Friam

alternative response

Classic

List

Threaded

166 messages Options

123456 ... 9

Steve Smith

Re: alternative response

Marcus wrote:

...

If I were to try to write a set of bots to reproduce FRIAM conversations, I’d probably do it with an agent-based approach, and dump my mental model of each person into a program, and then run the programs together, like a sort of core-war game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War

I think the dynamics of this game would be predictable sometimes, and other times it would have long transients. Other times idiosyncratic word associations would redirect the conversation in unexpected directions.

To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. Especially with some of the overt attempts for various members to mind-read others. We might name them (similar to Core War strategies) names like TinMan, StrawMan, Imp(uter), StoneMan, ScissorMan, ScatterShot, etc.

Maybe Nick can adapt his "MOTHA" (my way or the highway) strategy from the iterated prisoner's dilemma (circa 2004?) into CoreWar .

Or maybe Tom Ray's Tierra might be a better model?

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

OOOOOOO! I LIKE Imp[uter]1

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 4:37 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

Marcus wrote:

...

If I were to try to write a set of bots to reproduce FRIAM conversations, I’d probably do it with an agent-based approach, and dump my mental model of each person into a program, and then run the programs together, like a sort of core-war game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_War

I think the dynamics of this game would be predictable sometimes, and other times it would have long transients. Other times idiosyncratic word associations would redirect the conversation in unexpected directions.

Maybe Nick can adapt his "MOTHA" (my way or the highway) strategy from the iterated prisoner's dilemma (circa 2004?) into CoreWar .

Or maybe Tom Ray's Tierra might be a better model?

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus

Steve Smith

Re: alternative response

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: alternative response

I'd like to know who is who?

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 5:30 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

On 6/14/20 6:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

... and I was just... being "reactive"?

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

Reactive in the sense of, say, https://www.manning.com/books/functional-reactive-programming

Russ was asking how I thought about constructing responses like this.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 5:40 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

On 6/14/20 6:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

... and I was just... being "reactive"?

jon zingale

Re: alternative response

Marcus,

Thanks for turning me onto that book, I just ordered a copy.
I had met Conal Elliot some years ago (~13?) at the international
functional programming conference in Portland. I had no idea that
he was developing work on things like this.

Jon

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/

Russ Abbott

Re: alternative response

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 5:34 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

Some people act that way!

On Jun 14, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 5:34 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: alternative response

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Good point, Russ. Does quantum mechanics somehow save the day for the free will believers? Here is a book review my erstwhile boss wrote on the topic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JFqDNQ66BLDDXGS9hEfAF6HNgXe_Xhm4/view?usp=drivesdk

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 8:13 PM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 5:34 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Stephen Guerin-5

Re: alternative response

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:13 PM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

I believe in a Science that includes individual free will. And a will of a collective.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: alternative response

I’d love to grep through that source code.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 7:42 PM
To: Russell Abbott <[hidden email]>, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:13 PM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

I believe in a Science that includes individual free will. And a will of a collective.

Russ Abbott

Re: alternative response

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Frank, Thanks for the Glymour paper. So often when I read a paper from someone in the Humanities (and Philosophy is considered part of the Humanities) I come away wondering whether the author cared more about how entertaining the paper was than about its actual substance. No doubt that Glymour knows how to entertain! It's a sparking performance.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 7:38 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Good point, Russ. Does quantum mechanics somehow save the day for the free will believers? Here is a book review my erstwhile boss wrote on the topic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JFqDNQ66BLDDXGS9hEfAF6HNgXe_Xhm4/view?usp=drivesdk

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 8:13 PM Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 5:34 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.

I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?

On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like. >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that. Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent. Same.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Are we claiming some people act *as if* XYZ? Or are we claiming that some people XYZ?

Yeah, I know, weird way to ask the question. What I'm actually trying to point out is that in saying things like "communicate over a faulty channel", or landing on an alternate value for an ambiguous term (a branch in the tree), or that one agent might have more state (longer memory) than another, or "sync up" less often or with a smaller scope, what's being said is that error (infidelity or variation might be more proper) can be introduced in *many* ways other than freedom [†].

I highlight "as if" above because it's that truncation error that might be overlooked. However, just because I think these interface mismatches cause the overwhelming MAJORITY of what we might call "free will", it's not necessarily the case that there is no freedom somewhere deep down. Maybe "below Fermi", there is a tiny bit of wiggle room that then *cascades* (purely reactively) through the system.

How far down the rabbit hole we trace the error is an example of itself. Some of us do a lot more tracing than others of us.

[†] I suppose we could learn from the herbal supplements, anti-vax, and "Complementary and Integrative Health" nuts is: One person's freedom is another's stupidity [‡].

[‡] And I'm using "stupidity" in the just-defined jargonal sense alluded to above: truncation error -- aka the inability to fully infer through all the implications of some thing/episode/axiom ... aka the tendency to take metaphors too seriously ... like my inability to remember someone's name or the definition of "dual space" from college algebra.

