[FRIAM] ChatGPT and Unamuno

[Jochen Fromm]

Me: Do you know philosopher Miguel de Unamuno?ChatGPT: Yes, Miguel de Unamuno 
(1864-1936) was a Spanish philosopher, writer, and poet, and is considered one 
of the most important Spanish intellectuals of the 20th century. He is best 
known for his work on existentialism and his emphasis on the importance of 
individual experience and faith.Unamuno was born in Bilbao, Spain, and studied 
philosophy at the University of Madrid. He served as the rector of the 
University of Salamanca, where he became involved in politics and was 
eventually exiled for his opposition to the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de 
Rivera. He died in exile in 1936, shortly after the outbreak of the Spanish 
Civil War.Unamuno's most famous works include "The Tragic Sense of Life" ("Del 
sentimiento trágico de la vida") and "The Agony of Christianity" ("La agonía 
del cristianismo"). He was a prolific writer and his works also include novels, 
plays, poetry, and essays.Me: What he is known for? ChatGPT: Miguel de Unamuno 
is known for his contributions to philosophy, literature, and poetry. He was a 
prominent figure in the Spanish intellectual and cultural scene of the early 
20th century, and his ideas continue to be studied and debated today.Unamuno is 
particularly well-known for his work on existentialism, which emphasizes the 
individual's subjective experience of life and the search for meaning in a 
world that can seem absurd or meaningless. In his book "The Tragic Sense of 
Life," Unamuno explores the idea that human beings are caught between a desire 
for immortality and the inevitability of death, and that this struggle gives 
rise to a sense of tragic consciousness.Unamuno was also a prolific writer of 
literature and poetry, and his works often dealt with themes of identity, 
faith, and the human condition. He was a leading figure of the Spanish literary 
movement known as the Generation of '98, which sought to revitalize Spanish 
culture in the wake of the country's loss of its colonies and the resulting 
crisis of identity.Overall, Unamuno is remembered as a passionate and 
intellectually rigorous thinker who sought to grapple with the biggest 
questions of human existence. His legacy continues to inspire and challenge 
scholars and readers today.Me: In Unamuno's book "The Tragic Sense of Life" he 
says "Memory is the basis of individual personality, just as tradition is the 
basis of the collective personality of a people". Could you elaborate?ChatGPT: 
In "The Tragic Sense of Life," Unamuno explores the idea that memory is the 
basis of individual personality. By this, he means that our personal memories 
and experiences are what shape our sense of self and our understanding of the 
world around us.Unamuno argues that memory allows us to retain a sense of 
continuity and identity over time. Our memories are like a thread that connects 
our past selves with our present selves, giving us a sense of personal history 
and identity. Without memory, we would be like a ship adrift at sea, without a 
sense of direction or purpose.At the same time, Unamuno also argues that 
tradition is the basis of the collective personality of a people. By this, he 
means that the shared history, values, and beliefs of a community are what 
define its identity and character. Just as individual memory connects us to our 
personal past, tradition connects a people to its cultural heritage and gives 
it a sense of collective identity.For Unamuno, memory and tradition are both 
essential to understanding ourselves and our place in the world. By remembering 
our personal past and our shared cultural heritage, we can create a sense of 
meaning and purpose that can sustain us through the challenges and 
uncertainties of life.Me: Unamuno said if a man never contradicts himself, it 
may be because he never says anything. What does he mean by it?CharGPT: When 
Unamuno said "if a man never contradicts himself, it may be because he never 
says anything," he was making a point about the complexity and ambiguity of 
human thought and expression.On one level, Unamuno is suggesting that 
contradiction is a natural and even necessary part of human communication. 
People are complex and multifaceted, and our ideas and opinions are often in a 
state of flux. It's therefore natural for us to express contradictory thoughts 
or ideas at different times or in different contexts.On a deeper level, Unamuno 
is also suggesting that the search for truth and understanding is a complex and 
ongoing process, and that it often involves grappling with contradictions and 
paradoxes. People who never contradict themselves may be those who have simply 
stopped thinking critically or who are unwilling to engage with the 
complexities of the world around them.Unamuno himself was known for his 
willingness to embrace contradiction and ambiguity in his writing and thought, 
and he believed that this was an essential part of the intellectual and 
spiritual journey. For him, the 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Gillian Densmore]

just for grins I tried asking chatgpt to make a guess where Atlantis was.
it went in circles and wouldn't even hazard a guess. Though, I thought one
of the more likely inspirations came from a mixture of  Minoa,Crete, and
ancient spain. Though plato puts even me to shame as a world class BSer.


On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 5:49 PM Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> FWIW when I asked ChatGPT about a fundraiser/just good fun called
> "Karoling with a Klingon." I have hosted for many years up to covid. It got
> the part about singing in Klingon and that it was a regular thing dead on.
> But where it went off the rails a bit was claiming it was a record. That is
> unless one of the numerous attendees have recoded it and I hadn't noticed.
> It did say it has to go through the internet, I did, however, get a plug
> once from a solo singer ("the klingon pop warrior"). And I think she has
> done a record. My guess is that it tries to google/equivilant. That
> sumerises what it finds. and kind of mashes it together.
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:51 PM Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>> I'd say ChatGPT knows FriAM at least as well as Dr. Strangelove
>>  does ( though he's been pretty easy
>> on us the last few years ).
>>
>> I found myself trying to parse bits of ChatGPT's response.
>>
>> To begin, not only do I not know of any project or effort at SFI entitled
>> "Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models" but Dr. Google doesn't
>> seem to have found any reference to such a group.  This makes me think that
>> ChatGPT recognized FRIAM as an acronym and fished around in the
>> concept-linguistic-space of the *prominent* scientific institution (SFI)
>> related Santa Fe.   I don't know what to think about how it parsed out
>> "Infinite Automated" into "infinite dimensional" models?   The whole
>> passage suggests to me that ChatGPT's prime goal Is in fact to generate
>> *credible* or *plausable* narratives rather than accurate ones?
>>
>> Fascinating that the specific binding of specifically named FriAM
>> luminaries to specific roles at specific institutions associated with Santa
>> Fe.  Without doing the research to find Dopplynms within those
>> organizations, I'm pretty sure that at least Wimberly and Ropella are
>> uncommon enough names so as not to have parallels at LANL and Descartes.
>> This supports my feeling that ChatGPT is tuned for "plausability" over
>> other utility functions...
>>
>> This aligns with the implications of Glen's reference to the distinction
>> between bullshitting and lying.   ChatGPT is a definitely a strident
>> bullshitter.  But then most scriptwriters, showrunners, and directors in
>> Hollywood and too many politicians can be considered that way as well?
>>
>> The general conception of FriAM as a rolling group of participants is at
>> least superficially accurate, though I don't see that we have that much
>> turnover, nor does ChatGPT seem to recognize that our physical meetups
>> are/were the tip of the iceberg (tail of the dog) for the last umpteen
>> years...
>>
>> Also without looking I didn't know that there is a Nick Thompson who is
>> Editor-in-Chief of Wired, but take it for granted that this level of
>> specificity in the face of Wired Mag. being not particularly correlated
>> with Santa Fe suggests there IS and the BS factor comes in by being willing
>> to *assert* that these are the same Nick Thompson's with only the thinnest
>> of circumstantial evidence.
>>
>> The Eric Charles reference also seems specific enough to suggest that
>> there is a true dopplenym there.
>>
>> I was surprised by the error-of-attribution ChatGPT made to itself,
>> accusing itself of transposing "Vital" with "Mental" rather than to Jochen?
>>
>> Very well curated, interesting and relevant ChatGPT anecdote Jochen!
>>
>>
>> Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?
>> ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing
>> Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the
>> Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of
>> complex systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who
>> explore the use of mathematical models and computational methods to
>> understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus on
>> infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests include
>> dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, and more. FRIAM's work
>> has contributed to a deeper understanding of various systems, such as
>> financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, among others.
>>
>> Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is
>> organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe,
>> New Mexico, interested in applied complexity
>>
>> ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday
>> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of
>> complexity researchers and software 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Gillian Densmore]

FWIW when I asked ChatGPT about a fundraiser/just good fun called "Karoling
with a Klingon." I have hosted for many years up to covid. It got the part
about singing in Klingon and that it was a regular thing dead on. But where
it went off the rails a bit was claiming it was a record. That is unless
one of the numerous attendees have recoded it and I hadn't noticed. It did
say it has to go through the internet, I did, however, get a plug once from
a solo singer ("the klingon pop warrior"). And I think she has done a
record. My guess is that it tries to google/equivilant. That sumerises what
it finds. and kind of mashes it together.

