EHNIX: Evolving a Grass-Roots Fractal Syndicalistic Holarchy under Subsidiaty

[Kai]

I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?

He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.

Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?

He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.

Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.

I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of

Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.

Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having  gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.

[LMNO]

This is one side effect from the demands of "I want a twenty-page paper on this due Wednesday" teaching styles.

One of my annoying habits in college was deliberately parsing down my points.  I'd get a lot of "well, yes, but..." and then I'd turn in a paper with a healthy amount of purple prose.

[Kai]

I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?

He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.

Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.

I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of

Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.

Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having  gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.

If you were a theoretical biologist, and all your friends were theoretical biologists, and everyone you interacted with on a regular basis did theoretical biology, then you might think paragraphs like the above made sense. Maybe not. I admit he has a really obtuse, stilted, jargon laden writing style. So do MBAs. So, frankly, did SJ Gould (who made up for it with masterful stories). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that this is a problem of poor communication rather than his posts being devoid of content. I don't understand Hirley most of the time, but I accept he is saying something that he finds important and not generating characters at random.

He was also directly addressing me, and probably assumed I could easily wade through that dense mess. I can't, his mistake. I gave a recommendation, he can take it or leave it. If he doesn't, I probably won't try next time around.

The basic summary of that paragraph, from what I understand, is that he doesn't agree with my assertion. He finds a gene/organismal level selection only process to be naive, that there are "top-down" (i.e. group selection, MLS selection) effects, and is arguing for group selection in social "evolution" with an example. He thinks that modeling these things as the same would be like modeling gene flow within and between populations as the same, which he finds absurd. Of course, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons. The important point I made was that there's a difference between modeling and metaphysics. You can /model/ groups as individuals, but that doesn't mean the groups are then some sort of intrinsic entity which selection is /acting directly upon/. Selection still is acting on organisms, which, regardless of whatever phantasmagorical altruism you might imagine, are in competition with each other, and cheaters still exist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So in other words, the reward for putting in the effort to parse it is as minimal as I suspected.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Because, also as I suspected, metaphysics. Gotcha. Bowing out of thread.

[Ixxie]

I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?

He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.

Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.

I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of

Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.

Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having  gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.

You know, fair enough. I can understand your position. I  am just trying to express and develop my understanding, and I often do this by trying to start dialogue. I was just responding to the posts to my best understanding. It might not be much, but its all I have. And I don't need you telling me its bullshit - I know it is. Its all about polishing turds.

Say too little and you are vague and unscientific, say too much and you are writing with 'obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius'. I come from a different discipline - my way of communicating might be different than yours. I am trying to learn how to improve it, and I appreciate Kai's constructive feedback, and I will try my best to take it to heart.

Of course, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons. The important point I made was that there's a difference between modeling and metaphysics. You can /model/ groups as individuals, but that doesn't mean the groups are then some sort of intrinsic entity which selection is /acting directly upon/. Selection still is acting on organisms, which, regardless of whatever phantasmagorical altruism you might imagine, are in competition with each other, and cheaters still exist.

I agree, but as I said - I feel selection as acting on organisms is equally and abstraction. I thought we were past the whole map/territory issue, so I fail to see how selection on one level is any more 'real' than on another. Some are better models of course, even the best models are just models. I never denied cheaters exist, and there are multiple mechanisms mitigating this - and they are often strong enough to be significant imo.

As for the rest of - some of the replies on this thread and others make it seem like *some* people here are engaged in a cock-measuring contest. Whatever my flaws - I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs. This was not supposed to be a thread about evolutionary theory, the first post is not about that. Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.

I should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.

The big conceptual here is dependence. For me the biotic top down force is one of frequency dependent selection - ecological pressure. The environment steers the function by natural selection. The joint distribution of genes is not the same as the sum of the marginals. The who is greater than the sum of its parts. I concede I lack erudition on the empirical evidence in this regard. My understanding comes from a relative theoretical position, even though I do try and preoccupy myself with data too. However - I do feel that punctuated equilibrium and the prevalence of power law distributions, as well a variety of other clearly emergent phenomenon - are quite loud and clear. The argument for higher order models is one for modeling how dynamics on one level emerge from the one below, and conversely how the fitness landscape of the level below is steered by the one above.

I would note that I posted that not to argue that hierarchy is necessarily a correct model of nature - but that it would be a useful organizational principle. Whether or not this occurs in Biology - it certainly occurs in Economics and Sociocultural Evolution at large.

LMNO:  You have a challenger.

MORTAL
COMBAT

[Kai]

Because, also as I suspected, metaphysics. Gotcha. Bowing out of thread.

Well, metaphysics in the sense of, "Are species an actual physical thing or a human concept? And if they are a physical thing, are they a collection of individuals or can they be treated like an individual themselves?" People are /still/ arguing about this after hundreds of years. I say, you point at a species in reality, and I'll pay you a hundred bucks for that solution. Of course you can't. You can show me pictures of an individual or individuals. You can't show me a species. You can't even show me the /signature/ of a species (like you can with quanta). And I'm supposed to believe that such a thing can be selected upon?

