Subscribe to this feed.
Social OODA Loops / Networks
Recent debate over differing concepts of “social networks” — resulting in part from my post on “Rule Sets and the Revised OODA” but taken up by Dan of tdaxp as well and commenters at tdaxp — have inspired a reevaluation of some things I’ve previously written on the topic.
First, both Dan and I highlighted this section of Dr. Yaneer Bar-Yam’s visualization of evolving social structures:
Dan suggested that the progression should have been quite the opposite:
Part of the reasoning for this reverse diagram, I think, may be related to the increase of vertical controls, as Dan stated:
Why? Because the history of human civilization has been the history of steadily increasing vertical control. 17,000 years ago, when the human brain began shrinking, man became a social animal and the State of Nature was overturned.This conflict between nurture and Nature may be old, in human history as well as in human debate over human histories, and I normally dislike separating the two forces. All that happens is natural, even if we do not understand the natural forces behind all human activities. However, the separation between non-human forces and strictly human forces, as shapers of human destiny, will prove very important in understanding the evolution of human societies……
[Dan, tdaxp, “Comments on Verticalization and Progress”]
In my previous post, I made several comments I would like to explore in more detail:
- As I have been doing in various recent posts addressing the OODA loop, I reiterated the fact that influence over human activity can occur in no way other than by manipulating the physical world: there are no metaphysical acts capable of directly altering another’s abstract decision-making (cognitive) processes.
- Because metaphysical acts may not directly change the world, some theories of human “networks” leave me queasy. We may discuss how humans are “connected,” but there are no direct physical links between one person’s mental constructs and another’s, nor between any part of one person’s cognitive processes and another’s — except, through the physical world which we share. A discussion of human networks which bypasses consideration of the concrete in favor of describing merely how mental constructs (ideologies, understandings) are similar thus rests far too much on abstraction and, often, on a faith in metaphysical “connections.” Put another way: the theory that adolescents in love express when they say that they are connected to their “soul mates” is faith in just such a metaphysical connection. Run a hoola-hoop over each one to show there is no real connection between them. (This they usually discover — too late.)
- When we create simplified diagrams of human social networks, 9 times out of ten (at least), what we are really trying to show is how common rule sets — or, call them common mental constructs, common abstractions — motivate humans to act in similar ways. I used the laws of the highway as an example: speed limits, lane demarcations, traffic lights and signs, etc., will motivate most drivers to travel in common ways across common grounds in an organized manner. This does not mean that they are connected — that happens momentarily when they crash together after not following common rule sets — but only that their actions are directed along common routes within common parameters in common directions.
In that post, I gave a simple, quick sketch of the way Bar-Yam’s diagram could be redrawn to show how human “connectivity” is not authentic physical connection:
I.e., each dot is a human — disconnected from the other humans — and the physical Acts of these humans create chains of cause & effect in the concrete, physical world (the arrows leading from each dot.) When you see an arrow cross another dot, that does not mean that these dots are actually connected, but only that changes in the material world resulting from one human’s act cross the path of another person; or, that other person “observes” that world altered by that act. Sometimes, two or more arrows cross, which is like a crossing of waves, or a blending of causes which may lead to different physical effects than any given action would produce.
But such a simple diagram, though accurately representing one type of interaction, does not take into account another occurrence: the abstract processing, or human reasoning from observations of the world.
Network theorists often take two different approaches when they attempt to define real “social networks.” The first I have already described: networks may be a “map” of common activities inspired by rule sets held in common by a group of people. The activities are physical acts; or, such a “network” is somewhat concrete if considered strictly through a representation of commonly-organized physical activities. If we designated one color of arrow in the above diagram as a type of act, and drew the same colored arrow from each of a handful of dots for each person who acted like the others in that set, we would be coming close to such a representation of a social network organized by shared activities. The other type of social network might be quite abstract: i.e., representations of people “connected” by common ideologies. The most ambitious network theorists actually combine the two approaches. In truth, the people in either type of network are not actually connected, in any concrete way. Rather, we are making our own abstractions of activities or ideologies that are common, and the actual persons seem to be connected, simply because in our minds we associate them with each other on the basis of whatever they have or do in common.
We would be foolish to disregard what actually connects us: the physical world. We all live upon the earth most of our lives (heh, there are astronauts), and so it would be easy to say that we are all connected to each other in a very physical way via the Earth.
I have already given another example: automobiles that crash connect, and since we are connected physically to our cars by seats and seat belts, we can say that we are connected via these things. If I slap you, my hand will connect with your face.
