glen wrote:
I'm just as fed up with the over-confidence of the active inference
bros (AIBs).
I am probably an AIB, at least part of the time.
I give Nick a hard time for his monist fever dream. But we all have
some deep seated reductionist tendency ... toward whatever overly
simple model of the universe we find we can hold in our head. Granted,
the cognitively blessed amongst us can hold more paradox than the rest
of us. But we all still do it, even the most powered amongst us.
Pluralism is rare.
While I'm pretty darned diachronic compared to your self-claims, I *do*
depend on the fact that I DO range modestly over time...
So it doesn't actually matter much how the AIBs would hijack
communication or co-construction. It would still be a hijack. As an
example, I'm in an ongoing argument with a pub goer about the
distinction between art and craft. And I think we both agree that a
typical hallmark of art is that it *can* be surprising.
I don't normally argue art V craft much (in artifact or in process or in
mindset). I think *craft* can be surprising, though I suppose that
isn't the intent? The intent is to make something reliably functional
within some range and the surprisal comes in "I had no Idea THIS could
do THAT, especially when applied or configured THUS!"
Most lay conceptions of communication seem to me to imply it raises
non-conscious, habitual things *up* into consciousness ... i.e. a
failure of surprisal minimization.
I do like this idea of "surfacing" patterns which resonate from larger,
more complex patterns (e.g. Jung, et al, reservoir computing, ???)
I feel confident the Entropy Bros will have something to say, here ...
something about a λ parameter adjusting between boredom and berserker
mode. It doesn't matter, the point stands regardless of the context,
"communication" does not cohere except when it's hijacked and rendered
meaningful in that smaller universe. Is that true for all words? ...
Jordan Peterson style ("What do you mean by 'believe'?")? No.
over my head
I think we can do what LLMs are doing and assess which words cohere
and which words don't ... components and hubs of the graph. And if a
word's in and out edges are literally *everywhere*, then it's incoherent.
(it means everything and nothing at the same time then?)
But if we modify such a word into a phrase, then that composite
"word" likely does cohere. E.g. "communication breakdown" is more
coherent than "communication".
linguistic context disambiguates the above?
Given that, we might be able to quantify the degree of the 2 nodes.
Let's say "communication" has degree N and "communication breakdown"
has degree M. Similar with a large sample of other words and their
composites. Those words where N >> M are can be labeled incoherent or
meaningless without a modifier. (Or there are higher order graph
properties we could bring to bear, if for some reason degree is
inadequate.)
over my head again some more...
My (testable) assertion is communication is one such word. "God" is
another. Stupid, useless word, that one.
"God" seems to be a pretty useful albeit often misused word? A
solvent, an intensifier, a buffer, a reason, an excuse, a creator, a
savior, an avenger, etc. I just talked myself around to realizing it
is so *widely useful* as to be *useless*? At least for "communication"
(wait, I think I'm dividing infinity by infinity or is it 0 by 0?).- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/