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:51 PM Steve Smith  wrote:

> I'd say ChatGPT knows FriAM at least as well as Dr. Strangelove
>  does ( though he's been pretty easy on
> us the last few years ).
>
> I found myself trying to parse bits of ChatGPT's response.
>
> To begin, not only do I not know of any project or effort at SFI entitled
> "Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models" but Dr. Google doesn't
> seem to have found any reference to such a group.  This makes me think that
> ChatGPT recognized FRIAM as an acronym and fished around in the
> concept-linguistic-space of the *prominent* scientific institution (SFI)
> related Santa Fe.   I don't know what to think about how it parsed out
> "Infinite Automated" into "infinite dimensional" models?   The whole
> passage suggests to me that ChatGPT's prime goal Is in fact to generate
> *credible* or *plausable* narratives rather than accurate ones?
>
> Fascinating that the specific binding of specifically named FriAM
> luminaries to specific roles at specific institutions associated with Santa
> Fe.  Without doing the research to find Dopplynms within those
> organizations, I'm pretty sure that at least Wimberly and Ropella are
> uncommon enough names so as not to have parallels at LANL and Descartes.
> This supports my feeling that ChatGPT is tuned for "plausability" over
> other utility functions...
>
> This aligns with the implications of Glen's reference to the distinction
> between bullshitting and lying.   ChatGPT is a definitely a strident
> bullshitter.  But then most scriptwriters, showrunners, and directors in
> Hollywood and too many politicians can be considered that way as well?
>
> The general conception of FriAM as a rolling group of participants is at
> least superficially accurate, though I don't see that we have that much
> turnover, nor does ChatGPT seem to recognize that our physical meetups
> are/were the tip of the iceberg (tail of the dog) for the last umpteen
> years...
>
> Also without looking I didn't know that there is a Nick Thompson who is
> Editor-in-Chief of Wired, but take it for granted that this level of
> specificity in the face of Wired Mag. being not particularly correlated
> with Santa Fe suggests there IS and the BS factor comes in by being willing
> to *assert* that these are the same Nick Thompson's with only the thinnest
> of circumstantial evidence.
>
> The Eric Charles reference also seems specific enough to suggest that
> there is a true dopplenym there.
>
> I was surprised by the error-of-attribution ChatGPT made to itself,
> accusing itself of transposing "Vital" with "Mental" rather than to Jochen?
>
> Very well curated, interesting and relevant ChatGPT anecdote Jochen!
>
>
> Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?
> ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing
> Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the
> Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of
> complex systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who
> explore the use of mathematical models and computational methods to
> understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus on
> infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests include
> dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, and more. FRIAM's work
> has contributed to a deeper understanding of various systems, such as
> financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, among others.
>
> Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is
> organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe,
> New Mexico, interested in applied complexity
>
> ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of
> complexity researchers and software developers who meet on Friday mornings
> to discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group is
> open to anyone who is interested in the subject and is often attended by
> researchers, academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of
> fields. The discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics,
> including complex systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more.
> The group provides a forum for 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Steve Smith]

My head is too fuzzy right now (inside as well as out) to conjure the 
details, but when Descartes launched I think I knew some of the LANL 
crew from the Visual Cortex Modeling efforts (LANL and NM Institute) and 
believe that the intellectual/algorithmic legacy included the GENIE 
 
"image segmentation-by-example" algorithms/software developed in the 90s 
which I think of as an alpha/proto-typing of the kind of machine 
learning that DALL-E and other image-based generators are based in.


I've a young (well, 40ish now) friend who worked at a SFe startup on the 
same kind of technology which got gobbled up by a middle-sized fish out 
of Denver which got gobbled by Monsanto (about the time Descartes was 
spinning up?).  She stayed on with Monsanto for several years (under 
some shame/duress) but finally managed to jump ship to an open-data 
space-imaging company (whose name eludes my fuzzy head).   When she was 
still in her undergrad (Hydrogeology) I talked with her about GENIE and 
it's potential for more virtuous projects (like helping the Nature 
Conservancy with planning for the arc-of-evolution of micro-climates to 
help them prioritize their acquisitions).  My guess is that this is an 
easy no-brainer for such planning, even if we in fact have no financial 
motive for such.


This came back to me a lot while reading Kim Stanley Robinson's 
"Ministry for the Future" 
 and thinking 
about how much bias we (normally) have toward using 
science/engineering/tech to leverage exploitation (good of the few) vs 
leveraging regulation unto conservation (good of the many)?


After we get done generating silly NFT artpieces and cheating on our 
term papers with ChatGPT will we find a way to apply this technology to 
a virtuous exploration of the adjacent possible? What would that look 
like?   What means "virtuous"?  Does ChatGPT have a (consensus?  
popular?) notion of what IS virtuous?



On 2/21/23 4:08 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

I'm surprised that Nick didn't get an office at Descartes, too.

-- rec --

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:29 PM Frank Wimberly  
wrote:


I am glad that ChatGPT ha promoted me to be CTO of Descartes Labs
because my motto is, "I think therefore I am."

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 2:16 PM Marcus Daniels
 wrote:

This actually sounds useful: https://lnkd.in/eJRBs_nZ


On Feb 21, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Jochen Fromm
 wrote:


Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?
ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM
(Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a
research group located at the Santa Fe Institute, a renowned
research center dedicated to the study of complex systems.
FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who explore
the use of mathematical models and computational methods to
understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus on
infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests
include dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization,
and more. FRIAM's work has contributed to a deeper
understanding of various systems, such as financial markets,
climate models, and biological systems, among others.

Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group. It is organization of complexity researchers and
software developers in Santa Fe, New Mexico, interested in
applied complexity

ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware
of the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in
Santa Fe. It is a group of complexity researchers and
software developers who meet on Friday mornings to discuss
and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group
is open to anyone who is interested in the subject and is
often attended by researchers, academics, entrepreneurs, and
professionals from a variety of fields. The discussions at
the group cover a wide range of topics, including complex
systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The
group provides a forum for members to share their ideas and
learn from each other in an informal setting over a cup of
coffee. The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group is
one of many examples of the vibrant intellectual community in
Santa Fe dedicated to the study of complex systems.

Me: Can you name some active members?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence
language model, I don't have access to real-time information
on the current 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Roger Critchlow]

I'm surprised that Nick didn't get an office at Descartes, too.

