Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Marcus Daniels]

I think there will be a transition toward a more advanced form of life, but I 
don’t think there will be a clear connection between how they think and how 
humans think.  Human culture won’t be important to how they scale, but may be 
relevant to a bootstrap.  I would be surprised if compression, deconstruction, 
and reductionism went unused by this species.  I would be surprised if such a 
species would struggle with quantification.   I would also be surprised if they 
did not use simulation in place of symbols.   I think they will have dreams of 
entire human lives, of the rise and fall of nations, and regard our aspirations 
like I regard my dog dreaming of her encounters at the park.

On Sep 15, 2022, at 4:11 PM, Prof David West  wrote:


Just to be clear, I have zero antipathy towards Wolpert or his efforts at 
steelmanning. I think Wolpert does an excellent job of phrasing as questions 
what I perceive "Scientists" and "Computationalists" to merely assert as Truth. 
I have long tilted at that particular windmill and I applaud Wolpert, and glen 
for bringing him to our attention, for exposing the assertions such that 
counter arguments might be made.

And when it comes to "computationalism" and AI; I know it is not the 1970s and 
things have "advanced" significantly. And although I do not comprehend the 
details as well as most of you, I do understand sufficiently, I believe, to 
advance the claim that they are suffering from the exact same blind spot (with 
variable details) as Simon and Newell, et. al. who championed GOFAI. Plus you 
all have heard of Simon and Newell but most of you are unfamiliar with 
McGilchrist and similar contemporary critics.

My antipathy toward "Scientists" and "Computationalists" arises from what I 
perceive as an absolute refusal to credit any science, math, or ways/means of 
acquiring/expressing knowledge and understanding other than theirs. Dismissing 
neolithic and pre-modern science is one example. Failing to acknowledge the 
intelligence (and probably SAM) of other species—especially octopi—simply 
because they do not build atomic bombs or computers, is another.

A really good book that would inform a discussion of Wolpert's questions, #4 in 
particular, is: Other Minds: The Octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of 
consciousness, by Peter Godfrey-Smith.  A blurb follows.

Although mammals and birds are widely regarded as the smartest creatures on 
earth, it has lately become clear that a very distant branch of the tree of 
life has also sprouted higher intelligence: the cephalopods, consisting of the 
squid, the cuttlefish, and above all the octopus. In captivity, octopuses have 
been known to identify individual human keepers, raid neighboring tanks for 
food, turn off light bulbs by spouting jets of water, plug drains, and make 
daring escapes. How is it that a creature with such gifts evolved through an 
evolutionary lineage so radically distant from our own? What does it mean that 
evolution built minds not once but at least twice? The octopus is the closest 
we will come to meeting an intelligent alien. What can we learn from the 
encounter?

davew


On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, at 12:22 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>There is some kind of diectic error in our response.
>
> Korrekshun - "deictic"
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] Doyne says green saves money

[Roger Frye]

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Prof David West]

Just to be clear, I have zero antipathy towards Wolpert or his efforts at 
steelmanning. I think Wolpert does an excellent job of phrasing as questions 
what I perceive "Scientists" and "Computationalists" to merely assert as Truth. 
I have long tilted at that particular windmill and I applaud Wolpert, and glen 
for bringing him to our attention, for exposing the assertions such that 
counter arguments might be made.

And when it comes to "computationalism" and AI; I know it is not the 1970s and 
things have "advanced" significantly. And although I do not comprehend the 
details as well as most of you, I do understand sufficiently, I believe, to 
advance the claim that they are suffering from the exact same blind spot (with 
variable details) as Simon and Newell, et. al. who championed GOFAI. Plus you 
all have heard of Simon and Newell but most of you are unfamiliar with 
McGilchrist and similar contemporary critics.

My antipathy toward "Scientists" and "Computationalists" arises from what I 
perceive as an absolute refusal to credit any science, math, or ways/means of 
acquiring/expressing knowledge and understanding other than theirs. Dismissing 
neolithic and pre-modern science is one example. Failing to acknowledge the 
intelligence (and probably SAM) of other species—especially octopi—simply 
because they do not build atomic bombs or computers, is another.

A really good book that would inform a discussion of Wolpert's questions, #4 in 
particular, is: *Other Minds: The Octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of 
consciousness*, by Peter Godfrey-Smith.  A blurb follows.

