[FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

Hi Vladimyr,

Nice to chat with you on the glen-channel. :-)  I guess I came late to the
chat without fully understanding the how it was vectored.  It happens ...
age ...

Wrt conflating the two models of "being in the groove," y' all seem to be
focused on the, perhaps, unintentional fusing of the real with the symbols
we assign to the real for analysis or other purposes.  This issue works on
many levels.  Csikszentmihalyi discusses this "being in the zone" in a
positive way where creativity happens and what is really lost is our sense
of self in the process.  Whitehead writes about this as a continuous
process change that largely is motivated by "feeling."  But there is
another side that you and Glen seem to be discussing that presents a more
destructive side, where one loses the understanding that the
representational is not the represented. We give too much meaning to the
symbols such that they migrate from epistemological to ontological.  The
question becomes are the symbols real?  So this is more one of delusion.
Okay ... I think I am "in the groove" now. :-)

You draw an interesting distinction between war-oriented computer games and
real war engagements.  The distinction, however, seems to be fading away in
the drone-engagement wars.  The representational becomes the grounded
reality.  An emulation and not a simulation.  One of the combatants--the
targeted--are but mere symbols, like on a heads-up display in a military
fighter plane or just images on a computer monitor. Empire can go to war
without actually going to war ... at least not until you have to own and
occupy what Empire has destroyed: the livelihoods of the newly-minted
refugees and the newly-minted enemies.  Killing becomes painless and
remorseless and danger-free.  It becomes like a war-oriented computer game
in that no one is shooting back at the guy who is pulling the trigger or at
the "joy" stick.

For a time, I used to build educating simulators for propositional war
games that were used tactically in the field and strategically in a
so-called war college. But these were still the kind where the assets and
weapons were symbolic and just representational of possible eventualities.
The goal was war training with only cyber-oriented risk ... kind of like a
flight simulator.  But now, these simulators seem to have been weaponized
and the risk all but eliminated.

When you finally remove all the meaning from the math notation and just
> manipulate the markings, it can be very hypnotic.


Yes. For the triggermen, the process is kind of like the one Glen describes
where the symbols have become ungrounded, valueless, meaningless. But, in
reality, the "game" is no longer a simulation (a model) but an emulation (a
surrogate for something real) operating in real time. And, for the targets,
the process is the opposite of the one Glen describes where the symbols are
very much grounded. Is the corollary that the triggermen are Platonists and
the targeted combatants are Constructivists?

Most of my time working under the rubric of systems engineering, though,
was in building simulators for decision support.  This I much preferred.
This seemed more constructive than destructive or combative, even if still
only a simulator. But are we deluded to believe these models, or any model,
to be reasonable facsimiles of the modeled, at least in the context of its
range of applicability? Is *face validity* enough?  I mentioned some issues
concerning this in the previous post.

With the FEM and CAD background, I suspect you were or are a structural
engineer by profession.  In fact, educationally, FEM is being used to
analyze Minecraft structural models.  But, these FEM models--like with,
say, NASTRAN--are quite accurate at predicting the behavior of mechanical
or structural devices under the expected stresses.  We could predict where
they would break.  Had to be accurate to have any value.

So I guess the point of all of this is that there is quite a spectrum of
simulators to consider. In turn, there is a spectrum of the strength of
binding between the representational and the speculative or represented.
Analytical simulators are of no value if they are not believable, which
comes about through the rigor of verification and validation.

On the other hand, computer games are inherently unbelievable as they are
just for entertainment. But, I have known some folks who get totally lost
in cult-like internet games like Dungeons and Dragons, which is what ...
forty-years old now?  Yeah, this is loopiness and possibly dangerously
tautological. But delusions can be fun. An escape to an alternate reality.
Good that Frank limits this to an hour/day for his grandson. :-)

As for being in the zone socially, I disagree, though I don't particularly
> care about any jargonal co-option of the term.  During hearty arguments,
> mostly with religious people, I definitely lose myself in exactly the same
> way I lose myself after that 3rd mile when running.  I have no illusions
> that my zone is in any way shared by the people I'm arguing with, though
> ... no more than I think you and I share internal constructs mediated by
> the word "blue"


To be clear, Glen, I was referring to a society being "in the zone" as a
whole. Maybe this could mean an alignment of symbolic references.  Not
sure, but, like you, somewhat dubious that this could happen. Within my
philosophy group, we have discussed the idea of *conscious
evolution*--becoming,
say, wiser, by being "in the zone" so to speak--*with respect to the
individua*l.  And I do see this as kind of a Csikszentmihalyi-est "being in
the zone," a period of selfless awareness of a task or challenge. It's a
neurological phenomenon. The objective is to make the period last as long
as possible. Society is not very good at being selfless, even for a moment.

