I guess there’s a difference between “communication” and “attempting to communicate”, which if fails is better known as directed noise. If someone talks to you in a language you don’t understand, that’s I guess “attempted communication”…for it to be “communication” there needs to be coordination to form common knowledge

But I know what you mean…as you are forming the common knowledge (doing the coordination part in order to communicate) isn’t this coordinating act done by communicating…as you say it does seem to be interrelated.

Whether you’ve known someone for a short time or long time doesn’t matter…you could be explaining something new to your partner, something she knows nothing of…you first give them some establishing information so they are more equipped to understand what you are going to communicate (but as you say this coordination process involves communication itself)

When we say “…do you know what I mean”, is often a sign that we have not coordinated a good enough common knowledge, and only attempted communication has taken place.

Like you say stigmergy is indirect communication. Now do ants require coordinating a common knowledge..I don’t think so as they are rule-based…so I guess stigmergic communication doesn’t involve coordination..I’m just winging it here BTW

Yet ants appear to highly coordinate, but I think this is because they follow simple rules…it doesn’t seem to be similar to the notion or to the calibre as humans coordinate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis
“A single chemical reaction is said to have undergone autocatalysis, or be autocatalytic, if the reaction product itself is the catalyst for that reaction.”

I like this aligns with the question you pose “Can stigmergy be the autocatalyst for communication?”

You say “but how is communication being agreed upon”

It seems there’s no agreeing between multiple agents, as it’s up to the individual ant to make a decision based on the pheromone trace

We’re in agreement on duality in mental processes -

I think (correct me if I’m wrong!) that the field of cognitive psychology makes the strongest case for holistic view of brain function, and that we employ all aspects of left-brain and right-brain thinking when we imagine, seek, or attempt to solve.

The “Divergence” picture on my blog, referenced above, is more about (a.) historical trends and (b.) epistemology than about how the brain works. But there are some interesting correlations to LB/RB neuroscience. I guess I’ve always been one to expose patterns, and this one jumped out at me. Literally on a napkin.

In terms of an overarching framework? It could be Philosophy. Or Math?

Anyway, the complexity aspect comes in the context of the real world. I believe it is our complex reality that both science and philosophy seek to describe. My thesis continues to be that both science and philosophy, in their current state of evolution, have yet to create epistemologies – cognitive frameworks – Senge mental models, perhaps? – for how we approach complexity in the real world.

Still researching and learning. Just posting progress along the way ..

Thanks again for your energy on this. Glad to get you posting again! As you know, I always value your insights!

Chris

Ik probeer nu nog een vernieuwende en interessante invalshoek te zoeken om mijn onderzoek op te baseren.
Ik ben nu al reeds gestart met een aantal verkennende diepte-interviews met personen om wat meer te weten te komen over de opvattingen van de consumenten die al dan niet gebruik maken van het concept productpersonalisatie.

Maar door de veelheid aan literatuur zie ik even het bos door de bomen niet meer, en misschien zou u mij wat meer klaarheid kunnen geven. Ik had gehoopt dat u mij wat verder kon helpen door een aantal tips of ideeën te geven omtrent interessante hiaten of invalshoeken waarop ik zou kunnen verder werken.
Alvast bedankt voor uw tijd.
Mvg
Miet Lust

I’ve heard that before, that compared to scarcity of resources in the physical economy (or however you say it), the knowledge economy is abundant, and further to that the more information is used the more valuable it becomes and also it doesn’t depreciate. ie the same piece of information can be used by various people in various contexts to produce value…whereas a physical object can only be used with who encounters it, and it depreciates with wear and tear. Further to this information can spawn many conversations where it becomes part of new and unintended things…I guess this sometimes happens with physical objects, but just not as amplified eg. at home we just created a sandpit out of an old wooden boat

This sort of reminds me of what Nassim Taleb talks about when he relates to the repeatable value from stored information compared to labour
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/47375935/the-black-swan-nassim-taleb-p28
” [A writer] does not have to write each book again every time someone wants to read it. But this is not so for a baker: he needs to bake every single piece of bread in order to satisfy each additional customer.”

–

My friend has an online baking store on Facebook…a comment the other day asked to share her cookie recipe…she said sorry it’s a secret.

This is in contrast with celebrity chefs don’t you think.

Apart from fear of losing her edge, maybe people don’t share some things because they don’t want bastardised versions floating around.

Maybe she didn’t share it cause it’s special that only she knows it…

I think it depends on what you are sharing…

If it’s something automated and very easy to replicate then you may lose your edge.

But just the same a good product is not enough, you need to build a community…that’s why you see less flashier products sometimes do better, as it’s not just about the product, but the experience, the brand, the lifestyle, the interaction…

Another thing is if she shared her cookie recipe it would still take the receiver a long time to perfect it. When we cook from a recipe it rarely comes out like the Chefs version.

But still the same a nearly perfect recipe may be a threat, if the new entrant already has a thriving customer base.

Sharing a recipe is different from sharing skills…which are hard to share anyway eg. the whole KM thing…it’s about conversation and observation that we learn and acquire skills….time to absorb, use metaphor and story and action them in our relevant context

I reviewed an essay by Patrick Lambe on this very point, see the heading “knowledge secrecy”
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2010/03/10/km-is-not-just-information-delivery-and-just-in-time-is-not-enough/

In this post I say:

“Some might say it’s a choice: you either hoard so you have an edge, or you share and build a social reputation. When you share you are not just a dynamic performer, but you are also helping everyone else to be one as well, and that is reason for the company to actually hold on to you”

I share about my experience facilitating CoPs…if my work was in a bad position they may decide someone paid a lower salary can perform the same task based on my past sharing…but still they will need experience to be zen with it…from my post http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2010/04/13/the-fallacy-of-know-how-recipes-and-hoarding/

“BUT, what could happen in times of trouble is that if the firm considers KM as the same as informal Information Management, they may decide that you are no longer unique now that you have shared, and can get someone else at a lower cost to follow your recipes and be just as proficient.

We know this is untrue, but even so, the firms ignorance coupled with your sharing is the reason you have been replaced…yes you are still unique, but you are left without a job.

Happy ending…the company cannot afford the learning curve, the new hire is hopeless, even with your book of spells, and realises informal information management is not the same as KM, and hire you back as a consultant for double the salary

Even if people are able to follow your thought logs and raw documented experience and do a good job as a result, they are not you, they are not the guru, they don’t have the reputation yet, they don’t have the contacts, they don’t have your charisma. I think it’s more complex than just know-how, people that are competent, amicable, demonstrate leadership and passion, are people you want working for you”

—

As for an enterprise knowledge commodity market…I don’t agree, I’m more the ecosystem, rather than market…competition in a market system in not as sustainable, it does not lend to cooperation and resilience as well as an ecosystem (connected and intrinsically motivate people)

Here are my thoughts:
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/2394433917/fixed-reward-incentives-vs-floating-market-or-ditch-the

—

I like how Charles Leadbeater talks about how markets are based on specific problem-solving and lack dialogue for the sake of innovation and sustained creativity
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/2679450813/crowds-need-meeting-places-neutral-spaces-for-creative