Fwd: Re: the Skeptical Meme
Locked
 
|
Oops. Accidentally sent this direct.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:24:17 -0700 From: gⅼеɳ <[hidden email]> To: Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> Just to be clear, I don't disagree with some abstraction of "point mutations" on some thing other than a "meme", like a modal pattern of network activation. It's the analogy between ideas and genes, I object to. Where a fast mode switch (or any sync'ed evocation) is more than subjective lies in a shared, grouped, mode switch. Let's say 2 people each have networks with 2 attractors, with no objective mapping between the 2 people or the 4 attractors or the underlying biological structures. But if their mode switching is synchronized (P1.MA & P2.MB = P1.MB & P2.MA -- i.e. when person 1 enters mode A, person 2 enters mode B, and when person 1 enters mode B, person 2 enters mode A), then that synchrony is objective. When I say "nuclear war", Sally feels anxiety and when Sally says "malware in the power grid", I feel anxiety, then our our synchronous mode-switching is objective, regardless of the payload/content or the underlying feeling. It could also be "nuclear war" => Sally.hatred, "malware in the power grid" => Glen.anxiety. But this is where my requirement for both me and Sally to have common physiological structures (neocortex, fingers, knees, etc.). Having R2/D2 say "malware in the power grid" is not likely to give me any hint what R2/D2 might be thinking because its "physiology" doesn't mirror my own. This (objective) reflection is required for the illusion of communication to obtain. On 08/14/2017 08:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If memory has a holographic property -- that there are many correlated memories with each memory -- then one could imagine that operators against this compressed representation could change dramatically just with a point mutation. A smell that triggers memory of a childhood event, a conflict with a lover, etc. The experience of seeing many things in a new light when a crucial fact arrives, etc. Now assuming this is not controversial, it is still not clear to what extent if this can be anything more than subjective. But, at least in principle there could be concepts shared by many parties that would display these characteristics, and would similarly evolve in important ways just from point mutations. The concepts or language connected to the concepts could impose many constraints on how frequently certain point mutations would get visited, e.g. the language could just prohibit them as nonsense. -- gⅼеɳ ============================================================ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Fwd: Re: the Skeptical Meme
|
< Having R2/D2 say "malware in the power grid" is not likely to give me any hint what R2/D2 might be thinking because its "physiology" doesn't mirror my own. This (objective) reflection is required for the illusion of communication to obtain. >
I don't deny that communication could well have evolved through this correlated mode switching, but once it exists the difference between animals and, hopefully, modern humans is that we can inhibit or modulate these things. Actually I think my dog can even modulate them. The dog can learn rules and carry on without constantly looking at me to see if I am approving. If someone like Hillary acts more like R2/D2, that's fine. It is even good. She (the person in such a role) doesn't need to make me glow or buy me a beer. I can grasp she is self-interested and calculating.
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of gⅼеɳ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:25:19 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: the Skeptical Meme Oops. Accidentally sent this direct.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:24:17 -0700 From: gⅼеɳ <[hidden email]> To: Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> Just to be clear, I don't disagree with some abstraction of "point mutations" on some thing other than a "meme", like a modal pattern of network activation. It's the analogy between ideas and genes, I object to. Where a fast mode switch (or any sync'ed evocation) is more than subjective lies in a shared, grouped, mode switch. Let's say 2 people each have networks with 2 attractors, with no objective mapping between the 2 people or the 4 attractors or the underlying biological structures. But if their mode switching is synchronized (P1.MA & P2.MB = P1.MB & P2.MA -- i.e. when person 1 enters mode A, person 2 enters mode B, and when person 1 enters mode B, person 2 enters mode A), then that synchrony is objective. When I say "nuclear war", Sally feels anxiety and when Sally says "malware in the power grid", I feel anxiety, then our our synchronous mode-switching is objective, regardless of the payload/content or the underlying feeling. It could also be "nuclear war" => Sally.hatred, "malware in the power grid" => Glen.anxiety. But this is where my requirement for both me and Sally to have common physiological structures (neocortex, fingers, knees, etc.). Having R2/D2 say "malware in the power grid" is not likely to give me any hint what R2/D2 might be thinking because its "physiology" doesn't mirror my own. This (objective) reflection is required for the illusion of communication to obtain. On 08/14/2017 08:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If memory has a holographic property -- that there are many correlated memories with each memory -- then one could imagine that operators against this compressed representation could change dramatically just with a point mutation. A smell that triggers memory of a childhood event, a conflict with a lover, etc. The experience of seeing many things in a new light when a crucial fact arrives, etc. Now assuming this is not controversial, it is still not clear to what extent if this can be anything more than subjective. But, at least in principle there could be concepts shared by many parties that would display these characteristics, and would similarly evolve in important ways just from point mutations. The concepts or language connected to the concepts could impose many constraints on how frequently certain point mutations would get visited, e.g. the language could just prohibit them as nonsense. -- gⅼеɳ ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |