Beavers

[Steven Krane]

On the San Pedro river in AZ, beavers were imported (they are native but had been decimated by another species). 

Exemplary SE

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1121/

On Mar 11, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com> wrote:

Or better yet…  Is it man’s nature to build and modify nature?

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Sys Sci
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] liver

 

If a beaver builds a dam to irritate beavers downstream is that natural (or political)?

 

On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:38 AM, MDSE <michael....@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Anything in the physical realm, whether it was created by man or not is a part of reality.   This differentiates man's conceptualization (models) from the real world; theory from reality.  I find the term "natural" to be misleading.  If a beaver builds a dam is it natural?  If people build a dam ( say to catch fish for primal tribesmen) is it natural?   If people build a dam to generate electricity is it natural?   Is mans propensity for making tools natural?  Does it matter?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 11, 2016, at 08:11, Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is a pond made by a beaver an engineered control mechanism or takes place naturally? 

On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:57 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:11 PM, <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 08:18AM -0500 I think the idea of the closed system needs specification.

 

 

If I remember correctly, the notion of open and closed system is well defined

in literature 

 

there should be references here,

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4635217&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4635078%29%26pageNumber%3D6

 

or here

http://www.slideshare.net/PaolaDIM/digital-ecosystems-ontology-entropy-by-paola-di-maio

 

(*  I researched this long time ago its goint to take me time to retrieve my author copy of this paper but if someone wants it desperately I can dig it up somewhere)

 

Yes, models are notional, and yes, closed and open are not necessarily discrete but fuzzy notions

 

The metaphore I use to distinguish closed vs open is indeed the aquarium vs the open waters,

where regulation of the variables does not take place naturally but by some engineered control mechanism as Len says

 

I am sure there are exceptions

 

PDM

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that there can be a truly closed system except that the observer (the person who defines what the system is and does) can ignore interactions with the exterior and simply declare the system to be closed. I accept (graciously of course) your clarification of socio technical systems. Now I know! Thx   Sent from my iPhone

Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Mar 10 07:16PM Michael,   We in SPT have been saying this for many years. Unless the observer finds it useful to artificially "close" the system, all systems are open. This is often presented as "controlling the variables" for reductionist research to be successful.   It is quite interesting historically that Ludwig von Bertalanffy (founder of general systems approaches) got a lot of attention and approbation for even pointing out that there were open systems (to some degree Prigogine's Nobel Prize was for that too, in chemistry).   For many years it was very useful in science to imagine and work on closed systems. It was the beginning of many important formulae which require an "ideal" systems to calculate to discover the relationships between the key parameters. One could read "ideal" as "closed" in many cases. The ideal gas law came out of it. And so on. Now in the era of open and complex systems, we are trying to figure out other new and powerful patterns. So closed is going by the wayside except when it is useful in several reductionist and engineering special cases, as it will always have to be.   Len   On Mar 10, 2016, at 5:18 AM, MDSE wrote:   I think the idea of the closed system needs specification. I'm not sure that there can be a truly closed system except that the observer (the person who defines what the system is and does) can ignore interactions with the exterior and simply declare the system to be closed. I accept (graciously of course) your clarification of socio technical systems. Now I know! Thx   Sent from my iPhone     >>MD Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you >>>identify any such socio technical system?     I may have expressed incorrectly   Assume an extended system with a boundary, that includes the techniical, social and environment. What I purport (and happy to defend) is that the technical capability can only be delivered if the human aspects and environmental aspects are also modelled as part of the system   So people or other social element, oxygen, temperature, other factors should be modelled as part of the system if they essential for the system to deliver its intended capability   to me its obvious, and rather simple. but please tell me whats wrong with my worldview.       SOS regarding the usefulness vs redundancy of the term SOS, I think it convesy a different meaning from S alone   S, is a given set capable of delivering a function/capability   SOS is a set of sets capable of delivering a function/capability that S alone cannot perform   Do S and SOS behave in the same way? It depends, imho, whether they are closed or open , I think   if S and SOS are both closed, then they behave similarly/same   if they are both open, then probably not (because their number and tyes of interactions are likely to differ)   doesnt sound too wild an hypothesis to me, but still an hypothesis til I run some experiments   no?   PDM                 liver <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 05:51PM +0530   Apologies for not changing the subject line in the previous reply to group Getting difficult to read the replies, since nobody bothers trimming the posts :-)   Just a few more thoughts from reading the thread   - well, I d agree that the liver may not be that clearcut example, because as people say ou can take a liver and put it in a machine with appropriate I/O and may work, but without the context the liver doesnt have much of a purpose   - I guess the point I am trying to make is that from a socio technical systems viewpoint, whatever the system needs to function, must be within the boundary of the system. (no problem if folks disagree)   - The example of taking the animal on the table on the moon works fine here: the environmental conditions, such as air, pressure, temperature, are all part of the system, if they impact the ability of the same to deliver its capability   = yes Mike Dee a system is a system, but the distinction I make (which works for me) and which I have not seen addressed in the thread is the importance of open systems vs closed systems. a closed system has everything that it needs to function within its boundary, and its dynamic equilibrium is regulated by some control mechamism )think of an aquarium, which needs certain supply of oxygen and temperature to keep the fish alive, these are all pre programmed) But open systems, must self regulate via mechamisms of physical lawas (such as thermodynamics laws etc)   - I make the choice to model a (closed) system as a self contained unit capable of delivery a function/capability, and to consider an SOS a system made up of more than one system, affording a new capability altogether   = Can you plese provide a reference for who says that a SOS exists when the systems is made of do not afford their original capabliity ??(not sure I read that right) I would disagree with that , but I woud accept that maybe there are more than one type of SOS, in which case what you describe may be one type of SOS based on one definition only   = Bottom line: its all about deifinitions and boundary settings, which is an exercise in ontological modelling. I joineds this group with the intent to help evise a systems ontology (an ontology of systems?) maybe the world still needs that?   Many greetings   PDM                 Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500   Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone     Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700   If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.     Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500   The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.     -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

"Mike Dee" <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 05:34PM -0500 Len: That’s good to know. In engineering (as in science I would suppose) we must be very careful of what we leave out of system models. My concern is the purposeful abuse of half-baked models for use in moving public opinion (i.e. politics). For this we depend upon the honest of scientists (and engineers of course), and I’m not sure the record is all that good.     Sigh…     From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lenard Troncale Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:16 PM To: syss...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] liver     Michael,     We in SPT have been saying this for many years. Unless the observer finds it useful to artificially "close" the system, all systems are open. This is often presented as "controlling the variables" for reductionist research to be successful.     It is quite interesting historically that Ludwig von Bertalanffy (founder of general systems approaches) got a lot of attention and approbation for even pointing out that there were open systems (to some degree Prigogine's Nobel Prize was for that too, in chemistry).     For many years it was very useful in science to imagine and work on closed systems. It was the beginning of many important formulae which require an "ideal" systems to calculate to discover the relationships between the key parameters. One could read "ideal" as "closed" in many cases. The ideal gas law came out of it. And so on. Now in the era of open and complex systems, we are trying to figure out other new and powerful patterns. So closed is going by the wayside except when it is useful in several reductionist and engineering special cases, as it will always have to be.     Len     On Mar 10, 2016, at 5:18 AM, MDSE wrote:           I think the idea of the closed system needs specification. I'm not sure that there can be a truly closed system except that the observer (the person who defines what the system is and does) can ignore interactions with the exterior and simply declare the system to be closed. I accept (graciously of course) your clarification of socio technical systems. Now I know! Thx   Sent from my iPhone     On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:28, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:     >>MD Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you >>>identify any such socio technical system?       I may have expressed incorrectly     Assume an extended system with a boundary, that includes the techniical, social and environment. What I purport (and happy to defend) is that   the technical capability can only be delivered if the human aspects and environmental aspects are also modelled as part of the system     So people or other social element, oxygen, temperature, other factors should be modelled as part of the system if they essential for the system to deliver its intended capability     to me its obvious, and rather simple. but please tell me whats wrong with my worldview.         SOS   regarding the usefulness vs redundancy of the term SOS, I think it convesy a different meaning from S alone     S, is a given set capable of delivering a function/capability     SOS is a set of sets capable of delivering a function/capability that S alone cannot perform     Do S and SOS behave in the same way?   It depends, imho, whether they are closed or open , I think     if S and SOS are both closed, then they behave similarly/same     if they are both open, then probably not (because their number and tyes of interactions are likely to differ)     doesnt sound too wild an hypothesis to me, but still an hypothesis til I run some experiments     no?     PDM                   <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> liver     Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 07 05:51PM +0530   Apologies for not changing the subject line in the previous reply to group Getting difficult to read the replies, since nobody bothers trimming the posts :-) Just a few more thoughts from reading the thread - well, I d agree that the liver may not be that clearcut example, because as people say ou can take a liver and put it in a machine with appropriate I/O and may work, but without the context the liver doesnt have much of a purpose - I guess the point I am trying to make is that from a socio technical systems viewpoint, whatever the system needs to function, must be within the boundary of the system. (no problem if folks disagree) - The example of taking the animal on the table on the moon works fine here: the environmental conditions, such as air, pressure, temperature, are all part of the system, if they impact the ability of the same to deliver its capability = yes Mike Dee a system is a system, but the distinction I make (which works for me) and which I have not seen addressed in the thread is the importance of open systems vs closed systems. a closed system has everything that it needs to function within its boundary, and its dynamic equilibrium is regulated by some control mechamism )think of an aquarium, which needs certain supply of oxygen and temperature to keep the fish alive, these are all pre programmed) But open systems, must self regulate via mechamisms of physical lawas (such as thermodynamics laws etc) - I make the choice to model a (closed) system as a self contained unit capable of delivery a function/capability, and to consider an SOS a system made up of more than one system, affording a new capability altogether = Can you plese provide a reference for who says that a SOS exists when the systems is made of do not afford their original capabliity ??(not sure I read that right) I would disagree with that , but I woud accept that maybe there are more than one type of SOS, in which case what you describe may be one type of SOS based on one definition only = Bottom line: its all about deifinitions and boundary settings, which is an exercise in ontological modelling. I joineds this group with the intent to help evise a systems ontology (an ontology of systems?) maybe the world still needs that? Many greetings PDM     Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500   Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system? Sent from my iPhone     Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700   If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.     Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500   The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions. Sent from my iPhone   <x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> Back to top     You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join> group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.       -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.     -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.     -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

