subject:"Re\: \[FRIAM\] the arc of ai \(was Re\: Whew\!\)"

Until that robot can acquire the hockey stick and exercise its mirror neuron, 
the work must continue!

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 10:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I am risking citing authorities again.  Marc Raibert left Carnegie Mellon, 
founded the Leg Lab at MIT, then founded Boston Dynamics.

  Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly.

  Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System.

  IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 1984.
Believe me, it's not possible that anything like that goes on in human nervous 
systems.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 8, 2017 10:23 PM, "Eric Smith" 
<desm...@santafe.edu<mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote:
I guess a measure of how life-like it is, is how much you are waiting for the 
robot to haul off and smack the guy with the hockey stick.  Some kind of mirror 
neuron thing, maybe.

> On May 9, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Marcus Daniels 
> <mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>
> Glen writes:
>
> "At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson) 
> territory?  ... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous system 
> is mappable to the computation going on around us"
>
> While Boston Dynamics has remarkable capabilities, or a Tesla driving itself, 
> it still doesn’t compare to my dog chasing down a rabbit.   Once they are 
> matched, then it seems like that mapping has been modeled adequately.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread Frank Wimberly

I am risking citing authorities again.  Marc Raibert left Carnegie Mellon,
founded the Leg Lab at MIT, then founded Boston Dynamics.

  Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly.
  Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System.
  IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 1984.

Believe me, it's not possible that anything like that goes on in human
nervous systems.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 8, 2017 10:23 PM, "Eric Smith"  wrote:

> I guess a measure of how life-like it is, is how much you are waiting for
> the robot to haul off and smack the guy with the hockey stick.  Some kind
> of mirror neuron thing, maybe.
>
> > On May 9, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
> >
> > Glen writes:
> >
> > "At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson)
> territory?  ... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous
> system is mappable to the computation going on around us"
> >
> > While Boston Dynamics has remarkable capabilities, or a Tesla driving
> itself, it still doesn’t compare to my dog chasing down a rabbit.   Once
> they are matched, then it seems like that mapping has been modeled
> adequately.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> > 
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread Eric Smith

I guess a measure of how life-like it is, is how much you are waiting for the 
robot to haul off and smack the guy with the hockey stick.  Some kind of mirror 
neuron thing, maybe.

> On May 9, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
> 
> Glen writes:
>  
> "At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson) 
> territory?  ... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous system 
> is mappable to the computation going on around us"
>  
> While Boston Dynamics has remarkable capabilities, or a Tesla driving itself, 
> it still doesn’t compare to my dog chasing down a rabbit.   Once they are 
> matched, then it seems like that mapping has been modeled adequately.
>  
> Marcus
>  
>  
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:



"At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson) territory? 
 ... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous system is mappable 
to the computation going on around us"



While Boston Dynamics has remarkable 
capabilities,
 or a Tesla driving itself, it still doesn’t compare to my dog chasing down a 
rabbit.   Once they are matched, then it seems like that mapping has been 
modeled adequately.



Marcus





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread glen ☣

At some point, wouldn't we enter David Deutsch (or Neal Stephenson) territory?  
... where the idea is that the computation in our nervous system is mappable to 
the computation going on around us.  If consciousness isn't compressible 
because it's an artifact of that mapping, then faster neurons wouldn't make us 
more rational in any sense.  But it may give us super powers ... like running 
really fast ... or deriving nutrition from eating grass or maybe seeing a wider 
spectrum of color, etc.  But it wouldn't necessarily change our intent or 
purposeful, self-references.

I suppose we could also invoke Buzsáki or the like, as well... that the larger 
("beat") frequencies of collections of neurons may not change even if the 
individual neurons' rate does change.

And then there's the extra-neural computation, as well, including glial cells 
and glucose across the BBB.  The success of your Josephson Junction ANN would 
become a question of the power generation and distribution, regardless of the 
computational question of whether the high-dimensional, multi-rate (chemical) 
space can be reduced to electrical signals.  (I wouldn't have gone here if I 
weren't currently in the throes of a massive headache. [sigh]  Will robots get 
headaches?)

On 05/08/2017 12:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Seems to me there's a question of dynamic range, temporally speaking.  In 
> classical computers, that is dealt with by separating exponents and mantissas 
> as in floating point arithmetic.  If everything compresses by 7 order of 
> magnitude, then perhaps it would just be a matter of adding 7 more digits 
> (e.g. bits) of precision to the exponent.  Then it would be faster and cover 
> the relevant part of the dynamic range of the environment.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Seems to me there's a question of dynamic range, temporally speaking.  In 
classical computers, that is dealt with by separating exponents and mantissas 
as in floating point arithmetic.  If everything compresses by 7 order of 
magnitude, then perhaps it would just be a matter of adding 7 more digits (e.g. 
bits) of precision to the exponent.  Then it would be faster and cover the 
relevant part of the dynamic range of the environment.

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

What if faster firing tightened a brain's coupling to its environment, rather 
than loosening it?  That would suggest that brains with fast neurons would be 
_less_ tolerant of ambiguity, not more.  One couldn't think deeply about 
anything because the environment would keep you locked in a kind of 
stimulus-response cage ... a slave of your own fast firing neurons.

On 05/08/2017 08:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A fun fact that I ran across last week:   A superconducting neuron made of 
> Josephson Junctions could be 7 orders of magnitude faster than those in the 
> human central nervous system.  Being superconducting there would be no heat, 
> and the possibility of deep 3d integration.  
> 
> Of course, lithography won't be adaptive unless it is way overbuilt and then 
> trimmed-down.That would be one data point in favor of the adaption being 
> more important than deep skill.

--
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread glen ☣

What if faster firing tightened a brain's coupling to its environment, rather 
than loosening it?  That would suggest that brains with fast neurons would be 
_less_ tolerant of ambiguity, not more.  One couldn't think deeply about 
anything because the environment would keep you locked in a kind of 
stimulus-response cage ... a slave of your own fast firing neurons.

On 05/08/2017 08:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A fun fact that I ran across last week:   A superconducting neuron made of 
> Josephson Junctions could be 7 orders of magnitude faster than those in the 
> human central nervous system.  Being superconducting there would be no heat, 
> and the possibility of deep 3d integration.  
> 
> Of course, lithography won't be adaptive unless it is way overbuilt and then 
> trimmed-down.That would be one data point in favor of the adaption being 
> more important than deep skill.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread glen ☣

Fantastic pattern recognition, Roger. We can combine anti-emminence-based 
concept of white privilege with Kazynski's (negative) interpretation of the 
more tightly integrated social fabric ("will have to be ever more reliable, 
conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant 
organism.") and with Merle and Frank's discussion of credentials.

I push (politically) for high-density housing and against the maintenance of 
roads and the building of parking structures.  Yet, I spent the weekend 
reorganizing my garage so that I can fit either of my two gas guzzling pickup 
trucks in there at will.  My intellectual activity says we _should_ be 
efficacy-based and should not be emminence-based.  Yet my bodily activity says 
this is my turf and I want to be able to organize it according to my desires.

The good news is that I caught the neighbor kids dancing to the psytrance I'd 
been blaring all day long ... infecting their vulnerable "minds" with 
mood-altering waves.

