Re: [pcp-discuss:] Re: Fwd: Comments on _One Half Of A Manifesto_by Jaron Lanier

From: John J Kineman (John.J.Kineman@noaa.gov)
Date: Wed Nov 22 2000 - 20:43:34 GMT

  • Next message: John J Kineman: "Re: [pcp-discuss:] Re: Fwd: Comments on _One Half Of A Manifesto_by Jaron Lanier"

    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