Hi Norm,
Sorry to be hit and miss. I have to sneak in the time to answer at all,
so it tends to be what stimulates a thought rather than a methodical
review. I'll read back a bit to see what you are referring to.
"Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
>
> John:
>
> You skipped over a long list of comments that I spent a lot of time
> thinking about and I directed to you in a post dated last Friday.
> Perhaps you missed it. The post that you are responding to here was
> directed mainly at Don's second response in an exchange we are having
> about those issues I raised on Friday.
>
> It would be helpful to me if you would be so kind as to first address
> all the points I raised last Friday. Then perhaps we can take up the
> interesting issues you raise in this post.
>
> Norm
>
> John J Kineman wrote:
> >
> > Norm,
> >
> > I share your typology to some degree, and I think I can relate somewhat
> > to the generalist orientation you're "comming from."
> >
> > But that's why I'm a bit confused by your rejection of the term
> > "complexity." The broader human understanding is precisely where the
> > notion of "complexity" has greatest appeal. Its a mysterious concept
> > that intuitively people feel is both deep and yet new and important.
> > There are community development/management consulting groups that
> > advertise their approach in terms of managing and understanding
> > complexity, with lots of systems diagrams indicating closed causal
> > loops. That's a change from the linear causal thinking that has
> > dominated most management systems. There is lots of work in the business
> > community describing how modern institutions need to introduce concepts
> > of complexity into their management models, like iterative design,
> > consideration of context, etc. Motivational speakers apply complexity
> > ideas to human resources, equal opportunity, diversity management,
> > productivity, job satisfaction, etc. Most people in these applied fields
> > don't know or care about the difference between computability and
> > non-computability -- the differences between Rosen's complexity and more
> > deterministic complexity of others, like Bar-Yam, Cognitive Science,
> > etc. To the applied world, much of these internal disagreements go
> > unnoticed.
> >
> > I would expect certain academics to reject the term "complexity" out of
> > frustration with the many flavors it can take within the scientific
> > community. But in applied areas it is much more common to generalize.
> > Here's an example in my field. The NOAA National Marine Fisheries has
> > historically managed fisheries with single-species models that predict
> > population numbers. They now realize the whole program is failing
> > because there are 11 species of pacific salmon on the endangered species
> > list. Why hasn't their management approach worked? The concept of
> > complexity is perfect for bridging into new research and management
> > ideas. They were'nt "wrong" about their models, but that paradigm failed
> > to include the complexities of the system; meaning in this case multiple
> > causes that affect the habitat, migration, health, learning,
> > development, breading, etc. in the life history of salmon. Watershed
> > processes, hydrology, and the needs of power generation all have
> > influences on salmon sustainability. Do we care about the fine
> > distinction of "non-physical" realities? No. That is taken for graned in
> > the obvious influences of humans, and perhaps implied in a fuzzy notion
> > of the ecosystem. But just beginning to consider more components is a
> > big first step for some. My personal interest in complexity focuses on
> > the unique approach Rosen takes, but even that is less important at this
> > stage than introducing the ideas of context, multiple simultaneous and
> > unpredictable causes, multiple players with choice, energy and money
> > drivers, the role of information in the system, etc. I think Rosen's
> > model brings excellent clarity to the picture, but first we sell
> > complexity, which packages all these things and more. I am gratified to
> > hear that the world is poised on the dawn of a new human understanding
> > of reality that will lift us above our meager existence; but in most of
> > my work I still see the brink of stupidity, not the dawn of the new age
> > I so fervently believe in. The notion of "complexity" is one small step
> > out of stupidity, in my view. Even of after that step we can graduate to
> > more advanced concepts, we don't have to burn the bridge that others may
> > yet cross.
> >
> > Does this make any sense from your experience?