On 05/08/2017 08:25 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> Harking back to an earlier complaint from Marcus about blatant and lazy 
> appeals to authority, which may have been in another thread altogether, this
> 
>   
> http://andrewgelman.com/2017/05/07/discussion-lee-jussim-simine-vazire-eminence-junk-science-blind-reviewing/
> 
> introduced me to the formulation "eminence based reasoning".  There's also a 
> bit in there about the existential terror of blind reviewing.
> 
> But it also recalls my earlier life as a random tenant in a house of Harvard 
> seniors living off campus in 1969, the first year Harvard undergraduates were 
> allowed to live off campus.  They were mostly members of the Students for a 
> Democratic Society, but they thought the Weatherman faction was a joke.  So 
> they made up their own faction of SDS, Juiced In It, from the immortal Dylan 
> lyric "Sure you went to the finest schools all right but all you ever used to 
> do was get juiced in it."  Which has forever since echoed in my mind when I 
> find myself scanning for eminent scholarly affiliations.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

"Those of us who tolerate (especially drastic) semantic shifts, on the fly, may 
survive through any Singularity."

A fun fact that I ran across last week:   A superconducting neuron made of 
Josephson Junctions could be 7 orders of magnitude faster than those in the 
human central nervous system.  Being superconducting there would be no heat, 
and the possibility of deep 3d integration.  

Of course, lithography won't be adaptive unless it is way overbuilt and then 
trimmed-down.That would be one data point in favor of the adaption being 
more important than deep skill.

Marcus




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread Roger Critchlow

Harking back to an earlier complaint from Marcus about blatant and lazy
appeals to authority, which may have been in another thread altogether, this

http://andrewgelman.com/2017/05/07/discussion-lee-jussim-simine-vazire-eminence-junk-science-blind-reviewing/

introduced me to the formulation "eminence based reasoning".  There's also
a bit in there about the existential terror of blind reviewing.

But it also recalls my earlier life as a random tenant in a house of
Harvard seniors living off campus in 1969, the first year Harvard
undergraduates were allowed to live off campus.  They were mostly members
of the Students for a Democratic Society, but they thought the Weatherman
faction was a joke.  So they made up their own faction of SDS, Juiced In
It, from the immortal Dylan lyric "Sure you went to the finest schools all
right but all you ever used to do was get juiced in it."  Which has forever
since echoed in my mind when I find myself scanning for eminent scholarly
affiliations.

-- rec --

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:55 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

>
> Coincidentally, given the topic of [SG]AI and the semantic grounding of
> rhetorical terms:
>
> The meaning of life in a world without work
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/
> virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book?utm_
> source=esp_medium=Email_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+
> Collections+2017_term=225051=22800997=GT_US_collection
>
> > What is a religion if not a big virtual reality game played by millions
> of people together? Religions like Islam and Christianity invent imaginary
> laws, such as “don’t eat pork”, “repeat the same prayers a set number of
> times each day”, “don’t have sex with somebody from your own gender”, and
> so forth. These laws exist only in the human imagination.
>
> I've had several friends suggest they'd like to start their own cult.  I
> even inducted 2 of them into my Discordian charter.  That wasn't good
> enough, though, because as Episkopos, I don't care what my priests do.  It
> also happens that these friends are programmers, even if not
> professionally.  So, there's more to Harari's analogy than meets the eye, I
> think.
>
> I've long believed, when managing people, the single critical attribute is
> "tolerance of ambiguity".  Those of us who get too hung up on definite
> axiomatic approaches are, I think, at the most risk of losing their jobs to
> an SAI.  Those of us who tolerate (especially drastic) semantic shifts, on
> the fly, may survive through any Singularity.
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-08 Thread ┣glen┫


Coincidentally, given the topic of [SG]AI and the semantic grounding of 
rhetorical terms:

The meaning of life in a world without work
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book?utm_source=esp_medium=Email_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017_term=225051=22800997=GT_US_collection

> What is a religion if not a big virtual reality game played by millions of 
> people together? Religions like Islam and Christianity invent imaginary laws, 
> such as “don’t eat pork”, “repeat the same prayers a set number of times each 
> day”, “don’t have sex with somebody from your own gender”, and so forth. 
> These laws exist only in the human imagination.

I've had several friends suggest they'd like to start their own cult.  I even 
inducted 2 of them into my Discordian charter.  That wasn't good enough, 
though, because as Episkopos, I don't care what my priests do.  It also happens 
that these friends are programmers, even if not professionally.  So, there's 
more to Harari's analogy than meets the eye, I think.

I've long believed, when managing people, the single critical attribute is 
"tolerance of ambiguity".  Those of us who get too hung up on definite 
axiomatic approaches are, I think, at the most risk of losing their jobs to an 
SAI.  Those of us who tolerate (especially drastic) semantic shifts, on the 
fly, may survive through any Singularity.

-- 
␦glen?


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-06 Thread Steven A Smith




On 5/6/17 10:52 AM, Joe Spinden wrote:


The talk of who went to what school seems beside the point.

The benefits of Pre-K seem indisputable to me.. As do the benefits of 
reduced sugar consumption.


For those with limited access to the basics of modern education, I think 
Pre-K is a great thing (under-literate parents with overwhelming 
distractions like double-career or substance/behaviour/media 
addictions).   For children with an over-abundance of calories 
(especially those from purified sugars/carbs/fats/alcohol!) reduced 
sugar consumption is a "good thing".In sweeping societal/group 
measures I suppose that increasing access to the former and reducing 
access to the latter is a doubly good thing.


Whether I should exercise financial support for the former or 
instigating regulation on the latter is a different thing.   I am 
*personally* willing to help make sure that pre-K (and K-12) is highly 
accessible to all, up to and including paying more taxes, but am a 
little reluctant to declare that *everyone* should do the same.   I am 
also of the mind that reduced sugar (and carbohydrates, and alcohol) 
consumption in our culture is generally a "good thing" but I'm not sure 
I am ready to bluntly interfere with those whose lifestyles and choices 
includes consuming more of those items than *I* think is healthy.


I did not focus on the benefits of Pre-K vis-a-vis the proposed tax 
because I was never convinced the administration could competently 
determine how to administer the receipts.  But, since Martinez is 
trying to gut education in NM, anything would be better than nothing.


I think Conservative Politicians of the Susanna Martinez stripe are 
likely to *mostly* do things I don't agree with, and feel even unlikely 
to maintain a competent bureaucracy to do those things *even* if I 
agreed with thm.


Nor do I consider it elitist to advocate for improved health.  If some 
reduced their sugar consumption because it cost more, that would not 
be a bad thing.
I think advocating for good health is a great thing.  The question is 
what measures do we consider acceptable?


 When Nicotine was declared the devil incarnate (I am not a nicotine 
consumer myself) I found myself winding up my smoking-hater friends with 
the idea that there is *another* extant evil with many of the same 
qualities that *MUST* be eradicated for the general good as soon as 
Nicotine was properly suppressed.  I could get the whole room jumping up 
in down with me in self-righteous resentment, right up until I declared 
the devil himself to be "caffeine".  After all, it is a strong 
mood-altering substance, it has significant health risks (high blood 
pressure at the forefront), it stains your teeth, it causes lost 
work-time (coffee/soda breaks!) and to anyone who doesn't like the smell 
is quite offensive (ew!  I smell COFFEE brewing!  Do you know how bad 
your COFFEE breath is?).


