[FRIAM] The Self Case

Fri Apr 10 14:55:52 EDT 2020

Glen,

Your last paragraph reminds of simulated annealing.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 12:44 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Glen,
>
>
>
> Good to see you again in the Zoom meeting.  Talking to people “in person”
> really does enhance understanding.  Duh!
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> I reject both your and Nick's distinctions as artificial. 8^)
>
>
>
> But then you wrote:
>
>
>
> The objection I have to catastrophizing or intolerance to ambiguity is,
> essentially, calling attention to our sticky-modes ... our inability to
> switch modes when it would be very useful to switch. I'm not trying to
> suggest that "nomothetic" knowledge is better than "idiographic" knowledge,
> only that we avoid getting stuck in either one.
>
>
>
> Am I allowed to agree with the second without agreeing to the second?  Am
> I allowed, in fact to use the success of your second argument as evidence
> AGAINST the aritificiality of the distinction?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 10:09 AM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Self Case
>
>
>
> Nick's prior introduction of the two terms (here:
> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/Good-climate-change-skeptics-td7586673i20.html#a7586710)
> is still relevant. I reject both your and Nick's distinctions as
> artificial. 8^)
>
>
>
> The deeper issue is the domain of applicability. As chaotic, fractal,
> scalable, stigmergic, markov, etc. systems seem to imply, regularity and
> historicity aren't really distinct things. What matters is whether we are
> *modal* in the formulation of our predicates. Inducing a rule when studying
> the narrative trajectory of Nick need not be any different than inducing a
> rule when studying the longitudinal trajectory of an idealized demographic.
> There's a bit of trickery when switching from temporal induction to spatial
> induction (narrative vs. population). But as the parallelism theorem
> argues, any process achievable by a bunch of independent processes can be
> simulated by a serial process. So, there *are* ways to switch modes,
> perhaps even perfectly. We see the same duality in objects vs. processes.
>
>
>
> The objection I have to catastrophizing or intolerance to ambiguity is,
> essentially, calling attention to our sticky-modes ... our inability to
> switch modes when it would be very useful to switch. I'm not trying to
> suggest that "nomothetic" knowledge is better than "idiographic" knowledge,
> only that we avoid getting stuck in either one.
>
>
>
> In fact, I've argued in some publications that qualitative observations
> naturally precede quantitative observations. And as the domain changes (in
> our simulation work, *expands*, but it applies equally to *moves*, in
> particular for parallax), what was previously quantitative can be fuzzified
> to be more qualitative and then steadily walked back to quantitative with
> the new domain. I.e. regularity derives from irregularity, nomothetic
> derives from idiographic.
>
>
>
> On 4/10/20 4:47 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> > I don't know the difference between "nomothetic" and "idiographic", but
> I am interested in the area between idiosyncratic, irregular descriptions
> and symmetric, regular theories. History is often the former, an
> idiosyncratic description of events and names specific for a certain time
> and country. Mathematics is usually the latter, because it is based on
> symmetries and precise rules to describe regularities. In the area between
> we can find phenomena like path-dependent evolution and adaptation.
>
> >
>
> > For example as Edwin Holt ("The concept of consciousness") noticed the
> concept of an environmental cross section helps to explain subjective
> consciousness which is in a sense both specific to an individual but also
> predictable if we know the exact cross section of the environment. George
> H. Mead ("Mind, Self & Society") also argues that all individual selves are
> reflections of the social process. I believe we discussed it a few years
> ago.
>
> >
>
> > In the case of Donald Trump we can also observe how subjective objects
> and objective theories overlap. There is certainly no one like Donald, and
> yet there are many people especially among managers who have a Narcissistic
> Personality Disorder as mental health professionals have warned us ("The
> dangerous case of Donald Trump"). In addition to this psychological
> interpretation Sarah Kendzior describes in her new book ("Hiding in plain
> sight") that his behavior is not uncommon for authoritarian systems.
>
>
>
> --
>
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200410/73ac5123/attachment.html>