Our physical senses are also concrete connections between us and the Earth. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste operate concretely. If a flower gives off chemicals that enter our nose, allowing us to “smell that flower,” we are connected in a chain to that flower: [Earth], flower, chemicals, atmosphere, nose, olfactory receptors. However, if you and I smell the same flower, we are not connected by that flower, although we may experience similar smells — even if we are connected by the collective atmosphere of the Earth and by the Earth considered in whole. Diagrammed via the Revised OODA, this organization would look something like this:
Recall the diagram for the Concrete OODA of the Revised OODA given in previous posts:
In the Simple Concrete Social OODA, I’ve merely added a direct line from Physical Act to the World to represent the fact that our acts always alter some part of the world; then, I’ve considered five different people, or five OODA loops, joined by a common Earth.
In fact, although each of us has a connection to the Earth, we may not simultaneously observe via the same chain of smaller connections such as molecules and photons. This is a matter of perspective, considered concretely. If you are on one side of a hill and I on another, we may not be seeing the same things. Or, as with the flower, the chemical molecules that stimulate our olfactory receptors will not be the exact same molecules or collections of molecules, even if they are very similar or are constructed exactly the same way. Furthermore, part of the concrete information entering our Abstract OODA will be genetic information, which may often be quite similar (considering our similar genetic make-up) but could also be quite different as it relates to different stages in life and different chemical processes beyond the simple genome. These differences in observational histories might therefore require a more complex diagram:
It might be tempting to suggest that our “observational niches” may never overlap, since distinct molecules and photons are not likely to be shared in exactly the same way, via our senses. However, biologically humans are quite alike — shaping our sensory observations in very similar ways, and also shaping the way we interpret those sensations into “sound” and “sights” and “tastes” or forms — and even distinct molecules may be identical chemically, for instance. This is a diagram, after all, and a simplification of what actually occurs which I’ve created to better understand the complexity; thus, I’ve interpreted these similarities as allowing “overlapping” observational histories. On the other hand, however we are alike, and however alike the types of things we witness, our histories will vary and, like the metaphor of two people on opposite sides of a hill (or even, opposite sides of an ocean), our sensory experiences are not going to overlap exactly. We will have different observational histories.
Problematically, all humans have entire gaps in their observational abilities, by which I mean, for example, no human is yet able to directly observe what is happening on a planet in another solar system. There are even places on the Earth, or within the Earth, that no human has observed. Plus, our senses certainly are incapable of directly observing everything that is happening around us. (E.g., we only “see” within a short spectrum on the electromagnetic spectrum.) So the Complex Concrete Social OODA diagram should take into account these common gaps as well as gaps between different observational histories:
But these Concrete OODA’s are not all that occurs. As sensory information and genetic information flow into the Concrete Orient phase, they enter into the process of abstraction or into the Abstract OODA which interprets that information through: Abstract Observation, Abstract Orientation (analysis and synthesis), Abstract Decision (hypotheses), and Abstract Acts (ideologizing, memorizing, ‘understanding’.) Recall the Abstract OODA:
Taking into account the Abstract OODA of each person in our model of the Social OODA, we might try to show the connections of these mental constructs (via the World) like this:
I.e., each person forms mental constructs based on his own observational history. True, as suggested in my post on rule sets, some information that enters the Abstract OODA will not be synthesized or analyzed in a way that allows it to become understood, or that allows a formation of a mental construct. Even so, whatever mental constructs are formed by an individual will be the result of his own particular observational niche.
However, this model can be modified to account for those overlaps mentioned above and shown in this diagram where World has overlapping hues suggesting shared or very similar observations:
Hopefully this reduced image still displays the swirled colors in each of the Mental Constructs in your browser: those swirls are actually expansions of the swirled hues in the World model, for each person represented; e.g., the top-right individual has a mental construct roughly filled in using this image:
By suggesting that shared concrete observations (including, remember, genetic/biological information) overlap and may lead to overlapping mental constructs, I’m working toward a consideration of shared ideologies and understandings, etc., while also working toward a consideration of human social networks similar to the considerations others have presented in various ways. I’m also working toward a clarification and expansion of something I mentioned at the end of my post on the OODA and rule sets:
But I have not designed a diagram for the hypothetical “singularity” for a resilient global society, which according to “rule set theory” would require that a significant number of individuals would have mostly common understandings of the world….Actions within the world resulting from that understanding would lead to changes in the world that are not major shocks to other observers….