Many here would condemn white sugar (or high-fructose-corn-syrup in 
drinks) and nicotine (smoked or smokeless) or maybe even alcohol as a 
social evil, but would still defend their cup of coffee to their dying 
sip... "you can pry that coffee cup from my cold, dead fingers!).


I don't know how to argue elitism, but somehow I think there IS some 
form of elitism in these arguments, or at least self-righteous judgement?


Separately, the idea that Michael Bloomberg spending $1MM of his own 
money -- with no financial benefit to himself -- to support the tax 
here is somehow equivalent to the soda distributors' spending large 
sums to protect their own profits is ludicrous. Bloomberg is a genuine 
billionaire who should be commended for his willingness to spend his 
own money to advocate for causes he considers beneficial to all.
I do agree that there is some conflation between the two examples. I 
don't know why Bloomberg has taken on sugary drinks as a crusade, and I 
personally think that my own occasional consumption of sugary drinks is 
not healthy for me, but I guess I don't know how to parse "genuine 
billionaire"... and have to question why HE (or any billionaire) gets to 
try to directly shape public policy?   Sure the, sugar (or corn syrup, 
or beet or ???) industry has NO business being allowed to influence 
legislation, but that doesn't mean (to me) that Bloomberg or Gates or 
Buffett or (OMG) Trump have an intrinsic right to use wealth to 
influence public policy either?


I *happen* to agree that helping make pure sugar less 
appealing/available might improve the collective health but that doesn't 
mean I want to put sin/Pigovian taxes on it (whether we fund PreK with 
it or not).I would *also* like to see a lot fewer deaths by firearms 
in our culture and could suggest that if ammunition (or gunpowder or 
primers or ??)  were heavily taxed ($5/round for most ammo?), but am 
loathe to try to impose a false-economy on top of the existing false 
economies.


Carry on,
 - Steve



Joe


On 5/6/17 9:44 AM, Frank Wimberly

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On funding Pre-K, Joe writes:

"anything would be better than nothing"

>From a parent's perspective, if there are whole categories of support services 
>that are inadequate or collapsing perhaps the best thing is not to live here, 
>or if the means are sufficient, use private services.

>From a city planner's perspective, putting together these services seems 
>hopeless without predictable and sustainable revenue.So why waste time on 
>these little one-sie two-sie efforts if the will just isn't there in the 
>community?

To me this failed effort was a Hail Mary that was a symptom of a deeper problem.

Marcus

From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Joe Spinden <j...@qri.us>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 10:52:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

The talk of who went to what school seems beside the point.

The benefits of Pre-K seem indisputable to me.. As do the benefits of reduced 
sugar consumption.

I did not focus on the benefits of Pre-K vis-a-vis the proposed tax because I 
was never convinced the administration could competently determine how to 
administer the receipts.  But, since Martinez is trying to gut education in NM, 
anything would be better than nothing.

Nor do I consider it elitist to advocate for improved health.  If some reduced 
their sugar consumption because it cost more, that would not be a bad thing.

Separately, the idea that Michael Bloomberg spending $1MM of his own money -- 
with no financial benefit to himself -- to support the tax here is somehow 
equivalent to the soda distributors' spending large sums to protect their own 
profits is ludicrous.  Bloomberg is a genuine billionaire who should be 
commended for his willingness to spend his own money to advocate for causes he 
considers beneficial to all.

Joe

On 5/6/17 9:44 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Let's summarize.  I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K 
education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet.  
I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed School, 
is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle said that I missed the point and that Jeff 
Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I said that Ted K 
went to Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in prison is irrelevant.  
Merle says it's not.

My wife hates being mentioned in this context. Let me tell you a little more.  
When she was at Harvard she worked with Jonathan Kozol to improve educational 
opportunities for Puerto Rican toddlers in South Boston.  In Pittsburgh she 
worked in a therapeutic Headstart program as head teacher to offer pre-K 
education to high risk kids whose mothers were schizophrenic. They were 3-4 
years old and at least one of them witnessed the murder of her mother. They 
were mostly African American and arrived at school very hungry.  They ate at 
school.  This was done under the auspices of the University of Pittsburgh 
Psychiatry Department.  There's more but...

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Marcus Daniels" 
<mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:

"Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"

It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a question 
of correct vs. incorrect.

Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give but 
I will for completeness.

1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal which I argue 
is worth considering.   I provide background (cited papers), and my colleague 
skims over the affiliations over the authors of those papers rather than 
reading the abstracts.

2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and have a pitch 
prepared with preliminary results and working prototype code.First thing 
the person does is flip to the section with the staff bios to see which 
universities they attended.

I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based selection that 
I see every day.   I'm not arguing that there is nothing to this approach, or 
that it is complete ineffectual.   It depends on what the deciders are 
optimizing for.   One thing they could be optimizing is to ensure their 
collaborators are presentable and demonstrate a baseline of intelligence, and 
certain breadth and depth of knowledge.

However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster, puts out a 
document that starts from fairly common premises to surprising conclusions, 
that chain of reasoning might be subject to consideration.  Sure, if there is 
more context, like knowing in retrospect that the person was guilty of murder, 
then that may or may not cause them to discard consideration of the argument.   
 For me, it makes me more interested in underst

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-06 Thread Joe Spinden


The talk of who went to what school seems beside the point.

The benefits of Pre-K seem indisputable to me.. As do the benefits of 
reduced sugar consumption.


I did not focus on the benefits of Pre-K vis-a-vis the proposed tax 
because I was never convinced the administration could competently 
determine how to administer the receipts.  But, since Martinez is trying 
to gut education in NM, anything would be better than nothing.


Nor do I consider it elitist to advocate for improved health.  If some 
reduced their sugar consumption because it cost more, that would not be 
a bad thing.


Separately, the idea that Michael Bloomberg spending $1MM of his own 
money -- with no financial benefit to himself -- to support the tax here 
is somehow equivalent to the soda distributors' spending large sums to 
protect their own profits is ludicrous.  Bloomberg is a genuine 
billionaire who should be commended for his willingness to spend his own 
money to advocate for causes he considers beneficial to all.


Joe


On 5/6/17 9:44 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Let's summarize.  I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of 
pre-K education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the 
effects on diet.  I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate 
school at the Harvard Ed School, is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle 
said that I missed the point and that Jeff Skilling and Jared 
Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I said that Ted K went to 
Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in prison is irrelevant.  
Merle says it's not.


My wife hates being mentioned in this context. Let me tell you a 
little more.  When she was at Harvard she worked with Jonathan Kozol 
to improve educational opportunities for Puerto Rican toddlers in 
South Boston.  In Pittsburgh she worked in a therapeutic Headstart 
program as head teacher to offer pre-K education to high risk kids 
whose mothers were schizophrenic. They were 3-4 years old and at least 
one of them witnessed the murder of her mother. They were mostly 
African American and arrived at school very hungry.  They ate at 
school.  This was done under the auspices of the University of 
Pittsburgh Psychiatry Department.  There's more but...


Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Marcus Daniels" > wrote:


Frank writes:


"Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"


It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values,
not a question of correct vs. incorrect.

Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need
to give but I will for completeness.

1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal
which I argue is worth considering.   I provide background (cited
papers), and my colleague skims over the affiliations over the
authors of those papers rather than reading the abstracts.

2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and
have a pitch prepared with preliminary results and working
prototype code. First thing the person does is flip to the section
with the staff bios to see which universities they attended.

I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based
selection that I see every day. I'm not arguing that there is
nothing to this approach, or that it is complete ineffectual.   It
depends on what the deciders are optimizing for. One thing they
could be optimizing is to ensure their collaborators are
presentable and demonstrate a baseline of intelligence, and
certain breadth and depth of knowledge.

However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster,
puts out a document that starts from fairly common premises to
surprising conclusions, that chain of reasoning might be subject
to consideration.  Sure, if there is more context, like knowing in
retrospect that the person was guilty of murder, then that may or
may not cause them to discard consideration of the argument.   
For me, it makes me more interested in understanding the motives

and reasoning and to make sure I convince myself I have an idea of
where they lost it.

Marcus

**



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
 by Dr. Strangelove




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Joe

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes:


"I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed 
School, is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle said that I missed the point and 
that Jeff Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I said 
that Ted K went to Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in prison is 
irrelevant. "


As to the question of whether or not argument from authority is appropriate, I 
had concluded from your original remark that you think is.  But, I guess, that 
some exceptions are to be expected like Skilling and Kaczynski.   Maybe so.


Another point of view is that while argument from authority is pervasive, even 
in intellectual circles, it is the kind of thinking that puts group loyalty 
over rationality and trust over truth.


Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly 
<wimber...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 9:44:59 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Let's summarize.  I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K 
education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet.  
I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed School, 
is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle said that I missed the point and that Jeff 
Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I said that Ted K 
went to Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in prison is irrelevant.  
Merle says it's not.

My wife hates being mentioned in this context. Let me tell you a little more.  
When she was at Harvard she worked with Jonathan Kozol to improve educational 
opportunities for Puerto Rican toddlers in South Boston.  In Pittsburgh she 
worked in a therapeutic Headstart program as head teacher to offer pre-K 
education to high risk kids whose mothers were schizophrenic. They were 3-4 
years old and at least one of them witnessed the murder of her mother. They 
were mostly African American and arrived at school very hungry.  They ate at 
school.  This was done under the auspices of the University of Pittsburgh 
Psychiatry Department.  There's more but...

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Marcus Daniels" 
<mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:


"Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"


It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a question 
of correct vs. incorrect.



Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give but 
I will for completeness.

1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal which I argue 
is worth considering.   I provide background (cited papers), and my colleague 
skims over the affiliations over the authors of those papers rather than 
reading the abstracts.

2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and have a pitch 
prepared with preliminary results and working prototype code.First thing 
the person does is flip to the section with the staff bios to see which 
universities they attended.

I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based selection that 
I see every day.   I'm not arguing that there is nothing to this approach, or 
that it is complete ineffectual.   It depends on what the deciders are 
optimizing for.   One thing they could be optimizing is to ensure their 
collaborators are presentable and demonstrate a baseline of intelligence, and 
certain breadth and depth of knowledge.

However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster, puts out a 
document that starts from fairly common premises to surprising conclusions, 
that chain of reasoning might be subject to consideration.  Sure, if there is 
more context, like knowing in retrospect that the person was guilty of murder, 
then that may or may not cause them to discard consideration of the argument.   
 For me, it makes me more interested in understanding the motives and reasoning 
and to make sure I convince myself I have an idea of where they lost it.

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes:


"I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K education rather 
than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet. "


In a state where the governor vetos funding for higher-education across the 
board and defunds the legislature?  If we believe her, the only thing New 
Mexican's care about is taxes.   All public services could be at risk, not just 
those that address kids with schizophrenic and/or murdered mothers.Maybe a 
green chili tax to fix potholes?


Marcus





From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly 
<wimber...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 9:44:59 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Let's summarize.  I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K 
education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on diet.  
I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard Ed School, 
is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle said that I missed the point and that Jeff 
Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I said that Ted K 
went to Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in prison is irrelevant.  
Merle says it's not.

My wife hates being mentioned in this context. Let me tell you a little more.  
When she was at Harvard she worked with Jonathan Kozol to improve educational 
opportunities for Puerto Rican toddlers in South Boston.  In Pittsburgh she 
worked in a therapeutic Headstart program as head teacher to offer pre-K 
education to high risk kids whose mothers were schizophrenic. They were 3-4 
years old and at least one of them witnessed the murder of her mother. They 
were mostly African American and arrived at school very hungry.  They ate at 
school.  This was done under the auspices of the University of Pittsburgh 
Psychiatry Department.  There's more but...

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Marcus Daniels" 
<mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:


"Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"


It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a question 
of correct vs. incorrect.



Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give but 
I will for completeness.

1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal which I argue 
is worth considering.   I provide background (cited papers), and my colleague 
skims over the affiliations over the authors of those papers rather than 
reading the abstracts.

2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and have a pitch 
prepared with preliminary results and working prototype code.First thing 
the person does is flip to the section with the staff bios to see which 
universities they attended.

I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based selection that 
I see every day.   I'm not arguing that there is nothing to this approach, or 
that it is complete ineffectual.   It depends on what the deciders are 
optimizing for.   One thing they could be optimizing is to ensure their 
collaborators are presentable and demonstrate a baseline of intelligence, and 
certain breadth and depth of knowledge.

However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster, puts out a 
document that starts from fairly common premises to surprising conclusions, 
that chain of reasoning might be subject to consideration.  Sure, if there is 
more context, like knowing in retrospect that the person was guilty of murder, 
then that may or may not cause them to discard consideration of the argument.   
 For me, it makes me more interested in understanding the motives and reasoning 
and to make sure I convince myself I have an idea of where they lost it.

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-06 Thread Frank Wimberly

Let's summarize.  I said I wish people would focus on the benefits of pre-K
education rather than the economic impacts of the tax and the effects on
diet.  I mentioned that my wife, who went to graduate school at the Harvard
Ed School, is a big proponent of pre-K.  Merle said that I missed the point
and that Jeff Skilling and Jared Kushner's father also went to Harvard.  I
said that Ted K went to Berkeley to make the case that having alumni in
prison is irrelevant.  Merle says it's not.

My wife hates being mentioned in this context. Let me tell you a little
more.  When she was at Harvard she worked with Jonathan Kozol to improve
educational opportunities for Puerto Rican toddlers in South Boston.  In
Pittsburgh she worked in a therapeutic Headstart program as head teacher to
offer pre-K education to high risk kids whose mothers were schizophrenic.
They were 3-4 years old and at least one of them witnessed the murder of
her mother. They were mostly African American and arrived at school very
hungry.  They ate at school.  This was done under the auspices of the
University of Pittsburgh Psychiatry Department.  There's more but...

