OT: This is What a Plane Crash in Chechnya Looks like (video)

[Jonathan]

Sometimes videos are so unusual...


https://themoscowtimes.com/news/planecrash-in-chechnya-58604

[Robert Camp]

On 8/13/17 6:41 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes videos are so unusual...
>
>
> https://themoscowtimes.com/news/planecrash-in-chechnya-58604

And I bet there are fora elsewhere that would appreciate seeing them.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sure beats getting down to the difficult task of effectively conveying
complexity theory to others.

[Jonathan]

Well here's a great 'book' on the subject, it
has pretty pictures and everything, want
any salt with that?


Introduction to Complex Systems: Patterns in Nature
video (7:51)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5evD6AQeCQ


One of the key points is that in a complex system
all of the parts follow the very same simple rules.

Pop Quiz~

Can you express how that would effect our long cherished
habit of objectively detailing each and every part
as a way of understanding the whole?


Hint: this means the behavior of the whole tells us
what those rules are, so the details of the parts
become IRRELEVANT.

So go ahead and reduce and reduce until you've
smashed the parts into their finest details
caveman style if it makes you happy, you still
won't grasp how nature or reality works.

Even with an atom smasher so large it can be
seen from space, nature will remain a mystery.

We have to start the scientific method from
the output side, from subjective behavior
or emergence first, then after that we
return to the objective part driven methods.

Understand the subjective realm in order to
understand the objective. Not the other way
around as our instinctual need for simplicity
has been leading us all this time.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2017 3:43 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/13/17 6:41 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes videos are so unusual...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://themoscowtimes.com/news/planecrash-in-chechnya-58604
>>>
>>> And I bet there are fora elsewhere that would appreciate seeing them.
>>>
>> Sure beats getting down to the difficult task of effectively conveying
>> complexity theory to others.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Well here's a great 'book' on the subject, it
> has pretty pictures and everything, want
> any salt with that?
>
>
> Introduction to Complex Systems: Patterns in Nature
> video (7:51)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5evD6AQeCQ
>
>
> One of the key points is that in a complex system
> all of the parts follow the very same simple rules.
>
> Pop Quiz~
>
> Can you express how that would effect our long cherished
> habit of objectively detailing each and every part
> as a way of understanding the whole?
>
>
> Hint: this means the behavior of the whole tells us
> what those rules are, so the details of the parts
> become IRRELEVANT.
>

So individual birds and their own component parts (such as say...brains and
wings) are IRRELEVANT to emergent flocking patterns?

A question posed in your video: "How does each bird in the flock behave?"

Not sure to what degree instinct and learning play a role in rule
generation and adoption, but the imperatives in your video to:

"1. Stay close but don't bump into other birds around me

2. Fly as fast as birds near me

3. Move towards center of group"

....sound as though they require or are subserved by competent nervous
systems adapted by evolution and the same goes with working pairs of wings.
Perhaps these patterns come from each bird trying to reduce its chance of
getting offed by a predator. Regardless, brains and wings are important to
underly the rule abiding patterns. If we were to debrain or lop a wing off
each bird the pattern would not emerge. If the birds were heavily
intoxicated by fermented berries I wonder if there would be less
coordination and more midair collisions. Humans cannot do as these birds
because we lack wings.

>
> So go ahead and reduce and reduce until you've
> smashed the parts into their finest details
> caveman style if it makes you happy, you still
> won't grasp how nature or reality works.
>

Emile Durkheim came about way before we were born and his sui generis
stance on sociology tended to ignore role of lower levels. Yet no
brains...no social interaction and long standing collective
representations.

>
> Even with an atom smasher so large it can be
> seen from space, nature will remain a mystery.
>

I think you have me confused with Bill. He's the atom smasher.

>
> We have to start the scientific method from
> the output side, from subjective behavior
> or emergence first, then after that we
> return to the objective part driven methods.
>
> Understand the subjective realm in order to
> understand the objective. Not the other way
> around as our instinctual need for simplicity
> has been leading us all this time.
>

Where would an instinctual need arise from I wonder....BRAINS!!!!

[jillery]

Posting on-topic and making coherent points, two tasks which jonathan
has much trouble even trying to accomplish.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:30:35 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/13/2017 3:43 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/13/17 6:41 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes videos are so unusual...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://themoscowtimes.com/news/planecrash-in-chechnya-58604
>>>
>>> And I bet there are fora elsewhere that would appreciate seeing them.
>>>
>> Sure beats getting down to the difficult task of effectively conveying
>> complexity theory to others.
>>
>
>
>
>
>Well here's a great 'book' on the subject, it
>has pretty pictures and everything, want
>any salt with that?
>
>
>Introduction to Complex Systems: Patterns in Nature
>video (7:51)
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5evD6AQeCQ
>
>
>One of the key points is that in a complex system
>all of the parts follow the very same simple rules.
>
>Pop Quiz~
>
>Can you express how that would effect our long cherished
>habit of objectively detailing each and every part
>as a way of understanding the whole?

