The same machine learning can display one behavior after some number of training iterations and others after more. A generative/probabilistic system can display many behaviors from the same training data. Injecting some noise into the billions of summations would give something like hallucinations. I fail to see how dualism offers any explanatory power.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:17 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories My 1st reaction was "none" - there's no evidence that differing substrates is insufficient to account for differing mental things. That's "supervenience", right? However, there might be both robustness and polyphenism in the map between phenomena like "mental things" and generators like "substrates". And, if that's the case, then it's not sufficient to describe a single substrate that generates a mental thing. (And vice versa.) We'd need to partition the gen and phen spaces and show those higher order maps ... at least for any kind of complete explanation. And those partitions may not be crisp. So over and above the simple map and the higher order map, we need some measures that say how crisp the partitions are. On 2/21/23 10:05, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Just there are computer codes that can only run on some architectures, there > are physical phenomena that can only be realized on certain substrates. > What evidence is there that something other than differing substrates are > needed to explain mental things? > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 21, 2023, at 9:49 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If, as EricS has argued, "mental stuff" is an equivalence class, then it >> may not be very different from "generalized across different architectures". >> But if "mental stuff" is disjoint from "architecture stuff", then it cannot >> be "generalized across different architectures" because a) that implies >> there exist architectures across which it is NOT generalized and b) >> "generalized" is a function of, dependent upon, explicitly in reference to, >> different architectures. >> >>> On 2/21/23 09:30, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> Sorry, I probably glossed over something. How is the "mental" any >>> different from a computer program or a set of neural net edge weights >>> generalized to different (analog) architectures. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:26 AM >>> To: friam@redfish.com >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories Excellent! I appreciate your >>> clarification as to why it might be useful to explore. I will do so. I'm >>> still a bit confused as to why you mentioned it in the context of me >>> claiming that "the bot" (e.g. ChatGPT) has a body. Or the context of >>> claiming some forms of panpsychism are monist. Maybe I'll figure out why >>> Deacon's relevant to one or both of those comments as I read through >>> Rączaszek‑Leonardi's essay. >>> Thanks. >>>> On 2/21/23 09:13, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> Glen - >>>> >>>> Attempting a balance between succinctness and >>>> completeness/contextualization/relevance I offer the following excerpt >>>> from Rączaszek‑Leonardi's essay about 3 pages into the 7-page work: >>>> >>>> /One important implication of the proposed scenario for the >>>> emergence of autogen is that in the process of transferring a >>>> complex set of constraints from substrate to substrate, the >>>> “message”, never becomes an abstract and immaterial “thing” – or a >>>> set of abstract symbols, which seem to be a staple substance of >>>> mind in a dualistic Cartesian picture. On the contrary: the process >>>> can be viewed, in some sense, as an opposition to what is usually >>>> meant by abstraction: it embodies, in a concrete physi- cal >>>> structure, the complex dynamical and relational constraints that >>>> maintain an organism far from thermodynamic equilibrium. / >>>> >>>> This quotation is my attempt to acknowledge/identify a possible >>>> resolution (or at least explication) of the tension between the duals of >>>> the Cartesian Duality we bandy about here. >>>> >>>> Another correspondent offline offered the correlation between Deacon's >>>> homeo/morpho/teleo-dynamics and Kauffman's reflections on living systems >>>> in his 2000 Investigations: >>>> >>>> - detect gradients >>>> - construct constraints to extract work from gradients >>>> - do work to maintain those constraints >>>> >>>> may be relevant (or interesting or both). >>>> >>>> On 2/21/23 8:23 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Glen - >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, I'm still chewing on your assertions of 5 months ago which >>>>> referenced Christian List's "Levels" >>>>> <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21103/> and the points he made (and you >>>>> reinforced) on Indexicality and first/third person descriptions >>>>> *because* they tie in to my own twisty turny journey of trying to >>>>> understand the paradoxes of mind/body substance/form duality >>>>> (illusions?). >>>>> >>>>> To give a nod to the Ninja's website (or more to the point, your >>>>> reference to it and comparison to teleodynamics.org) I assume your >>>>> criticism is that the website(s) is more rhetorical than informational? >>>>> >>>>> The relevance of Deacon's Teleodynamics in my thinking/noodling has to do >>>>> with the tension between supervenience and entailment. Deacon's style >>>>> *does* depend a bit on saying the same thing over and over again, louder >>>>> and louder which can be convincing for all the wrong reasons. But that >>>>> alone does not make what he's saying wrong, or even