*Although mammals and birds are widely regarded as the smartest creatures on 
earth, it has lately become clear that a very distant branch of the tree of 
life has also sprouted higher intelligence: the cephalopods, consisting of the 
squid, the cuttlefish, and above all the octopus. In captivity, octopuses have 
been known to identify individual human keepers, raid neighboring tanks for 
food, turn off light bulbs by spouting jets of water, plug drains, and make 
daring escapes. How is it that a creature with such gifts evolved through an 
evolutionary lineage so radically distant from our own? What does it mean that 
evolution built minds not once but at least twice? The octopus is the closest 
we will come to meeting an intelligent alien. What can we learn from the 
encounter? *

davew


On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, at 12:22 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>There is some kind of diectic error in our response.
>
> Korrekshun - "deictic"
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Steve Smith]

>There is some kind of diectic error in our response.

Korrekshun - "deictic"




-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Steve Smith]

To help prune geometricly expanding larding:

Regarding growth vs "mere" dynamism.   I re-refer you to Deacon's 
homeo,morpho,teleo-dynamic as I think this is what he is *trying* to 
attend to.   I have also used the distinction of "deterministic but 
not-prestateable" which is another gesture in the same direction I think 
you are making with "adversarial accumulation", though I'm not sure 
"adversarial" is central excepting insomuch as it invokes "co-evolution" 
as you state later.


I didn't mean to suggest that cancer isn't *alive*, or even that ice9 
(and other self-organizing systems) aren't in some sense proto-life.   
Cancer is *adaptive* in a way that crystalization or simple 
autocatalytic systems are not.  And I like your description as 
"psychopathically immortal"  It seems this is a characteristic of a lot 
of  systems we consider pathological (to the larger context they exist 
in?) such as self-serving political behaviour, self-serving bureaucratic 
behaviour, self-serving corporate management behaviour, etc. ad inf.


My seconding of DaveWs "antipathy" was specifically in the mode NOT of 
singling out Wolpert, but rather acknowledging (weakly I guess) your 
point about his steelman... the steelman represents a general trend that 
DaveW (and I to a lesser extent) might be bothered by... not necessarily 
intending to impute bias on Wolpert but on the target of the steelman he 
puts forth?   There is some kind of diectic error in our response.


I am also interested in responding to another bit of "chumming" you did 
I think with Christian List... I will try to avoid these errors when I 
do that.   As you are thanking us for the engagement here, I want to 
thank you for having such interesting provocations and thrashing in 
followup.



On 9/15/22 11:59 AM, glen∉ℂ wrote:

It's tough to resist the "larding". But I'll try.

- Static-dynamic: By "grow", I don't really mean "dynamic"... or not 
merely dynamic. I mean something more akin to a co-evolutionary, 
adversarial network accumulation. Time is necessary. But so is space. 
The contrast with specification targets "algorithms", compressions, 
and "finite sequences from finite alphabets". *Can* such adversarial 
accumulation be specified, formally or even informally?


- Ice9, cancer, et al: I think I disagree. I should avoid the word 
"intelligent" because I agree with Dave, that concept is one of the 
worst examples of homo-arrogant abstraction. I *do* consider cancer to 
be alive in some interesting sense, if only a pattern of behavior on 
top of a living substrate. My cancer, in particular, is really just a 
psychopathic immortal cell type. The runaway growth is really just 
that some cells refuse to politely commit suicide. I also think it's 
reasonable to call some of our AI workflows "alive" in some primitive 
sense, again even if only as a pattern of behavior on a living substrate.


- Scientism: But Wolpert's explicitly asking about our biases! That's 
the whole point of the paper, to object to that ethno-centrism. Y'all 
seem to be criticizing Wolpert for *trying* to steelman the 
Scientismists. You literally cannot make an effective objection 
without first demonstrating that you understand the details of your 
opponents' position. Calling him biased in this way *because* he's 
trying to build a good steelman seems a bit myopic. Of course, maybe 
we don't have to play the game he sets up. I tried to show I object to 
his steelman (but not his conclusion) because our proofs don't seem 
like *only* "finite sequences from finite alphabets". And I tried to 
object to that with List's mention of indexicality. But I think we 
could reformulate Wolpert's questions with that and it would be even 
more steely. *And* it would still agree with Wolpert's main point: 
that we are more limited/biased than we can possibly imagine.


