Friam

Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

Classic

List

Threaded

27 messages Options

jon zingale

Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In another post, Glen mentions an application of the parallelism theorem to 2nd
order privacy. I wish here to express caution wrt application of this theorem to
questions of consciousness, private or otherwise. Because conscious experience
(say in the sense of Tononi) may in fact be or contain fully-integrated and
irreducible complexes, parallel-experience should be handled as a potentially
very different thing than its serial cousin.

In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life is a sense
of maximal serendipity. To a large extent, I feel that this is the central
argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds. There is a recognition that
functions (plural) may in-fact follow from form. In those fiery digital vs. analog
debates, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their very
nature, analog devices. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world at
large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is likely non-
enumerable, much less what can be done with such influence. The imposition

that a transistor behaves digitally is an imposition demanding that the device

act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds.

Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were tails,
these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would be improved upon
for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is readily at hand, and the space
of possible functions is not likely to be concretely specifiable. To my mind,
this is where the hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to develop
artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand that whatever
system we design forcibly participate in our investigation. We demand that it

behave like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed.

Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists, says no. I am not
necessarily committed to this position about my chair, but I do think it points
to the self-defeating nature of Turing tests. In another post, Merle emphasizes
the importance of identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she
mentions its connection to the adjacent possible. Whatever will one day be called
ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain.
In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking seriously ideas
like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given consciousness, the question
of How do we know? maybe the least interesting path of investigation.

I suspect that I am preaching to the pulpit, but I thought it fruitful to write

down these ideas. Thank you for the space to do so.

Jon

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

But go deeper again, and electrons have half spins.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Jon Zingale <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 3:52 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

that a transistor behaves digitally is an imposition demanding that the device

act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds.

behave like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed.

I suspect that I am preaching to the pulpit, but I thought it fruitful to write

down these ideas. Thank you for the space to do so.

Jon

jon zingale

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Marcus,

Sure, Pauli exclusion. Please see Glen's comments on criticism.

Jon

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I appreciate that Glen made some comments on the kind of discourse he prefers.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Jon Zingale <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 4:15 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

Marcus,

Sure, Pauli exclusion. Please see Glen's comments on criticism.

Jon

gepr

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by jon zingale

For my part, I think both the "adjacent possible" and any distinction between inter- and trans-disciplinary are confused concepts. The clearer conception surrounding serendipity lies in the distinction between formal and informal (not formal vs. intuitive, but related). An equivalent (I think) conception is "flex and slop", which I think is attributed to Dennett, and (again [sigh]) Feferman's schematic axiomatic systems. I've been struggling to find a good way to express my contrary perspective to your post (On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Jon Zingale) where you *seem* to go completely formal. My intention was to imply something *informal* ... sloppy, badly formulated, etc.

The inherent problem with the inter-/trans-discipline, Dave's polymath, and Jochen's fools outside one's house, concept [†] is that there does not exist a complete and consistent formalism capable of informal generation/construction. Only informal systems can do the constructing.

Of course, "informal" is ambiguous. Does it mean "only broken in one spot" ... "a slightly incongruous composition of formal systems" ... "integrationist Rube Goldberg assemblages of formal systems" ... "a radical resistance to all formalization" ... "a mishmash of confused nonsense"? Etc. The primary task of AI and ALife is to find out just how informal we *must* be to sit back and call something "intelligent" or "alive". And this lands squarely in the long, practical, tradition of finding out just how informal we *must* be to, say, build a good bridge, fly to the moon, or bake a tasty loaf of bread.

[†] Concept, singular. The implicit assertion being that all those are the same thing, the same mistake. I can reword my complaint as "There are no 'disciplines.'" "There are no houses." The concept of polymath *might* escape the category if Dave chooses to consider "learned"/"knowledge" as a massive noun ... where one can increase their learning by ε even as ε→0. But if there are disjoint domains, then polymath is in the same category.