 

 

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Wallis]

That distinction between natural and artificial... is it natural or artificial?

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee....@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jring7...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee....@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

-- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

Back to top

[MDSE]

We often say that something will act according to its "nature". Seems to me that whether something is man made or otherwise, if it exists, then what it does (how it interacts with the rest of existence) is natural.   The term natural should not be used to differentiate man / not-man, but rather that which exists, whether observable or not. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Steven Krane]

That distinction where?

[Jack Ring]

Depends on what is making the distinction. A beaver won’t touch an artificial tree.

On Mar 15, 2016, at 6:37 AM, Steve Wallis <swa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[Steven Krane]

Michael, You support one meaning and not the other.  So do I.

Natural or artificial is a false choice.  It is natural for humans to make artifacts, including abstract nouns, and it occurs in nature (see the third rock from the sun).

[Steven Krane]

What is the opposite of anthropomorphic?

The etymology of “anthropo” (pertaining to man) goes back to the Greeks, and so, in my view, comes from a time and a place where there was a lot of suspect thinking going on, and a seemingly ready acceptance of it without a whole lot of scientific investigation.  We still suffer under some of the hallucinations birthed by the Greeks, and benefit from other developments, to be fair.

If anthropomorphism is seeing human qualities in the biosphere, is that wrong?  And what of a tendency to deny qualities in the biosphere in humans?

Anyway, whatever goes on in their little skulls, beavers are pretty good at ecosystem development and management, probably (from my anthropomorphic perspective) by applying the scientific method, over and over and over.  We could probably learn from them.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee.scny@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone     Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jring7...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700   If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee.scny@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

...

[joseph simpson]

Another view point is:

"Peirce held that all thought is in signs, issuing in and from interpretation, where 'sign' is the word for the broadest variety of conceivable semblances, diagrams, metaphors, symptoms, signals, designations, symbols, texts, even mental concepts and ideas, all as determinations of a mind or quasi-mind, that which at least functions like a mind, as in the work of crystals or bees — the focus is on sign action in general rather than on psychology, linguistics, or social studies (fields which he also pursued)."