On 6/14/20 7:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Some people act that way!
>
>> On Jun 14, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, my point is that we act as if we believe we have free will. That was intended to support Nick's claim that everyone seems to believe things science denies.

On 6/14/20 2:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> ... if I am to decide which side of the contradiction to privilege, I would choose the third person point of view. After all, there billions of you and only one of me.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

Glen writes:

< Are we claiming some people act *as if* XYZ? Or are we claiming that some people XYZ? >

I am claiming the latter.

< I highlight "as if" above because it's that truncation error that might be overlooked. However, just because I think these interface mismatches cause the overwhelming MAJORITY of what we might call "free will", it's not necessarily the case that there is no freedom somewhere deep down. Maybe "below Fermi", there is a tiny bit of wiggle room that then *cascades* (purely reactively) through the system. >

How does the free will homunculus transform states? By state I mean all of the function definitions, memory, hyperparameters, etc.?
In a biological system how do the biochemistry and electrodynamics evolve? Does the homunculus get to choose which physics it likes? How does it do that?
It doesn't matter if the system or homunculus has to face uncertainty. That just means the homunculus has to manage risk.
For people to say they "believe in free will" is to say they couldn't, in principle, simulate human social systems with fidelity.

Marcus

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

Hm. First, I'd propose the homunculus is tiny in scope and impact with respect to every other process. I'd even argue that it's so tiny, it doesn't (can't) transform states. Maybe it doesn't have memory at all. It might simply be a random bit flip. And the only time it would matter at all is if the rest of the system in which it's mostly enslaved sits on some fragile cusp where the bit flip matters. Maybe whatever free will we have is vanishingly small. E.g. out of 1 million people, maybe only 1 of them ever did anything of their own free will ... and it was only that one decision when they were 2 years old. Everything else is determined. Second, despite being determined, it's *lossy*, irreversible. And when we use the phrase "free will" in our everyday conversation, we're really talking about that loss, the information lost when we truncate others or others truncate us. The existence of the lossy, truncating collective doesn't preclude the existence of the tiny, tiny impact randomness.

On 6/15/20 9:21 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> How does the free will homunculus transform states? By state I mean all of the function definitions, memory, hyperparameters, etc.?
> In a biological system how do the biochemistry and electrodynamics evolve? Does the homunculus get to choose which physics it likes? How does it do that?
> It doesn't matter if the system or homunculus has to face uncertainty. That just means the homunculus has to manage risk.
> For people to say they "believe in free will" is to say they couldn't, in principle, simulate human social systems with fidelity.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

Digital computing systems have been carefully designed to avoid noise, but it is present in all kinds of analog systems. Whether that noise arises in a deep way from truncation error doesn't begin to get us the everyday intuition about free will.

On 6/15/20, 9:39 AM, "Friam on behalf of glen∉ℂ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:

Hm. First, I'd propose the homunculus is tiny in scope and impact with respect to every other process. I'd even argue that it's so tiny, it doesn't (can't) transform states. Maybe it doesn't have memory at all. It might simply be a random bit flip. And the only time it would matter at all is if the rest of the system in which it's mostly enslaved sits on some fragile cusp where the bit flip matters. Maybe whatever free will we have is vanishingly small. E.g. out of 1 million people, maybe only 1 of them ever did anything of their own free will ... and it was only that one decision when they were 2 years old. Everything else is determined. Second, despite being determined, it's *lossy*, irreversible. And when we use the phrase "free will" in our everyday conversation, we're really talking about that loss, the information lost when we truncate others or others truncate us. The existence of the lossy, truncating collective doesn't preclude the existence of the tiny, tiny impact randomness.

On 6/15/20 9:21 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> How does the free will homunculus transform states? By state I mean all of the function definitions, memory, hyperparameters, etc.?
> In a biological system how do the biochemistry and electrodynamics evolve? Does the homunculus get to choose which physics it likes? How does it do that?
> It doesn't matter if the system or homunculus has to face uncertainty. That just means the homunculus has to manage risk.
> For people to say they "believe in free will" is to say they couldn't, in principle, simulate human social systems with fidelity.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: alternative response

LoL! Yes it does. It *begins* to get us there. Sure, I agree that the high level processes you mentioned need some sense of composition. For example how might scope limitations in biochemical processes percolate up to something like the extracellular matrix? But just because skepticism is warranted, doesn't imply the concept is false. And, sure, by making my proposition, I'm being lazy and parasitic, relying on *your* creativity to make my stupid idea work. But that's not news. >8^D

On 6/15/20 9:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Digital computing systems have been carefully designed to avoid noise, but it is present in all kinds of analog systems. Whether that noise arises in a deep way from truncation error doesn't begin to get us the everyday intuition about free will.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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

123456 ... 9