Posted by
glen ropella on
Nov 13, 2013; 2:55pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/11-American-Nations-tp7584250p7584288.html
On 11/12/2013 04:09 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I think we are about to bore the shite out of the rest of the crowd,
Heh, that ship has sailed, man. But, I'll try to keep this one short.
> I *may* choose to step over a given rock rather than
> around it or onto it, but it is likely I spied it several steps before
> that choice was required and added it's presence into some kind of
> weighted heuristic. *IF* I find myself at the rock having to decide the
> trinary, over/around/on it is likely that I had already queued up the
> most likely decision ahead of time when first I noticed it and later as
> I navigated deliberately toward (or at least not away from) it. I find
> thinking about complex problems "rationally" to be something like this
> navigation I describe.
I would only describe that (specific) type of thinking as rational if
you were able to weigh multiple paths against each other. So, to be
rational would be less about contrasting multiple instantaneous
decisions inside a path and more about weighing whole paths. If you can
only see one way in which to navigate the terrain, then I'd say you're
being irrational (or at least non-rational).
> Of course, making a *rational argument* involves
> retracing many of the steps I took while thinking my way through the
> landscape and explaining each one (in painful detail I'm sure) to anyone
> who is interested in the landscape (and will listen... e.g. isn't prone
> to TL;DR ).
That you separate doing from arguing is interesting. For me,
everything's an argument. I argue mostly with simulated opponents,
where I play the role of my adversar[y|ies] ... It's so much that way
that it's often difficult for me to identify with any one role. None of
the participants in my mental arena are really 'me', or the most 'me'.
There's a little bit of me in every one of my simulated opponents. When
it gets interesting is the ongoing competition _while_ I'm doing
something. As I'm working on, say, my buell, there's this cacophony
from the virtual peanut gallery in my head, some of them cheering when
something works well, some of them jeering when something goes wrong.
But I'll admit that reconstructing justifications for any sequence of
actions I've taken is different from actually taking them. And planning
for a sequence (or a network, if I'm planning for a team of people) of
actions is very different from actually executing a plan. So, if by
"argument", you really mean either planning or reconstructing, then I
agree. The "rational" qualifier for each (plan, do, reconstruct) has
slightly different semantics.
> Whether you agree with the
> specifics of how all that came down, I think you *might* be able to
> separate into two clusters, the intentions based on an assumed harm done
> by another which suggests a response, and the recognition than another
> is not in a good position to defend themselves and has something you
> want, suggesting some form of violence or threat of violence as a course
> of action.
OK. I confess that I do have 2 primary measures of "bad": 1) opacity -
as we've discussed and 2) asymmetry. In any asymmetric relationship,
the one(s) with the advantage has the moral responsibility to
modify/regulate their own actions so that the one(s) with the
disadvantage isn't (unwillingly) exploited or bullied. I should say
_try_ to modify/regulate... because it's a _very_ difficult thing to do,
for anyone. And if there are more than 2 parties, even perceiving 3 or
more dimensions is hard, much less measuring the amount of symmetry in
those dimensions.
As long as there's strong evidence that transparency and symmetry are
salient, the action(s) are acceptable.
> Picking on poor Barry here, ...
Sorry. I don't mean to pick on him. I actually think he's been an
excellent president, though I didn't vote for his 2nd term. He's a
useful foil.
> ... and he wasn't a whackadoodle "Maverick" so there was no contest, ...
Ugh. I sincerely wish She Who Must Not Be Named would disappear.
> I get that, but I can't separate "free will" from a sense of identity. I
> guess I've not practiced thinking enough impossible things before
> breakfast because an "I" without a free will seems... empty?
Perhaps we use different meanings of 'will'? I tend to think of it in
terms of momentum. E.g. some people have told me that I have "will
power", in that I control my diet fairly well, exercise regularly, work
consistently (even when my "office" is in a bedroom of the house), etc.
I tend to think of it in terms of habit, not "will power". I don't
really know what those people mean by "will power" when they say it. To
me, I do what I do because I establish a preferred set of behaviors
(through rational comparison/contrast) and then do them. Usually, part
of my rational comparison involves trying various behaviors out to see
if they're sustainable. If momentum develops, I maintain them for
awhile, making minor tweaks in response to micro-evolution in the
environment. Then I start the process over in response to
macro-evolution. So, the way I take what they mean is the momentum that
develops after/as I find behaviors that sustain.
Free will, on the other hand, is the wiggle, the play, the slop we all
experience while engaged in our will(s). E.g. sometimes I buy coffee
beans and grind them myself, sometimes I buy it pre-ground. Why? I
don't know... because it's random. That's an overly simplified example,
of course. There are much more pervasive restrictions and determinants
for which type of coffee I buy. But the gist is there: the freedom
being discussed in "free will" is the random wiggle inside a byzantine
complex of intertwined constraints of varying rigidity. At least,
that's my favorite alternative.
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Roll up your expectations, and feed them into my sleep
============================================================
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