[“Rule Sets and the Revised OODA”]
In these diagrams of the Abstract OODA within the Social OODA, I’ve excluded displaying how these uncommon or common mental constructs lead to actions that in turn lead to changes within the material world. Consider this simplified version of those swirls:
Any two of these individuals may share some mental constructs not shared by the others; or, three of them; or perhaps all five will share some mental constructs. They don’t really share these — each is encoded in the physical and electrochemical portion of the individual, largely un-connected brain — but the constructs they have developed will be very much alike if not identical. If people Act in focused manners and habitual manners from their mental constructs (see the Concrete OODA, above), then we might by-pass a consideration of the World in consideration of how different people may engage in similar decisions and activities, changing the World in similar ways:
That dark olive-green color is the color made in the overlap of all five individuals. Beginning with common understandings or ideologies, these understandings will lead to common activities:
Common Focused Acts:
Common Mental Construct — Common Decisions — Common Physical Acts/Activities
Common Habitual or Reflexive Acts:
Common Mental Construct — Common Physical Acts/Activities
These common activities may then manipulate the World in very similar ways; but, that world is concurrently being manipulated by other forces: individuals, other groups, the forces of nature (non-human forces.)
This is of course a gross simplification, especially when we consider how many observations, how many memories, etc., exist for each person and the way these things may overlap within an individual mind to form things as complex as ideologies, for instance. Who was it that said that an examination of all humanity would not turn up two individuals with exactly the same religion? Hmmm…Now that I look it up, it is three:
Men say they are of the same religion, for quietness’ sake; but if the matter were well examined, you would scarce find three anywhere of the same religion on all points.…on all points. Ideologies and religions are compound mental constructs, or more complex mental constructs, and therefore you will, for instance, find one Christian demonstrating against capital punishment and another demonstrating for capital punishment. But as these various points begin to align, I expect a common type of activity.
[John Selden, 1584 - 1654]
Another very good example: language. Languages are really substitutions for the World — by which I mean, that when I say “car” aloud, you will hear those sounds and know what type of concrete, physical entity I mean by those sounds. We may then speak aloud, trading sounds back and forth, and therefore connect via these concrete vibrations in the atmosphere; but we are not connecting via an actual vehicle. It is only because we have witnessed in common the actual vehicles and the sounds of “car” in collusion, although at different times, that we have common mental constructs. But did you picture a green car or a red car when you saw those symbols c - a - r ? Languages, like religions, are complex mental constructs, and two people may not have exactly the same mental constructs vis-a-vis languages. Yet, if you are an English speaker, then you and I engage in very similar activities when we create sounds to communicate in this language.
What the last diagram above seems to imply…is that a larger number of people, having a larger set of common mental constructs or understandings, may ultimately gain a greater influence over the manipulation of the World than other, smaller groups of people following other Mental Constructs. Moreover, as they gain greater influence over the shape of that world, people who do not have the mental constructs similar to those shared constructs of the larger group will be forced to observe that world, those changes resulting from the influence of the first group. I.e., a large enough majority following agreed-upon rule sets will create a world which largely operates by those rule sets, and others — the minority — may be forced to observe the world under those rules and may have their own mental constructs shaped by those rule sets.
But on the other hand, this process is complex and may operate very, very quickly. So groups at variance are all manipulating the world, changing it, which may lead to what resembles chaos: disallowing the formation of sure-and-stable mental constructs. Globalization, then, is this process of mutual World-manipulation, particularly as groups which were largely isolated — in Barnett-speak, disconnected — are forced to observe the sections of the world not they, but others, have been manipulating for quite some time. This happens even within societies; e.g., the “gay marriage” issue within America and in fact within other nations presents multiple groups and differing ideologies in conflict over control of the shape of the World.
These two considerations will bear on future posts related to the process of globalization. Dan, in his post, seems to take into account what I said in my last post: that the enforcers of rule sets will sit somewhere at the top of a hierarchical system. I.e., Bar-Yam’s idealized “networked society” will not be without hierarchies, if we continue to need forces that can maintain the “good rule sets” while limiting the influence of “bad rule sets.” But I wonder if a growing mutual understanding of the world may actually provide the glue for Bar-Yam’s networked society. We may think of it as a vertical rule even if it comes from the ground-up: i.e., a more thorough and thoroughly shared observation of the World. Then, these vertical rules are also horizontal rules; but, such an occurrence is extremely unlikely, any time soon. In all likelihood, we will have a majority dominating minorities until those minorities disappear (while these minorities continue to influence the world and thus, the majority’s mental constructs, until they disappear.) This is the sort of fear anti-globalists have, and it is not without some substance, since it suggests that some hypothetical majority — unto humanity in toto — can entirely shape the world, or, more to the point, observe the world in toto. There will be other forces, non-human forces, that continue to shape the world, and our general gaps in observational ability will also limit our ability to observe and control. For the foreseeable future.
Links to larger images:
Social OODA: Simple Concrete, 418px X 505px, 73.1KB
Social OODA: Complex Concrete #1, 418px X 635px, 103.5KB
Social OODA: Complex Concrete #2, 417px X 599px, 107.16KB
Social OODA: Simple Abstracts, 494px X 671px, 134.08KB
Social OODA: Overlapping Abstracts, 495px X 677px, 142.56KB
Social OODA: Aligned Abstracts, 854px X 563px, 114.23KB
Follow-up post: There are Times, Admittedly
Update: corrected various spelling errors and clarified a few minor points; e.g., “seat belts” instead of “belt buckles.” ;)
Update: added link to follow-up post.