On 5/27/20 3:51 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:

> In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life is a sense
> of /maximal serendipity/. To a large extent, I feel that this is the central
> argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds. There is a recognition that
> functions (plural) may in-fact follow from form. In those fiery digital vs. analog
> debates, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their very
> nature, /analog devices/. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world at
> large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is likely non-
> enumerable, much less what can be done with such influence. The imposition
> that a transistor /behaves/ digitally is an imposition demanding that the device
> act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds.
>
> Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were tails,
> these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would be improved upon
> for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is readily at hand, and the space
> of possible functions is not likely to be concretely specifiable. To my mind,
> this is where the hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to develop
> artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand that whatever
> system we design /forcibly/ participate in our investigation. We demand that it
> /behave/ like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed.
> Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists, says no. I am not
> necessarily committed to this position about my chair, but I do think it points
> to the self-defeating nature of Turing tests. In another post, Merle emphasizes
> the importance of identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she
> mentions its connection to the /adjacent possible/. Whatever will one day be called
> ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain.
> In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking seriously ideas
> like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given consciousness, the question
> of /How do we know? /maybe the least interesting path of investigation.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

re: "informal systems" Is story such an informal system?

from an article targeting towards business and software development professionals

"Although all four models described above are essential, the power of Thick Description derives primarily from the Story. For several reasons:

1. The human brain is ‘hardwired’ for story. Humans easily absorb knowledge that is communicated to them via story while having a difficult time dealing with information presented in abstract form. One of the reasons that mathematics is difficult for so many people.
2. Humans have shared knowledge via story since the invention of language. The visualizations of “cave art” preceded any form of written language but still communicate stories.
3. Ninety-five percent of what a person knows was acquired via story.
4. Most of what is known about your business exists “within the heads” of your employees. It is tacit knowledge that is lost if the employee is lost (via retirement or turnover).
5. New hires acquire the knowledge essential to doing their work by listening to stories.
6. Stories provide a compact and efficient way of communication, mostly because each story carries with it a significant amount of implicit context — connections to all the other stories we have heard and have in our repertoire of knowledge.
7. Stories are “easy to think with.”

Story provides a powerful tool for software development by preserving ambiguity, deferring design and implementation decisions until “the last responsible moment.”

just curious
davew

On Thu, May 28, 2020, at 7:19 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> For my part, I think both the "adjacent possible" and any distinction
> between inter- and trans-disciplinary are confused concepts. The
> clearer conception surrounding serendipity lies in the distinction
> between formal and informal (not formal vs. intuitive, but related). An
> equivalent (I think) conception is "flex and slop", which I think is
> attributed to Dennett, and (again [sigh]) Feferman's schematic
> axiomatic systems. I've been struggling to find a good way to express
> my contrary perspective to your post (On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Jon Zingale)
> where you *seem* to go completely formal. My intention was to imply
> something *informal* ... sloppy, badly formulated, etc.
>
> The inherent problem with the inter-/trans-discipline, Dave's polymath,
> and Jochen's fools outside one's house, concept [†] is that there does
> not exist a complete and consistent formalism capable of informal
> generation/construction. Only informal systems can do the constructing.
>
> Of course, "informal" is ambiguous. Does it mean "only broken in one
> spot" ... "a slightly incongruous composition of formal systems" ...
> "integrationist Rube Goldberg assemblages of formal systems" ... "a
> radical resistance to all formalization" ... "a mishmash of confused
> nonsense"? Etc. The primary task of AI and ALife is to find out just
> how informal we *must* be to sit back and call something "intelligent"
> or "alive". And this lands squarely in the long, practical, tradition
> of finding out just how informal we *must* be to, say, build a good
> bridge, fly to the moon, or bake a tasty loaf of bread.
>
>
> [†] Concept, singular. The implicit assertion being that all those are
> the same thing, the same mistake. I can reword my complaint as "There
> are no 'disciplines.'" "There are no houses." The concept of polymath
> *might* escape the category if Dave chooses to consider
> "learned"/"knowledge" as a massive noun ... where one can increase
> their learning by ε even as ε→0. But if there are disjoint domains,
> then polymath is in the same category.
>
> On 5/27/20 3:51 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> > In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life is a sense
> > of /maximal serendipity/. To a large extent, I feel that this is the central
> > argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds. There is a recognition that
> > functions (plural) may in-fact follow from form. In those fiery digital vs. analog
> > debates, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their very
> > nature, /analog devices/. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world at
> > large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is likely non-
> > enumerable, much less what can be done with such influence. The imposition
> > that a transistor /behaves/ digitally is an imposition demanding that the device
> > act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds.
> >
> > Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were tails,
> > these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would be improved upon
> > for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is readily at hand, and the space
> > of possible functions is not likely to be concretely specifiable. To my mind,
> > this is where the hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to develop
> > artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand that whatever
> > system we design /forcibly/ participate in our investigation. We demand that it
> > /behave/ like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed.
> > Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists, says no. I am not
> > necessarily committed to this position about my chair, but I do think it points
> > to the self-defeating nature of Turing tests. In another post, Merle emphasizes
> > the importance of identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she
> > mentions its connection to the /adjacent possible/. Whatever will one day be called
> > ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain.
> > In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking seriously ideas
> > like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given consciousness, the question
> > of /How do we know? /maybe the least interesting path of investigation.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-.
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

