1)
A model of people, data and groups. In particular, people as nodes. If the throughput of information(->) is limited to the processing capabilities of people are limited to +/- 7 chunks of information (minus X, where X is the number of R-operator chunks)* The limits of the throughput operator are:
chunk size, vocabulary, language, most highly valued representational system, the number of interfaces, the Gravesian level, Morphological cross-map tolerance operator**, most highly valued logical level, overall I/E orientation (introverted extroverted.)
Then in the analysis of groups people Group analysis is affected by
a) identifying subgroups and the internal (->) score, with attention to which if any particular nodal throughputs are reversible.
b) identifying aggregate (->) scores for subgroups.
*the R-operator refers to what chunks we are attending to consciously (see Patterns 2, which you have.)
**the “Morphological cross-map yadda-yadda” is just a way of describing 1 of two things; how well a piece of information functions as ametaphor or analog of another piece of information, and the threshold of a person’s ability to draw connections between two dissimilar kinds of information (i.e. “How is a raven like a writing desk?.”
2)
Ecological Systems/ Games – Neural Net/ Evolutionary Progression
Starting with a post from SP on 9/11/2002:
The Existence of Morality and Karma as Scientific Entities
I was in a car tonight thinking of Dave and his constant references to ‘karma hits’. I let my mind wander, because i haven’t ever let myself take karma seriously in a mystical sense, but the idea of things coming back to you has clearly, at least for most people i know, manifested itself enough times to leave its existence as a given. ‘How can this be?’ i thought, ‘there must be an underlying principle I’m missing.’ Anyone at the summer meeting will remember my numerous references to systems. For those of you not there, currently , the best model for living i can come up with right now is based on the idea of everything being a part of a hierarchal set of systems, anything that relies on recurrent patterns to perpetuate is a system, so for purposes of my philosophy, everything from hurricanes, to people, to civilizations are systems. Visually systems are like overlapping and concentric circles (well, spheres are better, but no need to make this more complex than necessary). Incidentally there is an uber-system that everything is a part of, and effects from actions ‘bubble down’ through internal systems. For a bit of clarification for instance – a sociological phenomenon would be systematically BELOW humans, as sociological hoo-ha relies on the existence of humans. For anyone confused of interested i can explain further, or go out and mix fractal geometry with game theory and you’ll have an idea, but for now i’d like to move on to the main ‘thrust’ of what i wanted to write.
Imagine we have a relatively isolated system, which we will call ‘Herbert’ (are you ‘one’ Herbert?)
here he is!
___________________
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
|x o x o x o x o x o x|
—————–
boy he looks primitive, doesn’t he? – Let’s begin with the obvious; if you look at him, he has an internal pattern. This is something a system must have by definition, some sort of recurrence. (incidentally recurrence is a function of self reference, another important systemic idea). anyhow if Herbert stays in this particular configuration he is ‘healthy’. He will live until his ‘disorder factor’ reaches more than say 85%.
It is then obvious that [for Herbert's purposes] order=good, disorder=bad. this is because there are only a limited number of configurations that will allow Herbert to continue living his primitive, boring existence (just like you and me!).
first let’s set aside the whole idea of recency vs. primacy – it fits into the framework of my ideas, but is cumbersome to work around (and we ARE dealing with a simplified model here)
generally Herbert only likes to do things that increase or hold steady the amount of order in his system,
BUT he is also a moral system – this is because:
he will often sacrifice order in lower systems to increase or maintain order in his
he will sometimes sacrifice order in sideways placed systems to increase or maintain order in his own
he will almost never sacrifice order in a system above his (it would be counterproductive, and in reality, pretty difficult anyhow)
amoral actions , or random actions both increase the disorder of a system. in my observation, a good 80% of amoral actions are the result of someone wanting to do less work. Usually bad and random things require less work than doing something moral [in Herbert's frame-or reference] or good. What makes a system amoral is when it refuses to aknowledge the harm or disorder its actions will cause other systems (which like Herbert can only function in certain configurations) luckily a system can absorb a fair amount of disorder before they are completely destroyed. Unluckily increasing disorder in something else causes it to seek order [(if it can) in order to preserve its own existence, or when order is the least-energy state], which often causes disorder elsewhere, as self-reference is created by involvement, the more disorder you introduce into systems the more likely the disorder will find its way back to you in one form or another, while by the same token, working to increase order in a completely ‘moral’ manner increases the ‘environmental’ order around you, ensuring, for systems like Herbert a [somewhat precarious] life of leisure.
Now some notes from 2008 regarding a drawing of “Herbert” in the context of a mind map I made.
By definition Herbert is non-static … disorder from other isolate/systems feeds back into Herbert by his “self-actualizing processes” among which are scabs, amputation (only effective for removing non-crucial sections when an individual system becomes so disordered that by removing it, the overall disorder % drops to a significantly non-critical level.)
Disorder “bubbles up” through logical levels into higher systems, but once the environment (ecological level) becomes disordered, then the bits that Herbert brings in to self-actualize will negatively effect his disorder level.
Herbert’s “self” is a combination of components. The animate other, the non-animate other, the nutrative other, the non-nutrative other, and that which is not other. Understand that in this case, nutrative merely refers to something that can be used in self-reconstitution once disorder begins to manifest.
As stated, Herbert must monitor his internal consistency to make sure the disorder factor doesn’t drop below a critical %, but the monitoring process must also be monitored for process consistency. And so on. The trick here is that there must be a maximum monitoring depth. Herbert must be mindful and on guard for “convergent autism,” that is – he is so concerned about monitoring for consistency that he becomes “neurotically autistic” – he fixates on consistency and a lifetime of energy is spent on an instant’s worth of monitoring. In this case, the answer to “Quis custodiet ipsos custoded.” is nobody, hopefully. In the human mind this is usually resolved by both architecture and by electronics. Because recursion is so important to the way that the human brain operates recursive autism is a danger but because neurons and neural connections don’t get smaller than a certain level. Also electrical charges that travel along neurons need to be a certain strength before they get passed along to other neurons, and so the fact that recursive convergent autism is pathological and maladaptive prevents the neural pathways that would constitute it don’t get reinforced, there isn’t enough charge to overcome the resistance.
ugh – I am tired, I will continue in another post tomorrow.
Incidentally to see what Dave and Angeli had to say about this the first time around: here
angeliexists
shorthanded
davidasposted
Dan+