Comments
Curtis,
I like your thoughts on social reality a great deal. A lot of similarities with my series on Quality. Particularly recall Ortega y Gaset's "I am me and my surroundings."
You may want to check out the OSI Network Reference Model to clear up some confusions on what networking means. Networking involves translating from a higher-level abstraction to a lower-level medium, and back again. For instance, two Application layer applications may network through Presentation, two Presentation layer applications may communicate through the Session layer, etc. So noting that two minds can't metaphysically communicate is not a problem -- indeed, it is the nature of networking.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 14, 2006 1:53 PM
Dan,
I have only limited time to respond at the moment. Check out recent discussion of EBO with Sonny of FX-Based, which has proven both interesting and productive; particularly, my latest comment there that,
I'm starting with a basic, general understanding of networks and connectivity but know I need to "work my way up" the levels -- particularly also in relationship to my introduction of Ralph Waldo Emerson's description of "the sanity of society is a balance of a thousand insanities," mentioned in comments to OODA and Rule Sets. His description of so many humans engaged in differing activities yet forming collectively a healthy society...is what you mean in your description of networks above? Yet so far in this post on social networks I've only really approached a consideration of common types of activity.
And, actually now that I think of it, these distinctions in activity-sets seem to be quite related to the subjects of resilience and consilience in society and how the two types of interaction are complementary yet distinct...but perhaps equally necessary for what we've been calling a "resilient culture."
Particularly, I want to take the next step by beginning to isolate the different effects of different-order mental constructions. For instance, a common language -- which is a higher-order and more complex mental construct -- can "connect" or bind a people who nonetheless have quite different lower-order constructs such as those resulting from specialized career paths.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 14, 2006 2:15 PM
Ah...perhaps I leaped before I looked, in that quick response. ;) You merely meant that the type of connection I've described above -- i.e., via the physical world -- is networking?
But by such a description of networking, an individual's interaction with the concrete world seems to be itself what you have described, since a person's Mental Constructs ('a higher-level abstraction') lead to Acts changing the physical World ('a lower-level medium'), and then that changed World enters back through Concrete Observation into the Abstract OODA and back to Mental Constructs. Or perhaps it's the other way around:
--i.e., the mental constructs are actually smaller concrete organizations within the World, or are encoded within the very physical but relatively limited brain matter.
What concerns me greatly is the possibility that we might more easily consider each individual's relationship to the World to be a network, but that extending the network to include the interactions of these individuals might be the creation of abstract, 'metaphysical networks' rather than actual networks. I.e., although we may all be connected to the Universe or World, and connected via the particles of these things, our individual connections to these things cannot be exactly shared although they can be quite similar. (E.g., the metaphor of smelling the flower.) So in terms of computers: Rather than a network of PC's connecting with Macintoshes via the Web, human societies may actually consist of individuals who each are unique brands of computers, with no real larger subsets of identical brands -- although each unique brand is capable of rendering much of the same information (from the World) into Mental Constructs which may be similar.
There are those, I know, who believe that our very common genome would imply the opposite: that we are all of one brand of computer. And, there are those who believe we are of only two brands: Caucasians and non-Caucasions, or Heterosexuals and Homosexuals, or Christians and Muslims. But how many would say that Homo Sapiens and our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom, who share similar but not identical sets of genes, are of the same brand? (This recalls to mind the quote from Montaigne of the front page of PC.)
What remains to be determined, perhaps, is whether this various connecting with the World can be called a "network" that operates just like those other, better-understood networks.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 15, 2006 6:06 PM
Ah…perhaps I leaped before I looked, in that quick response. ;) You merely meant that the type of connection I’ve described above — i.e., via the physical world — is networking?
Yes. The same thing happens with computers. The Constructs of a computer (the buttons, labels, text, and scrollbars of your browser) communicates with the comptuer actually hosting your page through physical media of atoms and electrons. A hierarchy of languages (HTML,HTTP,TCP,IP, &c) are used, each more physical than the last.
What concerns me greatly is the possibility that we might more easily consider each individual’s relationship to the World to be a network, but that extending the network to include the interactions of these individuals might be the creation of abstract, ‘metaphysical networks’ rather than actual networks. I.e., although we may all be connected to the Universe or World, and connected via the particles of these things, our individual connections to these things cannot be exactly shared although they can be quite similar. (E.g., the metaphor of smelling the flower.)
