[FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

[glen ☣]

Right.  My only point was to distinguish the two procedures for examining a thing, because one's choice of procedure can bias one's results. (obviously)  With EricS' very detailed throwdown in favor of hierarchical accumulation AND Russ' chosen _target_ of urban systems, I think it's critical that we choose analysis procedures that are as agnostic as possible.

We've now discussed cognitive biases toward _direction_ (up vs. down) and continuity (or population density - laminar flow - AND space vs. graph) ... even if it has taken us days and billions of emails.  Are there other biases we could eliminate?  I like, but reject, Roger's assertion that "[deep neural nets] don't care about no stinking layers".  As with using polar coordinates on an onion (or monotonic "time" in Diffusion Limited Aggregation), deep learning requires at least a sequencing of (distinct) procedures.  So, it does require layers in very much the same sense as a DLA.  On the other hand, I like considering deep learning as a thing to be analyzed, because it does allow cycles of a kind.

And again, I'm not proposing any of these _things_ are analogs/metaphors targeting "complex systems".  I'm only trying to argue for agnostic analysis tools.

TANSTAAFL!


On 06/12/2017 12:45 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> At the risk of another discursion:
> 
> I think I just realized what I've been (almost) seeing of value in all this back and forth:
> 
> 1. I (and Nick) heard Glen's invocation of the Onion as an attempt to
>    explicate a useful difference between levels and layers in the
>    understanding of Complexity Babble (Talk/Science/Math/???).  I think
>    he meant only to try to distinguish the two from one another and
>    explicate their differences irrespective of the near dead horse we
>    were working over at the time.  I think this might be the totality
>    of the misunderstanding.
> 2. I'm always looking for form/function dualities.  In the onion, the
>    form (layers) follows a certain functional/behavioural path
>    (cyclical growth).   I don't even know how to find "levels" in the a
>    *hierarchical* sense or otherwise in an onion... maybe if we look at
>    the cross section (as Glen suggested) and see *strata* (from the
>    source (domain) of geological deposition and erosive or shearing
>    exposure?) and then consider drilling a mine shaft into said strata
>    which is more suggestive of the term "levels"?

-- 
☣ glen