-- rec --

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:29 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> I am glad that ChatGPT ha promoted me to be CTO of Descartes Labs because
> my motto is, "I think therefore I am."
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 2:16 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>
>> This actually sounds useful:   https://lnkd.in/eJRBs_nZ
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?
>>
>> ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing
>> Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the
>> Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of
>> complex systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who
>> explore the use of mathematical models and computational methods to
>> understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus on
>> infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests include
>> dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, and more. FRIAM's work
>> has contributed to a deeper understanding of various systems, such as
>> financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, among others.
>>
>> Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is
>> organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe,
>> New Mexico, interested in applied complexity
>>
>> ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday
>> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of
>> complexity researchers and software developers who meet on Friday mornings
>> to discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group is
>> open to anyone who is interested in the subject and is often attended by
>> researchers, academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of
>> fields. The discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics,
>> including complex systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more.
>> The group provides a forum for members to share their ideas and learn from
>> each other in an informal setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning
>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group is one of many examples of the vibrant
>> intellectual community in Santa Fe dedicated to the study of complex
>> systems.
>>
>> Me: Can you name some active members?
>>
>> ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence language model, I
>> don't have access to real-time information on the current membership of the
>> Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is a community of
>> complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe who meet on a
>> regular basis to discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity.
>> The membership of the group is fluid, with new members joining and others
>> moving on as their interests and circumstances change. If you are
>> interested in learning more about the group, you might be able to find more
>> information on their website or through social media channels.
>> Alternatively, you could try reaching out to the Santa Fe Institute, which
>> has connections with many researchers and organizations in the Santa Fe
>> area.
>>
>> Me: Nicholas Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are
>> part of this group. What do you know about them?
>>
>> ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine,
>> which covers a wide range of topics related to technology, science, and
>> culture. Prior to his current position at Wired, he was a senior editor at
>> the magazine and worked as a reporter for The New Yorker and Legal Times.
>> Thompson is also the author of "The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George
>> Kennan, and the History of the Cold War," a book that explores the history
>> of the Cold War through the lives of two of its most prominent strategists.
>>
>> Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at Descartes Labs, a
>> geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine learning and
>> artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other types of
>> data. Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in
>> various engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies,
>> including Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.
>>
>> Glen Ropella is a computer scientist and engineer who has worked on a
>> variety of projects related to computational modeling, artificial
>> intelligence, and machine learning. He is currently a Senior Scientist at
>> Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he is involved in research on complex
>> systems and their applications to national security and other areas.
>>
>> Frank Wimberly is a software engineer and entrepreneur who has worked in
>> various roles in the technology industry, including as a software engineer
>> at Yahoo and as the founder of a 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Steve Smith]

I'd say ChatGPT knows FriAM at least as well as Dr. Strangelove 
 does ( though he's been pretty easy 
on us the last few years ).


I found myself trying to parse bits of ChatGPT's response.

To begin, not only do I not know of any project or effort at SFI 
entitled "Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models" but Dr. Google 
doesn't seem to have found any reference to such a group. This makes me 
think that ChatGPT recognized FRIAM as an acronym and fished around in 
the concept-linguistic-space of the *prominent* scientific institution 
(SFI) related Santa Fe.   I don't know what to think about how it parsed 
out "Infinite Automated" into "infinite dimensional" models?   The whole 
passage suggests to me that ChatGPT's prime goal Is in fact to generate 
*credible* or *plausable* narratives rather than accurate ones?


Fascinating that the specific binding of specifically named FriAM 
luminaries to specific roles at specific institutions associated with 
Santa Fe.  Without doing the research to find Dopplynms within those 
organizations, I'm pretty sure that at least Wimberly and Ropella are 
uncommon enough names so as not to have parallels at LANL and 
Descartes.   This supports my feeling that ChatGPT is tuned for 
"plausability" over other utility functions...


This aligns with the implications of Glen's reference to the distinction 
between bullshitting and lying.   ChatGPT is a definitely a strident 
bullshitter.  But then most scriptwriters, showrunners, and directors in 
Hollywood and too many politicians can be considered that way as well?


The general conception of FriAM as a rolling group of participants is at 
least superficially accurate, though I don't see that we have that much 
turnover, nor does ChatGPT seem to recognize that our physical meetups 
are/were the tip of the iceberg (tail of the dog) for the last umpteen 
years...


Also without looking I didn't know that there is a Nick Thompson who is 
Editor-in-Chief of Wired, but take it for granted that this level of 
specificity in the face of Wired Mag. being not particularly correlated 
with Santa Fe suggests there IS and the BS factor comes in by being 
willing to *assert* that these are the same Nick Thompson's with only 
the thinnest of circumstantial evidence.


The Eric Charles reference also seems specific enough to suggest that 
there is a true dopplenym there.


I was surprised by the error-of-attribution ChatGPT made to itself, 
accusing itself of transposing "Vital" with "Mental" rather than to Jochen?


Very well curated, interesting and relevant ChatGPT anecdote Jochen!



Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?
ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM 
(Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group 
located at the Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research center 
dedicated to the study of complex systems. FRIAM is a group of 
interdisciplinary researchers who explore the use of mathematical 
models and computational methods to understand complex systems and 
phenomena, with a focus on infinite-dimensional systems. The group's 
research interests include dynamical systems, machine learning, 
optimization, and more. FRIAM's work has contributed to a deeper 
understanding of various systems, such as financial markets, climate 
models, and biological systems, among others.


Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It 
is organization of complexity researchers and software developers in 
Santa Fe, New Mexico, interested in applied complexity


ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the 
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a 
group of complexity researchers and software developers who meet on 
Friday mornings to discuss and explore topics related to applied 
complexity. The group is open to anyone who is interested in the 
subject and is often attended by researchers, academics, 
entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of fields. The 
discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics, including 
complex systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The 
group provides a forum for members to share their ideas and learn from 
each other in an informal setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group is one of many examples of the 
vibrant intellectual community in Santa Fe dedicated to the study of 
complex systems.


Me: Can you name some active members?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence language model, 
I don't have access to real-time information on the current membership 
of the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is a 
community of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa 
Fe who meet on a regular basis to discuss and explore topics related 
to applied complexity. The membership of the group is fluid, with new 
members joining and others moving 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Jochen Fromm]

:-) There is an article from Terrence Sejnowski that argues what appears to be 
intelligence in LLMs may in fact be a mirror that reflects the intelligence of 
the interviewer.https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.14382Similar to Herbert Simon who 
said in "The Sciences of the Artificial": "An ant, viewed as a behaving system, 
is quite simple. The apparent complexity of its behavior over time is largely a 
reflection of the complexity of the environment in which it finds itself"-J.
 Original message From: glen  Date: 
2/21/23  10:48 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 
ChatGPT knows FRIAM 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit#Lying_and_bullshitOn 2/21/23 13:20, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:> Stunning!  How do you know if ChatCBT is lying; 
it’s steely lips are moving.> > Nick> > *From:* Friam 
 *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm> *Sent:* Tuesday, 
February 21, 2023 1:23 PM> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group > *Subject:* [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM> > Me: Do you 
know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?> > > > ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM 
group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a 
research group located at the Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research center 
dedicated to the study of complex systems. FRIAM is a group of 
interdisciplinary researchers who explore the use of mathematical models and 
computational methods to understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus 
on infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests include 
dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, and more. FRIAM's work has 
contributed to a deeper understanding of various systems, such as financial 
markets, climate models, and biological systems, among others.> > Me: No, I 
mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is organization of 
complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 
interested in applied complexity> > ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. 
Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in 
Santa Fe. It is a group of complexity researchers and software developers who 
meet on Friday mornings to discuss and explore topics related to applied 
complexity. The group is open to anyone who is interested in the subject and is 
often attended by researchers, academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from 
a variety of fields. The discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics, 
including complex systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The 
group provides a forum for members to share their ideas and learn from each 
other in an informal setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group is one of many examples of the vibrant intellectual 
community in Santa Fe dedicated to the study of complex systems.> > Me: Can you 
name some active members?> > ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial 
intelligence language model, I don't have access to real-time information on 
the current membership of the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. 
The group is a community of complexity researchers and software developers in 
Santa Fe who meet on a regular basis to discuss and explore topics related to 
applied complexity. The membership of the group is fluid, with new members 
joining and others moving on as their interests and circumstances change. If 
you are interested in learning more about the group, you might be able to find 
more information on their website or through social media channels. 
Alternatively, you could try reaching out to the Santa Fe Institute, which has 
connections with many researchers and organizations in the Santa Fe area.> > 
Me: Nicholas Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are part 
of this group. What do you know about them?> > ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is 
the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, which covers a wide range of topics 
related to technology, science, and culture. Prior to his current position at 
Wired, he was a senior editor at the magazine and worked as a reporter for The 
New Yorker and Legal Times. Thompson is also the author of "The Hawk and the 
Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War," a book that 
explores the history of the Cold War through the lives of two of its most 
prominent strategists.> > Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at 
Descartes Labs, a geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine 
learning and artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other 
types of data. Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in 
various engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies, 
including Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.> > Glen Ropella is a computer 
scientist and engineer who has worked on a variety of projects related to 
computational modeling, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. He is 
currently a 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Nicholas Thompson]

