<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Frank, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I can’t get in to see that paper! Did you? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Nick <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Nicholas S. Thompson<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Clark University<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Friam [mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Frank Wimberly<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 07, 2019 8:02 AM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>For a classic example of layers or levels and their interactions see<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Hearsay-I-Speech-Understanding-System%3A-An-of-Reddy-Erman/04ffb20cbfa502d3d2611dcfe027cfa94b45a629">https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Hearsay-I-Speech-Understanding-System%3A-An-of-Reddy-Erman/04ffb20cbfa502d3d2611dcfe027cfa94b45a629</a><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>-----------------------------------<br>Frank Wimberly<br><br>My memoir:<br><a href="https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly">https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly</a><br><br>My scientific publications:<br><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2</a><br><br>Phone (505) 670-9918<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 7:02 AM <span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>∄</span> uǝʃƃ <<a href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com">gepropella@gmail.com</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>OK. I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard. But if what you say, here, can imply that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of organization, then perhaps that's progress.<br><br>Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell, molecule set. The reason I suggested you replace your "higher level" hierarchy with words describing a heterarchy, is because we (none of us) can pinpoint the tissue organizing logic [†]. While it's a useful fiction to suggest that tissue is cells organized at a higher level, we can *just as well* say tissue is organized by cellular behavior collectively.<br><br>So, in one hierarchy, we have {tissue <- cell <- molecules}. But in another hierarchy, we have {cell <- tissue, cell <- molecules}. If you set your email client to monospace:<br><br> tissue<br> |<br> cells<br> |<br> molecules<br><br>versus:<br><br> cells<br> | |<br>tissue molecules<br><br>One of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be organized in multiple ways. So, again, I apologize if my attempts are irritating. But it *really* would help dorks like me parse what you're saying if you used words that allowed for more complete statements. I've tried to suggest "layer" and "order" as a replacement for "level". Some suggestions for replacing your statement about motives might be:<br><br> Motives ARE behaviors, just dynamically mixed by the organism.<br> Motives ARE behaviors, just organized to cohere.<br> Motives ARE behaviors, just a heterarchy re-organizable to approach a goal.<br><br>I'd claim that each of those is more accurate and complete than "organized at a higher level". To boot, they give your audience a much *better* hint at your "if you stand next to me, you will see what I see." That's because each one of my rewordings directly implies an organizing agency. Your "organized at a higher level" can be taken to be an ontological assertion ... that this hierarchy is ensconced in the universe and would be a feature of, say, silicon based life on Alpha Centauri.<br><br>All it takes is to stop relying on this higher- and lower-level fiction.<br><br><br>[†] Is it in the cells? Is it in the genes? Is it an attractor that might obtain even if the cells were zero-intelligence agents? I would argue that "it" is distributed across the whole set of components and relations ... further arguing that it's a heterarchy. But all we need to do for this discussion is admit that we don't really know and use words that give a more complete indication *that* we don't really know and need to study it further.<br><br><br>On 1/6/19 4:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:<br>> In the first instance, to a pragmatist, any statement that X is Thus, is<br>> incomplete. So that statement, X is hierarchically organized, is just an<br>> incomplete statement. So an argument about whether anything IS JUST<br>> hierarchically organized is a silly argument. What is not a silly argument<br>> is that X is hierarchically organized for some purpose of from point of<br>> view, P. So all attributions are three0valued, sign, object, interpretant.<br>> Is this relativism? No, not in the ordinary sense. Because the pragmatist<br>> asserts that if you stand next to me, you will see what I see. Or, to put<br>> it less metaphorically, if you do the experiment you will get the result.<br>> So, if you take Eric or I to be saying that anything is one hundred present<br>> hierarchically organized all the time and in all respects, you take us<br>> wrong. <br><br>-- <br><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'>∄</span> uǝʃƃ<br><br>============================================================<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br>to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br>FRIAM-COMIC</a> <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>