Perhaps with the assistance of Hebbian learning, say, over time this is
possible for individuals who work at it to remain in this state longer than
is typical.  It becomes a skill or practice.  But bubbling this up to the
level of a society does not seem possible.  Religion hasn't and won't do it
because that's a model that requires blind credulity to the provided
surreal symbols.  Even in the context of Hebbian learning, where are the
"societal neurons" that need to be rewired from their inculcated states?
They tend to be imbued in the laws and in the prevailing morality memes.
But these are just things to be gamed to ensure a *face validity* with our
self-full life simulations.

The key component to any smart system is feedback.  But, we live in a
society that is running open loop.  Another form of loopiness or delusion,
I guess ... believing that everything will work out in the long run.  We
are exceptional. We have democratic elections ... Hmmm,  I think the
awakening is happening.  Maybe there is hope?  Is that a drone I hear above
... Oh, it's just an Amazone delivery ... or is it?  :-)

Cheers


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky <vburach at shaw.ca>
wrote:

> Thanks for the structure of thought .
>
>
>
> So am I an Iconoclast because I am all too aware of the misuse of Icons (
> simulations). I taught FEM and CAD and
>
> saw puzzlement on the, soon to be, engineers faces. I have watched
> engineers sneak out of the lecture hall when I started showing slides of
>
> summation of stacked matrices flying across the screen.
>
>
>
> So this alludes to a possible intrinsic Tautology or Loopiness in our
> brains. The representation is conflated with the speculative but unknown
> reality (since it is never completely understood anyway) Switching from one
> state to the other might be called metaphysical thinking. A wonderful
> source of confusion.
>
> Being totally immersed in a computer game might be said to be in the
> groove but when one man fights another and we call that being in the groove
> then are we conflating two models. If one is slaughtering the enemies on a
> game platform one can say he is free of ethics or morality. When Bruce Lee
> does the same on film
>
> many thought it real. but those who actually fought in life knew it was BS
> on  constrained/elevated ropes.
>
>
>
> If the  mirror neurons discussed at length do as described then they must
> occupy configurations near identical to neurons trained by self discovery
> (learning)
>
> Then actual differentiation would seem very difficult.
>
>
>
> I have a daughter  formally trained as a M.Sc. BioMedical Artist and we
> used to argue about symbolic thinking , she pro and I con. But the
> strangest part is that I am also or was considered a fair artist and
> illustrator for a time. Indeed I use symbols very well but mistrust others
> with lesser skill. Yet the most skillful are the most dangerous at least in
> engineering. She would regularly remark that I sketched in perspective
> complex machinery that did not yet exist and then built the working
> prototypes. Nothing elegant but functional. She claimed only to draw what
> already  really existed dead or alive, I always thought those arguments
> were small expeditions into some form of knowledge about human thinking.
> She thought otherwise unfortunately, but I have never had the fortune to
> meet another with her combination of talents.  Somewhere in this
> quasi-church may be others lurking in the shadows.
>
>
>
> I admit to being a rather visual thinker so data visualization is my hobby
> now. And understanding Normal People, since they are so many...
>
> Perhaps this is not exactly the correct thread but miss the song of larks
> on the prairie fields. A few notes brings back so many memories and the
> smells
>
> of clover and honey.
>
> vib
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* February-21-17 2:46 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
>
>
>
> Hi Glen,
>
>
>
> What you describe as *flow* or being *in the zone* has been precisely
> written
> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W94FE6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1>
> and talked
> <https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow#t-396713>
> about by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi as the Optimal Experience.  No one will
> experience this quite the same way, as the flow experience requires
> both skill and challenge in an area where flow will occur. By his own
> statements, Einstein is said to have been in flow when he synthesized the
> concept of General and Special Relativity. At the time he was arguably very
> skilled in math and physics and, of course, very challenged.
>
>
>
> However, I prefer Alfred North Whitehead's (et al.) concept that we are
> all always in *flow*. We just don't alway realize it. In his *Process
> Philosophy*, as conveyed  in his *Process and Reality*, he writes about
> the two modes of perceptual experience: (1) *Presentational Immediacy*
> [the bits of data that get presented to us through our senses--or
> imagination] and (2) *Causal Efficacy* [the conditioning of the present
> by the past]. Curiously, Csikszentmihalyi says that we can only process
> data from our senses at a rate of 110 bit/sec.  Reading this post likely
> will chew up 60 bits/sec. of that bandwidth. [image: 😴]
>
>
>
> Why I bring this up at all is that Whitehead thinks that what integrates
> these two modes into the whole of what we perceive is *Symbolic Reference*.
> Symbolic reference is kind of like how we tag bits of our real-world
> immersion for building a largely symbolic but sustainable--for us
