Fluxcraft - a Skeptical/Pragmatic Discordian Wiki {ignore the other thread}

[Ixxie]

A couple of months ago I set up this wiki called Fluxcraft. The idea was to form a sort of decentralized collaborative interdisciplinary workshop - a playground for a variety of projects. Personally I hope to use this wiki for projects related to a variety of themes including Sustainability, Decentralization, Randomness, (Anti)fragility, Sociocultural and Genetic Evolution, (Behavioral) Ecology, Anarchism, Pragmatism, Skepticism, Empiricism and Non-Dual Mysticism.  I was hoping to have enough content in there to at least make a decent portal before inviting more people. Unfortunately I have been busy with other things, so I don't have nearly as much content as I would have liked. So now I will finally follow the suggestion of Burns and invite everybody in PD to contribute.

The intended tenor here is one of not taking shit too seriously while actually producing useful and interesting material. Bullshit Fnording is also readily welcome - indeed we have a couple of examples, however I would ask that when editing an existing article you try and keep to the general tenor of the article. Of course sprinkled comments of a less / more serious flavor are always welcome, but Trolling should be done in an artful way - so as to provide subtly entertaining yet constructive criticism. Many have pointed out the rueful and overwhelming trend of Discordian discourse towards derogatory intolerance and calumny towards anybody proposing anything even slightly more Anersian than a Spaggin-LOL-Fnord. I feel this is contrary to the Spirit of the Chao - If things get too Erisian, a Spag true to the Chao would become Anerisian to maintain the Dynamic Punctuated Stasis Harmonic Discord.

                                          
 
I will take this opportunity to give a short introduction of myself for those who give an Opabinia's ass:

I. I'm a Mongrel Spider Wizard of the Fractal Cult, trained in the Arcane Arts of Biomathematics, and currently finishing my Master's thesis on a class of Sociocultural Evolutionary models I call Discordian Adaptive Networks.

II. My current research interests are {Sociocultural} Evolutionary Theory, Ecology, (Anti)Fragility Analysis and Bimodal Strategies a-la Taleb, and Philosophy of Science (and Religion) - for which I utilize Network Theory, Probability Theory / Markov Random Fields and Dynamical Systems Theory. My long term aims include Weaving the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge in every conceivable way and finding ways to use evolutionary theory to help promote the survival of our species (a questionable goal, but Do What Thou Wilt eh?).

III. In the last 6 months I have been residing in the Nether near Amsterdam, but I'm registered in the University of Vienna where I previously lived for 3.5 years. I have lived in approximately 5 different countries so far, and plan on GTFO here ASAP, possibly to do a PhD in Evolutionary Ecology or study from shamans in the South-American Jungles or whatever.

IV. I aim to eventually set up a Dickswordian Permaculture Research Farm where I would have to work at most 2 days a week for my sustenance, leaving the the rest of the time available smoking dope, writing fiction and doing research on the local ecosystem from my Wizard's Tower. This is part of a long term pincer-ploy to form a decentralized network of Discordian syndicates lurking in the shadow of 'civilization' -  preparing for its collapse - while simultaneously infiltrating governments and media to promote a decentralization and subsidiarity agenda that promotes the interests of the syndicates while 'civilization' still reigns.

V. I lurk in #discord and you can blame Cramulus, Burns and Trip for bringing me over here. It :fap:s jolly darn spunktacular to be here!


                                          

Aaaaaaaallllrriiggghty Then: Release the Kraken!

[Kai]

II. My current research interests are {Sociocultural} Evolutionary Theory, Ecology, (Anti)Fragility Analysis and Bimodal Strategies a-la Taleb, and Philosophy of Science (and Religion) - for which I utilize Network Theory, Probability Theory / Markov Random Fields and Dynamical Systems Theory. My long term aims include Weaving the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge in every conceivable way and finding ways to use evolutionary theory to help promote the survival of our species (a questionable goal, but Do What Thou Wilt eh?).

