I think your (and Dave's and Pieter's) conceptions are too limited, too local. I don't know what explicit 3 types of reciprocity Dave might register. But I guess my thinking is polluted by generic influence, up- and down-regulation, correlative and causative. The structure of the network matters, but can't be definite [⛧] or fixed. Part of what (I think) Dave is arguing for is openness, where the agents are bathed in a complex of fields. Hardening/identifying/fixating-on a given *network* is already an abstraction too far.
If we view it that way, the shaman might flow in and out of unity. She might play the role of "hub" -- well connected node in the network -- one day; then her skin/boundary dissolves to play a more holistic role the next day. Any other role played by any other member of the tribe may do the same. Alice, the expert tanner, as an agent, gives instruction to a budding tanner one day. Then the next day she dissolves to be a canonical embodiment of all tanners. The "network" is a discretized structure that evokes much of the hyper-reductionism exhibited in transactional markets. And that makes it inappropriate for some things, including paying it forward to Renee's kids. It's important to know that by taking Renee' to Mother's Day supper was *not* a gift to Renee'. It was a gift to Renee's *kids*, because they are unable to fulfill their obligations *today*. A temporal delay (maybe as hinted in the challenge to the no-arbitrage assumption) is crucial to the persistence of the mesh of reciprocity. It's almost like I'm looking for a way to "collapse" the fields into a locally definite network *as* our lens moves around in the bath ... like while you're not looking at the other parts of the "network", it dissolves into goo. But when your focus is on some region of the goo, it registers into a network. Capitalists are predators, with their eyes close together, able to tighten up the lens and *harden* the goo with severe and antisceptic focus on "That's what I WANT!!!" Perhaps post-capitalists will be less like pure predators and more modal, able to cooperate and compete dynamically. [⛧] That definite/bound is fundamental to so many conceptions of computation argues for Dave's otherwise stated complaints about science being too myopic to capture so many other types of knowledge. On 5/11/21 2:55 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > By taking Renee to dinner for Mother's Day, he not only acts as a proxy for > her own children in some sense, I would like to believe he did it *because* > Renee's motherhood has already been her gift to him... whatever benefits he > gets from a step-role, from Renee being a better partner having raised > children, etc. and that dinner is to honor and reciprocate for something he > has *already received* from her (see 1 above, "gratitude"). > > The spectral graph and circuit analysis Jon points to may well be > useful/important for measurement/analysis of how well a system is working. > Ideally the implementation is entirely local in the sense of agents on > networks of transactions. -- ↙↙↙ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
