[FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box
steve smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Wed Jun 18 14:04:03 EDT 2025
DaveW -
Well said (IMO)... I'm a pretty well practiced (but lame) meditator
myself, which might be why "go to hell" gets through my satorial
facade. If I am approaching enlightenment, it is asymptotically and
more aptly perhaps "Satori and I are approaching one another" to use
David Bohm's "rheomode" idiom? When we meet out there on the horizon of
max-entropy others will probably call it (brain? soul?) death. This
is the only thing on MY bucket list. Or more aptly it is the bucket
which I seek to kick and be kicked by?
I believe (with confidence but little conviction) that there is
something important in the holonomic "stack" of evolution in this "flaw"
you point out.
It is the ability to be self-contained, focused, un-manipulable which
makes us what we are, makes us capable as independent strongly
self-actualized agents. But it is contrarily, our ability to be
manipulated, or entrainability, etc. which then makes us capable of
participating in higher order self-organized complex adaptive systems...
it is what makes us tribal, social, cultural, civilizational,
eusocial. For the narrow optimization of an individual agent's "goals"
it is a bug, not a feature, but for the collective emergent system it is
a feature not a bug.
Naturally the experiments of Soviet and then echoing, Chinese
Communism/Socialism and the many satellite eddies that spun off from
them turned out to have some acute limits which lead them to ultimately
precess their way to a phase-change boundary, a bifurcation point, a
saddle point.
We, the democratic free-market sub-species (Post monarchal W Europe,
Post-Empire British Commnwealth, the American States) have also
precessed away from the ideals we formed around and cling to today (Make
'Murrica Great Some More Forever Goddamit, even if we have to kill
everyone else and it kills us too!) and onto the cusp (IMO) of a saddle
in the iterated map that is sociopoliticaleconomicreligiotechno humanity.
Modern self-reinforcing technology (has come in spurts from neolithics
to ML running on global, distributed, connected, ubiquitous "computronium".
/Computronium being the stuff Data Centers are condensing into that
currently looks like buildings of rooms of racks of trays of slots
filled with boards of chips of LSIs of transistors of molecules
sucking in electrical power and pouring out heat-entropy for the
purpose of "organizing and re-organizing the hell out of the corpus
of extant (digitized) human knowledge, and making cryptoGarchs
richer". /
Who/what do we "become" next? I think *we* are already a collective
superorganism (glen has voted for "no more than a slime mold") and it is
that collective super-organism's evolution that is in play and it is our
subvenience which facilitates that but no longer drives it? As a
"single cell" in the emergent super-organism in question, I feel blessed
to be here to "observe" (and minimally co-evolve) with it in our mutual
sub/super-venience?
I should probably rewrite this as a poem. It is definitely a Yarn both
in the sense of EricS' recent invokation and in that of Tyson Yunkaporta
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Yunkaporta> methinks?
- SteveS
On 6/18/25 6:46 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick,
>
> A partial reclamation is possible.
>
> In software I deal with a closed-deterministic system and I define a
> specific protocol for an object: the set of messages to which it can
> and is willing to respond, along with the defined response. In the
> world of software I forbid one object managing/controlling another
> despite the fact that the default assumption behind every program is
> some kind of hierarchical control (even in parallel programming). I
> can provide all kinds of arguments as to why this is bad and
> non-control is good, in programming, but you are not really interested
> in that realm.
>
> As to a person. We have a wide ranging 'protocol' of messages we will,
> often without consideration or consent, respond to. Most of those we
> picked up non-consciously from parents and culture. This wide range
> protocol does make humans subject to manipulation.
>
> It is possible to expand the protocol and thereby increase the
> potential for manipulation and control. The "you're going to Hell if
> you don't stop X" message would be an example. We do this with
> domesticated animals such that a dog, for example, will respond to
> 'beg', 'shake', and 'roll over'. (If Pavlov rang his bell in front of
> a wolf, the "here's lunch" message would likely manipulate the wolf to
> more than salivation.)
>
> But it also possible to self-alter your protocol. I simply will not
> respond to the "go to hell" message, for example.
>
> If we substitute "messages" for "cues" we are pretty much in agreement.
>
> We can even get to Zen together:/"cues to an environment that isn't"
> /is just Maya, the world of illusion. A little meditation and you too
> can become "immune" to all those cues/messages and achieve Satori
> (enlightenment).
>
> davew
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025, at 11:32 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> Dave, Thanks for responding. I hoped that my ".... objects and
>> environments [ahem]..." might catch your attention. This post was my
>> attempt to respond to the intense pressure I feel from EricS and Glen
>> to be more forthright and self-conscious about my metaphysics — by
>> which I mean the things I think before I start thinking..
>>
>> */Two big differences: I do not distinguish between objects and
>> "environments" and no object is allowed to "manage," "control,"
>> "manipulate," or "violate the encapsulation" of any other object/*.