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 6, 2017 9:15 AM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:

> Frank writes:
>
>
> "Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"
>
>
> It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a
> question of correct vs. incorrect.
>
>
> Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give
> but I will for completeness.
>
> 1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal which I
> argue is worth considering.   I provide background (cited papers), and my
> colleague skims over the affiliations over the authors of those papers
> rather than reading the abstracts.
>
> 2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and have a
> pitch prepared with preliminary results and working prototype code.
> First thing the person does is flip to the section with the staff bios to
> see which universities they attended.
>
> I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based selection
> that I see every day.   I'm not arguing that there is nothing to this
> approach, or that it is complete ineffectual.   It depends on what the
> deciders are optimizing for.   One thing they could be optimizing is to
> ensure their collaborators are presentable and demonstrate a baseline of
> intelligence, and certain breadth and depth of knowledge.
>
> However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster, puts out a
> document that starts from fairly common premises to surprising conclusions,
> that chain of reasoning might be subject to consideration.  Sure, if there
> is more context, like knowing in retrospect that the person was guilty of
> murder, then that may or may not cause them to discard consideration of the
> argument.For me, it makes me more interested in understanding the
> motives and reasoning and to make sure I convince myself I have an idea of
> where they lost it.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes:


"Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?"


It’s a question of fairness and consistency relative to values, not a question 
of correct vs. incorrect.



Here are two more personal experiences which I doubt I really need to give but 
I will for completeness.

1. A disruptive technology is reported in a peer-reviewed journal which I argue 
is worth considering.   I provide background (cited papers), and my colleague 
skims over the affiliations over the authors of those papers rather than 
reading the abstracts.

2. Our team arranges a meeting with a possible funding source and have a pitch 
prepared with preliminary results and working prototype code.First thing 
the person does is flip to the section with the staff bios to see which 
universities they attended.

I could give many more examples of this kind of authority-based selection that 
I see every day.   I'm not arguing that there is nothing to this approach, or 
that it is complete ineffectual.   It depends on what the deciders are 
optimizing for.   One thing they could be optimizing is to ensure their 
collaborators are presentable and demonstrate a baseline of intelligence, and 
certain breadth and depth of knowledge.

However, when such a person that otherwise would passes muster, puts out a 
document that starts from fairly common premises to surprising conclusions, 
that chain of reasoning might be subject to consideration.  Sure, if there is 
more context, like knowing in retrospect that the person was guilty of murder, 
then that may or may not cause them to discard consideration of the argument.   
 For me, it makes me more interested in understanding the motives and reasoning 
and to make sure I convince myself I have an idea of where they lost it.

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-06 Thread Frank Wimberly

Which notorious person went to which university?  Why?

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 11:50 PM, "Merle Lefkoff"  wrote:

> It's NOT irrelevant, Frank!
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
>
>>
>> Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or
>> admission of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they
>> are NOT.  All y'all are way smarter than me.  And I am very grateful for
>> your presence, interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the
>> forum.  I suppose that's the best I can do.  If anyone still reads my words
>> as disingenuous, that's up to them.
>>
>> On 05/05/2017 01:28 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> > I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards,
>> forums, etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know
>> what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.
>> I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that
>> Ted Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using
>> reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to
>> what school.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ☣ glen
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> --
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
> Saint Paul University
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> merlelefk...@gmail.com 
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread Merle Lefkoff

It's NOT irrelevant, Frank!

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, glen ☣  wrote:

>
> Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission
> of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT.
> All y'all are way smarter than me.  And I am very grateful for your
> presence, interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the forum.  I
> suppose that's the best I can do.  If anyone still reads my words as
> disingenuous, that's up to them.
>
> On 05/05/2017 01:28 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards,
> forums, etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know
> what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.
> I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that
> Ted Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using
> reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to
> what school.
>
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I was talking to someone about a conference they attended and a technical 
discussion they had with an individual at the conference.He said he found 
the individual interesting -- a distinguished-looking older gentleman.  
Eventually he asked him about his affiliation.  He said he was unaffiliated.   
The conclusion of this individual was that he was a kook and he stopped the 
conversation.  Shouldn’t it be possible to identify kooks on the content of 
what they say and the (lack of) substance of their accomplishments?   That’s 
not what most academics do, in my experience.   It is often very much about 
genealogy and affiliation.   The argument from authority is alive and well.

If one thinks like this, then it is only appropriate for them to give more 
credence to the remarks of someone like Kaczynski.  He was a Berkeley man after 
all.That is competed with social pressure in those circles to say that 
smart people demonstrably capable of violence must have “gone crazy”, “lost 
it”, and so on.

Marcus

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 2:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

No, because it's irrelevant.
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 2:36 PM, "Marcus Daniels" 
<mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
Frank writes:

“In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of 
which celebrity went to what school.”

Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong?   His ideas resonate 
with whitelash voters.   I find that scary.

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes:

< ... but "Evil" might be one of 
many things depending on the reserved lexicon of the speaker...   Social  
Conservatives would place LGBT and Abortion Rights and Gun Control on their 
list of "Evil"  .. >

Yeah, overloaded local dictionaries as a lazy cache for a community's preferred 
meaning.  Users of this dictionary are too lazy to even infer it on the fly.  
But I like talking to my dog because she lets me use words just I make up.   
When she hides my slippers I call her snarkle.   One part snark and one part 
sparkle.   

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Marcus -

I personally am a fan of "late binding" in natural language. If I defer
it too late, it can get me in trouble... Trump got a lot of slack from
me along the way because of this. I can't tell if "Trump is clever to
observe that people ... " or his pattern matching skills lead him to
realize that between (many) people's natural deference to power and his
active use of ambiguity in language lead to a LOT of people ranging from
"giving him the benefit of the doubt" and "actively imputing beliefs or
capabilities to him that he patently does not hold".

It is probably obvious from my presence in this general discussion that
*I TOO* am avoiding an unpleasant task or two. Mine are perhaps more
mundane than your own.

- Steve

On 5/5/17 3:10 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

"I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to Marcus
PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it differently."

Simple logic programs can be nothing but a conjunction of predicates. In this situation the predicates would be the reader's internal
checks on the argument so far. What is nailed down and what is not yet nailed down and certain relationships between the terms. Suppose
that one or two of the terms in the argument is not "over parsed". One can approach that uncertainty not from the bottom-up
building the meaning term by term, but from the top-down and ask: What assignments of the term "evil" will satisfy the predicates
I have? What is Glen really saying? And from that, deduce the meaning of the word, say, that "evil" means "sneaky"
or "clever" or "the property of an individual that for better or worse doesn't show her hand". This is probably not
so different from how natural language is really learned.

If the correspondent can be led into taking this approach, the conversation
could be more interesting (or exhausting) because the discussion isn't about
one topic, but many potential topics. It can also be entertaining if one or
more of correspondents have no awareness of it happening.

There has been some discussion here about how Trump apparently lets his
audience do this. We can call that `evil', but the real evil IMO is that his
audience is stupid and never reconciles their own term bindings. It is quite
clever of Trump to observe that people that are caught in these contradictions
often double down and become even more irrational and committed to them.

Marcus

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes:

"I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to Marcus 
PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it differently."

Simple logic programs can be nothing but a conjunction of predicates.   In this 
situation the predicates would be the reader's internal checks on the argument 
so far.  What is nailed down and what is not yet nailed down and certain 
relationships between the terms.   Suppose that one or two of the terms in the 
argument is not "over parsed".  One can approach that uncertainty not from the 
bottom-up building the meaning term by term, but from the top-down and ask: 
What assignments of the term "evil" will satisfy the predicates I have?   What 
is Glen really saying?   And from that, deduce the meaning of the word, say, 
that "evil" means  "sneaky" or "clever" or "the property of an individual that 
for better or worse doesn't show her hand".   This is probably not so different 
from how natural language is really learned.  

