[FRIAM] Few of you ...

[Prof David West]

Glen,

I would definitely agree that we are being pretty loose with our notion of algorithmic. But, keeping to the spirit of the discussion so far in that regard:

I would agree that teams, while practicing, are "by definition, algorithmic. But, I would contend that while playing, they are not — particularly so when they are "in the zone." I would say the same thing about standout players, those capable of more than mere supporting roles, e.g. Michael Jordan.

An enlightened Taoist (Ch'an / Zen Buddhist) and Michael Jordan "in the zone" are, I believe, acting algorithmically, even in a strict definition of the term, but the algorithm is incredibly complex — all relevant variables and relationships among them — and "solved" in near zero time.

I see another aspect within your Taoism comment, captured in the Koan:

"What is it like to live as an Enlightened One?"

"When I am hungry, I eat; thirsty, I drink; sleepy, I sleep."

davew


On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 10:22 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Heh, all of this begs for a definition of "algorithmic".  I sincerely 
> doubt Nick was using it in the sense of a fully definite process that is 
> guaranteed to halt.  So, there's something else, there, something 
> significantly *softer* ... more vague ... ill-defined.  It's almost as 
> if Nick (or Wouk via Nick) thinks rigorous social rules violate the soul 
> or denigrate the individual mind in favor of the biofilm (that we 
> actually are).
> 
> It brings Taoism to my ignorant mind.  It seems the fully enlightened 
> individual is perfectly free if and only if they fully engage in their 
> algorithmic behavior.
> 
> On 1/15/19 9:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > Computers, computing, software: all are algorithmic, creating an
> > "algorithmic context" (Navy) within which human users (Sailors) are
> > constrained to act.
> > Like human sailors in the Navy, human users acting in this algorithmic
> > context can only go wrong if they attempt to utilize their "native
> > intelligence."
> > Moreover, this state of affairs is pretty much intentional (albeit
> > sometimes below the threshold of awareness). In the algorithmic world,
> > humans are nothing except sources of error. Even those developing the
> > software are assumed to be (the vast majority anyway) incompetent and
> > must be constrained by rigid and detailed methodology.
> > SkyNet has won and we are but its minions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> 
> ============================================================
> 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