[FRIAM] Eternal questions

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Very nice! What I keep *wanting* to hear from Nick or EricC is a mechanism by which very tiny, very fast processes inside the body interact with very tiny, very fast processes outside the body. I.e. a demonstration (or simply rhetoric) of membrane openness (permeability, lack of closure). I.e. not all tiny/fast processes are bundled up into larger/slower processes at the interface between inside and outside.

If they made that (inherently compositional) argument, then ... then then then, we could talk about a taxonomy of process from tiny/fast to huge/slow, across spatiotemporal and functional scales. And with such a taxonomy, we could talk about which ones facilitate the Markovian processes EricS mentioned, required to successfully challenge "the hard problem" from a behaviorist perspective.


On 8/26/21 8:05 AM, Curt McNamara wrote:
> Bucky Fuller on apprehension / comprehension of systems:
> http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f0901.html <http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f0901.html>
> 
> We ignore larger / slower frequencies. We also ignore smaller / faster frequencies.
> http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p0600.html#509.01 <http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p0600.html#509.01>
> 
>            Curt
> 
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:55 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits. To say we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by which parts compose the whole.
> 
>     The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they organized?
> 
>     On 8/26/21 7:50 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>     >
>     >>  E.g. when Bob wakes up startled, he interprets the situation into "fear". But when Sally wakes up startled, she interprets the situation into "excitement" or some other /a priori/, socially limiting, filter category.
>     > Thus my earlier suggestion that "we" "are" our emotions?   Bob *is* his
>     > propensity to read the lower-level response of "startlement" (closer to
>     > autonomic) to "fear" (closer to choice).   Sally also as "excitement".
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     ☤>$ uǝlƃ
> 
>     - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>     un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>     FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
>     archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <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/
> 

-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