wrong-headed. >>>>> Perhaps I am guilty of courting confirmation bias insomuch as Deacon's >>>>> constructions of homeo-morpho-teleo dynamics seem to support the style of >>>>> dualism which I suppose appeals to me for reasons I don't understand yet >>>>> or can't articulate. >>>>> >>>>> Since I am not normally succinct, I restricted myself to a handful of >>>>> references rather than open ended descriptions of what/why/where/how/when >>>>> every detail of what he said meant to me. I fail at (avoid) clarity >>>>> with too much more often than with too little, no? >>>>> >>>>> I did NOT link Sheldrake's Wikipedia page because I thought you >>>>> (Glen) were unfamiliar with him and his stance/assertions and that you >>>>> needed to read him. The link was more for completeness for *anyone else* >>>>> who might not have ever bothered to get the word from closer to the >>>>> horse's mouth. I myself dismissed him 100% and relied entirely on >>>>> other's opinions and judgements of him until he came here to SFe (2009?) >>>>> and gave the lecture(s) where one of his fans stuck a knife in him (I >>>>> don't know if anyone ever figured out what the point the fan was >>>>> making?). It just so happened that at SFx we were holding a "blender" >>>>> (presentations with group discussion) on the topic of morphometric >>>>> analysis) that very same night (or weekend) so my mind was on the topic >>>>> of form -> function which had me mildly more receptive to (curious about) >>>>> ideas *like* morphic resonance. After that I was more like 95% >>>>> dismissive of what he goes on about. So... now that I wasted another >>>>> minute of your time on *this* paragraph, I apologize for seeming to >>>>> promote Sheldrake's work in your direction or imply that you should waste >>>>> time reading him. Whether reading Deacon turns out to be a waste of >>>>> time is an open question for me myself. I have invested quite a bit of >>>>> time and still don't have as much traction as I would like. I think that >>>>> is because these are steep and slippery subjects in their own right, not >>>>> because his work is a worthless collection of bits and pixels. >>>>> >>>>> I offered Rączaszek‑Leonardi's essay on Deacon's much larger work on >>>>> Molecule-> Sign as a slightly more accessible intro to Deacon's thinking >>>>> about bits V atoms and supervenience. To the extent that none of this >>>>> tickles any of your own thoughts or interests in what I assume to be >>>>> somewhat parallel (though maybe not convergent?) lines of inquiry, then I >>>>> suppose it would be a waste of your time to follow it to any distance. >>>>> >>>>> The following bit from the introduction to the essay linked *might* >>>>> characterize what it is I *thought* you might find relevant in the paper >>>>> and in the larger body of Deacon's work: _Information v >>>>> information-transmission_ and _aboutism_ each were reminiscent to me of >>>>> some of your arguments about whether communication actually exists and >>>>> List's arguments about indexicality perhaps. >>>>> >>>>> /When Erwin Schrödinger (//1944 >>>>> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR24>//) >>>>> pondered////What is Life?////from a physicist’s point of view he focused >>>>> on two conundrums: how organisms maintain themselves in a far from >>>>> equilibrium thermodynamic state and how they store and pass on the >>>>> information that determines their organization. In his metaphor of an >>>>> aperiodic crystal as the carrier of this information he both foreshadowed >>>>> Claude Shannon’s (//1948 >>>>> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR25>//) >>>>> analysis of information storage and transmission and Watson and Crick’s >>>>> (//1953 >>>>> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR27>//) >>>>> discovery of the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. So by 1958 >>>>> when Francis Crick (//1958 >>>>> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR3>//) >>>>> first articulated what he called the “central dogma” of molecular biology >>>>> (i.e. that >>>>> information in the cell flows from DNA to RNA to protein >>>>> structure and not the reverse) it was taken for granted that that >>>>> DNA and RNA molecules were “carriers” of information. By >>>>> scientific rhetorical fiat it had become legitimate to treat >>>>> molecules as able to provide information “about” other molecules. >>>>> By the mid 1970s Richard Dawkins (//1976 >>>>> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref- >>>>> CR5 >>>>>> //) could safely assume this as fact and follow the idea to its >>>>> logical implications for evolutionary theory in his popular >>>>> book////The Selfish Gene//. By describing a sequence of >>>>> nucleotides in a DNA molecule as information and DNA replication >>>>> as the essential defining feature of life, information was reduced >>>>> to pattern and interpretation was reduced to copying. What may >>>>> have initially been a metaphor became difficult to disentangle >>>>> from the chemistry./ >>>>> >>>>> /In this way the concept of biological information lost >>>>> its aboutness but became safe for use in a materialistic science >>>>> that had no place for what seemed like a nonphysical property./// >>>>> >>>>> Just to keep my flog landing on the hide of the horse that may have >>>>> expired several posts ago in this chain: Deacon's introduction of *teleo* >>>>> to this characterization of complex adaptive systems is the *first* >>>>> example I have found which is even a little bit compelling toward >>>>> understanding "Life Itself" (in the sense of what Schrodinger was going >>>>> on about in 1944)... with enough inspection (or flogging) it may fizzle >>>>> out and become nothing more than wet ash. For the moment it feels like >>>>> the glimmer of a signal where Sheldrake (and his ken) were mostly >>>>> generating noise (more to the point, wishful thinking?) previously... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/20/23 11:32 AM, glen wrote: >>>>>> [sigh] But the whole point of knowing other people is so that >>>>>> they can make your own work more efficient or effective. While I >>>>>> appreciate the *citation* of tomes, to some extent, citation >>>>>> isn't really useful for construction of a concept. It's only >>>>>> useful for auditing constructs. So, rather than go read the >>>>>> teleodynamics website (or sieve Sheldrake's spooky action at a >>>>>> distance stuff), I'll ask you to explain *why* teleodynamics is >>>>>> interesting from a panpsychist stance? (Or to drive my point home >>>>>> about how useless citations are, how is it related to Biology's >>>>>> First Law >>>>>> <https://bookshop.org/p/books/biology-s-first-law-the-tendency-fo >>>>>> r-d >>>>>> iversity-and-complexity-to-increase-in-evolutionary-systems-danie >>>>>> l-w >>>>>> -mcshea/8308564?ean=9780226562261>?) >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, barring that, I'll add it to my (practically) infinite queue of >>>>>> stuff I should read but probably won't until I have a hook into it. And >>>>>> even if I do read it, I probably won't understand it. >>>>>> >>>>>> With the Toribio article, I'm motivated to read it because BC >>>>>> Smith hooked me a long time ago. But Sheldrake? No way in hell am >>>>>> I going to invest time in that. Teleodynamics? Well, it's a >>>>>> website. And the website for ninjas is more interesting: >>>>>> http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm >>>>> >>>>> /On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 6:29 AM, glen∉ℂ wrote: // >>>>> //My question of how well we can describe graph-based ... what? >>>>> ... // >>>>> //"statements"? "theorems"? Whatever. It's treated fairly well >>>>> in List's // >>>>> //paper: // >>>>> / / >>>>> //Levels of Description and Levels of Reality: A General >>>>> Framework by // >>>>> //Christian List //http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21103///// >>>>> / / >>>>> //in section "6.3 Indexical versus non-indexical and >>>>> first-personal // >>>>> //versus third-personal descriptions". We tend to think of the >>>>> 3rd // >>>>> //person graph of possible worlds/states as if it's more >>>>> universal ... a // >>>>> //complete representation of the world. But there's something >>>>> captured // >>>>> //by the index/control-pointer //*walking*//some graph, with or >>>>> without a // >>>>> //scoping on how many hops away the index/subjective-locus can >>>>> "see". // >>>>> / / >>>>> //I liken this to Dave's (and Frank's to some extent) consistent >>>>> // >>>>> //insistence that one's inner life is a valid thing in the >>>>> world, Dave // >>>>> //w.r.t. psychedelics and meditation and Frank's defense of >>>>> things like // >>>>> //psychodynamics. Wolpert seems to be suggesting a >>>>> "deserialization" of // >>>>> //the graph when he focuses on "finite sequences of elements >>>>> from a // >>>>> //finite set of symbols". I.e. walking the graph with the index >>>>> at a // >>>>> //given node. With the 3rd person ... whole graph of graphs, the >>>>> // >>>>> //serialization of that bushy thing can only produce an >>>>> infinitely long // >>>>> //sequence of elements from a (perhaps) infinte set. Is the >>>>> bushiness // >>>>> //*dense*//(greater than countable, as Wolpert asks)? Or sparse? >>>>> // >>>>> / / >>>>> //I'm sure I'm not wording all this well. But that's why I'm >>>>> glad y'all // >>>>> //are participating, to help clarify these things. / >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/20/23 10:10, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As the discussion evolves: >>>>>>>> But the bot *does* have a body. It just doesn't take the same form as >>>>>>>> a human body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I disagree re: panpsychism revolving around "interest" or "intention" >>>>>>>> ... or even "acting". It's more about accumulation and the tendency of >>>>>>>> cumulative objects to accumulate (and differentiate). Perhaps >>>>>>>> negentropy is a closer concept than "interest" or "intention". And, >>>>>>>> although I disagree that experience monism is more primitive than >>>>>>>> panpsychism, I agree that these forms of panpsychism require >>>>>>>> mechanisms for composition (against which James is famous) and other >>>>>>>> structure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I re-introduce/offer Terrence Deacon's Teleodynamics >>>>>>> <https://teleodynamics.org/> which I do not take to be (quite?) >>>>>>> as difficult to integrate/think-about asSheldrake's Morphic >>>>>>> Resonance <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As with Torebeo's essay on BCS' OOO, Joanna Rączaszek‑Leonardi >>>>>>> <https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861>reviews >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861> >>>>>>> Deacon's How Molecules Became Signs >>>>>>> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.pdf?pdf=button> >>>>>>> giving me a hint of a bridge between the "dualistic" worlds (form V. >>>>>>> substance or body V. mind) we banter about here a lot? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I found EricS's recent response very thought provoking, but every >>>>>>> attempt I had to respond directly felt like more "stirring" so am >>>>>>> holding off until/when/if I might actually be able to add coherent >>>>>>> signal to the one I get hints of forming here... -- 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/