The Martians would be experiencing the animals without the lens of human
categories.   I guess the question is, Would they even come up with the
category of experience.  I think they would because, as Nicholas Thompson
said in his excellent article in WIRED magazine, every biological system
responds to a subset of  the things that the Martians would see around it.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:23 AM Steve Smith  wrote:

> Might I offer some terminology reframing, or at least ask for some
> additional explication?
>
>1. I think "behaviours" would be all Nick's Martians *could* observe?
>They would be inferring "experiences" from observed behaviours?
>2. When we talk about "categories" here, are we talking about
>"categories of being"?  Ontologies, as it were?
>
> Regarding ErisS' reflections...   I *do* think that animals behave *as if*
> they "have categories", though I don't know what it even means to say that
> they "have categories" in the way Aristotle and his legacy-followers (e.g.
> us) do...   I would suggest/suspect that dogs and squirrels are in no way
> aware of these "categories" and that to say that they do is a  projection
> by (us) humans who have fabricated the (useful in myriad contexts) of a
> category/Category/ontology.   So in that sense they do NOT *have*
> categories...   I think in this conception/thought-experiment we assume
> that Martians *would* and would be looking to map their own ontologies onto
> the behaviour (and inferred  experiences and judgements?) of Terran animals?
>
> If I were to invert the subject/object relation, I would suggest that it
> is "affordances" not "experiences" (or animals' behaviours) we want to
> categorize into ontologies?  It is what things are "good for" that make
> them interesting/similar/different to living beings.   And "good for" is
> conditionally contextualized.   My dog and cat both find squirrels "good
> for" chasing, but so too for baby rabbits and skunks (once).
>
> Or am I barking up the wrong set of reserved lexicons?
>
> To segue (as I am wont to do), it feels like this discussion parallels the
> one about LLMs where we train the hell out of variations on learning
> classifier systems until they are as good as (or better than) we (humans)
> are at predicting the next token in a string of human-generated tokens (or
> synthesizing a string of tokens which humans cannot distinguish from a
> string generated by another human, in particular one with the proverbial
> 10,000 hours of specialized training).   The fact that or "ologies" tend to
> be recorded and organized as knowledge structures and in fact usually
> *propogated* (taught/learnt) by the same makes us want to believe (some of
> us) that hidden inside these LLMs are precisely the same "ologies" we
> encode in our myriad textbooks and professional journal articles?
>
> I think one of the questions that remains present within this group's
> continued 'gurgitations is whether the organizations we have conjured are
> particularly special, or just one of an infinitude of superposed
> alternative formulations?   And whether some of those formulations are
> acutely occult and/or abstract and whether the existing (accepted)
> formulations (e.g. Western Philosophy and Science, etc) are uniquely (and
> exclusively or at least optimally) capable of capturing/describing what is
> "really real" (nod to George Berkeley).
>
> Some here (self included) may often suggest that such formulation is at
> best a coincidence of history and as well as it "covers" a description of
> "reality", it is by circumstance and probably by abstract conception ("all
> models are wrong...") incomplete and in error.  But nevertheless still
> useful...
>
> Maybe another way of reframing Nick's question (on a tangent) is to ask
> whether the Barsoomians had their own Aristotle to conceive of
> Categories?   Or did they train their telescopes on ancient Greece and
> learn Latin Lip Reading and adopt one or more the Greek's philosophical
> traditions?  And then, did the gas-balloon creatures floating in the
> atmosphere-substance of Jupiter observe the Martians' who had observed the
> Greeks and thereby come up with their own Categories.   Maybe it was those
> creatures who beamed these abstractions straight into the neural tissue of
> the Aristotelians and Platonists?   Do gas-balloon creatures even have
> solids to be conceived of as Platonic?  And are they missing out if they
> don't?  Do they have their own Edwin Abbot Abbot?   And what would the
> Cheela  say?
>
> My dog and the rock squirrels he chases want to know... so do the cholla
> cactus fruits/segments they hoard in their nests!
>
> Mumble,
>
>  - Steve
> On 2/16/23 5:37 AM, Santafe wrote:
>
> It’s the tiniest and most idiosyncratic take on this question, but FWIW, 
> here:https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1520752113
>
> I actually think that all of what Nick says below is a perfectly good 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Steve Smith]

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. 
I think I was ignoring that bit of context entirely...   however "all 
computation is embodied" feels like a tautology to me?  Even though many 
with a bio-centric view might not think of computational substrate as 
"body"?  I think the inlined Rączaszek‑Leonardi quote I included might 
speak to the larger? question about (dis/pan)embodiment?
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.


I think Deacon's molecule->sign argument might be monist as well as 
panpsychist.   I find Deacon's recursive bootstrap-scaffold from 
homeodynamic to morphodynamic to teleodynamic to *gesture at* how 
energy-stuff yields matter-stuff yields body-stuff yields mind-stuff 
yields mind++-stuff (or more generally 
life-like/intelligence-like/consiousness-like/ends-in-mind/teleo)-stuff. 
I can't say I'm smart enough, or have applied myself enough (or both) to 
his constructions and reflections to say with confidence that he's being 
successful in this project...   the homeo/morpho/teleo prefixes suggest 
3 qualitative groupings of "differences that make a difference" in a 
chain of supervenient/emergent properties.




-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[glen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit#Lying_and_bullshit

On 2/21/23 13:20, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

Stunning!  How do you know if ChatCBT is lying; it’s steely lips are moving.

Nick

*From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2023 1:23 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
*Subject:* [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?



ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing 
Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the Santa 
Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of complex 
systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who explore the use 
of mathematical models and computational methods to understand complex systems 
and phenomena, with a focus on infinite-dimensional systems. The group's 
research interests include dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, 
and more. FRIAM's work has contributed to a deeper understanding of various 
systems, such as financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, 
among others.

Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is 
organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, interested in applied complexity

ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of 
complexity researchers and software developers who meet on Friday mornings to 
discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group is open to 
anyone who is interested in the subject and is often attended by researchers, 
academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of fields. The 
discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics, including complex 
systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The group provides a 
forum for members to share their ideas and learn from each other in an informal 
setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group is one of many examples of the vibrant intellectual community in Santa Fe 
dedicated to the study of complex systems.

Me: Can you name some active members?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence language model, I don't 
have access to real-time information on the current membership of the Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is a community of complexity 
researchers and software developers in Santa Fe who meet on a regular basis to 
discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The membership of the 
group is fluid, with new members joining and others moving on as their 
interests and circumstances change. If you are interested in learning more 
about the group, you might be able to find more information on their website or 
through social media channels. Alternatively, you could try reaching out to the 
Santa Fe Institute, which has connections with many researchers and 
organizations in the Santa Fe area.

Me: Nicholas Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are part 
of this group. What do you know about them?

ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, which covers a wide 
range of topics related to technology, science, and culture. Prior to his current 
position at Wired, he was a senior editor at the magazine and worked as a reporter for 
The New Yorker and Legal Times. Thompson is also the author of "The Hawk and the 
Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War," a book that 
explores the history of the Cold War through the lives of two of its most prominent 
strategists.

Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at Descartes Labs, a 
geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine learning and 
artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other types of data. 
Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in various 
engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies, including 
Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.

Glen Ropella is a computer scientist and engineer who has worked on a variety 
of projects related to computational modeling, artificial intelligence, and 
machine learning. He is currently a Senior Scientist at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, where he is involved in research on complex systems and their 
applications to national security and other areas.

Frank Wimberly is a software engineer and entrepreneur who has worked in 
various roles in the technology industry, including as a software engineer at 
Yahoo and as the founder of a startup focused on data analytics. He is 
currently the CTO of Descartes Labs, where he leads the company's efforts to 
develop and apply advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence 
techniques to geospatial data.