gepr

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

It depends. I think some have tried to formalize narratives. In some ways, I think of GitLaw or version controlled collaborative fiction as a partial formalization of story-telling. (There was a novel being written several years back by some big names in sci-fi that was similar to GitLaw ... but it escapes me, now.) I suppose some of the (artificial) formulations of scientific method are attempts to formalize story-telling.

But by and large, as long as humans are doing the story-telling, it'll have some informality to it. And I think *that's* the lesson. When we construct machines that tell good stories, then we'll be able to say more about how formal we can make it.

On 5/28/20 6:56 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> re: "informal systems" Is story such an informal system?
>
> from an article targeting towards business and software development professionals
>
> "Although all four models described above are essential, the power of Thick Description derives primarily from the Story. For several reasons:
>
> 1. The human brain is ‘hardwired’ for story. Humans easily absorb knowledge that is communicated to them via story while having a difficult time dealing with information presented in abstract form. One of the reasons that mathematics is difficult for so many people.
> 2. Humans have shared knowledge via story since the invention of language. The visualizations of “cave art” preceded any form of written language but still communicate stories.
> 3. Ninety-five percent of what a person knows was acquired via story.
> 4. Most of what is known about your business exists “within the heads” of your employees. It is tacit knowledge that is lost if the employee is lost (via retirement or turnover).
> 5. New hires acquire the knowledge essential to doing their work by listening to stories.
> 6. Stories provide a compact and efficient way of communication, mostly because each story carries with it a significant amount of implicit context — connections to all the other stories we have heard and have in our repertoire of knowledge.
> 7. Stories are “easy to think with.”
>
> Story provides a powerful tool for software development by preserving ambiguity, deferring design and implementation decisions until “the last responsible moment.”

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi, Dave,

What you wrote below is great.

Would you care to explore the relation between story and metaphor?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:56 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

re: "informal systems" Is story such an informal system?

from an article targeting towards business and software development professionals

"Although all four models described above are essential, the power of Thick Description derives primarily from the Story. For several reasons:

1. The human brain is ‘hardwired’ for story. Humans easily absorb knowledge that is communicated to them via story while having a difficult time dealing with information presented in abstract form. One of the reasons that mathematics is difficult for so many people.
2. Humans have shared knowledge via story since the invention of language. The visualizations of “cave art” preceded any form of written language but still communicate stories.
3. Ninety-five percent of what a person knows was acquired via story.
4. Most of what is known about your business exists “within the heads” of your employees. It is tacit knowledge that is lost if the employee is lost (via retirement or turnover).
5. New hires acquire the knowledge essential to doing their work by listening to stories.
6. Stories provide a compact and efficient way of communication, mostly because each story carries with it a significant amount of implicit context — connections to all the other stories we have heard and have in our repertoire of knowledge.
7. Stories are “easy to think with.”

