loopiness (again)
Locked
12
12
 
|
In light of the idea that we don't talk about complexity here on friam, this article: Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html triggered my itch. In it, Sykes says: > As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors. I've relied on the argument that it's up to a community to police itself. I suppose it's a remnant of my libertarianism, whose mantra (back then... don't know about now) was "self-governance". After all, the libertarian (or anarchist, for that matter) rhetoric crumbles without self-governance. My main target for this rhetoric has always been atheists. The tendency of atheists to claim that atheism isn't a "belief system" allows them to abdicate on their responsibility to police themselves. It's just laziness. But the reason I'm posting this, now, is to posit that the concept of self-governance relies fundamentally on a coherent "self". In our post-fact world, to which communities does any particular person belong? ... to the ones you think you belong to? ... to the ones that respond to your calls to action? How do I know if I actually belong to a community or if I just "identify" with it? My boss at one of the dot-coms I hired into once told me that I have less power to invoke my network than I think I have. (It's most likely he was attributing to me what he attributes to himself because he seems to think he knows more about me than he demonstrates. ... but why he said it is irrelevant.) I rarely "invoke my network", except to argue or get drunk. 8^) But it raises the question of whether I even have a (substantial) network and whether I'm even part of any communities at all. By what means do _parts_ represent their wholes? Isn't this just another version of Russell's paradox? -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
Glen -
Great article and great insight! One fine gem is the fact that the generally accepted most brilliant Chess Player of all time, Garry Kasparov is a Tweeter and is one of Vlad's (Putin, not Burachynsky) greatest critics! I think we need to put Garry up against Donald in Chess Boxing, with a 30 second opportunity to tweet between rounds? We'll see who get's whose ass handed to whom in all three forms! I can't imagine him lasting 3 rounds in any of the three categories! And it's hard to tell convincing lies with a fat lip, two black eyes and the whole Twitter Record. Trump-bashing aside, I like your point(s) about self-policing/governance and membership in a community. I think community membership it *is* a slippery but key topic. I think we are suffering from a massive "tragedy of the commons", where facts and truth, while somewhat mutable *are* part of the commons. Or perhaps more to the point, Language is part of the commons, and it has been pretty thoroughly mangled in many quarters. Your distinction between "identifying with" and "participating in" is particularly apt. In our modern culture, it feels as if our consumerism has lead us to "identifying with" as a substitute for "participating in"... Further in-depth analysis seems worthwhile. - Steve On 2/6/17 5:21 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > In light of the idea that we don't talk about complexity here on friam, this article: > > Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html > > triggered my itch. In it, Sykes says: > > > As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors. > > I've relied on the argument that it's up to a community to police itself. I suppose it's a remnant of my libertarianism, whose mantra (back then... don't know about now) was "self-governance". After all, the libertarian (or anarchist, for that matter) rhetoric crumbles without self-governance. My main target for this rhetoric has always been atheists. The tendency of atheists to claim that atheism isn't a "belief system" allows them to abdicate on their responsibility to police themselves. It's just laziness. > > But the reason I'm posting this, now, is to posit that the concept of self-governance relies fundamentally on a coherent "self". In our post-fact world, to which communities does any particular person belong? ... to the ones you think you belong to? ... to the ones that respond to your calls to action? How do I know if I actually belong to a community or if I just "identify" with it? > > My boss at one of the dot-coms I hired into once told me that I have less power to invoke my network than I think I have. (It's most likely he was attributing to me what he attributes to himself because he seems to think he knows more about me than he demonstrates. ... but why he said it is irrelevant.) I rarely "invoke my network", except to argue or get drunk. 8^) But it raises the question of whether I even have a (substantial) network and whether I'm even part of any communities at all. > > By what means do _parts_ represent their wholes? Isn't this just another version of Russell's paradox? > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
< In our post-fact world, to which communities does any particular person belong? ... to the ones you think you belong to? ... to the ones that respond to your calls to action? >
