Advertisement
I completely agree that Tribe.net is an emergent system. However, is it an adaptive system? Is there a learning process that takes place? In learning, some connections are weakened so others may be strengthened. I know I am learning but is the system truly dynamic?
Let's get this party started.
Let's get this party started.
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Tue, September 7, 2004 - 3:52 PMI'm pretty sure that "people who have red hair" cannot usefully be considered a system, emergent or otherwise.
So, it's not immediately obvious that "members of tribe.net" can usefully be considered a system (emergent or otherwise).
In other words: Anything can be taken as the arbitrary boundary of a system -- the real question is always about whether or not anything useful will come of such a system identification.
Under my ontology, a collection of entities and their trajectories is usefully identified as a system only if that collection is usefully described at a macroscopic level in its interaction with its environment.
How does tribe.net interact macroscopically with its environment? (No question about microscopic interactions at the level of comings and goings of people and their memes.)
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Fri, October 8, 2004 - 11:53 AMOnce we all stop typing and move our bums from the keyboard to the "dancefloor of Life" we macroscopically interact with our environment. Having been influenced microscopically by tribe.net, our experiences cannot help but influence our actions.
In other words, the memes ingested here are propagated into the realworld by the carriers of the tribe.net virus.
-
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Fri, October 8, 2004 - 12:19 PMThere's certainly a distinction like that to be made, but that's not the same distinction I was making. The question was not about how we tribe members interact with each other (which is the microscopic scale I was referring to, and which I accepted as given), but about how tribe.net can be described as interacting macroscopically, as an entity in its own right, with its environment.
The microscopic scale is where you look at the units that may self-organize to allow some describable entity to emerge. The macroscopic scale is where you look at the emergent entity itself.
At the very least, tribe.net could be described macroscopically as an attractor within a larger space, the tribe membership and friends topologies could be described macroscopically and catastrophe surfaces could be modelled for them, and there are probably other macroscopic aspects that could be described as well. That's what I was pondering in my earlier post. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Sat, October 9, 2004 - 1:27 PMYeah, there's much more to this stuff than I really, truly understand.
Thanks for the clarification. I think I should lurk awhile longer until I grok it.
My interest in Self-Organizing systems is more political than scientific anyway. Perhaps I should start a topic on the relationship between "Chaos" science and Anarchist organizational stuctures...
Thanks again. -
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Sun, October 10, 2004 - 9:35 AMFor better grokking, there's a book by Ilya Prigogine called "Order out of Chaos" that I often recommend.
As for politics, there's a lot of science involved with the study of self-organizing social systems. The general mindset is that *all* social systems are self-organizing, even though they sometimes appear to be designed by politicians or other authority figures. So anarchies aren't unique in that respect, nor do I think chaos science would be any more applicable to anarchies than to any other social systems: all of them exist somewhere on the "edge of chaos", where order and randomness are balanced. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Mon, October 11, 2004 - 8:56 AMGood point!
I have a copy of "Order out of Chaos" It's been reccomended to me before. It sits on the overstuffed shelf marked "Books I absolutely MUST read... one of these days..."
-
-
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Tue, December 19, 2006 - 11:26 PMbut i think what he was trying to say, is that reverberations of tribe are passed along through our little individual beings... being ants, it is difficult for us to abstract from our own process and see ourselves as mere medium, transmitting something that we can't really even have much of a perspective on, and yet, tribe unifies the energies and intentions of a broad, far reaching group of peole. .. it takes on a significance, an import of its own... a reality and a dynamic of its own... not necessarily one that is accessibe to us, our little ant minds.
i could very much see tribe as a kind of 'termite castle' within the world of information and ideas. it is more than the sum of its little termite members, it is an accumulated residue of whatever that stuff is that termites build their houses out of. it is a structure, within an environment, and so has a place and relationships of its own.
just on a parallel kind of level of reality.
-
-
-
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Fri, January 7, 2005 - 8:30 PMI see that life has gone through a whole formulation of design, as a fractal relational process-generator. These space-utilization imperatives are inherent in the substrate tendencies of the complexity field embedded through the fractal limits induced as derivatives of a macro path of least resistence as the life resonant consciousness appearance.
Now, however, a different order of organization has made an appearance. This order is "Holo" to the fractal construction and as such is linkable through non-fractal pathways. Tribe.net is an emergent principled sphere that is in evolution beginning to embed the Holo into and through the fractal continuum in the whole scale. One might term this Holo'Fractal Evolution. It is as though a cell in one hand is able to directly interact with a cell in another hand without anything mediating between.
I think that some of art as I have posted at my profile reflects this understanding. -
-
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Wed, December 20, 2006 - 9:09 AMPlease bear in mind that you're using these terms as metaphors, and not in ways that particularly pertain to what scientists mean when they use terms like "emergence" and "fractal". A fractal has more to it than the noted self-similarity across scales. The gnostics in the middle ages noted "As above, so below," and this is not a statemnt concerting factals. Many of the factal metaphors I hear being used these days are recapitulating this perennial insight, and not speaking complexity in a meaningful way.
-
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Wed, July 4, 2007 - 12:11 PMit doesn't matter how you label it, break it down and we'll build it back, constrict it and it will slip away and find a new home, but its up to you how much you want to connect and use yourself. build bonds, learn some shit, grow, where's the other partyers? -
-
Re: Tribe.net vs. Neural Network
Wed, July 4, 2007 - 12:18 PMgrows to have a life-force of its own and its good, revolution revolving, building, reaching out to build critical mass and whatever you want.
-