Story provides a powerful tool for software development by preserving ambiguity, deferring design and implementation decisions until “the last responsible moment.”

just curious
davew

On Thu, May 28, 2020, at 7:19 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> For my part, I think both the "adjacent possible" and any distinction
> between inter- and trans-disciplinary are confused concepts. The
> clearer conception surrounding serendipity lies in the distinction
> between formal and informal (not formal vs. intuitive, but related).
> An equivalent (I think) conception is "flex and slop", which I think
> is attributed to Dennett, and (again [sigh]) Feferman's schematic
> axiomatic systems. I've been struggling to find a good way to express
> my contrary perspective to your post (On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Jon Zingale)
> where you *seem* to go completely formal. My intention was to imply
> something *informal* ... sloppy, badly formulated, etc.
>
> The inherent problem with the inter-/trans-discipline, Dave's
> polymath, and Jochen's fools outside one's house, concept [†] is that
> there does not exist a complete and consistent formalism capable of
> informal generation/construction. Only informal systems can do the constructing.
>
> Of course, "informal" is ambiguous. Does it mean "only broken in one
> spot" ... "a slightly incongruous composition of formal systems" ...
> "integrationist Rube Goldberg assemblages of formal systems" ... "a
> radical resistance to all formalization" ... "a mishmash of confused
> nonsense"? Etc. The primary task of AI and ALife is to find out just
> how informal we *must* be to sit back and call something "intelligent"
> or "alive". And this lands squarely in the long, practical, tradition
> of finding out just how informal we *must* be to, say, build a good
> bridge, fly to the moon, or bake a tasty loaf of bread.
>
>
> [†] Concept, singular. The implicit assertion being that all those are
> the same thing, the same mistake. I can reword my complaint as "There
> are no 'disciplines.'" "There are no houses." The concept of polymath
> *might* escape the category if Dave chooses to consider
> "learned"/"knowledge" as a massive noun ... where one can increase
> their learning by ε even as ε→0. But if there are disjoint domains,
> then polymath is in the same category.
>
> On 5/27/20 3:51 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> > In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life
> > is a sense of /maximal serendipity/. To a large extent, I feel that
> > this is the central argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds.
> > There is a recognition that functions (plural) may in-fact follow
> > from form. In those fiery digital vs. analog debates, it is easy to
> > lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their very nature,
> > /analog devices/. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world
> > at large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is
> > likely non- enumerable, much less what can be done with such
> > influence. The imposition that a transistor /behaves/ digitally is an imposition demanding that the device act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds.
> >
> > Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were
> > tails, these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would
> > be improved upon for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is
> > readily at hand, and the space of possible functions is not likely
> > to be concretely specifiable. To my mind, this is where the
> > hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to develop
> > artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand
> > that whatever system we design /forcibly/ participate in our investigation. We demand that it /behave/ like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed.
> > Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists,
> > says no. I am not necessarily committed to this position about my
> > chair, but I do think it points to the self-defeating nature of
> > Turing tests. In another post, Merle emphasizes the importance of
> > identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she mentions
> > its connection to the /adjacent possible/. Whatever will one day be called ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain.
> > In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking
> > seriously ideas like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given
> > consciousness, the question of /How do we know? /maybe the least interesting path of investigation.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-.
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

On 5/28/20, 8:46 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Dave,

What you wrote below is great.

Would you care to explore the relation between story and metaphor?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:56 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

re: "informal systems" Is story such an informal system?

from an article targeting towards business and software development professionals

"Although all four models described above are essential, the power of Thick Description derives primarily from the Story. For several reasons:

1. The human brain is ‘hardwired’ for story. Humans easily absorb knowledge that is communicated to them via story while having a difficult time dealing with information presented in abstract form. One of the reasons that mathematics is difficult for so many people.
2. Humans have shared knowledge via story since the invention of language. The visualizations of “cave art” preceded any form of written language but still communicate stories.
3. Ninety-five percent of what a person knows was acquired via story.
4. Most of what is known about your business exists “within the heads” of your employees. It is tacit knowledge that is lost if the employee is lost (via retirement or turnover).
5. New hires acquire the knowledge essential to doing their work by listening to stories.
6. Stories provide a compact and efficient way of communication, mostly because each story carries with it a significant amount of implicit context — connections to all the other stories we have heard and have in our repertoire of knowledge.
7. Stories are “easy to think with.”