Have fun,

Joe

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

-- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

...

--

The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[Lenard Troncale]

several thesauri list "non-human" as the only antonym for anthropomorphism altho' I have not looked exhaustively.

making me look up anthro's definition shows me I have been using it somewhat differently from the most widely accepted definitions. I have been using it  more like humanocentrism, which for all I know may be my neologism. No I found it.....

WIKIPEDIA

Anthropocentrism update

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Humanocentrism)

Anthropocentrism is either the belief that humans are the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.^[1] The term can be used interchangably with humanocentrism. while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures

I reiterate that humans are natural too. BUT we seem to be locked in our very limited neural net brains which may be the basis for many misconceptions about reality.  Or at least biased representations. It is the "human supremacy" part I object to.

Also please a little humility. Man-made is great but all man-made things are very recent formulations (compared to most all natural systems) and as such have not survived very long periods of selection by nature for fit and fulfillment of function properly. Humans can even protect very badly formulated new systems or malfunctioning systems or unethical systems by their efforts at blocking selection. That is missplaced "human supremacy."

Len

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Steven Krane]

The feature that makes humans different, seems to me, is that we can fairly quickly modify our behavior by changing the electrical patterns in our brains (learning).  Other creatures seem to exhibit behaviors that are a function of their rather static physiology, so you don’t see as much change.

This changing by thinking feature of humans is of course a blessing and a curse.  It makes us more dynamic and less stable.  In fact, our behaviors are so dynamic and our numbers are so great, that it has become possible for us to make very large, irreversible errors.

In my professional world, its analogous to the extreme troubles we have with software that replaced relatively dependable mechanical systems.  More freedom, more change-ability, but more (unpleasant) surprises and fragility.

Our somewhat arrogantly named species (we’re the “wise” ones) has only been around 100,000 years.  We’re still in the entry-into-service phase in evolutionary time scales.  If we don’t figure it out soon, we’re not going to be a very successful experiment.  The good thing is we do have the ability to change (our thinking and thus behavior) very quickly.

There are many ways to purify thought with.  Science is one.  Dialog is another.  Doing both at the same time is stellar.  But, there are other ways, just as powerful, to pervert thought.  Advertising, popular politics, fear, and protection of our fragile egos (the imaginary thinker of thoughts) are some.

Systems Science should help, if we can make one.

[Lenard Troncale]

Steven,

I could not agree more with the thoughts and conclusions and prophesizing you present here. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. So why do we not have clear criteria for what a true science of systems would be? Why don't we have a community (small in the beginning) clearly dedicated to bring more science to systems thinking? And why don't we have more funding for forging a systems science if it so critical to species survival in the very long run? No, wait, how could I even ask these questions in an atmosphere like our current national and international events and attitudes?

Len

P.S. no matter. we should ignore the much larger audience and just try to organize and work in small, dedicated, finely focused small groups. Join with me?

[MDSE]

Nice work Len!

Sent from my iPhone

[Jack Ring]

Maybe we do not have a clear criteria for a science of systems because we don’t have a clear criteria for ‘science' or for ‘system’  let alone system(s). 

I suggest that we acknowledge the current dedicated, finely focused small groups, e.g. the DSRP group led by Derek Cabrera, the INCOSE MBSE Initiative, the Troncale STP Group, etc., and cease ‘dissing’ those who do not accept, prima facie, the respective catechisms of each group.

Jack

On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>  dedicated, finely focused small groupswrote:

[joseph simpson]

Len, Steve and Jack:

Interesting ideas and goals... but how do we start on the path toward the any of the goals?

"There are many ways to purify thought with.  Science is one.  Dialog is another.  Doing both at the same time is stellar."

What language should be used in the application of science?

What language should be used in the creation of dialog?

Mary and I have refined Warfield's call for the integration of three language types by creating the augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) that provides a mechanism to align the semantics of three different language forms.  The AMEI has a prose component, a structured graphic component, and mathematics component.

Our work on the basic aspects of these language types has identified a number of interesting semantic questions and issues.  One specific issue is the nature of mathematical Graph Theory and the systems science and engineering use of graphs.