In any case, don't read my comments the wrong way. I'm enormously 
grateful y'all have engaged.


On 9/15/22 10:02, Steve Smith wrote:

glen∉ℂ wrote:

Great question. 
I also appreciate the specificity of the question, despite wanting to 
tease it into 3 parts: A) convincing evidence; B) superior 
intelligence; C) cultural inheritance .
I agree with Dave's emphasis against "finite sequences from a finite 
alphabet" as being central to our SAM. *If* Wolpert's actually 
relying on that as crucially as he seems to be, then the "grow vs. 
specify" accusation isn't a strawman.
Static (specification) vs dynamic (growth) is an important and I 
think fundamental distinction.  A genome *is* a finite specification 
while the embryology of it's earliest expressive development and the 
"cultural embedding" it continues to form within are not precisely 
finite (maybe finite-huge in scale but not finite in pre-stateability?).
But the question Wolpert wants to ask remains; and your concise 
phrasing nails it. If there is an "effective computing" artifact 
that demonstrates maximal intelligence with minimal cultural 
grounding, what 

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[glen∉ℂ]

It's tough to resist the "larding". But I'll try.

- Static-dynamic: By "grow", I don't really mean "dynamic"... or not merely dynamic. I mean 
something more akin to a co-evolutionary, adversarial network accumulation. Time is necessary. But so is space. The 
contrast with specification targets "algorithms", compressions, and "finite sequences from finite 
alphabets". *Can* such adversarial accumulation be specified, formally or even informally?

- Ice9, cancer, et al: I think I disagree. I should avoid the word "intelligent" because 
I agree with Dave, that concept is one of the worst examples of homo-arrogant abstraction. I *do* 
consider cancer to be alive in some interesting sense, if only a pattern of behavior on top of a 
living substrate. My cancer, in particular, is really just a psychopathic immortal cell type. The 
runaway growth is really just that some cells refuse to politely commit suicide. I also think it's 
reasonable to call some of our AI workflows "alive" in some primitive sense, again even 
if only as a pattern of behavior on a living substrate.

- Scientism: But Wolpert's explicitly asking about our biases! That's the whole point of 
the paper, to object to that ethno-centrism. Y'all seem to be criticizing Wolpert for 
*trying* to steelman the Scientismists. You literally cannot make an effective objection 
without first demonstrating that you understand the details of your opponents' position. 
Calling him biased in this way *because* he's trying to build a good steelman seems a bit 
myopic. Of course, maybe we don't have to play the game he sets up. I tried to show I 
object to his steelman (but not his conclusion) because our proofs don't seem like *only* 
"finite sequences from finite alphabets". And I tried to object to that with 
List's mention of indexicality. But I think we could reformulate Wolpert's questions with 
that and it would be even more steely. *And* it would still agree with Wolpert's main 
point: that we are more limited/biased than we can possibly imagine.

In any case, don't read my comments the wrong way. I'm enormously grateful 
y'all have engaged.

On 9/15/22 10:02, Steve Smith wrote:

glen∉ℂ wrote:

Great question. 

I also appreciate the specificity of the question, despite wanting to tease it 
into 3 parts: A) convincing evidence; B) superior intelligence; C) cultural 
inheritance .

I agree with Dave's emphasis against "finite sequences from a finite alphabet" as being 
central to our SAM. *If* Wolpert's actually relying on that as crucially as he seems to be, then 
the "grow vs. specify" accusation isn't a strawman.

Static (specification) vs dynamic (growth) is an important and I think fundamental 
distinction.  A genome *is* a finite specification while the embryology of it's earliest 
expressive development and the "cultural embedding" it continues to form within 
are not precisely finite (maybe finite-huge in scale but not finite in pre-stateability?).

But the question Wolpert wants to ask remains; and your concise phrasing nails it. If 
there is an "effective computing" artifact that demonstrates maximal 
intelligence with minimal cultural grounding, what is it? One valid answer is there is no 
such thing.

I do think the question is on the same as "what is art" and "what is pornography" and the 
answer "I know it when I see it" isn't fully responsive but possibly as good as it gets?

All forms of "intellignece" are not abstract, are embedded-embodied-concrete, tightly 
grounded to context. (Where I'm probably relying on my definition of "concrete" more than 
Dave's.)