Since you asked, for example, if one is interested in the causes of
specific diseases in birds, their flocking behavior is unlikely to be
especially relevant.

The point being is there are lots phenomena where the details of the
parts remains relevant, your repetitive claims otherwise
notwithstanding. Or is why birds flock the only thing that interests
you about birds?

>Hint: this means the behavior of the whole tells us
>what those rules are, so the details of the parts
>become IRRELEVANT.
>
>So go ahead and reduce and reduce until you've
>smashed the parts into their finest details
>caveman style if it makes you happy, you still
>won't grasp how nature or reality works.
>
>Even with an atom smasher so large it can be
>seen from space, nature will remain a mystery.
>
>We have to start the scientific method from
>the output side, from subjective behavior
>or emergence first, then after that we
>return to the objective part driven methods.
>
>Understand the subjective realm in order to
>understand the objective. Not the other way
>around as our instinctual need for simplicity
>has been leading us all this time.

[Jonathan]

Bird flocking etc are examples of complex adaptive systems.
So are diseases. Learn the abstract version first in
order to understand the specific next.

Of course part details matter, but not when trying
to understand the system behavior. Once that is
understood then the part details come into play
when building a specific solution.

Analogous to looking at symptoms first in order
to help diagnose the problem with the parts.
System first, parts second, as opposed to the
well worn habit of reducing to parts first
in order to understand the whole.

Since the parts can't inform about the system
emergent properties the objective constructionist
view can't relate part to whole very well.

But since the emergent properties can define
the part rules, as in the rules the birds
follow when flocking, the system first approach
can relate part and whole.

Looking at a single bird in isolation to the
whole will never reveal the rules they follow
when flocking, only when observing the whole
can those rules be seen.



Cancer as a complex adaptive system.

E.D. Schwab, K.J. Pienta'
The Michigan Prostate Institute, University of Michigan
Comprehensive Cancer Center and Division of
Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine,
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109, USA

Abstract

The second leading cause of death in the USA is cancer.
Institutions worldwide are devoting significant resources
to the treatment of cancer, and the elucidation of the
disease pathway. While great progress has been made in
understanding and treating carcinogenesis, many aspects
of the disease remain intractable.

Throughout the history of science many other disciplines--
astronomy, particle physics, etc.--have been advanced
when the fundamental ideas governing the discipline were
redefined. These redefinitions are often termed
'paradigm shifts'.

The new sciences of chaos theory and complexity have led to
paradigm shifts in many unrelated disciplines such as
economics, meteorology and seismology. Our current understanding
of carcinogenesis has resulted from a conventional view of
the disease process. In this perception, the mutation of
a gene, or several genes, leads to cancer. Applying the
formalism of chaos theory and complexity to carcinogenesis,
however, leads to a different perception of the disease.

If we look closer, cancer can be viewed as a complex adaptive system.
Redefining our perception of cancer may lead to a deeper
understanding of the disease, and possibly result in novel
methods of therapeutic intervention.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8898325

[*Hemidactylus*]

Please enlighten me as to how Susumu Tonegawa won his Nobel and how
subsequent knowledge showed immune response in humans is based on how the
DNA in immunocytes gets rearranged and hypermutated thus making them
different genetically from germline. Or how viruses such as HIV rapidly
mutate in their RNA sequence as countermeasure. Or how bacteria evolve
resistance to antibiotics via changes in plasmids. These are all
paradigmatically reductive phenomena. Have you knowledge of immunology or
microbiology? Your knowledge of ethology seems deficient.

Do you believe in ghosts? Your view of nature makes such belief imperative.

>
> Of course part details matter, but not when trying
> to understand the system behavior. Once that is
> understood then the part details come into play
> when building a specific solution.
>
> Analogous to looking at symptoms first in order
> to help diagnose the problem with the parts.
> System first, parts second, as opposed to the
> well worn habit of reducing to parts first
> in order to understand the whole.
>
> Since the parts can't inform about the system
> emergent properties the objective constructionist
> view can't relate part to whole very well.
>
> But since the emergent properties can define
> the part rules, as in the rules the birds
> follow when flocking, the system first approach
> can relate part and whole.
>
> Looking at a single bird in isolation to the
> whole will never reveal the rules they follow
> when flocking, only when observing the whole
> can those rules be seen.
>

Sorry but bird flocking behavior is dependent upon brain processes. Are you
walking back the ignorant assertion that parts are IRRELEVANT (your
arrogant caps lock)? Could birds be trying to confuse predators as
analogous to shoaling fish? Such strategies would have at least indirect
genetic basis. And genes help develop brains in an umwelt.
>
[gratuitous copy/paste snipped]

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:31:50 -0400, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

The abstract version isn't going to help with identifying the cause of
specific diseases in birds.

>Of course part details matter, but not when trying
>to understand the system behavior. Once that is
>understood then the part details come into play
>when building a specific solution.

I take your comments above as a tacit acceptance of my answer to your
question.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yet another followup avoided by jonathan who is in his political phase now.


Cricket chirps emergent...