[FRIAM] are we how we behave?

[Frank Wimberly]

>Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional, unsimplifiable foam?

Yes.  With consciousness which, as far as I can tell, no one can explain.

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, 9:46 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, not so that we can "relate" or "keep the peace", but so that we know
> what problem is being solved.  In order to delegate, you have to know
> *something* about why you're delegating, right?  As Steve tried to point
> out with the "form leads/follows function" and his talk about a well-stated
> problem, in order to delegate, say, "fix my car", I have to know that the
> car is the problem.  If, for example, the real problem is that I don't know
> how to drive the car, there's nothing the mechanic will be able to do to
> "fix it" because the car's not the problem. (My mom once drove her Tbird
> until it completely ran out of oil. 8^O)
>
> So, we have to have some practical understanding of the skills needed in
> order to a) choose who to delegate to and b) to even know that delegation
> of something is needed.  Of course, if I read you empathetically, I can
> admit that a lot of rhetorical weight sits in the word "practical".  What
> does it mean to have a practical understanding of, say, welding or brain
> surgery?  But I'd counter argue that a practical understanding of welding
> can stop at, say, an inventory of the tools needed and some of the safety
> practices ... just enough to prevent your motorcycle from exploding and to
> recognize whether you're being ripped off by the welder.  That's a
> "practical" understanding of welding, to some extent.  You don't have to be
> able to weld to have a practical understanding of welding.
>
> But to be clear, that's what this thread is all about: can we (should we)
> characterize an individual by circumscribing what they do?  Is such
> circumscription even *possible*?  And to what extent do we damage their
> personhood by abstracting and idealizing away all the gory detail into some
> characteristic equation of that person? ... is a person roughly spherical
> in problem space?  Or are they a super complicated, high dimensional,
> unsimplifiable foam?
>
>
> On 3/6/19 7:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > If person with skill 1 delegates to individuals with distinct skills 2
> and 3 and person with skill 3 delegates to individuals with skills 4 and 5
> the kind of overlap of the kind you mention still can occur.     If
> developing any these skills takes decades, why is it important that
> everyone have some practical understanding of the other skills?   More
> importantly, why should we ever want to decrease the total number of
> skills?   So that we can `relate' to one another and keep the peace (be
> luddites)?
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/20190307/b4ca7743/attachment.html>