I don’t think I meant to take any of its uses. I meant to take a pragmaticist position on knowledge: that the only consequence that follows for saying that X knows Y is that you can count on X to act as if Y were the case, and there is no other.
N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:34 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] At the limits of thought To take every possible utterance of the know and it's conjugations as evidence for what it means seems weak to me. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 9:49 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: Dave, At the risk of doing a very shallow dive into your deep pool, here: I tried to do some careful thinking some months back about the concept of "knowledge" and came to the conclusion that it's traditional philosophical definition -- justified true belief -- is absurd. Now, I just think of knowledge is just "strong belief." "I could have sworn that I left my wallet on the dining room table." I KNEW where it was. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:21 AM To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] At the limits of thought Glen, I waited a long time in hopes that others would comment and pursue the issues being raised here. The subject matter is near and dear to my heart as well as current explorations. The first article prompted the following: We speak of "knowing" in different ways: 1- I know that 2+2=4. 2-I know that the sun will rise later this morning. (It is still quite dark outside as I write this.) 3-I know what kind of clothing I should wear on "Casual Friday." 4-I know how to move to intercept and catch a high fly ball. 5-I know that there is a God. Are there multiple modes of "knowledge acquisition" behind these statements? I believe that there are. Among them: the formalist/algorithmic mode that underlies most of science (following the lead of the first paper you cited); another the "story absorption" mode by which you acquired all your knowledge of the culture(s) within which you operate and how to conform your behavior to cultural norms; and the kind of "direct perception" of the mystic. My reaction to the understanding versus algorithm paper tended to ignore the binary choice presented by the authors, but to interpret the issue raised in the paper in terms of — there are multiple modes of knowledge acquisition but, since the Age of Reason, we have neglected our understanding of all but the "scientific" mode and, as we reach the limits of that mode, we are left adrift in a sea of incomprehension because we have neglected the modes of though that might have led to comprehension and understanding. The Master and His Emissary, by Iain McGilchrist argues, I believe, a parallel point. The second article argues, "context matters." This supports long held beliefs; beliefs that underpin my criticism of software engineering (the context of the domain is irrelevant as long as you have set of complete, unambiguous, and consistent requirements) and AI (one kind of context is embodiment and an AI lacks such context). I do not mean embodiment in a human body, but embodiment in the world. I hope that others will take up this discussion. davew On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, at 3:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > I suppose it's delusional synergy that I saw Krakauer's essay the same > (sleepless) morning I saw this: > > Experience Grounds Language > https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10151 > > And since all the news all the time is about the parasite, I can't > help but think Krakauer's wrong in the main thread that understanding > and prediction are distinct. In Bisk et al above, the current machine > learning algorithms are parasitic. Their predictions are akin to state > space reconstruction algorithms that posit some deep structure that's > expressive enough to mimic our linguistic output, but that's very > different from our (internal) state machines. (And to be clear, our > internal state machines are just as opaque as those of the machines. > That we think our state machines are "understanding" whereas the > machines' state machines are opaque, however predictive, is illusory > ... or perhaps anthropocentric.) And although I'd claim the machines, > like SARS-CoV-2, *understand*, it's *what* they understand that > differs, not *that* they don't understand. > > The machines' algorithms are parasitic because they depend deeply on > our state machines' output (WS1 and WS2 in the Bisk paper). But as the > machines' scopes grow (from disembodied binaries pushed by hardware > clocks to fully parallel, sensorimotor manifolds in real or virtual > space and time), the machines' understanding will be less opaque > because it will be less parasitic and more autonomous ... in the same > way we go "Awwww" when one of Karl Sims' virtual creatures walks > across the virtual landscape. They'll still be as opaque as, say, > Nick's mind is to mine ... which is pretty damned opaque. But it'll be > much easier for us to "see where they're coming from" because they, > like us, will have grown up poking around in the world. > > On 4/22/20 8:01 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > > > https://aeon.co/essays/will-brains-or-algorithms-rule-the-kingdom-of > > -science > > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