I could say I belong to the `community' of some large code projects, e.g. on github. I share an understanding of stuff that other people also share some understanding. It isn't important I ever meet these people, but if I do, we can have a conversation about our understanding of those artifacts, and how they are useful or not. Surprisingly, to me, we can do a pretty good job of communicating even if when have different native natural languages. We may get along fine, but really our relationship is not built around each other. Now, my folks belong to the `community' of their church. The community does various things like alert one another to illnesses and risks to the members of the community. The community has some group optimization tactics. If some family isn't living up to expected norms, they are helped or maybe weakly shamed. They have modest funds for deserving or needy students to help them go to college. (It isn't necessarily be inward-focused awards, but it can be.) I would say they are negotiating or evolving a set of values as much as they are performing a practical function for themselves, e.g. feeding the elderly in the community. Interpersonally, I know that the community is far from harmonious in an all-to-all sense. There are factions. So why else do people stay in a community if they often don't like the people? One possible explanation is that it gives them useful memetic material. It gives them a way to order and understand their world, and that perhaps without it they would feel lost? From the point of view of mutual information or excess entropy, there are similarities. I don't really have a comprehensive understanding of all parts of these codes. I rely on maintainers or other domain experts to develop arguments about what is good and what is bad. Without that ongoing negotiation, and resulting work, chaos would break out and the code would be at risk. But I can't help feeling there is something very different too. I can't quite grasp the urgency with which their community is maintained. With a large, useful code base, there is always motivation for individuals or organizations to keep things working. Motivation like you can be paid to do it, or that problems disrupt other work that is motivated somehow. I would say large code bases are much harder to maintain in some respects than church congregations. Decisions can have big, dangerous unintended consequences. For example, security problems in the Linux kernel can and do stop days of work at a time at large organizations. Getting back to the tolerance of fake news, it seems there is a very urgent need to not feel lost. What does it mean, these poor folks from the midwest that say "I just want it to be the way it was"? (I remember my grandparents saying things to this effect, but with less exasperation.) I guess it means there was a time when they believed they understood the world. Gosh, is there anything sadder than that? The appearance of a authoritative control system somehow is more important than actual functional governance. One way to feed this need is to proliferate ungrounded memetic material -- plausible fiction. Because there is this apparent urgent spiritual need for consensus, they'll lap the stories right up. And perhaps the others that fail to find this consensus, are the ones that are steadily increasing their opiate doses towards their demise? Also, I don’t see the relationship between communities, and those that make a call-to-action. There are organizations that are more or less potent. I just want the gas I'm contributing to the bulldozer will send it in sort of the direction I would like. In part, we've got Trump now because too many people couldn't get excited unless they got to drive the damned bulldozer. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 02/06/2017 07:32 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > One fine gem is the fact that the generally accepted most brilliant Chess Player of all time, Garry Kasparov is a Tweeter and is one of Vlad's (Putin, not Burachynsky) greatest critics! Yep. I didn't realize how much of a public intellectual he was till that article. > Trump-bashing aside, I like your point(s) about self-policing/governance and membership in a community. I think community membership it *is* a slippery but key topic. I think we are suffering from a massive "tragedy of the commons", where facts and truth, while somewhat mutable *are* part of the commons. Or perhaps more to the point, Language is part of the commons, and it has been pretty thoroughly mangled in many quarters. Very cool. I hadn't thought of the problem as one of the commons. My Trump-voting neighbor interrupted my yard work sometime before the election complaining about how the internet (and TV and phones) separated us from each other. I mumbled something about urban vs. rural populations and tried to go back to work. But I think there's something important there. Our increasing ability to choose our own bubble, albeit in a weak identify-with way, not a member-of way, is a large part of the problem. I think Nick's "problematizers" are really just opportunists jumping into that impoverished medium. > Your distinction between "identifying with" and "participating in" is particularly apt. In our modern culture, it feels as if our consumerism has lead us to "identifying with" as a substitute for "participating in"... Further in-depth analysis seems worthwhile. The locals who manage our part of the city keep trying to put me into some position of responsibility. I continue to tell them that I don't have the right temperament for such a position, mostly because I enjoy both contrarianism and a bit of anarchy ... let's call it "annealing" ... adding enough heat to disrupt the current order just enough to (perhaps) bring it back into a better optimum. They're assuming my persnickety dialogue is an attempt to do things right or find the truth. But it's actually just heat. It's interesting that _they_ see me as belonging to the community because I participate, whereas I see me as simply twitching for a good time. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
The first 2/3 of what you write focuses on shared understanding as a basis for community. Perhaps that's an important part. But underlying both the code communities and congregation, you also mention organization, adopting issues, making code changes, transfer of funds, perhaps cooking/delivering meals, etc.