In pursuit of an abstract definition of B) above it is tempting to gesture toward "fitness for survival" but with a *larger* 
sense of "self" and a long-now sense of "time".   Ice9, Cancer and grey-goo have high fitness by some measure but in 
both cases most would be loathe to call them "intelligent".   An expansive fitness with an arbitrarily broad sense of "what 
means self" might be the most abstract way of thinking of "superior intelligence"?


But I think that answer, however valid, is unsound. There are ways of behaving that 
*translate* across contexts. The berserker physicists who take that to the extreme 
notwithstanding, anyone who travels experiences this. As Wolpert explicitly mentions, 
perhaps the "level" at which this occurs is our bodies? As long as the society 
I visit on Alpha Centauri was built by homonid-similars, I think some set of my behaviors 
will translate, however small that set.

I think you are arguing for the definition of "self" in this case to be 
confined to the contents of our skin-bag (torus really), and maybe on a good day some of 
the cells recently shed from it's surface or expelled from  one end of it's digestive 
canal or the other?

But maybe there's a lower level, perhaps capturing less concrete detail than a 
homo-built society, of water and carbon based life? I.e. any society built by 
water and carbon based life will allow some 

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[Steve Smith]

glen∉ℂ wrote:

Great question. 
I also appreciate the specificity of the question, despite wanting to 
tease it into 3 parts: A) convincing evidence; B) superior intelligence; 
C) cultural inheritance .
I agree with Dave's emphasis against "finite sequences from a finite 
alphabet" as being central to our SAM. *If* Wolpert's actually relying 
on that as crucially as he seems to be, then the "grow vs. specify" 
accusation isn't a strawman.
Static (specification) vs dynamic (growth) is an important and I think 
fundamental distinction.  A genome *is* a finite specification while the 
embryology of it's earliest expressive development and the "cultural 
embedding" it continues to form within are not precisely finite (maybe 
finite-huge in scale but not finite in pre-stateability?).
But the question Wolpert wants to ask remains; and your concise 
phrasing nails it. If there is an "effective computing" artifact that 
demonstrates maximal intelligence with minimal cultural grounding, 
what is it? One valid answer is there is no such thing.
I do think the question is on the same as "what is art" and "what is 
pornography" and the answer "I know it when I see it" isn't fully 
responsive but possibly as good as it gets?
All forms of "intellignece" are not abstract, are 
embedded-embodied-concrete, tightly grounded to context. (Where I'm 
probably relying on my definition of "concrete" more than Dave's.)
In pursuit of an abstract definition of B) above it is tempting to 
gesture toward "fitness for survival" but with a *larger* sense of 
"self" and a long-now sense of "time".   Ice9, Cancer and grey-goo have 
high fitness by some measure but in both cases most would be loathe to 
call them "intelligent".   An expansive fitness with an arbitrarily 
broad sense of "what means self" might be the most abstract way of 
thinking of "superior intelligence"?


But I think that answer, however valid, is unsound. There are ways of 
behaving that *translate* across contexts. The berserker physicists 
who take that to the extreme notwithstanding, anyone who travels 
experiences this. As Wolpert explicitly mentions, perhaps the "level" 
at which this occurs is our bodies? As long as the society I visit on 
Alpha Centauri was built by homonid-similars, I think some set of my 
behaviors will translate, however small that set.
I think you are arguing for the definition of "self" in this case to be 
confined to the contents of our skin-bag (torus really), and maybe on a 
good day some of the cells recently shed from it's surface or expelled 
from  one end of it's digestive canal or the other?
But maybe there's a lower level, perhaps capturing less concrete 
detail than a homo-built society, of water and carbon based life? I.e. 
any society built by water and carbon based life will allow some 
translation of behaviors to our society?
It is familiar to define it as carbon-based life, but seems like a 
coincidence of history and awareness (if perchance there are non-carbon 
based life-forms we are unaware of within our light-cone)?


I don't grok Dave's antipathy, though. It seems to me like Wolpert is 
*asking* these questions and challenging our berserker Scientismists 
and Mathematicians in the very same gist as Dave does. Wolpert 
wouldn't write (and distribute) papers like this if he *weren't* a bit 
skeptical of the universality of our SAM.
Speaking for my inner DaveW, I think *my* antipathy is not really 
specifically to Wolpert's specific questions/formulation, but the 
*larger* expanse of Wolperts-at-large whose biases are (naturally) 
ethno-centric or more accurately human-chauvanistic and 
contemporary-western-civilization centric?   I am more acutely 
antipathic in this regard *because* I often *am one*...  there is no 
anti-smoker at large than a former smoker, especially one who perchance 
sneaks a guilty fag in private now and then?


