you are correct about chicken little - but remember he was writing in the context of the angst caused by WWI.
davew On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, at 9:54 AM, glen wrote: > Excellent! Thanks. Robinson's words sound a little Chicken Little to > me. But the focus on _open_ is something I'm committed to. I still > waffle about whether the logic(s) of the universe are open-ended (by > which I mean truly novel events and structures can occur) or not (by > which I mean, all seemingly new structures were programmed in the whole > time, which also implies things about the universality of any singular > logic). I want it to be open. > > And the only way we can falsify my tendency to believe it is open is to > find evidence that it's closed, to reduce everything to a, one > singular, GUT ... and, as time goes by, I'm steadily being disabused of > my beliefs in the openness of anything. But even if everything's > closed, there are sub-problems therein, *interesting* ways in which it > is closed that make it *seem* open. Systems that might tolerate > multiple types of closure, where some relations are closed and others > open. Etc. That's why logic(s) that tolerate inconsistency are so cool > (to me). > > On 1/19/23 07:52, Prof David West wrote: >> My optimism is tempered, and less than Pieters. >> >> /"When we contemplate the shocking derangement of human affairs which now >> prevails in most civilized countries, including our own, even the best minds >> are puzzled and uncertain in their attempts to grasp the situation.The world >> seems to demand a moral and economic regeneration which it is dangerous to >> postpone, but as yet impossible to imagine, let alone direct./ >> >> /We have unprecedented conditions to deal with and novel adjustments to >> make—there can be no doubt of that. We also have a great stock of scientific >> knowledge unknown to our grandfathers with which to operate. So novel are >> the conditions, so copious the knowledge, that we must undertake the arduous >> task of reconsidering a great part of the opinions about man and his >> relations to his fellow-men which have been handed down to us by previous >> generations who lived in far other conditions and who possessed far less >> information about the world and themselves./ >> >> */We have, however, first to create an unprecedented attitude of mind to >> cope with unprecedented conditions, and to utilize unprecedented knowledge. >> This is the preliminary. and most difficult, step to be taken—far more >> difficult that one would suspect who fails to realize that in order to take >> it we must overcome inveterate natural tendencies and artificial habits of >> long standing. How are we to put ourselves in a position to think of thiigs >> that we not only never though of before, but are most reluctant to question? >> In short, how are we to rid ourselves of our fond prejudices and _open our >> minds_?/*" >> >> Those words are from someone few have heard of: James Harvey Robinson, from >> his book /The Mind in the Making/ published, originally, in 1921. >> (republished in 2017 by Vigeo Press) >> >> The optimism of Altman you quoted is, in my opinion, possible only if we can >> "open our minds" and shed antiquated minds and counter-productive modes of >> thinking. >> >> Robinson, by the way does not propose an alternative, per se, but does an >> excellent job of baring the various kinds of thinking and their origins fro >> the "savage mind" to the scientific revolution. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, at 4:17 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >>> *Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism.* >>> >>> Yes, sadly the world is unequal and those at the bottom of the economic >>> ladder just don't get a good deal. >>> >>> On the positive side, looking back at the history of mankind there is >>> evidence that it is now better to live than ever in the past for the large >>> majority of humankind. This is true even though it is the sad truth that >>> it's very far from perfect; human suffering is a reality, Glen's comment is >>> sad but true. >>> >>> The question of course is whether it will continue to go better? >>> >>> It's just impossible to know the future. One person can believe it'll go >>> better in the future, another that it'll be worse, each with tons of good >>> arguments. >>> >>> I for one, embrace the optimism of Sam Altman, just for completeness I >>> repeat his quote and give the reference again. >>> "Intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most >>> things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be >>> radically different, and can be amazingly better." >>> Taken from >>> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms >>> >>> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms> >>> : >>> >>> In conclusion, yes I agree with Glen that there are sadly hidden elements >>> to all the techno-optimism. but this does not dampen my enthusiasm for the >>> future triggered by abundant intelligence and energy. >>> >>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 21:08, glen <geprope...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g. >>> >>> https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m >>> <https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m> >>> >>> On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >>> > I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters. >>> > >>> > The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will >>> (not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all respects, >>> including come up with creative solutions to not only the world's most >>> pressing problems but also small creative things like writing poems, and >>> then to do the mental and physical tasks required to provide goods and >>> services to all in the world, >>> > >>> > Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future; >>> intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and energy, >>> the world will be very different indeed. >>> > >>> > To quote Sam Altmen at >>> https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms >>> >>> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms> >>> >>> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms >>> >>> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>> >>> : >>> > >>> > "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards >>> most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents >>> will be radically different, and can be amazingly better." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com >>> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com >>> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is >>> what matters. Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and there >>> will be leakage between components. A large network of transistors or >>> neurons are sufficiently similar for my purposes. The unrolling would be >>> inside a skull, so somewhat isolated from interference. >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com >>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com >>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>> On Behalf Of glen >>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM >>> > To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >>> <mailto:friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> >>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW >>> > >>> > I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies >>> no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the >>> ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying about from an unrolled >>> recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. That's not to say a >>> trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled >>> seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance. >>> > >>> > On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> > > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time >>> ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from an >>> unrolling of recursion. >>> > > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