Story provides a powerful tool for software development by preserving ambiguity, deferring design and implementation decisions until “the last responsible moment.”

just curious
davew

On Thu, May 28, 2020, at 7:19 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> For my part, I think both the "adjacent possible" and any distinction
> between inter- and trans-disciplinary are confused concepts. The
> clearer conception surrounding serendipity lies in the distinction
> between formal and informal (not formal vs. intuitive, but related).
> An equivalent (I think) conception is "flex and slop", which I think
> is attributed to Dennett, and (again [sigh]) Feferman's schematic
> axiomatic systems. I've been struggling to find a good way to express
> my contrary perspective to your post (On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Jon Zingale)
> where you *seem* to go completely formal. My intention was to imply
> something *informal* ... sloppy, badly formulated, etc.
>
> The inherent problem with the inter-/trans-discipline, Dave's
> polymath, and Jochen's fools outside one's house, concept [†] is that
> there does not exist a complete and consistent formalism capable of
> informal generation/construction. Only informal systems can do the constructing.
>
> Of course, "informal" is ambiguous. Does it mean "only broken in one
> spot" ... "a slightly incongruous composition of formal systems" ...
> "integrationist Rube Goldberg assemblages of formal systems" ... "a
> radical resistance to all formalization" ... "a mishmash of confused
> nonsense"? Etc. The primary task of AI and ALife is to find out just
> how informal we *must* be to sit back and call something "intelligent"
> or "alive". And this lands squarely in the long, practical, tradition
> of finding out just how informal we *must* be to, say, build a good
> bridge, fly to the moon, or bake a tasty loaf of bread.
>
>
> [†] Concept, singular. The implicit assertion being that all those are
> the same thing, the same mistake. I can reword my complaint as "There
> are no 'disciplines.'" "There are no houses." The concept of polymath
> *might* escape the category if Dave chooses to consider
> "learned"/"knowledge" as a massive noun ... where one can increase
> their learning by ε even as ε→0. But if there are disjoint domains,
> then polymath is in the same category.
>
> On 5/27/20 3:51 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> > In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life
> > is a sense of /maximal serendipity/. To a large extent, I feel that
> > this is the central argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds.
> > There is a recognition that functions (plural) may in-fact follow
> > from form. In those fiery digital vs. analog debates, it is easy to
> > lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their very nature,
> > /analog devices/. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world
> > at large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is
> > likely non- enumerable, much less what can be done with such
> > influence. The imposition that a transistor /behaves/ digitally is an imposition demanding that the device act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited bounds.
> >
> > Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were
> > tails, these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would
> > be improved upon for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is
> > readily at hand, and the space of possible functions is not likely
> > to be concretely specifiable. To my mind, this is where the
> > hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to develop
> > artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand
> > that whatever system we design /forcibly/ participate in our investigation. We demand that it /behave/ like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have failed.
> > Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists,
> > says no. I am not necessarily committed to this position about my
> > chair, but I do think it points to the self-defeating nature of
> > Turing tests. In another post, Merle emphasizes the importance of
> > identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she mentions
> > its connection to the /adjacent possible/. Whatever will one day be called ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain.
> > In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking
> > seriously ideas like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given
> > consciousness, the question of /How do we know? /maybe the least interesting path of investigation.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-.
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
> GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.

On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

Marcus,

Somewhere I thought I learned that if you have a heart attack in rome, the van that comes to pick you up IS black, and the attendants are similarly dressed. Can you imagine the horror?

Does anybody know if this is true, or just another recent nightmare.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.

On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

One way to do this might be to universally install disambiguation pages on every word of a tweet. Of course, some words wouldn't necessarily explode (i.e. the disambiguation page would be small, with only a few entries) like "a" or "on". But some words (e.g. "her" or "him") might explode in an interesting way. 20 years ago, the disambiguation pages for these pronouns would reflect societies systemic prejudice against trans people. But today they would be fully blossomed launching points.

A "bottom up" method could then be devised to track and take statistics on the paths followed through these pages, inductively inferring categories from that traffic.

On 5/28/20 9:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Yesterday four police cars quickly surrounded the neighbor's house with their lights and horns blaring. It turned-out to be a practical joke, as they rushed to the door to deliver happy birthday balloons. People were peeking out their windows in fear. I digress.