It's worth noting that while these individuals have been associated with the 
Friday 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Frank Wimberly]

I am glad that ChatGPT ha promoted me to be CTO of Descartes Labs because
my motto is, "I think therefore I am."

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 2:16 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> This actually sounds useful:   https://lnkd.in/eJRBs_nZ
>
> On Feb 21, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
> 
> Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?
>
> ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing
> Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the
> Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of
> complex systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who
> explore the use of mathematical models and computational methods to
> understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus on
> infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests include
> dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, and more. FRIAM's work
> has contributed to a deeper understanding of various systems, such as
> financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, among others.
>
> Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is
> organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe,
> New Mexico, interested in applied complexity
>
> ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of
> complexity researchers and software developers who meet on Friday mornings
> to discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group is
> open to anyone who is interested in the subject and is often attended by
> researchers, academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of
> fields. The discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics,
> including complex systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more.
> The group provides a forum for members to share their ideas and learn from
> each other in an informal setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group is one of many examples of the vibrant
> intellectual community in Santa Fe dedicated to the study of complex
> systems.
>
> Me: Can you name some active members?
>
> ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence language model, I
> don't have access to real-time information on the current membership of the
> Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is a community of
> complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe who meet on a
> regular basis to discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity.
> The membership of the group is fluid, with new members joining and others
> moving on as their interests and circumstances change. If you are
> interested in learning more about the group, you might be able to find more
> information on their website or through social media channels.
> Alternatively, you could try reaching out to the Santa Fe Institute, which
> has connections with many researchers and organizations in the Santa Fe
> area.
>
> Me: Nicholas Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are
> part of this group. What do you know about them?
>
> ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, which
> covers a wide range of topics related to technology, science, and culture.
> Prior to his current position at Wired, he was a senior editor at the
> magazine and worked as a reporter for The New Yorker and Legal Times.
> Thompson is also the author of "The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George
> Kennan, and the History of the Cold War," a book that explores the history
> of the Cold War through the lives of two of its most prominent strategists.
>
> Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at Descartes Labs, a
> geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine learning and
> artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other types of
> data. Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in
> various engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies,
> including Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.
>
> Glen Ropella is a computer scientist and engineer who has worked on a
> variety of projects related to computational modeling, artificial
> intelligence, and machine learning. He is currently a Senior Scientist at
> Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he is involved in research on complex
> systems and their applications to national security and other areas.
>
> Frank Wimberly is a software engineer and entrepreneur who has worked in
> various roles in the technology industry, including as a software engineer
> at Yahoo and as the founder of a startup focused on data analytics. He is
> currently the CTO of Descartes Labs, where he leads the company's efforts
> to develop and apply advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence
> techniques to geospatial data.
>
> 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[thompnickson2]

Stunning!  How do you know if ChatCBT is lying; it’s steely lips are moving.  

Nick 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 1:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

 

Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?





ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing 
Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the Santa 
Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of complex 
systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who explore the use 
of mathematical models and computational methods to understand complex systems 
and phenomena, with a focus on infinite-dimensional systems. The group's 
research interests include dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, 
and more. FRIAM's work has contributed to a deeper understanding of various 
systems, such as financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, 
among others.

 

Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is 
organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, interested in applied complexity

 

ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of 
complexity researchers and software developers who meet on Friday mornings to 
discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group is open to 
anyone who is interested in the subject and is often attended by researchers, 
academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of fields. The 
discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics, including complex 
systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The group provides a 
forum for members to share their ideas and learn from each other in an informal 
setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group is one of many examples of the vibrant intellectual community in Santa Fe 
dedicated to the study of complex systems.

 

Me: Can you name some active members? 

 

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence language model, I don't 
have access to real-time information on the current membership of the Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is a community of complexity 
researchers and software developers in Santa Fe who meet on a regular basis to 
discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The membership of the 
group is fluid, with new members joining and others moving on as their 
interests and circumstances change. If you are interested in learning more 
about the group, you might be able to find more information on their website or 
through social media channels. Alternatively, you could try reaching out to the 
Santa Fe Institute, which has connections with many researchers and 
organizations in the Santa Fe area.

 

Me: Nicholas Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are part 
of this group. What do you know about them?

 

ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, which 
covers a wide range of topics related to technology, science, and culture. 
Prior to his current position at Wired, he was a senior editor at the magazine 
and worked as a reporter for The New Yorker and Legal Times. Thompson is also 
the author of "The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the 
History of the Cold War," a book that explores the history of the Cold War 
through the lives of two of its most prominent strategists.

 

Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at Descartes Labs, a 
geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine learning and 
artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other types of data. 
Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in various 
engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies, including 
Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.

 

Glen Ropella is a computer scientist and engineer who has worked on a variety 
of projects related to computational modeling, artificial intelligence, and 
machine learning. He is currently a Senior Scientist at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, where he is involved in research on complex systems and their 
applications to national security and other areas.

 

Frank Wimberly is a software engineer and entrepreneur who has worked in 
various roles in the technology industry, including as a software engineer at 
Yahoo and as the founder of a startup focused on data analytics. He is 
currently the CTO of Descartes Labs, where he leads the company's efforts to 
develop and apply advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence 
techniques to geospatial data.

 

It's worth noting that while these individuals have been associated with the 
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group at some point, their involvement 
with the 

Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Marcus Daniels]

This actually sounds useful:   https://lnkd.in/eJRBs_nZ

On Feb 21, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:


Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?

ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing 
Research on Infinite Automated Models) is a research group located at the Santa 
Fe Institute, a renowned research center dedicated to the study of complex 
systems. FRIAM is a group of interdisciplinary researchers who explore the use 
of mathematical models and computational methods to understand complex systems 
and phenomena, with a focus on infinite-dimensional systems. The group's 
research interests include dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, 
and more. FRIAM's work has contributed to a deeper understanding of various 
systems, such as financial markets, climate models, and biological systems, 
among others.

Me: No, I mean the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is 
organization of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New 
Mexico, interested in applied complexity

ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I'm also aware of the Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa Fe. It is a group of 
complexity researchers and software developers who meet on Friday mornings to 
discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The group is open to 
anyone who is interested in the subject and is often attended by researchers, 
academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a variety of fields. The 
discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics, including complex 
systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The group provides a 
forum for members to share their ideas and learn from each other in an informal 
setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group is one of many examples of the vibrant intellectual community in Santa Fe 
dedicated to the study of complex systems.

Me: Can you name some active members?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence language model, I don't 
have access to real-time information on the current membership of the Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is a community of complexity 
researchers and software developers in Santa Fe who meet on a regular basis to 
discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. The membership of the 
group is fluid, with new members joining and others moving on as their 
interests and circumstances change. If you are interested in learning more 
about the group, you might be able to find more information on their website or 
through social media channels. Alternatively, you could try reaching out to the 
Santa Fe Institute, which has connections with many researchers and 
organizations in the Santa Fe area.

Me: Nicholas Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are part 
of this group. What do you know about them?

ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, which 
covers a wide range of topics related to technology, science, and culture. 
Prior to his current position at Wired, he was a senior editor at the magazine 
and worked as a reporter for The New Yorker and Legal Times. Thompson is also 
the author of "The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the 
History of the Cold War," a book that explores the history of the Cold War 
through the lives of two of its most prominent strategists.

Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at Descartes Labs, a 
geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine learning and 
artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other types of data. 
Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in various 
engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies, including 
Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.

Glen Ropella is a computer scientist and engineer who has worked on a variety 
of projects related to computational modeling, artificial intelligence, and 
machine learning. He is currently a Senior Scientist at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, where he is involved in research on complex systems and their 
applications to national security and other areas.

Frank Wimberly is a software engineer and entrepreneur who has worked in 
various roles in the technology industry, including as a software engineer at 
Yahoo and as the founder of a startup focused on data analytics. He is 
currently the CTO of Descartes Labs, where he leads the company's efforts to 
develop and apply advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence 
techniques to geospatial data.