On 9/14/22 22:29, Marcus Daniels wrote:
What would be convincing evidence of a superior intelligence 
independent of cultural inheritance?



On Sep 14, 2022, at 7:34 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:



On 9/14/22 7:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
ML gets better every day because it learns more like a newborn 
child than a university student.   This isn't 1970s AI anymore.   
It all seems like a strawman argument, whether you know it or not.


And as I have referenced watching a puppy and a kitten grow together 
from 3 and 4 months respectively, I believe that broadly, 
contemporary ML is learning like they are. Current fetishes for NLP 
to drive NLG and Visual Art misses a *lot* that animals (even one's 
domesticated by us for millenia) do so well as they express what 
their genes and gestation already prepare them for.


I'd claim the puppy knows a modest vocabulary of human 
utterances/gestures already, though to a dog, I think human language 
is very tonal to animals, to the point that maybe I can say "YES" in 
the same tone I say "NO" and vice versa and the tone, not the 
phoneme would 

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

[glen∉ℂ]

Great question. I agree with Dave's emphasis against "finite sequences from a finite 
alphabet" as being central to our SAM. *If* Wolpert's actually relying on that as crucially as 
he seems to be, then the "grow vs. specify" accusation isn't a strawman.

But the question Wolpert wants to ask remains; and your concise phrasing nails it. If there is an 
"effective computing" artifact that demonstrates maximal intelligence with minimal cultural 
grounding, what is it? One valid answer is there is no such thing. All forms of "intellignece" are 
not abstract, are embedded-embodied-concrete, tightly grounded to context. (Where I'm probably relying on my 
definition of "concrete" more than Dave's.)

But I think that answer, however valid, is unsound. There are ways of behaving that 
*translate* across contexts. The berserker physicists who take that to the extreme 
notwithstanding, anyone who travels experiences this. As Wolpert explicitly mentions, 
perhaps the "level" at which this occurs is our bodies? As long as the society 
I visit on Alpha Centauri was built by homonid-similars, I think some set of my behaviors 
will translate, however small that set.

But maybe there's a lower level, perhaps capturing less concrete detail than a 
homo-built society, of water and carbon based life? I.e. any society built by 
water and carbon based life will allow some translation of behaviors to our 
society?

I don't grok Dave's antipathy, though. It seems to me like Wolpert is *asking* 
these questions and challenging our berserker Scientismists and Mathematicians 
in the very same gist as Dave does. Wolpert wouldn't write (and distribute) 
papers like this if he *weren't* a bit skeptical of the universality of our SAM.

On 9/14/22 22:29, Marcus Daniels wrote:

What would be convincing evidence of a superior intelligence independent of 
cultural inheritance?


On Sep 14, 2022, at 7:34 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:



On 9/14/22 7:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
ML gets better every day because it learns more like a newborn child than a 
university student.   This isn't 1970s AI anymore.   It all seems like a 
strawman argument, whether you know it or not.


And as I have referenced watching a puppy and a kitten grow together from 3 and 
4 months respectively, I believe that broadly, contemporary ML is learning like 
they are. Current fetishes for NLP to drive NLG and Visual Art misses a *lot* 
that animals (even one's domesticated by us for millenia) do so well as they 
express what their genes and gestation already prepare them for.

I'd claim the puppy knows a modest vocabulary of human utterances/gestures already, though to a 
dog, I think human language is very tonal to animals, to the point that maybe I can say 
"YES" in the same tone I say "NO" and vice versa and the tone, not the phoneme 
would dominate.

The kitten is (as I feel all cats are) almost entirely disinterested in our 
*intentional* communications and *much more* aware of the implications of our 
*actions* than in our words. The puppy does seem to have a much stronger sense 
of anticipating our interests and seeking our approval.  The cat is more 
interested in her interests and treating us as facilitators or constraints to 
obtaining those.

Paw prints of either species qualify as "art" in our house anytime they get 
involved in a painting project or the setting of plaster, cement, or clay.   Our 
appreciation of same reflects *our* training more than *theirs*.