On 5/28/20, 9:49 AM, "Friam on behalf of [hidden email]" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

Somewhere I thought I learned that if you have a heart attack in rome, the van that comes to pick you up IS black, and the attendants are similarly dressed. Can you imagine the horror?

Does anybody know if this is true, or just another recent nightmare.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.

On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

George Duncan-2

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Ambulances, at least, in Rome look like this

George Duncan

Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com

See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Land: (505) 983-6895

Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."

From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:49 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

Somewhere I thought I learned that if you have a heart attack in rome, the van that comes to pick you up IS black, and the attendants are similarly dressed. Can you imagine the horror?

Does anybody know if this is true, or just another recent nightmare.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.

On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Glen,

I very much agree that questions of a formality-informality spectrum will weave

itself throughout the work. It seems to me that the informality ought to provide a

place for birds to make a nest, a bellybutton for lint to collect, and a place for

rust to never sleep. To my mind, it is not necessarily the formality that chokes
development. Rather, I think of formality purely as description and one among
many valid and possibly incongruous descriptions. Here is a place that I would
again emphasize Rota's take on eidetic variation. For Rota, the eidetic
variation includes all of the counterfactuals, contradictions, and messiness
that we develop/uncover as we vary in our minds an object of interest. It is
not necessary that we cut away babies from bath waters, but rather recognize
that the concepts are complex. I believe that the development of a concept can
especially choke when we fail to recognize that a concepts formal description
has a combinatorial explosion. A good example is a way the concept of random
number can be used, ironically enough, informally to mean a number I can name.

When in a conversation the concept of the random number is invoked, it evokes for
me a complex. I can sense within a single complex: frequentist randomness and Chaitin

randomness and even an ephemeral feeling/non-symbolic experience. Comparison of

these complexes with others provides the opportunity for new pivots and jumping-off

points, for the serendipity of missed connections and false juxtapositions. There was

something of this in my experience listening to the podcasters. At times I thought

that one had completely missed the other's point, but really I had missed the point,

namely that the discussion was not about a point. They were in play, constructing

common complexes and variations which they could share.

When I compare or attempt to describe my sense of this in terms of varieties
and free module constructions, I am not saying that concepts are these things.
I am appealing to varieties (say) in terms of its conceptual content. If we found
that the language was flexible enough to do calculations, well that would be a

pleasant though unintentional corollary.

Jon

thompnickson2

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by George Duncan-2

Thank God for that!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of George Duncan
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 11:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

Ambulances, at least, in Rome look like this

George Duncan

Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com

See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Land: (505) 983-6895

Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion."

From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:49 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus,

Somewhere I thought I learned that if you have a heart attack in rome, the van that comes to pick you up IS black, and the attendants are similarly dressed. Can you imagine the horror?

Does anybody know if this is true, or just another recent nightmare.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:40 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.

On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I am saddened that we don't have a crowd-sourced, convergent/coherent
social media platform to compete with/replace the FB/Twattosphere.
There are probably very good reasons.

I am a regular Wikipedia *user* but it has been years and years since I
dug deeper than the article I find on a search term.   I used to find
articles I found significantly deficient or misleading and was at least
tempted enough to participate in correcting them to go look at the
discussion page and the history of how the article got to be the way it
was.   A few times I even tried to participate in the commentary and
edit the text. I discovered abruptly that others involved were MUCH
more committed to shaping the entry than I ever would be, and I learned
to "read around" the (slowly diminishing?) bad/weak entries, and look
elsewhere for generic reference information.

Outside of Wikipedia I haven't seen the original wiki concept to be
nearly as effective at achieving coherence/congruence.   What would a
FriAM wiki look like?   I'm betting it would be almost indistinguishable
from doing a wordnet screen on our archives, entering all the
non-standard terms it found as Wiki articles and then flooding the
discussion section with our entire thread.

I'm disappointed with Friam-Comic (especially the recent posts) not
getting more at the "essence" of FriAM, and would probably be as
disappointed with Friam-Wiki if it existed.

Glen has pointed me to RationalWiki which I find a good source of a
certain kind of skeptical reference to some controversial topics. It
took me a while to identify and calibrate for *it's* biases, but I now
find it a useful resource.

