[HN Gopher] A Fundamental Theory to Model the Mind (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
A Fundamental Theory to Model the Mind (2014)
Author : macawfish
Score : 34 points
Date : 2022-02-16 03:52 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
| jmsykes wrote:
| Super interesting take. There is a similar discussion about Self-
| Imposed Criticality in dynamic systems such as personal networks,
| that I've found to be very revealing about the nature of
| disintegrating relational connections. Really enjoyed this read!
| Thanks for posting.
| macawfish wrote:
| Sounds fascinating, do you have some links for me?
| jmsykes wrote:
| Looking for some links now! Came across this concept about 18
| months ago in a textbook called Social Network Analysis for
| Startups.
|
| From my notes:
|
| On Conflict Propagation:
|
| * Conflict between B and C forces A to take sides.
|
| * If A sides with B, then conflict between A and C forces D
| to take sides.
|
| * If D sides with A instead of C, it keep conflict from
| arising in the rest of the network, but if D sides with A it
| will force E to take sides and so on.
|
| * Having more ties increases an agent's probability of
| forming even more ties, but it also increases the probability
| that a conflict between two agents will spread throughout the
| network, as their decision to side on any side of the
| conflict can spiral downward.
|
| * So just as there is a critical mass that causes tie density
| to grow exponentially, there is also a critical mass value on
| the upper end of density (self-organized criticality) that
| prevents it from growing further because the increased
| density leads to greater conflicts that bring the density
| back down.
|
| * Similarly, the more dense a forest is, the greater the
| catastrophe. This is why permitting smaller fires down-
| regulates the density of the forest to insure that most fires
| are well contained.
| macawfish wrote:
| This is serious stuff, thanks for sharing.
|
| I've thought about this in my own life just seeing the the
| pressures on people who work to maintain connections across
| fractured social groups, who work to cultivate community.
| It can be very hard on people.
|
| Also reminds me of this quote by Andrey Krutskikh, a
| Kremlin cybersecurity expert:
|
| > _You think we are living in 2016. No, we are living in
| 1948. And do you know why? Because in 1949, the Soviet
| Union had its first atomic bomb test. And if until that
| moment, the Soviet Union was trying to reach agreement with
| [President Harry] Truman to ban nuclear weapons, and the
| Americans were not taking us seriously, in 1949 everything
| changed and they started talking to us on an equal footing.
| I'm warning you: We are at the verge of having "something"
| in the information arena, which will allow us to talk to
| the Americans as equals._
|
| (https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-
| chapter/chapter-2/ind...)
|
| I can only assume that he's talking about some methodology
| related to this "conflict propagation" and that Russia
| isn't the only state actor pursuing these things.
|
| To think that critical dynamical modes in social networks
| are seen as opportunities to be exploited... it's wild but
| I guess not surprising.
| summari wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-17 23:02 UTC)