> >
> > "Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> > >
> > > Don Mikulecky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Norm,
> > > > In the spirit of what we seem to agree about, there *should* be more than one way to
> > > > present the case. Many of us are extremely comfortable with this way. others clearly
> > > > are not. The reasons for that are many and we are clearly not dealing with absolutes
> > > > here. See below for the rest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > You are right about the nested circularity of using the modeling relation to
> > > > > > capture itself. That's a start. When we see our new approaches tackling
> > > > > > self-reference head on we can know we have broken free from old restrictions and
> > > > > > are beginning to see *more* of what reality is all about.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree again. I'll only add once more that for me, the use of simple
> > > > > and complex as modifiers to the models and those phenomena we are
> > > > > attempting to model, causes unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding.
> > > >
> > > > I question what the cause of the confusion and misunderstanding is here. Many of us can
> > > > communicate in a clearer way with better understanding as a result of this. It probably
> > > > revolves around where your real interests lie.
> > > > Don
> > >
> > > Don:
> > >
> > > I think that your point about where our interests lie is the key to our
> > > differences here. In the area of your and Rosen's expertise, I am a
> > > quintessential outsider. In fact, even though I have a number of
> > > friends that are part of the academic and scientific communities, I have
> > > no ties to academia as such and I am certainly outside the scientific
> > > community.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you know that vocationally I'm a public finance investment
> > > banker. Nevertheless, I have a deep and burning interest in a very
> > > broad range of subjects. I consider myself a generalist. I've also been
> > > fortunate to have the luxury to have spent a lifetime exploring all
> > > these interests.
> > >
> > > As you'd expect, most people that know me usually aren't able to find a
> > > neat way to classify my all diverse interests. A few conclude that
> > > since they can't pigeon hole me, I must be a philosopher. I find that
> > > "a jack of all trades and master of none" has a nice ring and a fair
> > > amount of truth in it.
> > >
> > > As you noted, we do have much in common when it comes to the ideas we've
> > > been talking about. But from what you said, you seem to be focused on
> > > the academic and scientific community. On the other hand, I'm primarily
> > > interested in finding ways of communicating these ideas to the broadest
> > > possible audience.
> > >
> > > As perhaps you know, I spent over five years writing a 33 part treatment
> > > for a documentary television series I call "The Dawn of Human
> > > Understanding." The purpose of this TV series was simply to provide the
> > > general public with a cohesive blend of the emerging understanding we
> > > humans are gaining with respect to our selves, each other and the
> > > universe we are a part of. I think you also know that since I failed
> > > raise the $30 million to produce the series, I did the next best thing
> > > and simply put it on the web: http://204.94.86.93
> > >
> > > I suppose that this is a long way of saying that I'm trying to tell this
> > > story to anyone who has an interest in learning more about the human
> > > condition. In this endeavor, I have worked very hard to include as many
> > > views or models as possible. I've also paid particular attention to the
> > > difficulty of integrating these multiple views into a better human
> > > understanding.
> > >
> > > In this effort to integrate multiple views, I found that most of the
> > > academic and scientific specialists actually make an effort, whether
> > > conscious or otherwise, to isolate their field of expertise. I also
> > > discovered that they have a strong tendency to interpret other areas of
> > > inquiry using the thought modes and criteria from their own field of
> > > expertise. The net result is that the average person finds it almost
> > > impossible to make much sense out of all these apparently conflicting
> > > and confusing views.
> > >
> > > But taken as a whole, our human understanding is expanding at an almost
> > > incomprehensible pace. What's more, as we survey the components and
> > > then work through all the apparent conflicts, we find some truly
> > > profound implications coming out of the fog.
> > >
> > > I am of the opinion that self governing peoples need to be able to sift
> > > through the ever increasing deluge of information that is inundating
> > > us. We need to understand for ourselves what the benefits and risks of
> > > our individual and collective democratic choices are. My goal is to
> > > improve this understanding and hopefully improve our individual and
> > > collective choices.
> > >
> > > This is where I'm coming from. And this is the context within which I
> > > recently posted my thoughts and comments on some of the ideas we
> > > enthusiastically share.
> > >
> > > Norm
> > ========================================
> > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "John J Kineman" <John.J.Kineman@noaa.gov>
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "John J Kineman" <John.J.Kineman@noaa.gov>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 20:46:30 GMT