Adjacent possibles are neighborhoods in a comonad. On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 11:05 AM <friam-requ...@redfish.com> wrote:
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam@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-requ...@redfish.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > friam-ow...@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: excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we behave?) > (Merle Lefkoff) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 11:05:35 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we behave?) > Nick, yes, we're very worried about the new "hard border" emerging between > N. Ireland and the Republic. Another stupid consequence of Brexit. The > Good Friday Agreement has always been fragile. > > We're having a meeting soon in Santa Fe about the adjacent possible, and > attached is what Stu Kauffman and I wrote about the intention of the > meeting. I combine Western and Native science because some of our > international Indigenous network has expressed interest in being included > in the meeting. Steve Guerin can tell you more about the adjacent possible. > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:24 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> M >> >> >> >> Alright, then. What IS the adjacent possible? >> >> >> >> N >> >> >> >> PS – Given your work with the Irish Peace Process, this Dog’s Brexit t >> must be driving you nuts. Have you heard the Donald Tusk quote about “the >> special place in Hell that awaits those who floated Brexit without a trace >> of a plan” . Nothing more than that. Just that. >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Merle >> Lefkoff >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:35 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we >> behave?) >> >> >> >> N. >> >> >> >> No. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:30 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> M., >> >> >> >> Is that like “nudge”? >> >> >> >> N. >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Merle >> Lefkoff >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:04 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we >> behave?) >> >> >> >> For whatever it's worth, Nick, I'm now using this thread in the work >> we're doing on the adjacent possible. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:29 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> Steve, >> >> >> >> We were doing SO WELL until we got to … oh, see my “HORSEFEATHERS!” >> below. >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven A >> Smith >> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2019 9:39 AM >> *To:* friam@redfish.com >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] excess meaning alert? (was, Re: are we how we >> behave?) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/28/19 1:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> Steve, ‘n all, >> >> >> >> Just to be cranky, I want to remind everybody that ALL language use, >> except perhaps tautological expressions, is metaphorical. >> >> I ascribe to this idea as well, following Lakoff and Johnson in their >> 1980 _Metaphors we Live by_ . >> >> So then, the question is not, “Is this a metaphor”, but what kind of a >> metaphor is it and is it pernicious. >> >> I believe that ultimately conceptual metaphor is no more nor less than >> the intuitive application of a model, and as is often mentioned "all models >> are wrong, some are useful". You use the term pernicious which suggests >> *harmful*, I presume either intentionally so or more from sloppiness or >> ignorance. >> >> My own view is that in any “tense” conversation – one in which the >> parties feel the words really matter – it behooves a metaphor-user to >> define the limits of the metaphor. >> >> I agree that "tense" conversations are different than "casual" ones if >> that is your distinction. Unfortunately, outside of Science/Engineering >> contexts, I find that "tense" conversations are at their root political or >> at least rhetorical. One or both sides are really *serious* about being >> believed. If not believed in fact ("I believe what you just said") then >> in principle ("I believe that you believe what you just said"). >> >> I think that political/rhetorical dialog would *benefit* by careful >> disclosure of all metaphors being used, but one mode of such dialog is for >> one or both sides to attempt to interject equivocal meanings... to use a >> term (or in this case set of terms belonging to a metaphorical domain) to >> weave an *apparently* logical argument, which is only superficially logical >> but falls apart when the "correct" meaning of the term(s) are applied. >> >> So, for instance, much mischief has arisen in evolutionary biology from a >> failure of theorists to define the limits of their use of such metaphors as >> “natural selection” and “ adaptation”. When limits are defined, the >> surplus meaning of a metaphor is separated into two parts, initially, that >> which the metaphor-user embraces and that which s/he disclaims. The >> embraced part goes on to become the positive heuristic of the metaphor, the >> “wet edge” along which science develops. >> >> From this line of discussion, I take you to be on the branch of the >> fault-tree I implied above as a Scientific dialog where *both* sides of the >> discussion are honestly trying to come to mutual understanding and perhaps >> advance understanding by combining differing perspectives on the same >> phenomena. >> >> The disclaimed part, must be further divided into that which was >> legitimately [logically] disclaimed and that which was disclaimed >> fraudulently. For instance, when sociobiologists use the notion of selfish >> gene, they may legitimately disclaim the idea that genes consciously choose >> between self-regarding and other-regarding options, but they cannot >> legitimately disclaim the idea that a gene has the power to make any choice >> but the self-regarding one. >> >> When Dawkins coined "Selfish Gene", I felt that the *value* of the >> metaphor invoked was in the challenge it presents: >> >> And that idea is patently false. Genes do not make choices >> >> Patently Genes do not make choices in the sense that we usually mean >> "make choices", yet the strong implication is that the phenomena functions >> *as if* they do, in "all other ways". There may be (useful) hairsplitting >> between "all other ways" and "many other ways" which is an important aspect >> of analogical thinking. >> >> , they ARE choices and the choice is made at the level of the phenotype >> or at the level of the population, depending on how one thinks about the >> matter. So the metaphor ‘selfish gene’ is pernicious in evolutionary >> biology, because it creates confusion on the very point that it purports to >> clarify – the level at which differential replication operates to generate >> long term phenotypic change in a population. >> >> I would challenge this as I think my verbage above outlines. I do not >> believe that the metaphor *purports* to clarify what you say it does. >> >> *[NST==>* *HORSEFEATHERS!