. And when the change
> is waaaay too
> > > big to avoid? Well, then agility is the key.
> >
> > [ph] again, agility only helps avoid the catastrophe *before* the
> > catastrophe. Here you're saying it mainly helps after, and
> that seems to
> be
> > incorrect.
> >
> > Phil
> > >
> > > --
> > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government
> program. --
> > > Milton Friedman
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > 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> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:54:17 -0600
> > From: "Ken Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <003d01c8aa11$4b348c00$6501a8c0 at wattp4>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Phil,
> >
> > Thank you for acknowledging the Popper / Penrose "Three
> Worlds" context.
> >
> > Models exist in what Penrose refers to as the "Platonic world of
> > mathematical forms". Better models reflect both the spatio-temporal
> dynamics
> > of the context in which they exist and the mereology of
> their components -
> > meaning that often examining localized model components
> reveal little of
> the
> > nature of the system of the models.
> >
> > While I am unqualified to address art imitating life, I can
> address models
> > of life imitating life. This is where the science of
> Compositional Pattern
> > Producing Networks holds advantage over more tradition methods. In
> effect,
> > we evolve a Platonic world which discovers the mathematical forms,
> > independent of our subjective interpretation.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of phil henshaw
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:15 AM
> > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 12:37 PM
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > > >
> > > > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > > > I guess what I'm talking about is that the 'bubbles
> in our minds'
> > > > > are different from the 'bubbles in the world'...
> > > > The `bubbles in our minds' must come from the world we
> > > witness and say
> > > > something about the world that will be witnessed.
> > > > They certainly don't need to be a literal interpretation.
> > > Of course,
> > > > in social matters, there's a question of art imitating life
> > > vs. life
> > > > imitating art..
> > >
> > > [ph] A couple of the big differences are that the 'bubbles in
> > > our minds' are stitched together by personal and cultural
> > > values, and they have lots of things of the world which are
> > > continually changing represented by fixed
> > > images or definitions. The 'bubbles in the world' are
> > > organized around
> > > local physical processes, with lots of separate learning
> > > system parts, which learn by exploring pathways THEY find.
> > > The natural assumption then would be for their design to
> > > always be changing in ways we can't see at all without some
> > > hints of where to look. It's one of the deep problems of
> knowledge.
> > > Acknowledging it is mainly just a solution for denying it,
> > > but it also allows one to get a little warning about the
> > > systems of the world that are
> > > behaving independent of our models for them.
> > >
> > > Does that help?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > 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 mailing list
> > Friam at redfish.com
> >
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> >
> >
> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 28
> > *************************************
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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>