It's worth noting that while these individuals have been associated with the 
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group at some point, their involvement 
with the group may have changed over time, as the group's membership is fluid 
and changes over time.

Me: The Nicholas Thompson I mean was Professor of Psychology and Biology at 
Clark University. Do 

[FRIAM] ChatGPT knows FRIAM

[Jochen Fromm]

Me: Do you know the FRIAM group in Santa Fe?ChatGPT: Yes, I'm aware of the 
FRIAM group in Santa Fe. FRIAM (Focusing Research on Infinite Automated Models) 
is a research group located at the Santa Fe Institute, a renowned research 
center dedicated to the study of complex systems. FRIAM is a group of 
interdisciplinary researchers who explore the use of mathematical models and 
computational methods to understand complex systems and phenomena, with a focus 
on infinite-dimensional systems. The group's research interests include 
dynamical systems, machine learning, optimization, and more. FRIAM's work has 
contributed to a deeper understanding of various systems, such as financial 
markets, climate models, and biological systems, among others.Me: No, I mean 
the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. It is organization of 
complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 
interested in applied complexityChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. Yes, 
I'm also aware of the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group in Santa 
Fe. It is a group of complexity researchers and software developers who meet on 
Friday mornings to discuss and explore topics related to applied complexity. 
The group is open to anyone who is interested in the subject and is often 
attended by researchers, academics, entrepreneurs, and professionals from a 
variety of fields. The discussions at the group cover a wide range of topics, 
including complex systems, data science, artificial intelligence, and more. The 
group provides a forum for members to share their ideas and learn from each 
other in an informal setting over a cup of coffee. The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group is one of many examples of the vibrant intellectual 
community in Santa Fe dedicated to the study of complex systems.Me: Can you 
name some active members? ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but as an artificial intelligence 
language model, I don't have access to real-time information on the current 
membership of the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group. The group is 
a community of complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe who 
meet on a regular basis to discuss and explore topics related to applied 
complexity. The membership of the group is fluid, with new members joining and 
others moving on as their interests and circumstances change. If you are 
interested in learning more about the group, you might be able to find more 
information on their website or through social media channels. Alternatively, 
you could try reaching out to the Santa Fe Institute, which has connections 
with many researchers and organizations in the Santa Fe area.Me: Nicholas 
Thompson, Eric Charles, Glen Ropella and Frank Wimberly are part of this group. 
What do you know about them?ChatGPT: Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-in-Chief 
of Wired Magazine, which covers a wide range of topics related to technology, 
science, and culture. Prior to his current position at Wired, he was a senior 
editor at the magazine and worked as a reporter for The New Yorker and Legal 
Times. Thompson is also the author of "The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, 
George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War," a book that explores the 
history of the Cold War through the lives of two of its most prominent 
strategists.Eric Charles is the Vice President of Engineering at Descartes 
Labs, a geospatial data analytics company that leverages machine learning and 
artificial intelligence to analyze satellite imagery and other types of data. 
Charles has a background in computer science and has worked in various 
engineering and leadership roles at several technology companies, including 
Intel, Sun Microsystems, and Google.Glen Ropella is a computer scientist and 
engineer who has worked on a variety of projects related to computational 
modeling, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. He is currently a 
Senior Scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he is involved in 
research on complex systems and their applications to national security and 
other areas.Frank Wimberly is a software engineer and entrepreneur who has 
worked in various roles in the technology industry, including as a software 
engineer at Yahoo and as the founder of a startup focused on data analytics. He 
is currently the CTO of Descartes Labs, where he leads the company's efforts to 
develop and apply advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence 
techniques to geospatial data.It's worth noting that while these individuals 
have been associated with the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group at 
some point, their involvement with the group may have changed over time, as the 
group's membership is fluid and changes over time.Me: The Nicholas Thompson I 
mean was Professor of Psychology and Biology at Clark University. Do you know 
his work, for example his paper "Intentionality is the Mark of the Vital" 
?ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. I 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Marcus Daniels]

I would be astonished if Dave just meant a different point of view.  

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:33 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

If by "dualism", you mean Cartesianism, I agree. Hence, referring to "mental 
stuff" isn't useful, especially in models of panpsychism. But if by "dualism", 
you mean duals in the complementarity sense, then I'm not so sure. It can be 
convenient to work in one domain, then switch to its dual when the calculation 
gets too complicated. Is that "explanatory power"? I don't know.

On 2/21/23 10:34, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 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  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  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  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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[glen]

If by "dualism", you mean Cartesianism, I agree. Hence, referring to "mental stuff" isn't useful, 
especially in models of panpsychism. But if by "dualism", you mean duals in the complementarity sense, then 
I'm not so sure. It can be convenient to work in one domain, then switch to its dual when the calculation gets too 
complicated. Is that "explanatory power"? I don't know.

On 2/21/23 10:34, Marcus Daniels wrote:

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  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  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  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"   and the points he made (and 
you reinforced) on Indexicality 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Marcus Daniels]

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  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  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  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" 
>   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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[glen]

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  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  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"   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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Marcus Daniels]

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  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  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" 
   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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[glen]

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  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"   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 -> 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Marcus Daniels]

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  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"   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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[glen]

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"   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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[glen]

Good question. Sorry if I made it seem like using "mental" as a name for an equivalence 
class is bad. I don't intend to say it's bad. I do intend to assert that most people (in my 
experience) who use the term do mean to distinguish between mind and body. And that would be OK 
*if* they gave some clear method for differentiating ... or at least a handful of examples of each 
class (mostly mental, mostly body, close to the fuzzy boundary). What's bad is the assumption that 
when they speak the word, the concept evoked in the audience is anything at all similar to the 
speaker's concept. That assumption is what's bad, like EricC (seemingly) making the assumption I 
know what he means by "mental stuff".

The same problem rears its head in the ambiguity of "dualism". Nick and EricC seem to use it to 
mean "2 things". Dave and Stephen seem to mean "2 Janus-like faces of the same thing". 
SteveS seems to use both meanings, luckily peppering each usage with plenty of context, which helps determine 
which meaning he's using at the time.

If we all used "dualism" in the latter sense, then I might shut up, because there'd be no need to clarify. 
Accusing someone of that kind of dualism isn't much of an accusation. I can imagine a "triplism" that would 
appeal to Catholics and graphics programmers ... maybe "pentalism" for some witches? Personally, I'm a 
"pluralist". There are many ways you can cut the ambience into aspects. But that doesn't preclude me being, a 
monist, because I rely on parallax and aspect-orientation.

But when some of us use the word "dualist" to mean "not monist", that requires 
an intervention.

On 2/21/23 06:02, Santafe wrote:




On Feb 20, 2023, at 10:46 AM, glen  wrote:

By even using the phrases "mental stuff" or "mental life", *you* are implicitly 
asserting there are 2 things: mental and non-mental. There is no such difference, in my opinion. 
Now, while I am often a moron, I don't deny that people *think* there's a difference. E.g. when you 
finally get that snap of understanding while running, or taking a shower or whatever, about some 
concept you've been working on, it *feels* like pure mentation. The shift just feels cognitive, not 
bodily. But I would maintain my stance that this is an abstraction, a sloughing off of the bodily 
details. (The illusion is a byproduct of focus and attention, which are mechanical implementations 
of abstraction.) My stance is that, however cognitive such things feel, they aren't. You wouldn't, 
*could not*, have arrived at that state without your body, or if you had a different body.


Why is it bad to give “mental” a term, to refer to patterns of activity in 
bodies that can be distinguished by some criteria?

Surely there are cognitive activities I can engage in, that depend in essential 
ways on the particular human cortex in context, that are not produced by nerve 
nets in jellyfish.  To say that the classes of patterns are distinguishable is 
not to suggest that they are non-bodily at all.