Yes. Recall from my Quality series the E-R diagram. Two people are "entities," and the world is the relation between them. While two people are thus related to each other, they are only related each other through the World. (Hence Ortega y Gasset's statement makes sense: "I am me and my surroundings" me "I am this entity and the relations to it.")
What concerns me greatly is the possibility that we might more easily consider each individual’s relationship to the World to be a network, but that extending the network to include the interactions of these individuals might be the creation of abstract, ‘metaphysical networks’ rather than actual networks. I.e., although we may all be connected to the Universe or World, and connected via the particles of these things, our individual connections to these things cannot be exactly shared although they can be quite similar. (E.g., the metaphor of smelling the flower.)
Well, an Evolutionary Psychologist would say that there is a small, even number of brands of Human (either just Male and Female, or perhaps Old Male, Young Male, Old Female, Young Female, ....) -- that is, Human Nature is the set of those brands. A behaviorial geneticist woul dsay that every individual has a unique nature, but the natures cluster around each other.
But how many would say that Homo Sapiens and our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom, who share similar but not identical sets of genes, are of the same brand?
Depends on the context. Differences are relative. Compared to you and me, a chimp is a different kind. Compared to you, me, and a chimp, a gorilla is a different kind. Etc.
What remains to be determined, perhaps, is whether this various connecting with the World can be called a “network” that operates just like those other, better-understood networks.
How would they differ?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 16, 2006 3:34 PM
Since I wrote that comment, I've been thinking about mushrooms, the type that may spring up all over a lawn after a rain (I think it is?) if other conditions are favorable: They are each "networked" to the Earth, trading concrete information back and forth with the Earth, but are they networked with each other? We run into the problem of finding everything networked with everything else....if we consider only the fact that everything which exists exists. Everything, connected to the Universe, is therefore connected to everything else. So All exists within a system, but is All networked; and if so, why call it a network rather than a system or a system rather than a network?
When computers connect, the different layers between them are designed to allow translation from one computer's operational paradigms into another's in pretty much an exact translation. I mean by this that whatever system I am using, when I type the letter 'R' or hit the Send button, the computer I've contacted will interpret either 'R' or Send, even if it has other names for these things and/or uses these things differently once the translation occurs. When I hit the Post button below after finishing this comment, Movable Type on the server which hosts Phatic Communion will interpret 'post' -- otherwise, you and I could not be trading comments back and forth.
But when a human manipulates the physical environment which "connects" us, the interpretations may not be exact or even similar. This includes not only communication via language, but also physical acts -- as magicians can attest. My example in the post on Rule Sets, of kicking a ball into the ocean that is subsequently found by someone on a beach in South Africa is also a good example: I probably thought "Oh shit! I've lost my ball," but the person who finds it might think, "Aha! A gift from God!" (Or any number of things.) In fact, my action of kicking that ball is not witnessed by the other person, and his finding of the ball is not witnessed by me, but the physical connection of losing-ball--finding-ball exists. This connection is a physical connection between us. Even simple things like flares may be experienced differently due to perspective and distance, or maybe by types of color blindness or near-sightedness, even if witnessed concurrently by two people.
In the mushroom explosion on our metaphorical lawn, one mushroom's dying or being eaten by another creature does not keep them from being connected physically through some chain of physical particles, but the interactions of each with their immediate environment -- the information they send out -- is not interpreted into an analogous meaning for the other. E.g., when one mushroom dies, the other does not receive that information and then die itself. In fact, one creature might grow stronger as another dies. This has implications not only for the food chain but also for international relations, economic relations, and interpersonal relations.
We may be tempted to say that information deteriorates more quickly or is corrupted or lost more often when passing between humans than when passed between computers, to account for this un-aligned communication -- 'errors in translation' -- but that's thinking of it in terms of computer networks. I think it's funny that Kurzweil and others in his group want to make humans more like computers while admitting that computers must first be made more like humans before their singularity can take place.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 16, 2006 4:40 PM
Curtis,
Creates from migratory birds to fungi network with each other, gaining information from each other and thus specializing more effectively. Howard Bloom's Global Brain goes into this.
You mention that actions may be interpreted differently by different people, but of course commands may be interpreted differently by different programs. For instance, the expression
4F682073686974212049927665206C6F7374206D792062616C6C21
can be converted to ASCII text to read "Oh shit! I’ve lost my ball!," but what about a different text encodign scheme? What if that hexademical number was entered into a calculator and timesed by 2. What if it was processed by a Java virtual machine, or a C++ compiler? Context still exists, whether the processor is sentient or not, whether the medium is noisy or not.
Also misinterpretations are by no means unique to humans. To give just one example: a computer worm presents itself as an innocuous program but propogates itself, and a computer virus does so. A virus may present disinformation to the computer about its nature in order to gain access privileges. Viri are studied in the labs in virtual machine, which means that the computer presents misinformation to the viri. Trojan horse applications mix social and computer networks.
