Re: [FRIAM] Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)

[Jon Zingale]

I will miss the conversations I had with him at tea. What a fantastic
thinker.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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] Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)

[Stephen Guerin]

>
> Such a loss :-(
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-philosopher-atheist-darwinist/


yes a loss of a great person and intellectual. Though in the loss is the
possibility of progress.  if you consider the above "atheist-darwinist" url
representing a certain paradigm in which Dennett has been cast as a central
figure.

Planck's Principle on paradigms and funerals:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul
becomes Paul .
What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the
growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning:
another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

Colloquially, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral
at a time"


_
Stephen Guerin
CEO, Founder
https://simtable.com
stephen.gue...@simtable.com

stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu
Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab


mobile: (505)577-5828


On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:03 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> Such a loss :-(
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-philosopher-atheist-darwinist/
>
> I will put his autobiography "I’ve Been Thinking" from last year on my
> reading list
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/01/ive-been-thinking-by-daniel-c-dennett-review-an-engaging-vexing-memoir-with-a-humility-bypass
>
> -J.
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Jochen Fromm 
> Date: 4/19/24 7:32 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)
>
> A sad day today. Daniel Dennett has died :-( For every big question in
> philosophy there is at least one Daniel Dennett book:
>
> "Consciousnes Explained" (1991) about consciousness
> "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995) about evolution
> "Freedom Evolves" (2003) about free will
> "Breaking the spell" (2006) about religion
>
> https://dailynous.com/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-death-1942-2024/
>
> -J.
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Conversations with George Phillip Tremblay

[Nicholas Thompson]

My apologies for sending the previous conversation unannotated.

Talking to George is like leading a guree  to The Truth.  It only works if you 
are pretty sure what The Truth is.

nick

From: Nicholas Thompson 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 12:58 PM
To: friam@redfish.com 
Subject: Conversations with George Phillip Tremblay

[User]
I need a rough rule of thumb for converting m/sec to miles/hour
ChatGPT

A rough rule of thumb for converting meters per second (m/s) to miles per hour 
(mph) is to multiply the speed in meters per second by approximately 2.237. 
This conversion factor is not exact but is often used for quick estimations:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.237Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.237

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2.237≈22.3710×2.237≈22.37 mph.

Keep in mind that this is an approximation, so for precise conversions, you'd 
want to use the exact conversion factor, which is 2.236936.

[User]
rougher than that
ChatGPT

Sure, for a rougher conversion, you can use a simpler approximation. You can 
roughly estimate by multiplying the speed in meters per second by 2 and then 
adding a bit more than half of the result.

So, the rough rule of thumb would be:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2+12(Speed in m/s)Speed in mph≈Speed in 
m/s×2+21​(Speed in m/s)

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2+12(10)=20+5=2510×2+21​(10)=20+5=25 mph.

This method is even rougher than the previous one but can still provide a quick 
estimation.

[User]
Interesting; 2.236 is closer to 2.00 than it is to 2.50, right? why did you not 
take 2.00 as a factor for your rougher rule of thumb
ChatGPT

You're absolutely correct. Using a conversion factor closer to 2.00 would 
indeed provide a simpler and even rougher estimation. Let's adjust the rough 
rule of thumb accordingly:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2

This simplification essentially disregards the extra adjustment, providing an 
even rougher estimate. It's less accurate but can still give you a general 
sense of the speed conversion.

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2=2010×2=20 mph.

Thanks for pointing that out!

[User]
Butbut. 2.00 is slightly MORE accurate than 2.50, no?
ChatGPT

You're absolutely right again, my apologies for the oversight. 2.00 would 
indeed be slightly more accurate than 2.50 for a rough estimation. Let's adjust 
the rule of thumb accordingly:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.00Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.00

This adjustment acknowledges that 2.00 is closer to the actual conversion 
factor, providing a slightly more accurate rough estimate.

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2.00=2010×2.00=20 mph.

Thanks for catching that mistake!

[User]
I am curious. Why did you not see the mistake earlier in my questioning. NOT a 
rhetorical question
ChatGPT

Your question is quite valid, and it's a good opportunity to reflect. As an AI, 
I rely on predefined rules and algorithms to respond to queries. While I aim to 
be accurate and helpful, I don't possess the ability to self-correct or 
self-reflect like humans do.

In this case, I should have paid closer attention to your initial suggestion of 
using 2.00 as a conversion factor, as it would have indeed led to a simpler and 
slightly more accurate rough estimation. Sometimes, oversights like this can 
occur due to the limitations of my programming or the predefined rules I follow.

Your questioning helped highlight the discrepancy, allowing for correction and 
improvement. Thank you for your patience and for prompting this reflection!

[User]
Have you perhaps been taught to round up rather than round down?
ChatGPT

In general, rounding up is often favored when precision is necessary, as it 
tends to provide a slightly safer margin. However, when it comes to rough 
estimations, rounding down can sometimes simplify calculations and provide a 
quicker mental approximation.

For the purpose of a rough rule of thumb, rounding down to 2.00 as a conversion 
factor could indeed have been a simpler approach. It would have been a closer 
approximation to the actual conversion factor and potentially easier to work 
with mentally.

So, it's not a matter of being taught to round up or down, but rather choosing 
the most suitable approach for the context. In this case, rounding down could 
have been more appropriate for a rough estimation. Thank you for pointing out 
this consideration!