In Graph Theory, a graph is an object consisting of  two sets, the 1) vertex set and the 2) edge set, which consists of a set of sets.  

Given this definition of a graph, then a graph could never have self loops because the edge set must contain two different numbers, {{1,2}, {3, 8}, {4,5}}.  

However, in many engineering applications a graph is allowed to have a self-loop.

In these cases, a graph is an object consisting of two sets, the 1) vertex set and the edge set, which consists of a set of tuples.

The this alternative definition of a graph, the the graph may have self loops, because the edge set contains tuples not sets, { (1,1), (1,2), (3,4), (3,3)}.

The exercise of applying the AMEI to system design and discovery problems highlights these types of issues.

In this specific case these difference are addressed in a straight forward manner and the analysis of the differences adds further context and depth to the study and analysis of systems.

Now that the first cut at the General Structural Modeling software is complete, the plan is to collect, refine and enhance the information distributed during the analysis of the proposed SDDP ISM algorithm. 

This document, when combined with some past work and the improved software should support the application of structured dialog and structured systems analysis.

I look forward to working with a team to further refine and develop these artifacts.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

-- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

...

--

[Jack Ring]

Intriguing. 

How to proceed such that the pace and space allows dialog to occur among all? 

Starkermann’s model advises that each cohort be less than six and Hock’s ‘chaordic’ way (Purpose and Principles) seems necessary.

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Excellent question..

In my case, the plan is to evaluate these communication and language aspects as they relate to a specific system science and/or engineering problem.

There are two intriguing aspects of the "three language type" isomorphic evaluation.  The first aspect is determining the criteria for isomorphism.  The second aspect is the combined "impact" of all three forms of communication on the topic of interest.

Very few people will relate to all three forms of language.

However, almost all people should be able to relate to at least one form of language, which, when combined with the concept of isomorphism, will give them a foothold into understanding the other two language forms.

What specific next steps do you propose?

[Steven Krane]

Joe, I would start by organizing an IM session because I think the Extent, Variety, and Ambiguity in the situation demands it.  I'm certain that if we did that we would find that some of what SSWG has focused on is salient, and timely, and some of it is not.  I think it is also likely that we would surface some things that are very active barriers to progress.  Some other very loosely organized thoughts about us and our mission:

Definite systems – There is insufficient discussion and analysis of “definite” systems.  The observation part of science is about observing something definite.  So, if we want to use the scientific method, we then are obliged to be definite about what we are talking about, and what we are not talking about (what’s excluded).  Thus, all the discussions about definitions of system are unavoidable.

A General Systems Theory, if there is one, will arise, it seems to me, brick-by-brick.  The physical sciences did not start off with a theory of everything.  Religions do that.  They started with simple observations (measurements) of definite things.  Galileo started by exploring the nature of matter.  It wasn’t until much later that he enunciates principles of matter.  I am too ill-informed of the “accepted” science (not philosophy) of systems to know what the existing foundation is.  Is there one?

Language - Language of course is essential to science.  What does the label meter mean?  What about metre?  Oh, it’s the same?  What is a “second”, precisely?  What does the “x” mean in 5 x 5 = 25?  In order to measure, the object being measured must be a definite object and the measurement must have a very particular meaning.  What is the glossary of concepts in Systems Science (Ontology?) that, above all others, need to have a clear-enough-to-measure description?

IM fractals – What are the important questions?

It does seem ironic that the INCOSE Systems Science Working Group does not make use of, or even experiment with the Work Program of Complexity (IM) developed by Warfield.  I’m not sure what the reasons are.  One of the problems (challenges) with IM is you have to have a good question (relative to your aim and context).  In this case, I think the best question would be one that elicits more questions that pertain to the establishment of a science of systems.  The process may be repeated fractally, until, it becomes clear (by the questions) what avenues are ripe to advance and test theories of systems.

How to Proceed - Systems are mainly about people.  Its how we see.  Compare with mathematics.  2+2=4 is real… right?  Well, yes, there is a very good correlation between some mathematics and some features of nature.  Mathematics, arising in a human brain, corresponding with the nature that created the brain is not so surprising.  But the math is not out there.  Systems are the same, it seems to me.  So, I see Systems Science as a very human science.  Perhaps it is more akin to Political Science than the Physical Sciences.  That may be a harsh thing to say, and perhaps unpleasant (it is to me) but I think its close to the actual truth.