It's important to understand that we are not thinking of it in terms of computer networks but thinking of it in terms of networks.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 17, 2006 11:52 AM
Thoughts of viruses had entered my mind as I wrote the above.
Also, the thought that in a computer network resembling human social "networks", whenever I sent information to one computer, that computer would need to receive information from all other computers on the network before it could even begin to interpret whatever basic info I sent from my own computer; and, that the information I sent would change or be modified by all this other information before it was interpreted.
Computer viruses that hide by mimicking standard processes in fact do present info that is interpreted by its victims in standard ways; that is how it hides. But mostly, when I thought of viruses, I thought they seemed to utilize the standard pathways and standard languages -- the computer network -- without actually being a part of that network. In humans, you can think of viruses as parasites that cover a territory, each quite self-interested; they don't need to network with each other in order to feed off the body, and in fact in collusion may destroy their host.
When I wrote that
I meant essentially what you are saying about different computers taking that information and doing different things with it. But even though they do different things, still
4F682073686974212049927665206C6F7374206D792062616C6C21
is being sent rather than, say,
21FF-Bob
But when I manipulate the world, others are concurrently manipulating it -- as in the last diagram presented in the post above -- and whatever humans receive that "new information" I have created by manipulating the world will be receiving conglomerates of all this activity. (Which is why I described the computer-as-human-social-network as I did above.)
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 17, 2006 9:33 PM
“Networking involves translating from a higher-level abstraction to a lower-level medium, and back again.”
Exactly, it going from Observation to Action, Once that baby is fired (goes kinetic), all complexity ends. Back again is probably the PISRR movement. the last R may be considered as shared between the two movement, because once your enemy is gone the situation is definitely reorientated.
Posted by: Larry Dunbar | July 18, 2006 9:47 AM
ER, maybe that should have been: 323146462d426f62 .
In general, I think it's too simple to say that merely because we each connect to "the Earth" we are networked. Part of this may be because the definitions for the term are vague, figuratively and literally. Definition automatically requires limitations or limits, and determining what those limits are or must be before we can call a system a network introduces problems in our theories and our back-and-forth discussion of these theories. Tributary networks (rivers) and root networks (trees) are one type, television networks are another, and loosely-named (in my opinion) terrorist networks are a third.
In the first and the last, very specific concrete channels are implied, whether the channels that water follows or the concrete channels of information (orders and communication, financial, etc.) which terrorists use; these can be mapped in a fairly concrete way -- even if financial data between terrorists is transferred electronically, we can know that the funds went from a bank in Saudi Arabia to a bank in Los Angeles, for instance. Television networks, on the other hand, while using "channels" for their daily programs, do not use the same kind of channels. Although different wavelengths are used and sound is a concrete phenomenon, the "network" of television stations are less connected in a direct concrete way because the sound wave spread out over the Earth in many directions, from individual broadcasters, to be picked up by receivers in a broad area (unless we are talking "cable channels"): broad-casters.
With a network of tributaries, water must travel down defined pathways. If these pathways did not exist -- an absolutely flat surface -- the water would spread in every direction and be like an ocean and we would not see a "network."
More water can feed into tributaries -- actually, this happens -- and it increases the flow, perhaps may increase the number and width of channels; but it remains water until the very end of its path. Some water seeps into the ground and is lost or evaporates into the air or is used by wildlife and humans for sustenance, but we don't call these paths a part of the tributary system or network of channels. If we did, we'd soon have a very fuzzy network as we began to analyze every path taken by an H2O molecule.
If more information enters into a television "channel," we would pretty soon have static. Suppose another television network could use the exact same channels. Would we then be forced to call both corporations one network, or would they still be two? Hmmmm. And would the information each sends out still reach receivers and thus "network" the receivers to the individual broadcasters, or would these receivers be networked to both which are really now only one network?
In the case of the two television networks, does successful transmission of uncorrupted data become a condition for networking? I mean --- here testing the water with my toe --whether a network of "memes" requires successful transmission of that data, and I ask because when we consider "human networks" I'm not sure we are trying to outline the paths taken by mere concrete information or the paths taken by the results or perhaps the composite of that concrete information in the form of our own minds.
A couple of thought experiments:
#1:
Thinking again in terms of computers, suppose no IP system existed and computers just sent all their information, via a private line, to a central hub where it was all mixed-up together and not decoded into a shared, common or in fact any single language utilized by any of these computers connecting to that hub. Imagine also that none of these computers uses a language used by any other computer. These individual computers could also receive information from that hub (so it's not a one-way connection.)
Each computer has a concrete connection to the central hub and thus all are connected concretely to each other via that hub, but the information received by each would not be "comprehensible" to any computer receiving it, I think. Would that still be a network in any useful sense of the word?