> individually--worldview. Most time these symbolic references are provided
> to us--inculcated--by others like with a religion or by our parents.  Most
> are satisfied with that. In your friend's case, I believe it is possible
> that y' all were unsettling--challenging--his worldview ... or, he
> challenging yours.
>
>
>
> Flow is not likely to be aroused in a social context. It is an inner state
> ... what the Greeks and Csikszentmihalyi would say is the entering into
> an alternate reality devoid of our sense of self.  Your existence melts
> away in such a state. So our symbols get challenged or, perhaps, disappear
> as well. French social philosophers Jean Baudrillard and Gilles Deleuze
> also talk about symbolism, but it was at a social level.  As far as I am
> concerned, Flow can't be achieved at the level of society ... but, boy I
> wish that that were not so.  Csikszentmihalyi talks about the opposite of
> Flow that occurs on a social level that often occurs when society has been
> thrown into a chaos as with war or Trumpism. [image: 🤔]
>
>
>
> Is mathematics invented or discovered?  This is a perennial topic that
> arises within my philosophy group.  It never really gets resolved, but how
> could it be?   It is the ultimate of symbolic reference systems because of
> its precision in predicting the way the world manifests itself to our
> perception. This is not so true of our other symbols or abstractions. So
> are they any different?  In a way, they are because mathematical symbols
> form from an axiom-driven language. But, notwithstanding Jerry Fodor's
> "built-in" syntactic language of thought, languages are human inventions
> based on metaphors [if you like George Lakoff].  Languages work among
> cultures because they are more or less conventional (acceptable) to a
> culture.  The fact that they can be translated into other languages is
> because we are all immersed in the same reality. In this way, I tend to
> think of mathematics as invented. If you are a Platonist--a worldview--you
> will likely disagree.
>
>
>
> As I often do, I  kind of resonate with Vladimyr's thought, which you
> included in your post. It is very Csikszentmihalyi-est. I do think that
> simulations can lure us into thinking that they are an exact dynamic
> facsimile of the reality which they try to abstract into an analytical
> model.  There are all kinds of things about simulations that can lead us
> astray. Fidelity is one thing, obviously.  But, I think that the worst
> thing--and this is often the fate of a simulator because of time and
> funding--is when they get so complicated that no one understands the
> process for how the results were computed.  This--like with many neural
> networks--is when the simulator just become an Oracle.  This is kind of
> what happened with Henry Markam's Blue Brain Project
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-human-brain-project-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it/>,
> building a simulation of something for which they didn't know the first
> principles.  I think also this is what John Horgan wrote about concerning
> what was going on at the Santa Fe Institute in his *SA* article From
> Complexity to Perplexity
> <http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/hogan.complexperplex.htm>.
>
>
>
> But, as Vladimyr muses, maybe this is the best we can do ... and symbolic
> reference is what nature served up for us to cope, concerning what we are
> perceiving.  But, as with all smart systems, a smart entity will always try
> to challenge and refine those symbols with continuous feedback--FLOW.
> However, in the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if
> mathematics was invented or discovered. I mean, where did the concept of a
> hammer come from? [image: 🤔]
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, glen [image: ☣] <gepropella at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> There's no doubt that there's some kernel of truth to the concept of
> "flow" or "in the zone".  I always make the mistake of thinking others have
> had similar experiences to mine.  But at our journal club a few weeks ago,
> while discussing whether math is invented or discovered, one guy kept
> conflating mathematical symbols with their semantic grounding.  A couple of
> us kept trying to make the point that after you've abstracted all the
> symbols away from their grounding, so that you're just manipulating the
> symbols, you get into the state where you start to think of the math,
> itself, as having an ontological existence.  You're "in the zone", so to
> speak, where the math becomes real as opposed to a proxy for the real.
> That the other guy couldn't grok it could be a sign that he's never entered
> that zone, hamstrung by his grounding to physical reality.
>
> Or, he could have simply felt defensive because he thought we kept
> attacking him ... you never know how some people interpret the milieu.
>
> On 02/20/2017 10:44 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
> > Some music allows some people to focus longer. Maybe Taser jolts work
> for others. The simulation lures us into fantasy lands. Which I kinda like
> sometimes.
> > Time links these sims of mine but temporality is a coincidence not a
> true cause and we don't live long enough to test every contingency, so we
> make do with delusions. There seems no path out of this box. The box just
> grows with us.
> > vib
> >
> > So why did evolution place so much emphasis on time...
>
> --
> [image: ☣] glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170222/664a761c/attachment-0002.html>