MGD -- Excellent point! That evokes the Citizens United ruling and incorporation, in general. With very liberal interpretation, we can imagine these organizations, like city-nests, as our (or some subset of us) extended mind. E.g. to the extent that an entrepreneurial enterprise succeeds or fails, it's a representation of how "real" that organization is as a model of the "truth". If manufactured wants ala persuasive advertising do a good job, then they socially construct the truth and the success of that enterprise is at least positively reinforced, if not self-fulfilling. And the extent to which we can get batsh¡t minds like Trumps or ISIS' to reify themselves, we can more effectively *criticize* them than we can by flapping our gums about ideas.
NST1 -- Re: composing for Harpers or Times, it's interesting that a curated, authored artifact like that would be your intention. In a way, I think my post can be viewed as a passive aggressive attempt on my part to demonstrate *that* such narrative-supporting media are part of the problem, *not* part of the solution. At the end of a bloviating Op-Ed or long-form article, I end up in the exact state I don't want to be in, predisposed to thinking in the terms laid out by the bloviation. The wisdom that story tellers arrive at, in order to tell a *good* story, you have to pull your reader along with you. And that applies for science popularizers as well as fiction writers. Nowhere is it more obvious than math. Those theorem-proof-theorem-proof books are nothing if not "pulling you along" ... gaslighting you with every proof. Socially, the most profound effect *I* see is how technologically optimistic, libertarian, and meritocratical sci-fi fanatics are. So, no, a long-form article for this argument would be self-contradictory. NST2 -- By "validate against", I intend some cognitive dissonance. To validate means interpolate and match observations from a referent. So if I said "validate with" or "validate to", I'd be targeting that confirmation. By saying "validate against", I'm hinting at falsification and extrapolation. I want the data to falsify my model, not confirm it. But, of course, the ultimate objective is to build a model that both [inter|extra]polates in good faith. JxF (I don't know Jochen's middle name) -- Thanks for that article! On 1/5/21 9:16 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > They have to establish a bureaucracy and mechanisms for public communication, > fixed buildings for use, etc. Such people and buildings are the basis for a > target list. They can put themselves in a position to take bigger losses per > event. On 1/5/21 9:18 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I love the grandiosity of your post and will try to slog through the links so > I can fully understand it. If I were you and had had an idea as grandiose > and timely as this one, I would be trying to get it to Harpers Mag or a Times > op-ed. Mind you I wouldn't succeed and would waste a shit-load of time in > the effort. > > One teensy clarification: Can you explicate " build a logic that validates > against human reasoning " I think I am probably reading too much into > "against". On 1/5/21 10:29 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > It reminds me of the recent article from Muthukrishna about "Psychology as a > historical science" > https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/historical_psychologyv20.pdf -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