> I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.
>
> On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.
>
> On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

I am saddened as well, but not surprised. I think that the majority of individuals of our species are content to be consumers of everything, including information, but aren't motivated/disciplined enough to put in the work that it requires to produce/structure good information. It's sort of like gossip - whether we want to admit it or not, the vast majority of the population at large likes to hear crap about others, and are happy to repeat it if they perceive that it increases their social standing within their group.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am saddened that we don't have a crowd-sourced, convergent/coherent
social media platform to compete with/replace the FB/Twattosphere.
There are probably very good reasons.

I am a regular Wikipedia *user* but it has been years and years since I
dug deeper than the article I find on a search term.   I used to find
articles I found significantly deficient or misleading and was at least
tempted enough to participate in correcting them to go look at the
discussion page and the history of how the article got to be the way it
was.   A few times I even tried to participate in the commentary and
edit the text. I discovered abruptly that others involved were MUCH
more committed to shaping the entry than I ever would be, and I learned
to "read around" the (slowly diminishing?) bad/weak entries, and look
elsewhere for generic reference information.

Outside of Wikipedia I haven't seen the original wiki concept to be
nearly as effective at achieving coherence/congruence.   What would a
FriAM wiki look like?   I'm betting it would be almost indistinguishable
from doing a wordnet screen on our archives, entering all the
non-standard terms it found as Wiki articles and then flooding the
discussion section with our entire thread.

I'm disappointed with Friam-Comic (especially the recent posts) not
getting more at the "essence" of FriAM, and would probably be as
disappointed with Friam-Wiki if it existed.

Glen has pointed me to RationalWiki which I find a good source of a
certain kind of skeptical reference to some controversial topics. It
took me a while to identify and calibrate for *it's* biases, but I now
find it a useful resource.

> I would say that companies like Twitter should massively annotate serious offenders and cancel accounts as needed. It doesn't have to come from top, but it isn't going to come from the bottom. There should be processes to keep conspicuous liars from ever gaining visibility. They don't have to involve black vans, as satisfying as that might be. But maybe advanced natural language processing codes that escalate issues to editors.
>
> On 5/28/20, 9:15 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.
>
> On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

In reply to this post by gepr

uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> The additional power is to mislead someone into thinking an expression is about one thing, when it's really about another thing. I.e. in this context, it's a way to troll and "riff" off some arbitrary string you found in some other post. In some contexts, however, it's more serious. Conspiracy theories use metaphor liberally in order to *trick* suckers into thinking something that's simply not true.

I resemble that comment!

I will cop to being guilty of free-associative riffing off of other
people's threads.   When Owen was active here he used to chide us all
about "good thread hygiene" and "thread hijacking".   We (me at the
vanguard perhaps) have become quite sloppy in this.

I will also acknowledge that the very "looseness" of popular
metaphorical speech allows me to turn virtually any word into an
exit-ramp for a good tangent, a tendency which in it's own right might
deserve scrutiny, independent of the mechanism of divergence.

I would claim that conspiracy sommeliers and more appropriately
conspiracy vintners use *colorful* language to hook the suckers in and
then use deliberately crafted misleading analogies/metaphors to suggest
all kinds of baseless things right up to the point of building
tautological cycles in their implied arguments.   They let the metaphor
do their inferring and imputing.

Ok... I agree, metaphors can be risky, reckless, suspicious bastards!
I'm not sure if I can break company with them entirely but at least I
can try to recognize and acknowledge when I am letting them do my dirty
work.

- Steve (who is known to consort with sneaky bastards)

>
> On 5/28/20 9:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> It seems to me like the value of metaphors fits into a sparse dictionary learning approach. If you want to compress a picture of, say, the new Apple headquarters, it helps if one has seen a circle or a torus in some form, and can just refer to that. It would also help to have seen pictures of trees and shrubs to tweak, and to have seen solar panels. Some features will be unique, and simple atoms are needed to refine the image. I'm skeptical that metaphor is the best enduring representation though. After one has seen many circles and ovals (or conic sections), a parameterized (even dependent) type becomes evident.
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/