[User]
Please reconsider your last two paragraphs in the light of one another
ChatGPT

You're right; there seems to be a contradiction between the two paragraphs. Let 
me clarify:

While rounding up or down can depend on the context, in this case, considering 
the suggestion you provided earlier and the accuracy of the conversion factor, 
rounding down to 

Re: [FRIAM] Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)

[Jochen Fromm]

Such a loss 
:-(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-philosopher-atheist-darwinist/I
 will put his autobiography "I’ve Been Thinking" from last year on my reading 
listhttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/01/ive-been-thinking-by-daniel-c-dennett-review-an-engaging-vexing-memoir-with-a-humility-bypass-J.
 Original message From: Jochen Fromm  Date: 
4/19/24  7:32 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group  Subject: [FRIAM] Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) A sad day 
today. Daniel Dennett has died :-( For every big question in philosophy there 
is at least one Daniel Dennett book:"Consciousnes Explained" (1991) about 
consciousness"Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995) about evolution "Freedom Evolves" 
(2003) about free will"Breaking the spell" (2006) about 
religionhttps://dailynous.com/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-death-1942-2024/-J.-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] Conversations with George Phillip Tremblay

[Nicholas Thompson]

[User]
I need a rough rule of thumb for converting m/sec to miles/hour
ChatGPT

A rough rule of thumb for converting meters per second (m/s) to miles per hour 
(mph) is to multiply the speed in meters per second by approximately 2.237. 
This conversion factor is not exact but is often used for quick estimations:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.237Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.237

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2.237≈22.3710×2.237≈22.37 mph.

Keep in mind that this is an approximation, so for precise conversions, you'd 
want to use the exact conversion factor, which is 2.236936.

[User]
rougher than that
ChatGPT

Sure, for a rougher conversion, you can use a simpler approximation. You can 
roughly estimate by multiplying the speed in meters per second by 2 and then 
adding a bit more than half of the result.

So, the rough rule of thumb would be:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2+12(Speed in m/s)Speed in mph≈Speed in 
m/s×2+21​(Speed in m/s)

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2+12(10)=20+5=2510×2+21​(10)=20+5=25 mph.

This method is even rougher than the previous one but can still provide a quick 
estimation.

[User]
Interesting; 2.236 is closer to 2.00 than it is to 2.50, right? why did you not 
take 2.00 as a factor for your rougher rule of thumb
ChatGPT

You're absolutely correct. Using a conversion factor closer to 2.00 would 
indeed provide a simpler and even rougher estimation. Let's adjust the rough 
rule of thumb accordingly:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2

This simplification essentially disregards the extra adjustment, providing an 
even rougher estimate. It's less accurate but can still give you a general 
sense of the speed conversion.

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2=2010×2=20 mph.

Thanks for pointing that out!

[User]
Butbut. 2.00 is slightly MORE accurate than 2.50, no?
ChatGPT

You're absolutely right again, my apologies for the oversight. 2.00 would 
indeed be slightly more accurate than 2.50 for a rough estimation. Let's adjust 
the rule of thumb accordingly:

Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.00Speed in mph≈Speed in m/s×2.00

This adjustment acknowledges that 2.00 is closer to the actual conversion 
factor, providing a slightly more accurate rough estimate.

For example:

  *   If you have a speed of 10 m/s, the approximate speed in mph would be 
10×2.00=2010×2.00=20 mph.

Thanks for catching that mistake!

[User]
I am curious. Why did you not see the mistake earlier in my questioning. NOT a 
rhetorical question
ChatGPT

Your question is quite valid, and it's a good opportunity to reflect. As an AI, 
I rely on predefined rules and algorithms to respond to queries. While I aim to 
be accurate and helpful, I don't possess the ability to self-correct or 
self-reflect like humans do.

In this case, I should have paid closer attention to your initial suggestion of 
using 2.00 as a conversion factor, as it would have indeed led to a simpler and 
slightly more accurate rough estimation. Sometimes, oversights like this can 
occur due to the limitations of my programming or the predefined rules I follow.

Your questioning helped highlight the discrepancy, allowing for correction and 
improvement. Thank you for your patience and for prompting this reflection!

[User]
Have you perhaps been taught to round up rather than round down?
ChatGPT

In general, rounding up is often favored when precision is necessary, as it 
tends to provide a slightly safer margin. However, when it comes to rough 
estimations, rounding down can sometimes simplify calculations and provide a 
quicker mental approximation.

For the purpose of a rough rule of thumb, rounding down to 2.00 as a conversion 
factor could indeed have been a simpler approach. It would have been a closer 
approximation to the actual conversion factor and potentially easier to work 
with mentally.

So, it's not a matter of being taught to round up or down, but rather choosing 
the most suitable approach for the context. In this case, rounding down could 
have been more appropriate for a rough estimation. Thank you for pointing out 
this consideration!

[User]
Please reconsider your last two paragraphs in the light of one another
ChatGPT

You're right; there seems to be a contradiction between the two paragraphs. Let 
me clarify:

While rounding up or down can depend on the context, in this case, considering 
the suggestion you provided earlier and the accuracy of the conversion factor, 
rounding down to 2.00 would indeed have been a more suitable choice for a rough 
rule of thumb.

So, in light of that, rounding down to 2.00 as the conversion factor could have 
been more appropriate for simplifying the estimation process and providing a 
closer approximation to the actual conversion factor.

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency, and I appreciate 

[FRIAM] Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)

[Jochen Fromm]

A sad day today. Daniel Dennett has died :-( For every big question in 
philosophy there is at least one Daniel Dennett book:"Consciousnes Explained" 
(1991) about consciousness"Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995) about evolution 
"Freedom Evolves" (2003) about free will"Breaking the spell" (2006) about 
religionhttps://dailynous.com/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-death-1942-2024/-J.-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/