Posted by
glen ropella on
Nov 12, 2013; 1:00am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/11-American-Nations-tp7584250p7584283.html
On 11/11/2013 11:05 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> If we truly understand the complex dynamic of the social system we are
> embedded in (and in this case, shaped by) then we might have a chance of
> exercising some of our free will in an enlightened self-interest
> manner. What I'm espousing is an attempt to understand (be enlightened)
> about our own nature (to the extent it was determined by our origins)
> and to exercise whatever free will we have to A) improve our own lot
> within the context of the system(s) we are embedded in, and B) to groom
> (change our behaviour/trajectory in the system in a way that predictably
> changes the whole system) those systems in a way that we believe suits
> our self-interest.
Right. I wasn't arguing with any of that. 8^) I was _agreeing_ with
your statement:
On 11/10/2013 08:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote:> StephT -
> We are not who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad.
I just threw it in a combative curve. The thing I disagree with is the
idea that any _actionable_ objective toward self-interest will be too
myopic in one form or another. The accretion of the system happens in
such a way, over various scales in space and time, and over various "we"
comprehensions, that objectives can't be sliced out. Any
less-than-10-millenia historical account of what _is_ will be flawed,
perhaps fatally so, and any objective that fails to account for enough
side effects and unintended consequences will result in "something to be
ashamed of".
Of course, it can all be summed up as "The road to hell is paved with
good intentions." In that regard, what achievements can we be proud of?
My guess is that every answer we might offer to that question has a
dark side to it. At the end of the day, it's easy to see why whole
swaths of people might fall for "positive psychology". At some point,
you gotta just quit worrying about what might happen and make some
change just for the sake of change.
And if we do that, how much hand-wringing is enough to argue that the
changer is responsible in their actions? E.g. is ObamaCare a
responsible piece of legislation? Or is it a bad compromise that puts
us further in the hole? Did our for-hire-hand-wringers (aka
Congress-lawyers) do enough worrying?
> Hysteresis itself does not admit free-will, and stigmergy, a bit more
> refined, the feedback system being mediated by "symbols" of sorts is a
> step closer. While neither model free will, it does seem that
> self-aware agency within a system allows for free will to be part of the
> dynamic. You might have a better way of saying this (or denying it)?
Well, I've argued my case before. Free will is a generative random
twitch. Any apparent purpose, color, or bias that results is purely a
function of the constraints in which that twitch takes place. This is
why stigmergy and hysteretic are better words than emergence. We each
spastically flop around, banging against the structures in our
environment (including other spastic floppers). If you start with too
few constraints, your produce is random. If you start with too tight a
set of constraints, your produce is nil.
> You found the embedding of Texas too difficult to change or endure so
> you kicked a few of your jets in a way that threw you out of it's orbit
> and into another orbit...
Well, I didn't leave because of my beef with the people, institutions,
or government. I left because I got a good job offer ... and I was
piqued by the idea of living at 7k feet. I did press my employer at the
time to give me a budget to play with (like they had at the New York
office). My bosses didn't even respond to my request. ;-) So, I left.
But I can say that the people, institutions, and government will help
keep me from moving back to Texas. Now that my mom's moving to
Colorado, I have even less reason to consider it. I'm now thinking
Boulder, CO might be a cool place to live for awhile.
> I think you can see the difference between a healthy member of a healthy
> group and a "spoiled and usurious" parasite living on a stew of
> resources taken thoughtlessly from "the commons" by pirates supported by
> whatever it is said "parasites" can offer them (votes, deference, $$?).
Maybe. It sounds a bit like the definitions for porn and life... can't
define it but know it when you see it? If that's the case, then I think
it's _begging_ for some reductionist analysis. I hear a lot of "kids
these days". And there's plenty of eschatological doomsaying on both
the left and the right (though in the modern conception, we end up with
some fantastic, well-toned, with good skin and straight teeth, zombie
killers).
Although I don't buy into the Singularity, I do wish there were more
people arguing "It's OK, just go with it, be creative, we'll find
solutions as we go along." You can't be rational without a ratio.
> But in the first world, it is latent (or not) hoarding IMO.
I agree. The real trick is that those of us who live with the "wolf at
the door", with a lean supply network, are _shamed_ into hoarding. If
you don't hoard, you are considered immature or irresponsible ... unless
you're lucky enough to die on time. ;-)
--
⇒⇐ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com