Oops. I'm sorry if I've offended you. I am contrarian and tend to seek out areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.
On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > The "as if" was the key. The "as if" alludes to the behavioral > manifestation. Yes? Yes, of course. However, this is the subject of the conversation. If we allow the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking the illusion seriously. So, by calling out the nonsensical materials surrounding the "as if", I'm trying to avoid that. > I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and "nonsense" [usually > with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies. Yes, you're right. And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean something more than it is. What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use for it. I can't formulate a use case. What I mean by "nonsense" is that it makes no sense to me. I should pepper my replies with more social salve like "to me" and "in my opinion". It's difficult, though, because that overhead interferes with the actual content. But please don't think my attribution of "useless" and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried to make use/sense of that content. My colleagues constantly mention work like that of Csikszentmihalyi and I've studied what I can to extract elements I can use, often to no avail. I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings. But it is true. I have too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains. > In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually make my > point. Thanks! Language can be a problem. Symbolic reference. Imprecision. > But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try to) understand > anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand anything you have > said in as much as I have tried. And I am not sure it is because of the > imprecision of language, though. It is something else that leads you to just > find disagreement. As often said, it is much easier to sound smart by > tearing something down than to constructively build on something. Maybe that > applies here. Not sure. Hope not. I don't intend to tear anything down and am under no illusions regarding my own lack of intelligence. I'm a solid C student and am always outmatched by my friends and colleagues. (That's from a lesson my dad taught me long ago. If you want to improve your game, choose opponents that are better than you are. So I make every attempt to hang out with people far smarter than I am. That they tolerate my idiocy is evidence of their kindness.) But the point, here, is that you offered a solution to the problem I posed. And I believe your solution to be inadequate. So, I'm simply trying to point out that it is inadequate and why/how it is inadequate. ... namely that your concept of optimal or efficient embedding in an environment is too reliant on the vague concept of mind/thought. If birdsong retains its temporal fractality despite the bird being embedded in a non-fractal environment, then we should look elsewhere ... somewhere other than the birds' minds. Vladimyr's argument posted last night may demonstrate that I'm wrong, though. I don't know, yet. -- ␦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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