Now suppose each computer is only connected to a private storage device, via a private line, which operates like the common hub of the last example, mixing up all information received (over time) into a language not utilized by that computer. That computer receives back information from its private storage device. How does its relationship to its private storage device differ from its relationship to the central hub -- and, other computers -- of the last example?
#2:
I suppose you will think that humans are not like the computers in the first example, because different humans may interpret information with common "languages" (most likely, as a result of very similar genetic heritages and very similar data being received.)
Consider an exact parallel Earth which has had the same geologic and biological history of our Earth, Earth1 and Earth2. By "exact," I mean exact, down to the particle and all interactions with outside matter such as asteroids and comets and its own sun and moon, etc., over time. And, I mean that all humans who have existed on Earth1 had "clones" on Earth2 living concurrently. (And animals, amoebas, etc. -- exact.)
Although we don't know exactly how human cognition occurs, this is a thought experiment. So imagine that this exact clone Earth2 has humans who have genetic structures identical to humans now living on Earth1 and have also had exactly the same histories (because everything else on Earth2 is a match for Earth1 and always has been.) Imagine, then that humans on Earth2 have the same mental constructs as humans on Earth1. My counterpart, for instance, is now typing a post with exactly these same words, same thoughts, etc. for a blog called Phatic Communion, for your counterpart to read.
Am I and my counterpart connected in a network, simply because we share identical mental constructs? Am I and your counterpart connected in a network, simply because the words I am typing will be the words he is reading on Earth2? I.e., I am sending out a meme or memes, he is reading identical memes...is any physical connection necessary?
This second thought experiment actually has a motivation which isn't that concerned with those last three questions but concerns another: You and I see the same things, on this our connecting Earth -- such as this blog post -- and form some common mental constructs; but why does this mean you and I are "networked" whereas I am not networked with my counterpart on Earth2 who also has mental constructs like mine (exactly like mine) -- and, moreover, who has also "witnessed" exactly what I have "witnessed"? Even if we have misinterpreted information in the same ways, rather than come to good understandings of things, whatever information is being sent out by the other people on Earth2 has been received by me here.
Now, you might say that I am networked with my counterpart and my counterpart's companions because we are all connected to "the Universe" and seeing very similar things, but stretching the term network to such proportions makes the term useless unless we are always wanting to use a shorthand for what we cannot understand and cannot see -- might as well say that any occurrence is God's will as merely say that information has flown through the Universe and been interpreted in a near-infinite variety of ways within the bounds of physics: All ocean, no tributaries.
If you say that my counterpart and I are not networked together but you and I are, then I wonder what usefulness can come from thinking in terms of networks, since the info you and I have shared in this network pales in comparison to the info I share with my counterpart on Earth2. I.e, when such information is so often misinterpreted or lost or else merely interpreted into a quite different language (see thought experiment #1) -- even if it comes from a common Earth or hub, what's the good of thinking in terms of "networking"? Tributaries without water.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 18, 2006 10:39 AM
Ah Larry, you commented while I was typing another response to Dan.
"Once that baby is fired (goes kinetic), all complexity ends."
It ends for the person who acts, but does it end for the target of that action -- who may be observing multiple things like multiple enemies?
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 18, 2006 10:49 AM
Curtis,
Sounds like CDMA multiplexing over a single channel.
It occurs to be that your concern is whether, in an ER diagram, if we consider humans as entities, whether "the world" is a relation. The answer is yes. Or you are worried whether it may be meaningful to break that relation apart into its component entities and relations. The answer is yes. A network exists whether you describe it conceptually, logically, or physically. Your model of the network may changed depending on what you wish to see, but it mean that the network is not a net.
Example 1 describes a system where computers are connected to the same UPS suppyl. Feed-forward and feed-back chains exist, yet the information isn't semantically meaningful. Yet of course we would call this a power network (in a meaningful sense),
Example 2 is solved by the fact that networks require entities to have a unique identity. (In robust object oriented programs, this may be supplied by a get_uid() method). Your scenario imagines a world without unique identities, thus is not a network. (Come to think of it, it's like those thought experiments where Euclid's last postulate is revoked...)
Larry,
I agree completely.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 18, 2006 11:39 AM
Dan, you're channeling Kirk to "solve" the Kobayashi Maru. In the first place, it isn't meant to be solved; in the second, whatever information I've sent to you has been misunderstood -- whether the info sent was correct or your own operational paradigms forced it into an incompatible language -- and I'm left thinking that my network connection to my desk is as useful as my network connection to you...meaning, Yay, it's a network, but so what? ;)
While I'll agree that there are no unique identities, in human terms, when these two fictional worlds are considered in tandem, and that thinking of the relationships of each person to his counterpart as a "network" would be silly -- my point, actually -- I'm also wondering how you would describe the difference between the counterparts in this thought experiment and the difference between you and I observing similar or, if possible, identical information in our real world.