-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:54 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Regarding Wolpert's first four questions:

In my opinion, all four reflect a kind of arrogance that I have accused 
Scientists and Mathematicians of many times in the past—an attitude that modern 
formal and abstract math and science are a kind of ultimate achievement of our 
species. Any and all other forms/means of understanding are discounted or 
denied. This is analogous to the arrogance of Simon and Newell (mentioned 
previously) that a machine that thought like a university professor was 
necessarily intelligent.

Ignored in the AI instance is the learning ability of a new born child. Ignored 
in the case of SAM is the very real Science and Mathematics exhibited by our 
species beginning in the Neolithic. Metallurgy, agriculture, animal husbandry, 
pottery, weaving, cooking, food preservation, etc.

Levi-Strauss writes extensively of two different kinds of science: concrete and abstract; the 
former grounded in perception and imagination, the latter divorced from same.  The object of all 
science is connections and explanations and based on experimentation and empirical evidence, but 
"concrete science" relies far more heavily on sensible intuition and not formal 
"proof."

SAM, for Wolpert, seems to be restricted to the that which came into being the past few 
hundred years. This fetish makes 

Re: [FRIAM] VFriam

[thompnickson2]

Ah, yes, work.  I remember that.  That, and skiing and sex. 

Nick 

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:42 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] VFriam

Spurn? No. I just have to work most Thursdays. But thanks for thinking of me!

On 9/15/22 07:39, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks, Frank.  I will join you soon after noon, eastern.  FWTW.  Or as Glen 
> would say, pftt.  By the way, why does Glen Spurn Thursdays?  I miss him.


-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/

[FRIAM] Don't forget your flu shots, ...

[thompnickson2]

>From The Hill, below.  The burden is that the flu season is going to be
lousy, and that some are doubting the Administration's recommendation that
one get the covid and flu vaccine at the same time.  Apparently getting the
flu vaccine too early can lead to it's effectiveness waning in the late
winter.  So, perhaps get your booster today and your flooster late in
October?  I have already had both, so my die is cast.  

 

(Signed)

 

NannyNIck

 

Health experts are warning the nation to brace for what could be an
exceptionally severe flu season this fall and winter, as more people who
have not built up immunity over the last few years mix and mingle. There are
two big reasons why more people could be vulnerable to the flu this year.  

 

The first is that with coronavirus restrictions such as the wearing of masks
all but forgotten, people are more likely to come into contact with the flu
virus this year than over the last two years.  The second reason is that
fewer people are likely to be immune from the flu virus this year because
fewer people have been getting the flu over the last two years - as the
pandemic locked people down and as people worried more about getting
COVID-19.  

Richard Webby, a virologist at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's
infectious diseases department, said the past two flu seasons simply have
not seen the same levels of exposure to the flu. 

 

"As a population, our immunity to the flu is down a bit," Webby said. "When
the virus comes back, it's probably going to have a little bit more room to
spread, a little bit more room to potentially cause disease." 

In a normal year, exposure to the influenza virus generates some community
immunity as about 10 to 30 percent of people are exposed to the flu in a
normal season. But fewer people were exposed in 2020 and 2021, resulting in
a decline in natural immunity. For example, pediatric flu deaths normally
exceeded 100 every year before the pandemic.  

But the past two flu seasons have seen reported pediatric flu deaths fall
under 40, with only one pediatric death confirmed in 2020. This lowered
population immunity means that people are at a higher risk of contracting
the flu this year, according to Webby. 

 

Amesh Adalja,   senior scholar at
the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of
Public Health, said the flu season for the past two years has essentially
been "nonexistent" and added that this trend was always bound to end once
social distancing became less practiced.  According to Adalja, evidence of
the flu picking back up is a sign that people are returning to "some
semblance of their life pre-COVID."  

 

The Southern Hemisphere is giving the United States a preview of sorts of
what is to come.  It's been winter in the Southern Hemisphere, and those
countries have experienced a tough flu season. Australia, as one example,
experienced its worst flu season in five years, with the rate of cases
peaking earlier than it usually does in the country.  In both 2020 and 2021,
the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care noted a lower rate of
reported flu cases and severity, with only 37 laboratory-confirmed
flu-associated deaths reported in 2020 and zero reported in 2021. Flu
hospitalizations and deaths reached an all-time low in Australia last year. 