[LMNO]

LMNO:  You have a challenger.

MORTAL
COMBAT

I exist in a state of mournful displeasure, as my verbiage currently trends toward forward-facing business models, which invariably leads to a falling-off of science-esque syntax more appropriate for dissertions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think Ixxie just got burned and didn't notice?

He didn't get burned. He got a recommendation with a story for illustration.

Go take a look at some of the science posts under my old B_M_W account, especially the stuff from late undergrad, and you find them awfully familiar in the context of this thread. This is a "been there, done that" moment.

I'm pretty sure there was reasonably parsable content in your posts, even if much of it was of little interest to your average PDer. When I did read them, they made sense. This guy has whole PARAGRAPHS of

Admittedly I am of the Gouldian camp. I feel Dawkins' reductionist approach is naive, and fails to model many of the higher order dynamics. I feel the attempt to reduce phenomenon in complex systems to a purely bottom-up edifice could never be satisfactory in describing evolutionary process. Instead - this perspective might be combined with the top-down effects of evolution on the higher levels pushing down. The nativity of Dawkins' position stems, in my opinion, from a naive rationalistic tendencies. Species, Genes, Organisms, Cell Lineages, Clades - all qualify as a Darwinian Individual. I would definitely agree lower level process constitutes the primary dynamic, but think that higher order dynamics create significant punctuations to stasis best modeled separately. Thus perhaps the null hypothesis is to try and explain by lower level process, but if this fails look for higher level causes. The evolution of Social Cognitive Mechanisms for example could be explained by individual level evolution but once such an adaptation fixates in the group it may have a great advantage compared to other groups. The spread from this point onwards is best modeled on the group selection level. We can only assume the spread of a gene between groups and within groups operates on different levels, and the statistical properties would be different. But this idea of modeling this kind of system only on one level seems absurd to me.

Now, I'm a fairly clever bear, but even though the subject matter is possibly of interest to me and even though I most likely read the books he's referring to, having  gone through a phase of reading everything by Gould and Dawkins several years ago, the reward for parsing that block of schizophrenic-looking (and I mean that literally, based on my dealings with schizophrenic people who write with that level of unnecessary, obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius) bullshit looks pretty minimal from here.

You know, fair enough. I can understand your position. I  am just trying to express and develop my understanding, and I often do this by trying to start dialogue. I was just responding to the posts to my best understanding. It might not be much, but its all I have. And I don't need you telling me its bullshit - I know it is. Its all about polishing turds.

Say too little and you are vague and unscientific, say too much and you are writing with 'obfuscating density because they think it reflects their inner genius'. I come from a different discipline - my way of communicating might be different than yours. I am trying to learn how to improve it, and I appreciate Kai's constructive feedback, and I will try my best to take it to heart.

Of course, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons. The important point I made was that there's a difference between modeling and metaphysics. You can /model/ groups as individuals, but that doesn't mean the groups are then some sort of intrinsic entity which selection is /acting directly upon/. Selection still is acting on organisms, which, regardless of whatever phantasmagorical altruism you might imagine, are in competition with each other, and cheaters still exist.

I agree, but as I said - I feel selection as acting on organisms is equally and abstraction. I thought we were past the whole map/territory issue, so I fail to see how selection on one level is any more 'real' than on another. Some are better models of course, even the best models are just models. I never denied cheaters exist, and there are multiple mechanisms mitigating this - and they are often strong enough to be significant imo.

As for the rest of - some of the replies on this thread and others make it seem like *some* people here are engaged in a cock-measuring contest. Whatever my flaws - I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs. This was not supposed to be a thread about evolutionary theory, the first post is not about that. Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.

I should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.

Yes, of course, your failure to communicate is everybody else's problem, dick measuring, etc. just like the others warned you and you aren't getting the attention you deserve. Got it.

If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. I'm an individual. And this morning, as of this post in fact I, personally, have grown to dislike you, personally. But feel free to blame everybody else on the board for this, as it's clearly their fault that I should be allowed to speak so insolently to you.

I was planning on just going about the business of ignoring you because there's nothing here for me, but never mind. 

[Ixxie]

Because, also as I suspected, metaphysics. Gotcha. Bowing out of thread.

Well, metaphysics in the sense of, "Are species an actual physical thing or a human concept? And if they are a physical thing, are they a collection of individuals or can they be treated like an individual themselves?" People are /still/ arguing about this after hundreds of years. I say, you point at a species in reality, and I'll pay you a hundred bucks for that solution. Of course you can't. You can show me pictures of an individual or individuals. You can't show me a species. You can't even show me the /signature/ of a species (like you can with quanta). And I'm supposed to believe that such a thing can be selected upon?

