[FRIAM] loopiness (again)

[glen ☣]

On 02/07/2017 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I meant on the left.   Progressives wanted a progress story rather than attending to the danger of regression.   Result, bad turnout.  Bernie or bust, etc.

Ah, OK.

> On the main topic, it seems to me that if we view individuals as bit strings (e.g. control programs + individual and cultural data), then it is easy to see that a composition function of two bit strings yielding the same length bit string will have less information than a function that, say, appends the bit strings.    On the other hand if each bit string carries none of the content of the neighbors in the community, then the combined function will be fragile to failures of either individual.    And either individual will need some shared bits just to coordinate their union -- to show up at the church at the same time and hand out duties, say.

Yes, but the problem with that example lies in the assumption of a distinction between reflective (loopy) referents of parts of the bit strings.  Yes, if individuals were flat/thin, then relatively simple operations like union or intersection would speak to both shared understanding and shared action.  But individuals, by virtue of their loopiness, are deep/thick, loops within loops.  And that loopiness doesn't stop at one's skin via extended phenotype (technology, language, etc.).

This is one of the fundamental criticisms of the concept of memes.  "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists."  There are no shared ideas; no shared understanding.  There is only shared action, mediated by some medium, which is why Steve's broaching of the commons is important.

-- 
☣ glen