A neural net trained to discriminate between nuances in one environment (H) would need to get re-trained (or I'd say untrained) to the D environment. The signals in H type environments are higher dimensional, coupled, and non-linear compared to the D environment which is made up of many more independent and simpler hazards. With finite resources, I expect the H-specialized M agent apparatus needs to be torn-down to make room for constant bombardment of D-world wild dogs. Not really interpreted vs. compiled, more like a Java hotspot JIT that is constantly refining to the environment.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen? Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 8:25 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight Right. It's not quite right to suggest that switching codes is bimodal or bivalent. I think it's more of a spectrum, at least in an informal sense. If we were talking about a person trying to communicate a complex idea in a non-native language then switching to their native language, that would be more bimodal. But I'm talking more about, eg, realizing in the middle of a conversation that you're talking to a crypto-fascist who puts up a good veneer at first, then reveals their fascism over the course of the conversation. When I realize it, I switch, either to something that will completely alienate the person, or to language that makes me sound more like a fascist, depending on how I feel at the time. Marcus' idea of a an interpreter vs. languages closer to the bare metal is, I think, akin to Nick's idea of imaginary vs. factual. And the gist is solid. There's a very high overhead interpreting through many layers of abstraction or entertaining imaginary worlds through the suspension of disbelief. It's a luxury we can't always afford. But both assume there exists a bare metal. I'm a constructivist, for the most part, and believe all our languages are interpreted and there really is no such thing as a natural, close to the metal, machine code. There are no linguistic or cognitive facts, only action facts. And this may be closer to what you're trying to say, because that means that we are always interacting through an interpreter, albeit sometimes many layers out vs. only a few layers out. On 11/07/2016 08:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I guess I already feel I have to "code switch" all the time already... I > have to speak a pidgin of Left/Right/Green/Libertarian/Anarchist just to > communicate with my friends and colleagues on these matters. I understand > and agree that in world D, the emergent patois will be much less > familiar/comfortable than the one I have now and that in world H, it will be > much more familiar, less abrupt of a change. I guess I assumed that Agent G > and agent M were more like me in this regard than maybe they are. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
