Glen writes: < Does the state-hiding machine present a more expressive problem solver than would otherwise be achievable without hiding state? And is that extra expressibility necessary (or more convenient/efficient) than with an in principle equivalent flattened (set of) machine(s)? >
Yes, modularity in computer software is one example that comes to mind. When all the world is expressed in readable, or especially writable global variables, it is very difficult to build a reliable system, because programmers will inevitably misunderstand when/what/how/why they can touch something. Similarly, it is simply too difficult to understand another person to reliably anticipate all their needs and help them. Some of their needs are inherently private and they must learn ways to maintain themselves. Another example that comes to mind are metapopulations. The spatial separation of groups allow for the local adaptation to different environments and innovation in those environments. The spatial separation ensures that if there is an environmental crisis, the species won't go extinct. Musk's slogan for going for Mars, for example. If we are all entangled into one emotional stew, there better be isolated airlocks to jettison parts of the superorganism if a part has a massive malfunction or infection. Marcus ________________________________ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <geprope...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 9:34 AM To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality Well, this reminds me of hidden state machines and the law of requisite variety. If we're trying to explain why humans have persnickety preferences, including state-hiding tendencies like focusing on emotion vs brute fact, rather than argue for a flattening of the collective human/biological machine(s), we should look at both the machine(s) and the environment(s) in which they're grown. Does the state-hiding machine present a more expressive problem solver than would otherwise be achievable without hiding state? And is that extra expressibility necessary (or more convenient/efficient) than with an in principle equivalent flattened (set of) machine(s)? I'm then reminded of demonstrations (?) that zero determinant game strats, while able to dominate in ideal contexts, don't do so well in evolutionary contexts. So, perhaps the answer to these questions is simply "No" ... that the hidden state doesn't provide any extra problem solving ability and the tendency to (or advocacy of) avoid the flattening is an operable sign of bad faith? Or, in the lingo of the laity, curmudgeons are a justified cost because they more quickly indicate the bad actors. Get off my lawn! And if the answer is "No", how do we explain the existence of this "cognitive ease", this tendency to rely on stereotypes and historicity-reinforced signs (perhaps now having lost/changed their referents)? On 1/13/22 16:48, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Anyway, the reason I noticed this article is that I posit that the steely > harm reduction approach that was discussed recently is in my mind a form of > stoicism. Can one put away their emotional responses and make hard choices > based on the greater global good? If one engages in large intimate social > networks, I would say two things are likely to happen: 1) executive > decisions become harder because there is diffusion of sensitive information, > and thus political complications in making them. Members in the network may > not be sharing the whole factual context (preferring the emotionally laden > parts) 2) there are still dominance relations (her language), but they are > just manifest in different ways. Namely by being in the center of a social > network and slightly censoring the information that gets passed along. > > As it relates to the subject line, there may be some weak tendency one has to > share or not share by default depending on hormones/genetics. > ________________________________ > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels > <mar...@snoutfarm.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:12 PM > To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality > > < So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to > detect and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad > faith actor doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In > fact, it's a more canonical case of bad faith if the actor has simply > habituated to it. > > > A contrast she draws is between petulant vulnerability and "real" > vulnerability. That it is "scary" and "any less necessary, for men". > There's another option which is not to use "the language of vulnerability as > a cudgel", but also not engage "the human condition of reliance on others." > She is expressing an expectation for high intimacy, and it is implicit that > there is something wrong with keeping your distance. I've seen this false > choice portrayed by other so-called feminists. I don't buy it. > > Marcus > ________________________________ > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen > <geprope...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:55 PM > To: friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality > > What's interesting about that essay is its appeal to character or "virtue > ethics", I think. I've tried to address this a few times in past threads, > especially when concepts like "bad faith" arise. Rittenhouse' crying looked > precisely like bad faith to me. I get accused of it a lot because I enjoy > playing roles and believe playing roles (like Devil's Advocate) facilitates > healthy reasoning. (E.g. EricC's accusation of illiberalism on my part when > condemning the anti-masker's punching of the doctor.) > > So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to > detect and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad > faith actor doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In > fact, it's a more canonical case of bad faith if the actor has simply > habituated to it. Rittenhouse's crying on the stand and Kavanaugh's crying in > his confirmation hearings both seem to me to be statements about their > *character*. That means whatever ways we have/develop to detect bad faith can > be made reflective ... kinda like the Reddit forum "Am I the Asshole?" 8^D > > I doubt one's oxytocin-laced skepticism over such acting is completely > arbitrary ... or even a preference at all. > > On 1/13/22 14:33, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Well, now that I've taken one extreme position, let me take the other >> extreme position! This essay reflects, IMO, an arbitrary preference for >> social affinities of a certain sort, and it is only one sort of valid class >> of relationships. Relationships that have benefits, but also costs. It's >> not just overbearing on how men should be, but also on how women should be. >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html -- glen Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
