There's something nagging at me. But I can't quite figure out what it is. On
the one hand, you say "The larger culture is where these attractors ... exist."
Yet you seem to allow for (these or other) attractors to exist at a finer
layer, within you or in a very proximate locale near you with
Glen writes:
< So, to [mis]extrapolate all the way to social systems, a rally participant
may not have much choice but to feel the adrenaline rush of chanting "Lock Him
Up!". But where is the attractor in such a conception? >
Some people participate in intramural sports or sing in a choir.
That's fine. But it doesn't directly address the point. Is
experience-being-with-other-people really an "attractor" in the sense we
usually use that term? I don't think so. I think the normal (complexity
fanboi) sense of "attractor" is at least somewhat reductionist/thin/flat and
not commen
I think of the "experience being with other people" as sort of like how my
herding dog follows me from room to room. There's a knob in her head that is
set to keep a visual distance with her people. It's what she expects and it
comes from her breed. It's not the result of a dynamical syste
I don't know if this helps but these group-experiences seem to me to
have the feature of phase-lock, canalization, and entrainment.
I recently *re*watched a surreal dystopian scandinavian film "The
Bothersome Man" where the protaganist finds himself (after a
suicide/attempt) delivered to a city/j
I appreciate the point:
It's not the result of a dynamical system that occurs has occurred on the
timescale of her life.
There may be psychochemical dynamical systems inside her body involved
in maintaining "sight of you" and there likely *were* complex feedback
loops in the intentional breedin
Well, someone could suggest that the bred-in knob is the stable feature in a
larger evolutionary/ecological system in which the breed and individual
organism are finer grained components entrained by the larger dynamic. So by
slicing out the organism's timescale from the evolutionary timescale,
> There's something nagging at me.
Not surprising, this was pretty "off the cuff" but I'll try to either
defend/modify/retract as appropriate.
> But I can't quite figure out what it is. On the one hand, you say "The
> larger culture is where these attractors ... exist." Yet you seem to allo
Steve writes:
< There may be psychochemical dynamical systems inside her body involved
in maintaining "sight of you" and there likely *were* complex feedback
loops in the intentional breeding of her ancestors as well as the
natural selection environments that lead her first ancestor (w
Steve,
As a good friend, I would like to gently chide you for the implicit assumption
that a the assignment of any behavioral automism to a particular physiological
cause makes it more plausible as an automism. It is what it is however it
comes to be, isn't it? Could it not have been imprin
10 matches
Mail list logo