>>
>> Every time I have heard you talk about "object-oriented programming"
>> I have felt that there has probably been some illicit traffic between
>> behaviorism and programming languages that would reward
>> examination. But first I want to try and rescue "management" from
>> the zone of things about which we disagree and put it firmly in the
>> zone of things about which we agree. When I manage you, I don't
>> violate your encapsulation. I don't change the set of if I then O
>> rules that constitute your "insides". On the contrary, I provide you
>> with inputs that, given your design, will produce outputs designed by
>> MY needs, rather than yours. This is the sense in which much
>> management proceeds by deception. We all respond to our environment
>> on the basis of cues. If I can provide you with the cues to an
>> environment that isn't, then I can get you to respond in ways you
>> wouldn't otherwise. That principle is deeply embedded in ethology
>> and also in control system theory. Before we carry this discussion
>> further, I wonder if we do in fact agree on that.
>>
>> Thanks for your charity and close reading.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David
>> West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:53 AM
>> *To:* friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box
>> Nick,
>>
>> I have never heard you state your behaviorism in quite this way:/"I
>> think that behaviorism is a way carving the world into objects and
>> environments (ahem) and that rocks behave. Then the distinction
>> beween rocks and organisms would emerge as a distinction between
>> objeccts that manage their environments and objects that dont." /
>>
>> It has some seeming parallels to definitions/descriptions I
>> frequently borrow from Ludwig von Bertalannfy.
>>
>> /*A system (any/every) is a set of elements and the relations among
>> them.*/
>>
>> */An element is differentiated and defined based on its behavior—its
>> "contribution" to the system./*
>>
>> I use 'Object' as a synonym for 'Element', and establish a single way
>> to describe objects, be they abstract (an account), an inanimate
>> (copier machine), human (in a role), or a software/hardware Artifact.
>> The apparent dualism (element — relation) in the definition is, in
>> software, is eliminated by embodying 'relations' in behavioral objects.
>>
>> Two big differences: I do not distinguish between objects and
>> "environments" and no object is allowed to "manage," "control,"
>> "manipulate," or "violate the encapsulation" of any other object.
>>
>> There must be some essential differences in our concepts of
>> "Behavior," else we have been talking past each other all these many
>> years.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025, at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> It's a dead pigeon that we throw out the window. I wouldnt waste a
>>> perfectly good dead duck on such an experiment.
>>>
>>> I cant decide if the dead pigeon is the limit of behavior or if is
>>> behavior. I think it is behavior. I think that behaviorism is a
>>> way carving the world into objects and environments (ahem) and that
>>> rocks behave. Then the distinction beween rocks and organisms would
>>> emerge as a distinction between objeccts that manage their
>>> environments and objects that dont.
>>>
>>> n
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:07 PM Eric Charles
>>> <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jon,
>>> This is a great expansion of the issue, and it might take me a
>>> bit to build up to an adequate response.
>>>
>>> You are definitely right that "scale" is one of many dimensions
>>> we might look at when evaluating whether or not something is a
>>> behavior. The evaluation of whether or not something is behaving
>>> involves comparisons, and those comparisons have to be "fair" in
>>> some sense that suggests a "domain". For example, if we drop a
>>> dead duck out a window, and then agree that falling in that
>>> fashion does not evidence behavior, we wouldn't want to then
>>> move to a coin-drop in water (where the coin spins and slides
>>> erratically, moving down at various speeds) and assert the coin
>>> was alive because it's movement didn't look like the dead-duck's
>>> movement.
>>>
>>> Does that get us anywhere?
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------
>>> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
>>> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
>>> American University - Adjunct Instructor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:58 PM Jon Zingale
>>> <jonzingale at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Glen, Eric,
>>>
>>> I am enjoying how the conversation is developing. The celery
>>> example strikes me as being important, but where Glen refers
>>> to /scale/ I would speak of /domain of definition/. That a
>>> shift in
>>> domain happens to be size, rather than some other contextual
>>> specification, may not be what we want. If this isn't the case
>>> Glen, please let me know. With respect to Eric's points it seems
>>> fair to me to say that a paddle wheel is behaving, but
>>> perhaps not
>>> in the /larger/ context of the river. The celery is
>>> behaving, but not
>>> not in the /smaller/ context of capillary action. Here I am
>>> using
>>> the language of /large/ and /small/, but perhaps other
>>> modalities
>>> have a place as well. One can say Nick's behavior appears
>>> spontaneously, but in fact was necessitated by something
>>> /prior/.
>>> Here an /earlier/ Nick could play the role of the river.
>>>
>>> Frank,
>>> Would you say that the mind is as public as RSA encryption?
>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -..
>>> -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> <http://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
>>> <http://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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
>>> Clark University
>>> nthompson at clarku.edu
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson
>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -.
>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (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/
>>>
>>
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -.
>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (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/
>>
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250618/bc64034a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3118 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250618/bc64034a/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250618/bc64034a/attachment.sig>
More information about the Friam
mailing list