But if people trouble you, then imagine two water molecules, one on each side of the galaxy, receiving identical information from two different but similarly identically constructed molecules and thus forming two different but, er, identical compounds.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 18, 2006 12:02 PM
Curtis,
I don't know which fictional characters, but I am repeating network science to you. What you are doing is like trying to disprove set theory with Russell's Paradox while calling axiomization a deus ex machina.
I do not understand the rest of your comment, beginning "I am also wondering..."
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 18, 2006 2:01 PM
That's an interesting way of putting it.
Essentially, I'm wondering if network theory for describing things like living organisms and complex biological systems is merely another name for tracing general cause and effect relationships; and for humans, if it is also a shorthand for describing governing dynamics and game theory or something similar, in addition to describing general cause & effect relationships.
When I'm wondering about those mythical counterparts in comparison to you and I or to any group of real humans, I'm wondering how our relationship to the World can possibly be considered a network between us if beings on some other planet (or dimension or whatever, use your imagination) may also form identical relationships, understandings, and the like to the World without being "networked" with us. If our own relationships to the World and to each other produce results identical with relationships we might have to beings we have not yet encountered (whether beyond our planet or on the other side of our planet) and to their relationships they have developed between them, then no concrete network between individuals would be necessary for producing similar results in different places: emergence of like governing dynamics in different locations may be something that does not require "network transmission of data" between those disparate places.
If that is true, then, essentially, the network I have formed individually with the World, though limited by time and space, and indeed the network each individual has developed with the World, would produce results shaped (broadly speaking) by governing dynamics when these networks are considered in toto, outside any necessary and coherent network pathing between individuals' private networks. Interestingly, my "World" also includes other humans as well as non-human entities, so you might say that "my network with the World" includes a private network with other persons; and, their networking with the World also includes networking with other persons; but these may be private and unique networks, especially if we are attempting to describe the relationships of abstract processing engaged in by each individual while keeping in mind the fact that direct connection between the mental processes of people is impossible except through alterations in the material world.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 19, 2006 1:18 AM
Curits,
You are going around in circles.
You created a straw-man version of network theory, then are arguing it to absurdity by supposing the existence of an semantically coterminus other world. You can argue against this false understanding of network for all times, and it doesn't effect anything except burn your own strawman to the ground. As no one else has invested anything into this forgery of network theory that you criticize, it will not and cannot effect anything.
Now, that said
Some models of network that incorporate time can be used that way. Models of network that don't incorporate time can't. There are also other ways of tracking cause and effect without reling on network theory. So it is not "another name."
No, and just one reason why not; game theory is a model of decision making based on an ideal form of rationality being present in all actors.
This is like saying "how can water be considered a molecule, if its component atoms are not?" Or like saying "how can one not be prime, when it is not evenly divisible by two unique numbers?" Or "Why can't the queen jump as does a knight in chess?" It's a question of definitions.
So what? (See above comment on tracing cause-and-effect relationships).
Agreed.
Yup, hence the terms "internet," "intranet," "subnet," &c, to denote various levels of networks composed of and/or composing other nets.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 19, 2006 10:31 AM
No, I think "network" is a term too broadly used by network theorists, because pretty much any system of relationships can be called a network. To accommodate all these systems by allowing that "[the] model of the network may [be] changed depending on what you wish to see," network theory becomes a relativistic theory. You see the networks because you choose to see them. It is a little like the elderly man who recently swore to me that Area 51 and 9/11 were related and that other related current events were predicted by the license plate number he had on his vehicle back in the eighties: he proceeded to outline the patterns he saw in the numbers.
Similarly, there is the hope, it seems, that if only every element can be isolated and understood, and complexities upon complexities can be built by adding more and more info, the connections between things can also be isolated and the "network" discerned -- as if the elements gain their identities simply by being part of the supposed network. But I think now that it is futile to continue debate on the subject because everything from computers to human beings to [fill in the blank] can be called a network, each system with its own quite peculiar diagram built to order.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 19, 2006 11:15 AM
Replace "network" with "truth" and you have given a perfect description of reductionism, one of the key tenants of the scientific enterprise.
Before this, when you said:
You again go in circles, ignoring discussion of unique entities.
Nothing has been debated here -- indeed, it sounds like two seperate conversations. An attack against a straw-man theory that is not propounded, countered by a discussion on a very widely used theory of modeling. The criticisms of the former do not touch the latter.
The model obviously passed his validation procedures. Did he verify it? What is your point with this example?
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | July 19, 2006 12:49 PM