If the correspondent can be led into taking this approach, the conversation 
could be more interesting (or exhausting) because the discussion isn't about 
one topic, but many potential topics.   It can also be entertaining if one or 
more of correspondents have no awareness of it happening.

There has been some discussion here about how Trump apparently lets his 
audience do this.   We can call that `evil', but the real evil IMO is that his 
audience is stupid and never reconciles their own term bindings.   It is quite 
clever of Trump to observe that people that are caught in these contradictions 
often double down and become even more irrational and committed to them. 

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission of 
my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT.  All 
y'all are way smarter than me.  And I am very grateful for your presence, 
interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the forum.  I suppose that's 
the best I can do.  If anyone still reads my words as disingenuous, that's up 
to them.

On 05/05/2017 01:28 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards, forums, 
> etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know what you 
> mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.  I admit 
> that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that Ted 
> Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using reductio ad 
> absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to what school.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)


Glen -

Is this your version of the Serenity Prayer?  If so, it is a nicely 
novel one!


I feel *measureably* (if only fractionally) smarter when I manage to 
(mostly) follow many of the deeply thoughtful discussions here...  
your's and Marcus' most most immediately.   I could easily list a dozen 
others and am tempted to suggest "you know who you are", but in fact 
suspect some of the more valuable contributors to have their own 
(false?) modesty.  Nick, you know who you are.


I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to 
Marcus PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it 
differently.  Initial Upper Caps means to me that the word is in a 
special lexicon... using the example of evil vs Evil... "evil" IS in the 
standard dictionary(ies) of common discourse, but "Evil" might be one of 
many things depending on the reserved lexicon of the speaker...   Social 
Conservatives would place LGBT and Abortion Rights and Gun Control on 
their list of "Evil" while Social Progressives would place restricting 
"Personal Choice" and Racial or Gender or Gender Identity discrimination 
on their "Evil" list for example.   I'm not sure what followers of 
Cthuhlu use the term "Evil" for, it seems to be deliberately obscured or 
skewed?


- Steve


On 5/5/17 2:05 PM, gepr wrote:

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are 
immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to 
navigate reality.


On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:

Glen writes:

< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a
speaker abstracting their self. >

Steve writes:

< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very
specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than
intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to
persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended
to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately
I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes
"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >

In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have
to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something
constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight
terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate
my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.

Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you
to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.
Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread Frank Wimberly

No, because it's irrelevant.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 2:36 PM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:

> Frank writes:
>
>
>
> “In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy
>  of which celebrity went to what school.”
>
>
>
> Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong?   His ideas
> resonate with whitelash voters.   I find that scary.
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes:

“In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of 
which celebrity went to what school.”

Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong?   His ideas resonate 
with whitelash voters.   I find that scary.

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread Frank Wimberly

I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards,
forums, etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know
what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.
I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that
Ted Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using
reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to
what school.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 2:05 PM, "gepr"  wrote:

> And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are
> immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical
> attempts to navigate reality.
>
>
> On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
> >Glen writes:
> >
> >< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a
> >speaker abstracting their self. >
> >
> >Steve writes:
> >
> >< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very
> >specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than
> >intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to
> >persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended
> >to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately
> >I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes
> >"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >
> >
> >In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
> >should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
> >forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have
> >to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something
> >constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight
> >terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate
> >my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.
> >
> >Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you
> >to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.
> >Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
> >and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
> >either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
> >I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
> >perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
> >be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)
>
> --
> ⛧glen⛧
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Now would be a good time for a long conversation about the dimensionality of 
reality and its navigation, because I just can't bear the next thing I have to 
do.  That danged REPL loop is just blinking at me now.  Lower case evil and all 
that is fine.   

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of gepr
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 2:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are 
immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to 
navigate reality.

On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>Glen writes:
>
>< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a 
>speaker abstracting their self. >
>
>Steve writes:
>
>< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very 
>specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than 
>intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to 
>persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended 
>to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately 
>I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes 
>"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >
>
>In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
>should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
>forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have 
>to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something 
>constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight 
>terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate 
>my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.
>
>Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you 
>to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.
>Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
>and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
>either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
>I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
>perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
>be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)

--
⛧glen⛧

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread gepr

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are 
immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to 
navigate reality.


On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>Glen writes:
>
>< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a
>speaker abstracting their self. >
>
>Steve writes:
>
>< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very
>specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than
>intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to
>persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended
>to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately
>I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes
>"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >
>
>In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
>should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
>forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have
>to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something
>constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight
>terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate
>my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.
>
>Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you
>to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.  
>Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
>and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
>either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
>I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
>perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
>be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)

-- 
⛧glen⛧


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a speaker 
abstracting their self. >

Steve writes:

< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific.  I 
believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended.  I 
specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to persuade".  I hold this 
specifically distinct from "language intended to inform" and "language used to 
think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I discovered that in fact the formal 
definition of rhetoric includes "to inform" as well as "to persuade" >

In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader should expect 
some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were forced to write down 
his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have to say "Evil" and not "evil" 
because the latter would be something constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to 
use single quotes to highlight terms where I am encouraging the reader to find 
a grounding or tolerate my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the 
definition.

Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you to both 
consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.   Advertisements have 
a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo and the Gecko, but then I 
don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance either.  I become immune to many 
of their tricks! For many years I've believed the purpose of this is to 
make arguments robust to perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his 
argument but still be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)

Marcus





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

FWIW, I would try not to over-parse "rhetoric" any more than I over-parse 
"abstract".  All informational language is persuasive and all persuasive 
language is informative.  The distinction is false, I think.  We see this most 
egregiously in the saying: If you want to learn something, read about it. If 
you want to understand something, write about it. If you want to master 
something, teach it.

As in the argument with Vladimyr, I take the same position.  There is no stable 
"you".  There is no such thing as the "mind".  What does exist, however, is the 
real stuff around you, including your fingers, your tongue, your ears, etc.  As 
you write down your rhetoric, you (as Eric suggested) reconfigure yourself.  In 
my own personal experience, the act of saying or writing something can either 
verify or decohere whatever physiological state I was in before.  (Note these 
acts address logical validity, not soundness.  That has to be done 
interpersonally, through a more isotropic medium.)  Another example is when 
you, say, write code and then have to read that code 10 years later.  The 
writing is both persuasive and informative.  In fact, to emphasize the false 
distinction is to engage in the very abstraction I'm ranting against.  Yes, 
Steve, you are as evil as the rest of us. 8^)

Similarly, in direct response to Marcus' "listeners bear responsibility" ... I 
was reared to avoid stating the obvious.  But as I die, it becomes more obvious 
that one person's obvious is another's occult.  So, to be clear, I'm arguing 
that all these things are tightly coupled.  S ... yes, of course the 
listener bears some responsibility.  If a listener abstracts their self, they 
are just as evil as a speaker abstracting their self.

