[FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

David, 

Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".  

So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth   Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)

Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything beyond local truth.  

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again, to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of | pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed. 
System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the 'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail - establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance is bound to suffer.

davew 



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave sez:
> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine 
> > to "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate 
> > the behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing 
> > more than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> >
> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase 
> locking, tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems 
> to interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting 
> than more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if 
> they are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a 
> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following 
> a choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  
> And I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as 
> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units
> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of 
> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and 
> therefore only *partially* defective/faulty?
> 
> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of 
> a shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in 
> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical 
> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does 
> not mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly 
> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    
> One
> *might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic 
> dialect of "the same language", and that interaction amongst 
> individuals whose dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??
> 
> I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers" 
> and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".
> 
> This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of 
> a language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-
> A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Langua
> ge-Use-in-Swabia
> 
> - Steve
> 
> ============================================================
> 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