[FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

Fri Jun 9 01:28:52 EDT 2017

I feel that I have been "there" from (near) the inception of the 
Complexity Bubble you refer to.

I'm not sure if you are mixing a metaphor here...  though it does seem 
that the source domain is the same in both metaphors:   1) A bubble like 
a housing or tulip bubble which just keeps expanding until it bursts 
from it's own unsustainable expansion; 2) A bubble like the kind that we 
put children with no immune system inside of.

I wonder if this concise paragraph you offer here isn't what you are 
mostly getting on about with circular definitions?  I DO think that 
Complexity Science (if there is such a thing in reality) has the 
properties you speak of:  "If you understand the lingo then you 
understand the questions and if you don't then you don't."

My own memory/opinion is that Complexity Science grew up out of various 
existing fields such as Nonlinear Physics and Dynamical Systems theory.  
The colloquial term "Chaos" has a fairly decent description on Wikipedia:

    *Chaos theory* is a branch of mathematics
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics> focused on the behavior
    of dynamical systems
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system> that are highly
    sensitive to initial conditions
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_conditions>. 'Chaos' is an
    interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness
    of chaotic complex systems
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_complex_system>, there are
    underlying patterns, constant feedback loops
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_loops>, repetition,
    self-similarity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity>,
    fractals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals>, self-organization
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization>, and reliance on
    programming at the initial point known as /sensitive dependence on
    initial conditions/.

I don't believe that anyone invoked the Wikipedia entry for Complex 
Systems which I find on the whole fairly reasonable:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

and

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

which seem a bit overlapping and redundant to me (In Wikipedia? Never!)

Sadly, I think an earlier quote (from Marcus) that said roughly "nobody 
understands mathematics, they just get used to it" might apply a bit to 
Complex Systems/Science.

I realize this may not be helpful, and I appreciate your frustrations.  
I also seem to remember that Owen(?) gave a pointer to Melanie 
Mitchell's "Complexity Explorer"  course on "Intro to Complexity": 
https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/74-introduction-to-complexity-spring-2017 
which I *think* can actually be taken out of sync with the group that 
started in April.

I DO think that one of the more interesting points of Complexity Science 
is to get at the basic nature of Emergence as you suggest.   Perhaps 
that is "creation itself" or at least "life itself"?

Mumble,

  - Steve

On 6/8/17 7:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I wonder the extent to which you would all agree that there is a bit 
> of a complexity bubble: i.e., if you know the lingo, then you can 
> understand the questions; if you don't know the lingo, then you can't 
> understand what complexity people are on about.  So, one kind of 
> project a group like us could work on is breaking out of the bubble. 
> That would require putting the complexity problem in a form that any 
> ordinary mortal can understand.   Here’s my attempt: I think what you 
> are up to is coming up with a general theory of creation, more general 
> even than natural selection.  You want to offer a theory that accounts 
> for the emergence of complex structures (/sensu Thompsoni/) in the 
> universe. Now that’s a program that anybody outside the bubble could 
> understand.
>
> How wrong am I about that?
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language
>
> I think you and I on the same page.  My first thought (before the 
> concept-mapping tools) was to collaboratively develop an ontology so 
> that we could all talk about the same things.  But my guess is that 
> would just cause even more hemming and hawing over terms.  Regardless 
> of tools, someone needs to run point.  If there's a lead author and 
> the other participants can "get behind" that author's objective, then 
> it would work.
>
> On 06/08/2017 03:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
> > I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, 
> but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) 
> operators clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while others 
> chatter out loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).
>
> >
>
> > I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool 
> developer on the list...  I'm blanking his name, though I know he has 
> been active off and on!  I hope he catches this and pitches in.  I 
> believe he was heading toward web-enabled, simultaneous editing 
> capabilities.   I did some tests and provided some feedback on an 
> early version a few years ago..
>
> >
>
> > My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few 
> others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really 
> adopted by myself.
>
> >
>
> > I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM 
> for the NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by 
> Tim Goldsmith (dept. Psychology) at UNM.   The presumption WAS (IS) 
> that we all have reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to 
> develop a common one, there has to be a lot of discussion and 
> negotiation.  Our example was a group of climate change scientists who 
> (un)surprisingly used identical terms in very similar contexts with 
> very different intentions and meanings in some cases.   It isn't too 
> surprising when you realize that an ocean scientist and an atmospheric 
> scientist are very interested in many of the same physical properties, 
> but with different emphasis and within different regimes.   Pressure, 
> density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear 
> meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance and 
> interaction between them has different implications for each group.
>
> >
>
> > Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran 
> out.  This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still 
> valid but without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard 
> to push such tools forward.   My part included building the equivalent 
> of what you call "mind maps" from the differing lexical elements, 
> floating in N-space and "morphing" from each individual (or 
> subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective... with the 
> intention of helping each individual or subgroup appreciate the 
> *different* perspective of the others.
>
> >
>
> > This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also 
> currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is 
> replaced by "multiple ontologies"   or in both cases, the 
> superposition of multiple lexicons/ontologies.
>
> >
>
> > I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we 
> *tried* a joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it 
> failed due to inter-laboratory politics I think.   He's an equally 
> brilliant/oblique character as you...   take that for what it is worth!
>
> >
>
> > I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you.   I think that is one of the 
> good things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' 
> feistiness!  It was also good that you could both call it for what it 
> was.  It makes me want to read Kohut... I have special reasons for 
> trying to apprehend alternate self-psychology models right now, though 
> from your's and Frank's apparent avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and 
> my immediate phonetic slip-slide to Camus, I'm a little leery.
>
> --
>
> ☣ 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/20170608/77928c42/attachment.html>