And you're right that it bears directly on the obvious false equivalence 
between intelligence and AI, specific or general.  It would be great fun to use 
AI to craft a new political philosophy.  Of course, I like stochasticity, so 
I'd simply train an Eddington typewriter on Marx, Ghandi, Hitler, Roosevelt, 
etc. and see what popped out.  That would probably be as effective as any body 
of rhetoric that popped out of any one "mind".

On 05/05/2017 10:55 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing match 
> here.  The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be blinding but 
> engaging.   The content, when I feel I have parsed it down all the way is 
> usually enlightening and informative.
> 
> Rather than try to join in and thus create a bit of a melee, I will try to 
> stand back and lob a few things onto the ground of the discussion.
> 
> Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific.  I 
> believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended.  I 
> specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to persuade".  I hold this 
> specifically distinct from "language intended to inform" and "language used 
> to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I discovered that in fact the formal 
> definition of rhetoric includes "to inform" as well as "to persuade"
> 
> I believe that both of you are primarily using language intended to inform in 
> this (and most if not all) discussions in this forum.   But I also believe 
> that MOST public discourse is fundamentally rhetorical.   Noam Chomsky might 
> be the closest to a public figure outside of hard sciences who seems able to 
> refrain from deliberately conflating persuasive and informational language.
> 
> My point in this pivots around Marcus' point here of "Listeners, bear some 
> responsibility too".  In my general experience, but acutely informed by our 
> recent elections, MOST listeners seek out persuasive rhetoric which supports 
> their existing beliefs... and ignore or at least are fairly unaware of the 
> difference of that from informational rhetoric.   They are not seeking to 
> understand or even learn more, they are seeking to confirm existing biases 
> and to adopt convincing rhetoric to flail their opponents with.
> 
> I particularly appreciate the discussions the two of you share with the rest 
> of us here, but there are many (or at least several) others who seem to 
> maintain a similar level of honest intent to inform and/or explore rather 
> than simply persuade.
> 
> Touching briefly onthe OP or is it OT, I thnk that both SAI and GAI may be a 
> severe travesty in our culture to whatever extent we "listeners" don't take 
> responsibility.   Will AI become the new speechwriters?   Have they already?  
>  I think that Artificial Wisdom will come much later than effective 
> Artificial Intelligence and would seem to need to grow out of GAI rathr than 
> SAI.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)


Glen/Marcus -

As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing 
match here.  The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be 
blinding but engaging.   The content, when I feel I have parsed it down 
all the way is usually enlightening and informative.


Rather than try to join in and thus create a bit of a melee, I will try 
to stand back and lob a few things onto the ground of the discussion.


Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very 
specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than 
intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to 
persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended to 
inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I 
discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes "to 
inform" as well as "to persuade"


I believe that both of you are primarily using language intended to 
inform in this (and most if not all) discussions in this forum.   But I 
also believe that MOST public discourse is fundamentally rhetorical.   
Noam Chomsky might be the closest to a public figure outside of hard 
sciences who seems able to refrain from deliberately conflating 
persuasive and informational language.


My point in this pivots around Marcus' point here of "Listeners, bear 
some responsibility too".  In my general experience, but acutely 
informed by our recent elections, MOST listeners seek out persuasive 
rhetoric which supports their existing beliefs... and ignore or at least 
are fairly unaware of the difference of that from informational 
rhetoric.   They are not seeking to understand or even learn more, they 
are seeking to confirm existing biases and to adopt convincing rhetoric 
to flail their opponents with.


I particularly appreciate the discussions the two of you share with the 
rest of us here, but there are many (or at least several) others who 
seem to maintain a similar level of honest intent to inform and/or 
explore rather than simply persuade.


Touching briefly onthe OP or is it OT, I thnk that both SAI and GAI may 
be a severe travesty in our culture to whatever extent we "listeners" 
don't take responsibility.   Will AI become the new speechwriters?   
Have they already?   I think that Artificial Wisdom will come much later 
than effective Artificial Intelligence and would seem to need to grow 
out of GAI rathr than SAI.


Carry On,

 - Steve



Glen write:

"Their interpretation of their distributed artifact is decoupled from, abstracted 
from, their audience's interpretation of the same artifact.  And they bear some 
responsibility for that decoupling."

Listeners bear responsibility too.

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

"Linux is useless without a shell like GNU.  But that doesn't mean those 
artifacts are somehow abstractions."

There's abstract as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a 
physical or concrete existence".   A computer program not really physical.   It 
can be represented as physical state as in neural tissue.   DRAM charge 
conditions or magnetic fields on a hard disk. 

There's abstract as "consider (something) theoretically or separately from 
something else".   Linux is abstract in this sense as it enables users not to 
think about certain issues.

There's abstract as "extract or remove (something)" as one does when 
refactoring.   To capture the essence or to generalize over alternative 
implementations.

I make no distinction between mathematical abstractions and computer programs.  
Most people think of computer programs as operational and imperative, but the 
artifact of a Mathematica code and a derivation in front of a whiteboard can be 
the same referent.   

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen write:

"Their interpretation of their distributed artifact is decoupled from, 
abstracted from, their audience's interpretation of the same artifact.  And 
they bear some responsibility for that decoupling."

Listeners bear responsibility too. 

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

But that's not what you said.  You said they distribute abstractions, which 
they clearly do not ... cannot because that's nonsense.  One cannot distribute 
an abstraction.  The reason one can _experience_ discovering an unintended 
_use_ for an artifact is because these things that get distributed are 
personally experience-able, local.  Sure, if you don't use it, you can call it 
abstract if you want.  But it's not.  It's concrete.  And the more you use it, 
the more tightly coupled to it you get.

I don't disagree that whatever artifact is being distributed (bits on a disk, 
flyers outside a church, etc.) can be 
executed/interpreted/experienced/personalized differently.  Linux is useless 
without a shell like GNU.  But that doesn't mean those artifacts are somehow 
abstractions.

And my original point was that if the artifacts these thoughtful anarchists 
distribute are open to wildly diverse interpretation, then perhaps they should 
spend less time _thinking_ and more time running with the Black Bloc and 
steering the BB toward more constructive action. (Eg perhaps don't vandalize 
the struggling small business owner.  Or in Wikileaks case, perhaps don't act 
as an unwitting tool of a dictator.) Their interpretation of their distributed 
artifact is decoupled from, abstracted from, their audience's interpretation of 
the same artifact.  And they bear some responsibility for that decoupling.

On 05/05/2017 09:49 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> These local representations are not necessarily the same or even similar and 
> interesting insights come about from the simple act of distribution.   
> Assange is arrogant, but he is not so arrogant to think that someone else may 
> be able to profoundly contextualize the documents he distributes.   
> Similarly, anyone that has worked with component-oriented software has had 
> the experience of discovering a new unintended use for an artifact.   Whether 
> any given distribution act is constructive or destructive is arguable, but 
> there are certainly examples where millions of people would agree that it was 
> constructive, e.g. the Linux kernel.   