The fact that all this is rendered in language, which is pervasively structured 
around the subject perspective (whether in relation to linguistic constructs 
for objects, or as a reporter of “introspection”) contextualizes “mental” 
references within other stuff that offers less flexibility of stance than our 
language for some other inter-object relations.  But if we see our language as 
an un-fully-seen thing, and thus a place of hazards, this doesn’t seem worse 
than any other unfinished business.  Were it not for the philosphers, I am not 
sure “mental” would even have got its distracting connotation of 
“non-corporeal”.  Maybe it would, and I’m just being obtuse.

Eric





Yes, as long as your body is *similar* to others' bodies, you could arrive at a 
*similar* understanding, but not the same.

On 2/18/23 05:29, Eric Charles wrote:

On 2/16/23 23:35, ⛧ glen wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "mental stuff", of course.

Well... In this context, I mean whatever the "psyche" part of panpsychism 
entails.
Given that I don't believe in disembodied minds, I'm with you 100% on everything you do being 
"body stuff". Which, presumably, leads to the empirical question of what types of bodies 
do "psyche", and where those types of bodies can be found.
You say further that: 'No. Neither the dirt nor I do "mental stuff"'.
Well, now we have something to actually talk about then! Dave West, 
unsurprisingly, stepped in strongly on the side of dirt having psyche in at 
least a rudimentary form, I presume he would assert that you (Glen) do mental 
stuff too. Dave also asserts that his belief in panpsychism /does/ affect how 
he lives in the world. Exactly to the extent that his way of living in the 
world is made different by the belief, panpsychism /_is_/ more than just 
something he says.
Steve's discussion about what it would feel like to be the bit of dirt trampled 
beneath a particular foot is a bit of a tangent - potentially interesting in 
its own right. 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Steve Smith]

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" 
  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 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Stephen Guerin]

Steve,

Deacon's three dynamics in your image directly map to Stu's three processes
around constraint processes for Autonomous Agents (living system) in
Investigations (2000).
- detect gradients
- construct constraints to extract work from gradients
- do work to maintain those constraints

Here's a later paper by Logan describing the interaction of Deacon and Stu
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264895121_EME_Logan-KauffDeacon

Relatedly, Alicia Juarrero has an upcoming book this summer on constraint:
"Context Changes Everything:
How Constraints Create Coherence"

As an aside, Alicia had some issues with Deacon accusing him of academic
plagiarism on her earlier works. Point is there's a community of interest
in the constraint and living systems space.

As you've been subjected to my babble for 15 years:  constraint
dissipation, construction and maintenance is a lens I've been thinking
about and how least action, dual fields and symmetry breaking
(constraint/information) relate to these processes the mechanism of dual
diffusion. this lens is "ententional" in deacons language where the
organism is just a partial dual inthe definition of a living process. Also
related to me to EricS and Harold's ecological perspective on life which
we've talked about.


On Tue, Feb 21, 2023, 8:23 AM Steve Smith  wrote:

>
> 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)...
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] Nick's Categories

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

FWIW,  I'm still chewing on your assertions of 5 months ago which 
referenced Christian List's "Levels" 
 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
   
//)
   ponderedWhat 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
   
//)
   analysis of information storage and transmission and Watson and
   Crick’s (//1953
   
//)
   discovery of the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. So
   by 1958 when Francis Crick (//1958
   //)
   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

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Santafe]

> On Feb 20, 2023, at 10:46 AM, glen  wrote:
> 
> By even using the phrases "mental stuff" or "mental life", *you* are 
> implicitly asserting there are 2 things: mental and non-mental. There is no 
> such difference, in my opinion. Now, while I am often a moron, I don't deny 
> that people *think* there's a difference. E.g. when you finally get that snap 
> of understanding while running, or taking a shower or whatever, about some 
> concept you've been working on, it *feels* like pure mentation. The shift 
> just feels cognitive, not bodily. But I would maintain my stance that this is 
> an abstraction, a sloughing off of the bodily details. (The illusion is a 
> byproduct of focus and attention, which are mechanical implementations of 
> abstraction.) My stance is that, however cognitive such things feel, they 
> aren't. You wouldn't, *could not*, have arrived at that state without your 
> body, or if you had a different body.

Why is it bad to give “mental” a term, to refer to patterns of activity in 
bodies that can be distinguished by some criteria?

Surely there are cognitive activities I can engage in, that depend in essential 
ways on the particular human cortex in context, that are not produced by nerve 
nets in jellyfish.  To say that the classes of patterns are distinguishable is 
not to suggest that they are non-bodily at all.

The fact that all this is rendered in language, which is pervasively structured 
around the subject perspective (whether in relation to linguistic constructs 
for objects, or as a reporter of “introspection”) contextualizes “mental” 
references within other stuff that offers less flexibility of stance than our 
language for some other inter-object relations.  But if we see our language as 
an un-fully-seen thing, and thus a place of hazards, this doesn’t seem worse 
than any other unfinished business.  Were it not for the philosphers, I am not 
sure “mental” would even have got its distracting connotation of 
“non-corporeal”.  Maybe it would, and I’m just being obtuse.

Eric



> 
> Yes, as long as your body is *similar* to others' bodies, you could arrive at 
> a *similar* understanding, but not the same.
> 
> On 2/18/23 05:29, Eric Charles wrote:
>> On 2/16/23 23:35, ⛧ glen wrote:
>>> I don't know what you mean by "mental stuff", of course.
>> Well... In this context, I mean whatever the "psyche" part of panpsychism 
>> entails.
>> Given that I don't believe in disembodied minds, I'm with you 100% on 
>> everything you do being "body stuff". Which, presumably, leads to the 
>> empirical question of what types of bodies do "psyche", and where those 
>> types of bodies can be found.
>> You say further that: 'No. Neither the dirt nor I do "mental stuff"'.
>> Well, now we have something to actually talk about then! Dave West, 
>> unsurprisingly, stepped in strongly on the side of dirt having psyche in at 
>> least a rudimentary form, I presume he would assert that you (Glen) do 
>> mental stuff too. Dave also asserts that his belief in panpsychism /does/ 
>> affect how he lives in the world. Exactly to the extent that his way of 
>> living in the world is made different by the belief, panpsychism /_is_/ more 
>> than just something he says.
>> Steve's discussion about what it would feel like to be the bit of dirt 
>> trampled beneath a particular foot is a bit of a tangent - potentially 
>> interesting in its own right. His discussion of when he, personally, starts 
>> to attribute identity - and potentially psyche - to clumps of inanimate 
>> stuff seems directly on topic, especially as he too has listed some ways his 
>> behaviors change when he becomes engaged in those habits.
> 
> -- 
> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam=E,1,qRyl2ykVbm4IlC3MIfDxVi2CUVfUYhK_H4tgMHaNUvKBTQG3ZJDGP7QyskZxFIdxt4KiAL0fs_5nSMrGtDGkvOKvnXJfwb96AFYLbs5Qdw,,=1
> to (un)subscribe 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com=E,1,xOFJHcIS7ZBgBaQ1JfUJjryeqhrGUbq8UzDyOjwYXGBgGhBEdKTVuZM3PcbtnpMJLOC_m74yWgDC6tJ3oGEzQEMnMJC2iAYnlZsR_X3KezQ0cEAmcvoMjntk=1
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f=E,1,OPs4vX-WAmkek6fM-FbwgU8RItl4svm_OlY5ARClXaz3Qn8nrMgJXuBUdoEmf0DxLAn-lAyN3iCIFoxpqBc39fy2a5vTU8uqeQGXrAfYsj7n5dwTQBlG80Cc2w,,=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f=E,1,WB9-5VhaVkuozGrqAPEEVGhv9NX_zb7GE7UssAcyly_yTKX-wT40SSih_cx9qiojGvxAUnQ39iw6G_vNA9lrwT2JK2dRwYf7fjO4EbyZE35e6Q3QYBYzfYCD=1
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied 

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Santafe]

want to acknowledge Glen’s formulation here, too, which is helpful and seems 
both reasonable to the point, and specific enough to explain why Mind and not 
just-any essentialism.