There were nearly 600 cases of laboratory-confirmed influenza in Australia
in 2021. During this year's flu season, the country has reported more than
217,000 cases, though this is still lower than in 2019, when Australia
reported more than 300,000 cases, the highest number of cases on record for
the country. 

 

Webby noted flu deaths and hospitalizations in Australia were still
relatively low this year despite the sizable flu season that the country
saw. Deaths and hospitalizations are largely driven by infections among the
elderly, and Australia still practiced precautions when it came to this
demographic. 

 

If such precautions are also taken in the U.S., then higher flu
hospitalizations and deaths could similarly be avoided, Webby said. 

Experts who spoke with The Hill agreed that what was observed in the
Southern Hemisphere appeared to be something of a return to a normal flu
season, one that was not "suppressed" by the COVID-19 pandemic. Both Webby
and Adalja were doubtful that a "twindemic" of both flu and coronavirus
would occur this year.  "I don't think that these two viruses can sort of go
gangbusters at the same time," Webby said.   

 

With the recent authorization of the bivalent COVID-19 booster dose, the
White House has begun recommending that people receive both their booster
shots and flu shots at the same time, hoping to avoid surges of both
viruses.  For the 2022-2023 flu season, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has stated that September and October are good times to get
vaccinated. With many COVID-19-conscious people likely to get their booster
shots sooner than 

Re: [FRIAM] VFriam

[glen∉ℂ]

Spurn? No. I just have to work most Thursdays. But thanks for thinking of me!

On 9/15/22 07:39, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks, Frank.  I will join you soon after noon, eastern.  FWTW.  Or as Glen 
would say, pftt.  By the way, why does Glen Spurn Thursdays?  I miss him.



-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/

Re: [FRIAM] VFriam

[thompnickson2]

Thanks, Frank.  I will join you soon after noon, eastern.  FWTW.  Or as Glen 
would say, pftt.  By the way, why does Glen Spurn Thursdays?  I miss him.  

 

n

 

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com  

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:10 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] VFriam

 

Will begin around 9:45 MDT today.  God willing.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] VFriam

[Frank Wimberly]

Will begin around 9:45 MDT today.  God willing.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/

Re: [FRIAM] Pardon the interruption, I have a case of petty theft

[Sarbajit Roy]

Before anything else, You need a receipt (or else a transaction reference
number) for the 170 you paid to Smiths / Krogers
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] Pardon the interruption, I have a case of petty theft

[Gillian Densmore]

And a case of why I utterly despise indian tech support. No this is not
about wolpert. Yes i am beyond infuriated and feel violated 20 times a
week, and 40 on sunday.
*Facts:*
Today (9/14): after getting groceries at the Smiths on pacheco up the hill
from a mcdonalds. I went to get some groceries, reload a prepaid debt card
that i now will never do so again because of reasons to follow.
First got a woman that was to distracted talking to some other customer
after blowing me off. I found someone else. and asked to put 170, with the
intention to pick up somethings I need. and maybe something I'd just want.
(to not go over 130 as well):

*Expected Results:*
Asked the person to put 170 onto my MOFO prepaid cash card. and Have that
much added.

*Actuall results:*
Be on the MOFO phone for h o u r s. getting stone walled by some A[eddited
at steve's behest]... from india in full denial that despite: proof on
their computers something done F and Up[insuferable a*** h*** clicks link
here]:
-That SoB: never admitted they done messed up
-OR even simpler: someone pi** the Eff Off over a petty amount? just cred
it the card and move on
Oh no that a hole acted like he own the [long string of being pissed and
expletives removed]: store. Stone walled for hours. and I still have no
resolution to  something gone wrong, or stolen I don't care which.


At this point i am so... What the hell can I even do? randomly
acusing someone of petty theft is serius AF, and their's 0 reason to
blieve Smith/Krogers computer could screw up either. I do know that my
burnite spite vs this [redacted]  customer support is awful.
Now because of a complex af chain of anything could go wrongs I'm pretty
close to skull [redacted] er given' the business out of money without
knowing if their's some hidden fees, computer problem, or what ever before
going: "uh some uh random uh employee uh *might * uh have uh stolen uh some
petty amount and and.." because  that's serius AF. it's just.. not done to
do, unless you can time gem snap your fingers and show
the propper authorities: see, see! right..then!
Anyone have experience with this kind of cluster of chaotic dots that
Fizzly Ucked Up.?
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/