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

< I disagree.  These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different 
term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract.  When 
you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to 
Wikileaks, that's personal.  When you spend 1/2 your day futzing with 
dependencies so you can use open source tools to edit the ROM on your phone, 
that 1/2 day is personal.  And when you spend hours reading through really 
boring e-mails from and to someone like Podesta or some banker in the Cook 
Islands, that's personal. >

These local representations are not necessarily the same or even similar and 
interesting insights come about from the simple act of distribution.   Assange 
is arrogant, but he is not so arrogant to think that someone else may be able 
to profoundly contextualize the documents he distributes.   Similarly, anyone 
that has worked with component-oriented software has had the experience of 
discovering a new unintended use for an artifact.   Whether any given 
distribution act is constructive or destructive is arguable, but there are 
certainly examples where millions of people would agree that it was 
constructive, e.g. the Linux kernel.   

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On 05/05/2017 09:24 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded.

Heh, yes, I know.  That was partly the point of referring to it in this 
context. >8^D  Nonetheless, the point I inferred is still there.

> To certain technologists, there is the view that our culture is made up of 
> rule-based parts that act much like software.  They are not personal (in your 
> terminology), they are abstractions that take on a significance of their own. 
>   If one can get voters to embrace a set of slogans, or go to a building on 
> Sunday to hold their head down periodically, or throw someone in prison 
> because of an interpretation of a law, then it is not personal.  It's a 
> generalized abstraction that some advocate like a priest or legislator 
> threw-up and managed to get to stick.  The view that "knowledge is power" is 
> another form.   Free software advocates like Stallman are well-aware of the 
> thinking of scholars like Chomsky.   And certainly folks like Assange crossed 
> paths with the free software movement (in the Stallman sense) on several 
> occasions.   So, rather than handing out weapons, they hand out tools and 
> information because these technologists believe that is the basis for power 
> in the world, or soon will be.

I disagree.  These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different 
term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract.  When 
you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to 
Wikileaks, that's personal.  When you spend 1/2 your day futzing with 
dependencies so you can use open source tools to edit the ROM on your phone, 
that 1/2 day is personal.  And when you spend hours reading through really 
boring e-mails from and to someone like Podesta or some banker in the Cook 
Islands, that's personal.

That these certain technologists _think_ such tools are somehow reified, 
self-extant, abstractions is a fundamental flaw in their thinking ... and 
provides evidence for my position.  Tools are only tools if they are used.  And 
there is a tight coupling between tool and user.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

" But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about 
open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed."

I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded.  
To certain technologists, there is the view that our culture is made up of 
rule-based parts that act much like software.  They are not personal (in your 
terminology), they are abstractions that take on a significance of their own.   
If one can get voters to embrace a set of slogans, or go to a building on 
Sunday to hold their head down periodically, or throw someone in prison because 
of an interpretation of a law, then it is not personal.  It's a generalized 
abstraction that some advocate like a priest or legislator threw-up and managed 
to get to stick.  The view that "knowledge is power" is another form.   Free 
software advocates like Stallman are well-aware of the thinking of scholars 
like Chomsky.   And certainly folks like Assange crossed paths with the free 
software movement (in the Stallman sense) on several occasions.   So, rather 
than handing out weapons, they hand out tools and information becaus
 e these technologists believe that is the basis for power in the world, or 
soon will be.

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Hm.  But enlightenment (IMO) only happens in a personal sense.  And "personal" 
implies tight couplings.  Eg Dick Cheney being OK with gay people because his 
daughter is gay, despite him being evil in every other non-personal aspect of 
his decades in power.  Or Milo _finally_ realizing how bad abstract rhetoric is 
when a recording surfaces about his tolerance of pederasty ... or internet 
trolls being contacted by phone or f2f by their victims.

If your rhetoric (and remotely felt actions) are _transitive_ ... if they 
percolate out, intact, from you to the listener, then the listener can be 
enlightened.  But if all the personal elements are eliminated by abstraction, 
then that can't happen.

There is no abstract truth.  All truth is personal.  Hence, it cannot stand or 
fail on its own.  That's just nonsensical.  We see this in science, quite 
clearly.  It's not the scientific "law" that is true.  What's true are the 
experimental protocols that take you from initial to final conditions, 
everywhere and always.  And experiments are personal, not abstract.

On 05/05/2017 09:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on its own (or can be 
> falsified).   There's no obligation to model the listener.   There's the 
> possibility the listener can be enlightened.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

"Being _in_ the world means being tightly coupled to it so that you feel the 
immediate consequences of your words and hear your own words repeated from 
others' mouths.  If you're not tightly coupled, then you're at risk."

Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on its own (or can be 
falsified).   There's no obligation to model the listener.   There's the 
possibility the listener can be enlightened.

Marcus

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well, I did get a chance to listen to CArne Ross' TED talk after Marcus pointed 
him out.  (Nothing further, yet.)  And he made one comment in that talk that I 
like, yet completely disagree with ... something like "it's up to each and 
every person to implement policy" ... or diplomacy  or something like that.  
The point is great.  The steady, progressive, dissolution of "the state" has 
been exploited, especially by corporations, but also by well- and 
ill-intentioned individuals and groups for awhile, now.

But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about 
open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed.  Both rhetoric 
and action are tempered (both ill- and good effects) by their embedding.  It's 
the distance and abstraction that causes the problem.  (As Lakoff pointed out 
with Trump's speaking style.)  If your rhetoric is like poetry, ambiguous, 
parsimonious, or elegant, so that it can be re-interpreted, re-applied 
regardless of your situation, then it's EVIL.  Likewise, if your actions affect 
not only your immediate neighbors in some topological space, but _everyone_ 
(like spitting carbon into the air or launching a nuclear missile), then it's 
evil.

What's not evil, regardless of the content, is anything spoken or done _small_ 
and close.  I can tell off color jokes and not be misinterpreted as long as I'm 
amongst my friends.  I can brag about pussy-grabbing as long as it's on a bus 
with one other guy and I'm not being recorded ... or never plan to represent a 
large population of diverse people.  Etc.  Where such things become evil is 
when you, your words or actions, are being used as a "model", an abstraction.  
Language and actions for distal audiences are different (in kind) from language 
and actions for proximal audiences.

Your quote from Rumi applies, but again with my own private interpretation.  
Being _in_ the world means being tightly coupled to it so that you feel the 
immediate consequences of your words and hear your own words repeated from 
others' mouths.  If you're not tightly coupled, then you're at risk.

On 05/05/2017 08:31 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but doesn't 
> it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive speech 
> (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended to *persuade* 
> and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion), then they are 
> responsible for the consequences of their persuasion.
> 
> I have a strong identification with the ideals of anarchism, as I do with 
> libertarianism, and to a lesser extent conservative and progressive ideals.   
> I am not eager, however, to proseletyze on any of those subjects overmuch 
> *lest* I persuade someone to act on those ideals,  Action, also by it's very 
> nature, is intrinsically irresponsible.   We can never know the full 
> consequences of our actions, so we take them based on a lick and a promise 
> that they won't go totally and unexpectedly bad.
> 
> Talking and acting are a risky business it seems.   But it is the stuff of 
> being in the world.  I believe it was Rumi who suggested we "be IN but not OF 
> the world".   Subtle business.
> 
> I appreciate your use of the term "elite sophists" here.   It is the place I 
> retreat to and feel that is what most of the discussion here (about religion, 
> politics, social, economic theory) is... the use of sophist(icated) language 
> to try to understand complex and subtle phenomena but from a somewhat 
> distanced perspective allowed by our various circumstance.

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)