Please tell me you aren't with the evolutionary psychologists. It seems like every damn hypothesis they posit is some sort of stereotype and all their evidence is based on WEIRD college students.

"Weaving the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge" - Systematics? Bioinformatics? Bioprospecting? I have no idea what you are getting at here, but it seems in some way related to my domain.

"using evolutionary biology to promote the survival of our species" - Questionable, in some respects. I.e, if you're interested in eugenics. However, if we're talking breeding resistance to malarial parasites into mosquito hosts, I'm on board. But it sounds like you're more interested in theoretical biology rather than actual observation/experimentation. Not that interesting research can't come out of theoretical biology. It just seldom turns into anything concrete.

P.S.: If Opabinia had an ass, it's not clear what it looked like.

[Suu]

I'm a Mongrel Spider Wizard of the Fractal Cult, trained in the Arcane Arts of Biomathematics, and currently finishing my Master's thesis on a class of Sociocultural Evolutionary models I call Discordian Adaptive Networks.

I hate you tell you this, but I think you're going to need a bigger boat.

Pool's on the roof.

[Ixxie]

Kai: Indeed I am not an Evolutionary Psychologist, luckily.

The Weaving I am talking about began because I was reading Karl Popper and learned of his 'Evolutionary Epistemology'. This brought me to Sociocultural Evolution as a way to study how beliefs and other behavior epidemically spreads through a population. The other direction is the study of the Epistemology of Biology - because (like you seem to be) I am also rather skeptical on the possibilities of accurately modeling evolutionary process. Evolution is rather Opaque, and I have been struggling with the methodological difficulties of using models and theory in this context (unlike many of my colleagues).

Eugenics is just about the opposite of what I have in mind; I feel we don't know diddly squat about what we need for tomorrow and reducing our biodiversity artificially is retarded. But on the other hand - we can handle our exposure to ecological and evolutionary risks. For example - we should obviously not be pumping cattle with antibiotics since we are creating super-bugs. I guess the main question I am concerned with atm is how to antifragilize ecologies with respect to a variety of Black Swans.

I agree with you about the difficulty of producing concrete and pragmatic theory. I have tried to learn about empirical procedure and philosophy of science to learn how to make theory useful. In the end of the day - data is the only validation. To that end - my research farm - where I hope an interdisciplinary team could be assembled. The intent is to make the farm an active experimentation grounds for ecological and social heuristics. I gotta have Skin in the Game!

Suu: ?!?!?

[Kai]

I'm a Mongrel Spider Wizard of the Fractal Cult, trained in the Arcane Arts of Biomathematics, and currently finishing my Master's thesis on a class of Sociocultural Evolutionary models I call Discordian Adaptive Networks.

I hate you tell you this, but I think you're going to need a bigger boat.

Pool's on the roof.

"Fractal Cult" probably refers in some way to the lineage of Benoit Mandelbrot and Complexity Theory. The rest seems like normal fnordisms.

[Ixxie]

Kinda. http://fractalcult.tumblr.com/

The Fractal Cult decided to join me the other month. I don't quite know why or how, but I like it.

[Kai]

Kai: Indeed I am not an Evolutionary Psychologist, luckily.

Good. That group will give you a black mark on your academic resume, the way things are going. Not that I don't think evolutionary psychology could be useful, it just hasn't been so far.

The Weaving I am talking about began because I was reading Karl Popper and learned of his 'Evolutionary Epistemology'. This brought me to Sociocultural Evolution as a way to study how beliefs and other behavior epidemically spreads through a population. The other direction is the study of the Epistemology of Biology - because (like you seem to be) I am also rather skeptical on the possibilities of accurately modeling evolutionary process. Evolution is rather Opaque, and I have been struggling with the methodological difficulties of using models and theory in this context (unlike many of my colleagues).