In my working life I have seen more trouble in systems development arising from incoherent human language and value systems, than from anything we might call a “technical” cause or influence.  So as a practical matter (engineering is) focusing on the human side of the equation seems prerequisite.  In that regard, I think the IEWG served a valuable purpose, and does constitute a brick, or refers to several bricks of a Systems Science.  John Warfield of course focused intensely on the HUMAN capacity to dissolve complexity and realize successful systems.

Interpretation and Interpretive Structural Models - Interpretation is an interesting thing.  When I talk to people about “lessons learned”, I claim that the parts are 1) the expectation, 2) the experience, 3) interpretation about why the experience differed from the expectation, or did not.  There are so many possible interpretations and scores of errors of reasoning that are possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies).  Interpretation seems like a fundamental, and highly dangerous, activity that is very central to applied systems science.  Studying that is inbounds I would say.  Cognitive science, which has begun to gain some traction in measurement technology, is a cousin of systems science, in my view.

Interpretations, like people, are creative and fallible, as Warfield says.  Or, interpretations are always correct, misinterpretations are not ;)  I confess to know little about what difficulties there are with the mathematics of interpretive structural modeling.  Perhaps it has to do with being definite about language.  In any event, I do know that in building an interpretive structural model with a group, the biggest challenge is in the minds of the participants, not in the mathematical description of what they were able and willing to conceive and convey.  You can build an ISM with a group using only paper and a wall.  The process of building ISMs increases coherency in a group.  Of that I am sure.  Whether or not the end result is an interpretation, or misinterpretation, of the situation depends of course on the total knowledge and dispositions at the table.  And, at least for me, the important thing about an ISM completed in the context of the WPOC (IM) is that the meaning is clear, shared, and strategically enlightening.  Its not like a technical drawing where the details have to be precisely correct.  Its more like a Monet than a Degas.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee.scny@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jring7...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee.scny@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

-- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.

...

...

[Jack Ring]

[Jack Ring]

I think Steven Krane has said it quite well. I do suggest that we should address the people aspect not just from the Language perspective but from the General Semantics perspective. A coupling of General System Theory and General Semantics may provide sufficient context for both system and system management.

Jack 

On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:57 AM, Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

[joseph simpson]

Steven:

Excellent observations and analysis....  

"I would start by organizing an IM session because I think the Extent, Variety, and Ambiguity in the situation demands it."

As you well know, Interactive Management sessions assume a certain type of organizational context, power structure and resource allocation process. The current make up of our diverse special interest group may not exhibit the necessary organizational qualities and/or resource allocation ability to support the standard Interactive Management event series.  

However, the unique experience, quality and background of the individuals involved in this group may allow a successful engagement of the Interactive Management process.  Interactive Management has five levels of success:

   Level 1: Learning more about what is involved in approaching the issue.

   Level 2: Learning more about the issue itself.

   Level 3: Achieving a good definition of the issue.

   Level 4: Finding good alternative designs for resolving the issue.

   Level 5: Arriving at a good action choice to resolve the issue.

If individuals are interested, it appears that levels one (1) and two (2) are within reach of a small group of individuals that are participating via distributed network connections.

Interactive Management has three phases:

  Phase 1: The planning phase

  Phase 2: The workshop phase

  Phase 3: The followup phase.

The first phase may be accomplished in a distributed fashion using network communications.

Interactive Management has three groups of roles:

  Group 1: External roles

  Group 2: Internal professional roles

  Group 3: Internal support roles

If the group decided to conduct an Interactive Management activity, then individuals would need to be selected for each of the specified roles.

Who is interested enough to accept and act in these Interactive Management roles?

Do we need funding to start the first phase of work?

Who will act as the client/sponsor?

What is the smallest group of individuals needed to support an effective Interactive Management event?

Anyone want to do this?

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

-- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

...

...

--

[Steven Krane]

Joe,

I don’t agree that IM assumes a certain organizational context.  IM has been practiced in many settings.