It’s interesting: I know just what people mean when they talk this way about 
computing’s universality (so, like Seth Lloyd here 
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-Scientist/dp/1400033861
).  I would of course use the same language informally, but I would never use 
the same short-hand if I were trying to be careful about the ontological or 
epistemologial commitments entailed in things I was saying.

To me (as I think to Glen), matter does what it does, and each whole thing is a 
completely good model only of itself (obviating the point of having a model).  
Relative to that, I would say if trying to speak carefully, that computing as 
an equivalence class of real, material phenomena, occupies some different 
category.  The equivalence class is “the thing”.  It is not meant to be a full 
identification with all of any of the phenomena, but rather a collection of 
signs, conventions for manipulating them, and programs for mapping them to 
patterns in particular phenomena, that can be integrated without 
contradictions.  It is just their finiteness (or smallness of infinity) that 
makes a test for consistency possible, and that makes them _intentionally_ 
incomplete as models for any more-infinite actual phenomenon.

There seem to be many things that have sort of an analogous status in this 
world of abstractions, as things brought into existence only when the world of 
abstracitons is brought into existence.  “Number” seems of a similar kind to 
“having algorithmic structure”.  It doesn’t seem to me like a closed question 
how we should refer to “their type”, but in a middle-out sort of way, it seems 
quite reasonable to grant them a different place in experience and cognition 
than many other categories.  And of course, there is a long tedious harangue we 
can pursue describing them (what “number” “is”, and so forth).  So it is much 
more than nothing, to put behind referring to them that way.

Eric



> On Feb 20, 2023, at 10:31 AM, glen  wrote:
> 
> While I appreciate DaveW's historical ensconcing, I think there's a different 
> answer to EricS' question. When/if I feel generous to people who talk about 
> the mind and thinking, I liken it to computation, in the trans-computer sense 
> of portability ... the idea that you can run the same computation on 
> different machines. The essentialist tendency, in that seemingly small 
> domain, is well-exhibited by Turing's universal machines and, I think also, 
> the conception that reality is information (another monism, I guess). I even 
> see this in DaveW's attempt to reframe N=1 experimentation (scientific 
> introspection), as an attempt to discover just how *expressive* that 
> computation (someone's mind) can be. It's essentialism because it is a 
> feature of all possible worlds. Even if our universe had no humans or 
> animals, computation is still present. It's the only essence because it's the 
> only feature present in all possible worlds.
> 
> My hitch, which prevents me from authentically playing that game, is that 
> semantics requires full grounding. There is no such thing as pure 
> portability. The same computation *cannot* occur on different machines. At 
> best, you can shoe horn equivalence classes, like "for all intents and 
> purposes, the DaveW computation is similar enough to the EricS computation", 
> whereas "the Scooter computation (my cat's thinking) is similar to the Dorian 
> computation (my other cat's thinking)".
> 
> Of course, this all hinges on some particular, maybe perverse, understanding 
> of "computation". But it's a much more wranglable word than "mind".
> 
> On 2/20/23 04:10, Santafe wrote:
>> So there are things in DaveW’s very helpful post below about which I am 
>> genuinely curious.  My tendency is to analyze them, though I have a certain 
>> habitual fear that asking a question in an analytic mode will come across as 
>> somehow disrespectful, and that is not my intent.
>> The description below sounds to me very much like “essentialism”.  If we 
>> have long human experience that water is wet, and if after many hundreds of 
>> millenia being human (and longer bring primates etc.) we take on some good 
>> reasons to describe water as being made of H2O molecules, the essentialist 
>> habit is to suppose (to take as a philosophical premise?) that there must be 
>> some attribute of wetness about each molecule, which is then amplified when 
>> many such molecules make the bulk that even ordinary people experience as 
>> water.  (One could go on a branch and argue that special people also 
>> experience each individual molecule as itself and can attest to its wetness, 
>> and one could try to push the analogy that far, but I want to focus above on 
>> the essentialist premise as a kind of “mind-set background”.)

Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories

[Santafe]

Thank you Dave,

It’s helpful to have this comparative analysis, of what different doctrinal 
streams of thought consider central to their system and the worldview (or 
world-experience) it enables in the participants in that system.  

A couple of weeks ago, there was a seminar in Princeton,
https://csr.princeton.edu/events/2023/mind-and-representation-approaches-german-idealist-and-buddhist-philosophies
which one of my colleagues attended was very excited about.

When I ask why, mostly what I get back was along the line of “my tribe isn’t 
being so disrespected by the other”, where “the other” here is various stripes 
of western philosophers, and if I had to give my own name to his tribe, I would 
say something like “religious enthusiasts” though not in a tropey sense; more 
like William James, Bernie MgGinn, 
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/directory/bernard-mcginn
and such.  There is, in it, not only a recurring theme that mysticism really is 
just better than everything else, but also a certain adamance about “the East” 
as developed, and “the West” as somehow heathenish and primitive.  I can’t tell 
how much of that is anchored in the fact that there are much longer and more 
socially embedded traditions across Asia, which have accumulated good things to 
think about, and whether parts of it are a kind of fetishism.  WIthoug 50 years 
(and a motivation to do so) to pursue all this stuff (and probably without 
myself being someone who experiences religious enthusiasms), I will never put 
in the work to be able to have an opinion.  I’m old enough now that I don’t 
have that many years to put into anything new, anyway.

Granting that it is fine for him to be emotionally bouyed that his tribe is no 
longer being disrespected, when I ask “Yes, but why are they your tribe in the 
first place?”, I get back much less about what he may actually have _learned_ 
at such a meeting, as I get back much less of conveyable understanding when I 
ask the question in general.

But there sort of seems to be one claim that maybe I understand, and it would 
be the reason I would have been interested to attend the Princeton thing, had I 
been there, and to listen in even without any expectation that I would have any 
idea what they were saying (not so different from decades of interdisciplinary 
stuff at SFI).  Contrast that with my _not_ being interested to attend a 
convocation of Catholic bishops debating whether they need a more regressive 
Pope the next time.  The assertion would be this: 

It seems quite believable to me that there is some kind of ontology to “being a 
subject”, which is expressed in all our language formulations of subject roles, 
and whatever styles of cognition people have that bring such language and its 
associated patterns of experience into being.  It is not unreasonable to me to 
leave open that people who have spent a long time worrying about this (and not 
really worrying about most mechanistic things, so they have a lot of extra 
time), could have put together something in their systems that would be 
clarifying.  It also seems the default expectation, to me, that it would be 
encoded in culturally-couched formulations that would be completely 
incomprehensible taken as constructs in language conventions outside their own. 
 Like many languages, one would have to get into habits of using it, and live 
in whatever way those habits induce, and then decide what is or is not the 
content or insight.  I always imagine that insight is insight, and that someone 
claiming to have done that should be able to express some of it in 
purpose-generated language for new conversations.  But people have different 
aptitude for doing that, in any area, so maybe the ones I have asked just don’t 
explain things that way.

The handy things about meetings among the insiders is that, if there is at 
least some small difference among them, the exchange can lead to a generative 
conversation.  For an outsider, even if he is not understanding anything (and 
has no illusion that he is understanding), there is at least something to 
witness.  When the exchange reduces to one insider and one outsider, the 
outsider can’t really sustain anything from his side, and the insider is 
reduced to proclaiming.  That probably doesn’t do so much good for anybody.

Eric


> On Feb 20, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Prof David West  wrote:
> 
> Great question, and one that may not be answerable directly. There is 
> definitely a sense of essentialism in some contexts, Shinto for example, and 
> other forms of animism. In Vedic philosophy I am less sure. The origin myth 
> states that Mind (purusa) and Matter (prakrti) were once separate and apart 
> but a cosmic accident caused them to become infused. Mind-Matter, like 
> space-time, is 'one thing' not a combination of two: neither is an attribute 
> of the other.
> 
> Mind-Matter and Karma, Mind-Matter acting in accordance with "propriety" 
> anteceded human beings by eons. "Propriety" in