So, you're looking at memetics in the context of selection algorythms? I agree that evolutionary processes are opaque if you start from that premise, but if you develop phylogenies while keeping a neutral view of process, you can arrive at process. My master's advisor would tell me to always find the pattern before assuming the process; he was and is very much an old school pattern cladist. And my current lab has several insect coevolutionary systems we are studying, including gall midges and parasitoids, with the processes being both historical (e.g. tachinid flies) and ongoing (gall midge radiations). Again, we infer phylogenies and work backwards from these to induce the processes.

Eugenics is just about the opposite of what I have in mind; I feel we don't know diddly squat about what we need for tomorrow and reducing our biodiversity artificially is retarded. But on the other hand - we can handle our exposure to ecological and evolutionary risks. For example - we should obviously not be pumping cattle with antibiotics since we are creating super-bugs. I guess the main question I am concerned with atm is how to antifragilize ecologies with respect to a variety of Black Swans.

You are undoubtedly interested in /redundancy/, then.

I agree with you about the difficulty of producing concrete and pragmatic theory. I have tried to learn about empirical procedure and philosophy of science to learn how to make theory useful. In the end of the day - data is the only validation. To that end - my research farm - where I hope an interdisciplinary team could be assembled. The intent is to make the farm an active experimentation grounds for ecological and social heuristics. I gotta have Skin in the Game!

Speaking of philosophy, I've been trying for a time now to apply Strong Inference method to natural history research. In other words, applying strong inference, the best experimental scientific method, to fields of research which are primarily observational and historical. My key problem is to take the place of the 'crucial experiment' it seems I need a number of crucial observations. But natural history observations are by nature hard to induce to happen. You have to hope the crucial observation will come when you are observing, because you can't control the circumstances.

[Ixxie]

The Weaving I am talking about began because I was reading Karl Popper and learned of his 'Evolutionary Epistemology'. This brought me to Sociocultural Evolution as a way to study how beliefs and other behavior epidemically spreads through a population. The other direction is the study of the Epistemology of Biology - because (like you seem to be) I am also rather skeptical on the possibilities of accurately modeling evolutionary process. Evolution is rather Opaque, and I have been struggling with the methodological difficulties of using models and theory in this context (unlike many of my colleagues).

So, you're looking at memetics in the context of selection algorythms? I agree that evolutionary processes are opaque if you start from that premise, but if you develop phylogenies while keeping a neutral view of process, you can arrive at process. My master's advisor would tell me to always find the pattern before assuming the process; he was and is very much an old school pattern cladist. And my current lab has several insect coevolutionary systems we are studying, including gall midges and parasitoids, with the processes being both historical (e.g. tachinid flies) and ongoing (gall midge radiations). Again, we infer phylogenies and work backwards from these to induce the processes.

Well I have to nitpick here - its not memetics really because memes are not directly observable - its Culture defined as socially learnable behavior. As for inference of the process from the patterns - contingency has me trained more in mathematical models of biology than in empirical inference since I began my studies in physics and switched a few years back. On the other hand, I have concerns about how the conflation of several random and biased effects could make one pattern appear like another. Additionally, I feel that critiques applied by Taleb to financial theory might apply in part to evolution (although possibly not on all levels of selection). I am currently reading Gould's 'the Structure of Evolutionary Theory', and while I only just finished the second chapter I feel its already hinting in this direction.

Eugenics is just about the opposite of what I have in mind; I feel we don't know diddly squat about what we need for tomorrow and reducing our biodiversity artificially is retarded. But on the other hand - we can handle our exposure to ecological and evolutionary risks. For example - we should obviously not be pumping cattle with antibiotics since we are creating super-bugs. I guess the main question I am concerned with atm is how to antifragilize ecologies with respect to a variety of Black Swans.

You are undoubtedly interested in /redundancy/, then.

YES! And Evolvability, and Optionality.

I agree with you about the difficulty of producing concrete and pragmatic theory. I have tried to learn about empirical procedure and philosophy of science to learn how to make theory useful. In the end of the day - data is the only validation. To that end - my research farm - where I hope an interdisciplinary team could be assembled. The intent is to make the farm an active experimentation grounds for ecological and social heuristics. I gotta have Skin in the Game!