** One or two generations of sociobiologists >> were directed away from group level explanations by this pernicious >> metaphor. <==nst] * >> >> It *strives* to provide a cognitive shortcut and to establish a fairly >> strong metaphor which deserves careful dissection to understand the >> particulars of the *target domain*. An important question in the target >> domain becomes "why does the shortcut of thinking of genes as selfish >> actually have some level of accuracy as a description of the phenomena when >> in fact the mechanisms involved do not support that directly?" >> >> *[NST==>I don’t think it does. I think it’s a subtle and largely >> successful attempt to import Spenserian ideology in to evolutionary >> biology. <==nst] * >> >> For all I know, EB has entirely debunked the concept and there is NO >> utility in the idea of a "selfish gene"... >> >> Bruce Sherwood likes to make the point that the analogy of hydraulic >> systems for DC circuits is misleading. I forget the specifics of where he >> shows that the analogy breaks down, but it is well below (or above?) the >> level of "normal" DC circuit understanding and manipulation. For the >> kinds of problems I work with using DC circuits, a "battery" is a "tank of >> water at some height", the Voltage out of the battery is the water >> Pressure, the amount of Current is the Volume of water, a Diode is a >> one-way valve, a resistor is any hydraulic element which conserves water >> but reduces pressure through what is nominally friction, etc. As you >> point out, there is plenty of "excess meaning" around hydraulics as source >> domain, and "insufficient meaning" around DC circuits as target domain, and >> if one is to use the analogy effectively one must either understand those >> over/under mappings, or be operating within only the smaller apt-portion of >> the domains. For example, I don't know what the equivalent of an >> anti-hammer stub (probably a little like a capacitor in parallel?) is but >> that is no longer describing a simple DC circuit. >> >> *[NST==>I think I am back to heartily agreeing. <==nst] * >> >> A farmer buying his first tractor may try to understand it using the >> source domain of "draft animal" and can't go particularly wrong by doing >> things like "giving it a rest off and on to let it cool down", "planning to >> feed it well before expecting it to work", "putting it away, out of the >> elements when not in use", etc. your "excess meaning" would seem to be >> things like the farmer going out and trying to top off the fuel every day >> even when he was not using the tractor, or maybe taking it out for a spin >> every day to keep it exercised and accustomed to being driven. The farmer >> *might* understand "changing the oil" and "cleaning the plugs" and >> "adjusting the points" vaguely like "deworming" and "cleaning the hooves" >> but the analogy is pretty wide of the mark beyond the simple idea that >> "things need attending to". >> >> *[NST==>OoooooH. I like the above! May I plaigiarise it some day? Do >> you by any chance know Epamanondas from your childhood. Very politically >> incorrect, now, I fear, but endlessly instructive on the perils of over >> using metaphors. <==nst] * >> >> >> >> PS – Is anybody on this list (among the handful that have gotten this far >> in this post) familiar with the work of Douglas Walton? >> >> I just took a look and his work does sound interesting (and relevant). >> >> He seems perhaps to have written a lot about misunderstandings in AI >> systems … i.e., how does Siri know what we mean? >> >> By AI, it seems you mean (the subset of) Natural Language Understanding? >> >> I am also reminded by reading the Wikipedia article on his work that I >> haven't responded to Glen's question about the "theorem dependency project". >> >> I came to this work through my interest in abduction, which may be >> described as the process by which we identify (ascribe meaning to?) >> experiences. Walton seems to suggest that you-guys are way ahead of the >> rest of us on the process of meaning ascription, and we all should go to >> school with you. Please tell me where and when you offer the class. >> >> I assume the "you-guys" referred to here are the hard core CS/Modeling >> folks (e.g. Glen, Marcus, Dave, ...). I do think that the challenges of >> "explaining things to a machine" do require some rigor, as does formal >> mathematics and systems like the aforementioned "theorem dependency >> project". >> >> - Steve >> >> PS. It has been noted that my long-winded explanation of my (poorly >> adhered to) typographical conventions for around "reserved terms" and the >> like was perhaps defensive. I didn't mean to sound defensive, I just >> wanted to be more precise and complete to (possibly) reduce >> misunderstandings. I don't imagine many read the entireity of my >> missives, but as often as not, when people do read and respond, I sense >> that some of my conventions are not recognized. >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy >> emergentdiplomacy.org >> >> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >> >> merlelefk...@gmail.com <merlelef...@gmail.com> >> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >> >> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy >> emergentdiplomacy.org >> >> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >> >> merlelefk...@gmail.com <merlelef...@gmail.com> >> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >> >> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > > -- > Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. > President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy > emergentdiplomacy.org > Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA > merlelefk...@gmail.com <merlelef...@gmail.com> > mobile: (303) 859-5609 > skype: merle.lelfkoff2 > twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam@redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