I’m willing to participate but I’m skeptical about the effects of doing it via network communications.  It would be very different and thus likely to fail (most mutations do).  But, even a flawed IM episode can be highly productive, in relation to other forms of group engagement.

The first step is to identify a person, or group of people, that will fulfill the Client role.  The Client is passionate about the issue and can articulate it.  The Client and IM Staff discuss the issue and whether or not IM is suited to the situation.  The Client doesn’t need to know anything about IM but must be willing to learn the part.

[joseph simpson]

Steven:

You are the Interactive Management expert and I will defer to your judgment.  My point of view may have been better stated by saying, "Interactive Management is usually practiced by large industrial or political organizations."

I am also skeptical about using a distributed team linked only by electronic networked communications.  Unless a source of funding is found to support the creation of a co-located team, then the distributed networked approach appears to be our only option.  Do you know of a different approach?

Thanks for stepping forward to support this effort.

Now we need a client, who should be the client?

I will make time to participate in a minor role, so someone else needs to step up and assume the client role.

I hope we can get enough people to participate, this will be a lot of fun.

[Curt McNamara]

Hear hear!

Modeling could work like this:
-- we all (us and "other") start with our own models (of what we perceive)
-- then we combine them as a fuzzy overlapped map/model (two enhanced rich pictures?).

After that we can look at different representation (system dynamics, agent based, CAS, MBSE, DSRP, SPT, AMEI) and decide which one looks the closest to our overlapped representation.

               Curt

Jack

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?   Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.   Sent from my iPhone     Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

-- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.   -- The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.   Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

...

[joseph simpson]

Curt:

Interesting approach... 

But I am not sure that I understand what you are suggesting....

I believe that the original proposal was for an Interactive Management approach.

Interactive Management is a well-defined, well-documented process.

I have attached a copy of, "A Handbook of Interactive Management," to this email. 

Are you proposing a different approach?

Or are you suggesting that the evaluation of the models be part the the Interactive Management process?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Steven Krane]

Well, that is in essence what happens in an IM workshop. Participants arrive with their own mental models   They learn about the other participant models, which changes their own (learning). They clarify their models to others and themselves. They integrate their models,  sometimes conceding a point which is not essential to achievement of the end. They structure their integrated model and make sense of it together. It is really quite remarkable.

However, any kind of model is inert without some action behind it. Since science takes generations maybe you have to be happy laying a few bricks. 

Sent from my iPhone

<Handbook-of-Interactive-Management.pdf>

[Aleksandar Malečić]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

However, any kind of model is inert without some action behind it. Since science takes generations maybe you have to be happy laying a few bricks.

 For instance, if someone said that Terrence Deacon, Plamen Simeonov, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, Sunny Auyang, Robert Rosen, Andreas Bartels, Ruth Kastner, Brian Josephson, and David Deutsch have provided important bricks to systems in physics, it would be difficult to communicate even with them. They would be chronically "busy" because such a suggestion would differ too much even from their daily routines. A paper mentioning all of them (and combined with Douglas Hofstadter and Roger Penrose) and claiming that they are all talking about different sides of the same "brick" would be a horror show for a reviewer and as such rejected. On the other hand, such an author shouldn't be particularly smart, just weird enough to try and fail (especially if he/she doesn't have "some action" in the biography in order to be relevant).

Aleksandar

[joseph simpson]

Aleksandar:

One of the most difficult aspects associated with the exploration of systems concepts is the effective communication of new ideas, insights and relationships.

Human beings need to have a shared context to effectively communicate between and among themselves.

One of the key features that I have found valuable in the communication of novel or non-standard systems concepts is the direct application of three language types.  

The use of prose (natural language) is strongly dependent on common shared context for semantic integration and the creation of shared understanding.  People need to take the time to get together and talk.

Mathematics is less dependent on shared common context because of the universal, formal rules associated with mathematics.  Mathematics is the same in any natural language. 

The degree to which structured graphics are dependent on common context to support shared semantics and understanding is directly related to the degree of mathematical formalism used in the presentation and interpretation of the structured graphics.

One efficient method of communication among a large diverse group of experts is the Delphi method.  Important areas of the problem set could be evaluated from a formal point of view and then inserted into a process like the Delphi method.

It all just takes time, insight and a steady hand...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--

The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.