That is very important issue. I agree this is a very tricky methodological issue. However - this difficulty does not in and of itself exclude higher order selection. There are equally great difficulties in defining individuals in many cases (for example in eusocial insects and organisms which spend part of their life cycle as a colony). If it makes you feel more comfortable - you can rename it frequency dependent selection. I suspect however that the methodological issues with that approach will be greater.

On a more general note, I will do my best to clarify and simplify future posts and drop the jargon out of them as much as possible. I am still adjusting to the climate.

Yes, of course, your failure to communicate is everybody else's problem, dick measuring, etc. just like the others warned you and you aren't getting the attention you deserve. Got it.

If you have a problem with me, take it up with me. I'm an individual. And this morning, as of this post in fact I, personally, have grown to dislike you, personally. But feel free to blame everybody else on the board for this, as it's clearly their fault that I should be allowed to speak so insolently to you.

I was planning on just going about the business of ignoring you because there's nothing here for me, but never mind. 

I am trying to learn how to communicate better, and I am not trying to shift the blame for my communication failure to others (although passions tend to spill this kind of thing over, so apologies if I did). Some replies have been constructive, others not. That is all xD

[Kai]

I agree, but as I said - I feel selection as acting on organisms is equally and abstraction. I thought we were past the whole map/territory issue, so I fail to see how selection on one level is any more 'real' than on another. Some are better models of course, even the best models are just models. I never denied cheaters exist, and there are multiple mechanisms mitigating this - and they are often strong enough to be significant imo.

Selection on organisms is real whereas on species is not because I can point at an organism as a physical thing in reality that failed to survive long enough to reproduce itself. Natural selection is elimination.

As for the rest of - some of the replies on this thread and others make it seem like *some* people here are engaged in a cock-measuring contest. Whatever my flaws - I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs. This was not supposed to be a thread about evolutionary theory, the first post is not about that. Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.

It could be. But you have to change the way you communicate first. And we can't talk about sociocultural theory until we get all the background /terms/ in place and are on the same ground in terms of evolutionary theory. Unless we are operating under the same premise, bugger all discussion about sociocultural evolution is going to happen. You came in here assuming we were all on the same page. We /aren't/. You want to work from the position of group selection in sociocultural context? Fine. You have to provide evidence that using that in a biological evolutionary context is even valid, because that's the premise you're working from, that one is valid, therefore, why not adapt it to the other?

I should have listened to the #discord peeps. I won't attempt productivity here again.

IRRC, I was one of the "#discord peeps", and I said nothing of the sort. I have continued to try to engage you, and if I had said nothing I suspect this thread would have been ignored completely. I was primed to enjoy discussions on things I am interested in, if you didn't get that.

But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.

[LMNO]

Nobody even responded directly to the actual idea.

You mean this?

The following proposal I will call for now EHNIX: the Erisian Holistic Network for Intersubjective Exchange. The structure would consists of units we will call Syndicates - of the order of magnitude of 5-500 people or so. People join by free association and decide their own organizational structure, determining they own actions and goals freely.

- Snip -

I am quite convinced that some variant of the sketch propounded here - when implemented with enough people and resources - could be is sufficient to at least reaching a level of economic and technologic autonomy sufficient for the basic sustenance, safety and shelter (as history has proven).

But I also think we could reproduce many other products of modernity in this way as well - producing critical supplies like antibiotics and basic electronic and mechanical tools on our own. Probably in many ways it might be able to them better, if tuned right.

I am also convinced that the growth of such a network is feasible and sustainable in the current climate and civilization. Not only that - if successful it could survive many disasters which other current social structures are fragile to.

Thus - this Network might hide in the Shadows of current Nation State Paradigm - waiting for its collapse prepared.

- Snip –

Open Questions:

• Does this seem feasible?
• Does anybody know any existing projects in this direction?
• What kind of problems would you foresee?
• Which heuristics, strategies and concepts would you add or remove from this list?
• Anybody interested in helping me develop this concept farther in a serious way, even trying to implement it eventually?

1. No.
2. Somalia.
3. Humans being involved.
4. How to obtain food, shelter and water while remaining a free collective off the grid.
5. Not really.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

But I will ask this: Why are you attempting productive biology research on a Discordian web forum? You don't see me bringing my fly dick illustrations around here and asking, "So what do you guys think about the shape of the cerci/surstyli/phallus in these individuals? Do you think they could constitute a species group within this genus? How about this most recent cladogram including these genes? What do you think about these genera being next to each other? Do you think this brings the concept of this tribe into question? How about these bootstrap values? How about these branch lengths? Does this genus as sister to the family make sense?" Not that I don't think people wouldn't appreciate the Lovecraftian parade of insect genitalia, at least aesthetically. I understand quite well that they don't have the background knowledge to make those calls, and I don't assume it, and I don't think anyone is offended by that.

I am offended that you made me google that shit.