Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

There's a nice thread in your responses to 3 of the questions: 5: "alternative SAM" 8: limitation of "mind" but not brain 12: *all* of physical reality These (and I prolly missed some) allude, I think, to the distinction between the indexicality of the subject (the actual animal-agent) and the

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

continuing in the original thread ... Wolpert question 5: my previous arguing that knowledge and information—but of a different order/kind—and "TRUTH" can be found on an LSD trip seems like a negative answer to Wolpert's Fifth. Yes, we do have access to and can learn to use 'alternate states

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

What follows are mostly speculations: It is possible that we do not get to have closed cartesianess (with all of its currying and the rest) and so we do not really get to have *all* possible worlds, perhaps only those that are symmetric monoidal. Still, what then does this mean for us, since we

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

We haven't broached Wolpert's later questions much. But before I try to do that, I'd like to follow up on these 2 things: • What errors are involved with my cf to List's "indexicality"? • My intention with the "percolation ..." was to allude to the limits of our convex hull. From Dave's

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

be solved by putting the right people on it. Both are arrogant in their own ways. From: Friam on behalf of Jon Zingale Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 1:15 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder I am often confused

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Yes, it is willful ignorance (aka Evil). If you extrapolate the rather esoteric work of defining a convex hull around possible worlds (whether it's instantiation from a formal foundation like Schoedinger's, limited to high confidence extension of "adjacent possible", or brute force

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Jon - Reponsive to your references to Carroll, et al... Theories of everything - Sabine Hossenfelder and to your rant about iterated colimits of consumeables: - Steve On 9/17/22 1:15 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: I am often confused by what

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

I am often confused by what people imagine "tech" to be, and then I wonder what the forward-looking name for luddite is. From my twisted perspective, the newest consumables merely add noise, produce another roll of the dice, and leave us only able to speak about the distance we, via this

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

On 9/16/22 12:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Given the how normal extreme inequality is, probably the they/us distinction is already happening.  Technology could accelerate it, though. I think we are in agreement.   Technology *has* increased it... technology *IS* the basis of the increase.  It

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Given the how normal extreme inequality is, probably the they/us distinction is already happening. Technology could accelerate it, though. Some people will have direct and indirect cognitive assists, some will have designer babies and some won’t, etc. Over a few generations we might not

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Responding first to Marcus point: "I think there will be a transition toward a more advanced form of life, but I don’t think there will be a clear connection between how they think and how humans think.  Human culture won’t be important to how they scale, but may be relevant to a

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

I do see us trying to identify the distinguishing markers of ... "cognition we can't imagine". That's fantastic. I'll try to collate some of them going backwards from Marcus': - novelty - dissimilarity from "cognition as we know it" - graded separation from human culture/sociality - simulation

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

I think there will be a transition toward a more advanced form of life, but I don’t think there will be a clear connection between how they think and how humans think. Human culture won’t be important to how they scale, but may be relevant to a bootstrap. I would be surprised if compression,

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Just to be clear, I have zero antipathy towards Wolpert or his efforts at steelmanning. I think Wolpert does an excellent job of phrasing as questions what I perceive "Scientists" and "Computationalists" to merely assert as Truth. I have long tilted at that particular windmill and I applaud

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

>There is some kind of diectic error in our response. Korrekshun - "deictic" -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

our interests and seeking our approval.  The cat is more interested in her interests and treating us as facilitators or constraints to obtaining those. Paw prints of either species qualify as "art" in our house anytime they get involved in a painting project or the setting of plaste

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

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

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

in a painting project or the setting of plaster, cement, or clay.   Our appreciation of same reflects *our* training more than *theirs*. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:54 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM]

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:54 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder Regarding Wolpert's first four questions: In my opinion, all four reflect a kind of arrogance that I have accused Scientists and

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

aster, cement, or clay. > Our appreciation of same reflects *our* training more than *theirs*. > >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:54 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject:

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

, or clay.   Our appreciation of same reflects *our* training more than *theirs*. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:54 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder Regarding

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

DaveW - A more reasonable question is what caused a small subset of our species to 'go beserk' and take a subset of the SAM that served our species so well for so long, to such abstract extremes? An answer might be found, and is argued, in the Ian McGilchrist works on recent "left-brained"

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

, 2022 5:54 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder Regarding Wolpert's first four questions: In my opinion, all four reflect a kind of arrogance that I have accused Scientists and Mathematicians of many times in the past—an attitude that modern

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Regarding Wolpert's first four questions: In my opinion, all four reflect a kind of arrogance that I have accused Scientists and Mathematicians of many times in the past—an attitude that modern formal and abstract math and science are a kind of ultimate achievement of our species. Any and all

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

My question of how well we can describe graph-based ... what? ... "statements"? "theorems"? Whatever. It's treated fairly well in List's paper: Levels of Description and Levels of Reality: A General Framework by Christian List http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21103/ in section "6.3 Indexical

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Well, I think Dave gets at something important, here, that SteveS misses by jumping to reflection (model of self modeling the world), though I agree SteveS' response to Q1 is correctly oriented. But first, we can't ignore Wolpert's run-up to that 1st question. It seems to me he is treating

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

oup *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder My erstwhile boss Raj Reddy was in the same Department with Simon and Newell and knew their work well.  He said that it was relatively easy to create a computer program that did the work of a professor that the real challenge

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

On 9/11/22 12:18 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: My erstwhile boss Raj Reddy was in the same Department with Simon and Newell and knew their work well.  He said that it was relatively easy to create a computer program that did the work of a professor that the real challenge would be to develop an

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

if you don’t see it, not if you do. From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 11:19 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder My erstwhile boss Raj Reddy was in the same Department with Simon

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

My erstwhile boss Raj Reddy was in the same Department with Simon and Newell and knew their work well. He said that it was relatively easy to create a computer program that did the work of a professor that the real challenge would be to develop an autonomous bulldozer. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Wolpert's questions are fantastic. Thanks glen for prompting this discussion. Re: question one about the "chasm with minimal cognitive capabilities necessary ..." I have two major problems with the assumptions behind this question. First, the assumption that Godel, Einstein, and Beethoven

Re: [FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

DaveW - Just wanted to put this here as a placeholder for future conversation as I would like to take up Wolpert's questions even though I am not "miraculous" per glen's invitation. I do need a day to two to read and pose questions /make observations, but others might be ready to chime in

[FRIAM] Wolpert - discussion thread placeholder

Just wanted to put this here as a placeholder for future conversation as I would like to take up Wolpert's questions even though I am not "miraculous" per glen's invitation. I do need a day to two to read and pose questions /make observations, but others might be ready to chime in with