Speaking of philosophy, I've been trying for a time now to apply Strong Inference method to natural history research. In other words, applying strong inference, the best experimental scientific method, to fields of research which are primarily observational and historical. My key problem is to take the place of the 'crucial experiment' it seems I need a number of crucial observations. But natural history observations are by nature hard to induce to happen. You have to hope the crucial observation will come when you are observing, because you can't control the circumstances.

Sounds awesome - I never heard of the concept of Strong Inference but its totally useful - and totally in the spirit of redundancy and optionality (these are the kind of links I like to find between the evolution of life and knowledge). IIRC Popper also spoke about how experiments are almost always aimed at deciding between two theories anyway - the Theory dependence of experiments.

Incidentally, in second chapter of Gould's 'Structure' he provides an exegesis of Darwin. In it he argues that Darwin's famous 'One Long Argument' in Origin is actually an argument for a methodology of studying historical processes using four methods:

UNIFORMITY: Or working up by extrapolation from direct observations on rates and modes of change in modern organisms. [.....]

SEQUENCING: Or the definition and ordering of various configurations, previously regarded as unrelated and independent, into stages of a single historical process. Here we cannot observe the changes between configurations directly and we must therefore work by recognizing them as temporally ordered products of a single underlying process of change.  [.....]

CONSILIENCE (CONCORDANCE OF SEVERAL): We now reach a break in types of information. Methods 1 and 2 permit the reconstruction of historical sequences, either by extrapolating up from the most palpable and testable of daily changes (method 1), or by ordering a series of configurations as temporal stages (method 2). In many cases, however, we cannot reconstruct sequences, and must infer history from the configuration of a single object or circumstance. Of the two major methods for inferring history from single configurations, consilience calls upon a greater range of evidence. This word, coined by William Whewell in 1840, means "jumping together." By this term, Whewell referred to proof by coordination of so many otherwise unrelated consequences under a single causal explanation that no other organization of data seems conceivable. In a sense, consilience defines the larger method underlying all Darwin's inference from historical records. In a more specific context, I use consilience (see Gould, 1986) for Darwin's principal tactic of bringing so many different points of evidence to bear on a single subject, that history wins assent as an explanation by overwhelming confirmation and unique coordination. [.....]

DISCORDANCE (DISSONANCE OF ONE): Here we reach a rock bottom of minimalism—unfortunately all too common in a world of limited information. We observe a single object, but not enough relevant items to forge consilience about its status as the product of history. How can we work from unique objects? How shall we infer history from a giraffe? Darwin tells us to search for a particular form of discordance—some imperfection or failure of coordination between an organism and its current circumstances. If such a quirk, oddity, or imperfection—making no sense as an optimal and immutable design in a current context—wins explanation as a holdover or vestige from a past state in different circumstances, then historical change may be inferred.

http://nomorebiggov.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gould-sj-the-structure-of-evolutionnary-theory.pdf  {p103-104}

[Kai]

Well I have to nitpick here - its not memetics really because memes are not directly observable - its Culture defined as socially learnable behavior. As for inference of the process from the patterns - contingency has me trained more in mathematical models of biology than in empirical inference since I began my studies in physics and switched a few years back. On the other hand, I have concerns about how the conflation of several random and biased effects could make one pattern appear like another. Additionally, I feel that critiques applied by Taleb to financial theory might apply in part to evolution (although possibly not on all levels of selection). I am currently reading Gould's 'the Structure of Evolutionary Theory', and while I only just finished the second chapter I feel its already hinting in this direction.

Convergence is definitely a factor, but with larger number of observations (i.e. characters) you can tease out these convergences and get to the pattern beneath the homoplasy. Not sure if this is applicable to sociocultural evolution.

It also looks like I need to go back and read more SJ Gould. I agree that On the Origin of Species is an incredible document, and that we are still learning things from it 150 years later.