[FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics

[Marcus Daniels]

Reaction was to the apparent suggestion that moderation would lead to more breadth, and that would lead to better outcomes.  
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians?  No confidence in any particular capability?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 2:45 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive heuristics

Hm. IDK. In a parallel universes world, generalists are higher order than specialists, operating over multiple worlds. So there seems to be a controversy about whether higher orders increase or decrease the degrees of freedom. If the existence of generalists increases the DoF, then you might want more generalists.

On 4/14/22 14:31, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I meant that a depth-first understanding of the world may be as informative and useful as a breadth-first understanding of the world.
> Specialists tend to be rewarded more than generalists, and with billions of people, generalists do sort of seem redundant.   Ideally one can compute a bound that says when digging can stop.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 1:55 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive 
> heuristics
> 
> Kinda depends. The book Alien Information Theory argues that DMT literally takes you to a different universe (based on Wheeler's and others theories that the universe is fundamentally information and brought about by observation of quantum events). He suggests putting yourself on a DMT drip to you will remain in that alternate universe permanently. He makes the observation, "to your friends you will appear to be dead."
> 
> So that is one I would not do "completely" unless I was on my deathbed and had nothing to lose.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, at 12:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Everything once, but not once, completely?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 12:07 PM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive 
>> heuristics
>>
>> My philosophy: ((everything) (once) then in moderation if it suits
>> you)  not sure of parentheses, been a long time since Algebra I
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, at 8:05 AM, glen wrote:
>>> I certainly hope I'm not winning you over, accidentally or otherwise.
>>> Your use of the word "fetish" is spot-on, in that such paraphilia 
>>> is, ultimately, unhealthy 
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias> ... I guess 
>>> barring the "everything in moderation" principle [⛧].
>>>
>>> In fact, to be "won over" implies imprisonment, convicted to one's 
>>> convictions. However, I also think it's unhealthy to, say, be so 
>>> Luddite that you prefer "natural immunity" to vaccination ... or 
>>> prefer your wood burning fireplace to natural gas heat ... or to 
>>> demand to "talk to a person" rather than interacting with the phone 
>>> tree. That hyper-traditionalism is *also* an unhealthy fetish and 
>>> it's why, despite my conservatism, the neoreactionaries are so repulsive to me.
>>> As a conservative, I constantly find myself defending the Now 
>>> against the fetishists of both the Yesterday and Tomorrow. Does that 
>>> mean I have a Now fetish? Maybe. But it's more like a reaction to 
>>> the non-Now fetishes around me.
>>>
>>>
>>> [⛧] The interpretation of "everything in moderation" depends on 
>>> where you put the parentheses. (Everything) (in moderation) implies 
>>> you
>>> *should* do just a little bit of everything ... a little sky diving ...
>>> a little body modification ... a little Christianity ... a little 
>>> crack cocaine, etc. But (Everything in moderation) implies that 
>>> whatever it is you choose to do should be in moderation.
>>>
>>> On 4/13/22 12:05, Steve Smith wrote:
>>>> I think you are (accidentally?) winning me over to the post/trans-humanist fetish.   Just your talk of "play" and realizing how much I *already* play with automatons in the form of (see driving anecdotes) other drivers and roadway systems and (smart or dumb) traffic-lights, etc and bureaucracies.   I admit to always being taken in by (modern) science fiction stories with robot/android - human relationships... playing what might amount to a continuous, infinite game of Turing Test with them.   The same kind of "play" I currently engage in with dogs, cats, horses, watercourses, etc.   As a good animist, I can't see how I could reject the opportunity to "Play" with machine intelligences!
>>>>
>>>> When I get a full-body prosthetic to make up for my slowly failing organic musculo-skeletal system, I will probably find great enjoyment in "playing" with it the way I currently "play" with my bicycle and other vehicles, testing (softly these days) their performance envelope and response modes.
>>>>
>>>> Jump cut to Ridley in her  Space-Mining-Waldo-Exoskeleton  with or without an Alien opponent.

--
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/