[FRIAM] “Don’t they have grandchildren?” Was: The case for universal basic income UBI

Sat May 22 20:41:28 EDT 2021

Very good Nick.

You didn't cite any evidence for the assertions in the copy of the paper
you included. What is there along those lines -- not that I'm doubting it.

Would you elaborate on the following. You said that you "understand why
organisms pay to play the game of natural selection;  what I don’t
understand is who pays for level playing field."

In what sense do organisms play to play the game of natural
selection--other than that they can't avoid it?

Why doesn't your extract already explain when organisms pay for a level
playing field?

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 2:27 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Pieter,
>
>
>
> I still like it, but it’s a bit too dawkinsian form my modern eye.   How
> one isolates benefits to collective action from any of the pleiotropic
> consequences of a “genefur”  collective action is a problem that baffles.
> I understand why organisms pay to play the game of natural selection;  what
> I don’t understand is who pays for level playing field.
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 3:20 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for
> universal basic income UBI
>
>
>
> Thanks Nick, your theory resonates with me.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 20:54, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Russ,
>
>
>
> Nothing worse than the elderly citing themselves, but what alternatives do
> I have?
>
>
>
> By the way, in this case “genetic out come” refers neither to “the genes”
> in general or to “benefits to the species” but to the specific competition
> between the “genefur” supporting collective action and the “genefur”
> individually directed action.  Thus, for the article to make sense to you,
> you already have to believe in “genesfur”.   As you know, I have worried
> with increasing frequency about the possibility of “genesfur”.  How do you
> get fur on a gene, anyway?
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 2:26 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for
> universal basic income UBI
>
>
>
> Glen is right. I was quoting McKibbon writing about Weintrobe. Of course I
> did that because I thought that see made an important point. Here's the
> extract again.
>
>
>
>  "Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and
> uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great
> literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants
> to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that
> persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make
> us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so
> that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough
> to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours
> is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.”  ...
>
>
>
>  I found this interesting because it related back to our earlier
> discussion of reciprocity. If it is in our nature to have these two warring
> parts of our psyches, there is probably no hope that the "caring part" will
> ever fully triumph over the "uncaring part" and reliably hold the uncaring
> part in check. Presumably, this has to do with evolution and the need for
> both parts for successful long-term survival of a species.
>
>
>
> If you buy that, and I think it's right, then what kind of society can be
> constructed of organisms with these two components that drive their
> behavior? That's the question we've been struggling with both in this
> discussion and over the ages. The answer presumably has to do with as much
> freedom as possible but freedom reigned in by enforced rules that prevent
> our uncaring parts from destroying that society.
>
>
>
> The neoliberalism discussion has to do with the observation that our
> society has been moving in the direction of giving the uncaring parts too
> much power.
>
>
>
> -- Russ Abbott
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 6:42 AM Pieter Steenekamp <
> pieters at randcontrols.co.za> wrote:
>
> Thank you DaveW, I support this!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 04:53, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What started the problem (at least in the West)"
>
>
>
> *"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our
> likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
> birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the
> earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
> [Christian Bible]*
>
>
>
> Potential way out:
>
>
>
> *Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing
> already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple
> assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the
> sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief,
> so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have
> done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than
> good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary
> course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were
> from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of
> mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this
> opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be
> despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested
> in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too
> far... [Sir Francis Bacon]*
>
>
>
> *davew*
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> Sorry.  I admire your memory.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Frank C. Wimberly
>
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
>
>
> 505 670-9918
>
> Santa Fe, NM
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe
> that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative.
>
>
>
> On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> > Did I already post this here?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent
> <
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent
> >
>
> > ---
>
>
>
> --
>
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210522/31ea3809/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 82568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210522/31ea3809/attachment.png>