I don't think Trumpism is caused even slightly by too many people wanting to _drive_ the tractor. I think it's caused by a decoupling of words/understanding from action. Too few people are _willing_ to drive the tractor. The identity politics, I think, has much more to do with merely identifying with a (fictitous) demographic. When such shared understanding is tightly coupled with acting/behaving, at least in large groups, a proper community is formed. Trumpism is caused by too much identifying-with and too little participating-in. Hell, Trump himself is finally learning that lounging around in your bathrobe, tweeting about SNL and CNN is not enough. You actually have to read the executive orders you sign, perhaps even help craft them. It's only by actions that he'll discover whether or not he and Bannon are members of the same community or not. p.s. My scare quotes are fatigued. 8^) But pretty much every instance where I write "understanding", it should be in quotes because it's not actual understanding. It's illusory understanding. Actual understanding, I think, is built upon shared action. What one thinks is vanishingly irrelevant compared to what one does. On 02/06/2017 09:42 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I could say I belong to the `community' of some large code projects, e.g. on github. I share an understanding of stuff that other people also share some understanding. It isn't important I ever meet these people, but if I do, we can have a conversation about our understanding of those artifacts, and how they are useful or not. Surprisingly, to me, we can do a pretty good job of communicating even if when have different native natural languages. We may get along fine, but really our relationship is not built around each other. > > Now, my folks belong to the `community' of their church. The community does various things like alert one another to illnesses and risks to the members of the community. The community has some group optimization tactics. If some family isn't living up to expected norms, they are helped or maybe weakly shamed. They have modest funds for deserving or needy students to help them go to college. (It isn't necessarily be inward-focused awards, but it can be.) I would say they are negotiating or evolving a set of values as much as they are performing a practical function for themselves, e.g. feeding the elderly in the community. Interpersonally, I know that the community is far from harmonious in an all-to-all sense. There are factions. So why else do people stay in a community if they often don't like the people? One possible explanation is that it gives them useful memetic material. It gives them a way to order and understand their world, and that perhaps without it they would feel lost? > > From the point of view of mutual information or excess entropy, there are similarities. I don't really have a comprehensive understanding of all parts of these codes. I rely on maintainers or other domain experts to develop arguments about what is good and what is bad. Without that ongoing negotiation, and resulting work, chaos would break out and the code would be at risk. > > But I can't help feeling there is something very different too. I can't quite grasp the urgency with which their community is maintained. With a large, useful code base, there is always motivation for individuals or organizations to keep things working. Motivation like you can be paid to do it, or that problems disrupt other work that is motivated somehow. I would say large code bases are much harder to maintain in some respects than church congregations. Decisions can have big, dangerous unintended consequences. For example, security problems in the Linux kernel can and do stop days of work at a time at large organizations. > > Getting back to the tolerance of fake news, it seems there is a very urgent need to not feel lost. What does it mean, these poor folks from the midwest that say "I just want it to be the way it was"? (I remember my grandparents saying things to this effect, but with less exasperation.) I guess it means there was a time when they believed they understood the world. Gosh, is there anything sadder than that? The appearance of a authoritative control system somehow is more important than actual functional governance. > > One way to feed this need is to proliferate ungrounded memetic material -- plausible fiction. Because there is this apparent urgent spiritual need for consensus, they'll lap the stories right up. And perhaps the others that fail to find this consensus, are the ones that are steadily increasing their opiate doses towards their demise? > > Also, I don’t see the relationship between communities, and those that make a call-to-action. There are organizations that are more or less potent. I just want the gas I'm contributing to the bulldozer will send it in sort of the direction I would like. In part, we've got Trump now because too many people couldn't get excited unless they got to drive the damned bulldozer. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
< I don't think Trumpism is caused even slightly by too many people wanting to _drive_ the tractor. I think it's caused by a decoupling of words/understanding from action. > I meant on the left. Progressives wanted a progress story rather than attending to the danger of regression. Result, bad turnout. Bernie or bust, etc. On the main topic, it seems to me that if we view individuals as bit strings (e.g. control programs + individual and cultural data), then it is easy to see that a composition function of two bit strings yielding the same length bit string will have less information than a function that, say, appends the bit strings. On the other hand if each bit string carries none of the content of the neighbors in the community, then the combined function will be fragile to failures of either individual. And either individual will need some shared bits just to coordinate their union -- to show up at the church at the same time and hand out duties, say. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 02/07/2017 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I meant on the left. Progressives wanted a progress story rather than attending to the danger of regression. Result, bad turnout. Bernie or bust, etc. Ah, OK. > On the main topic, it seems to me that if we view individuals as bit strings (e.g. control programs + individual and cultural data), then it is easy to see that a composition function of two bit strings yielding the same length bit string will have less information than a function that, say, appends the bit strings. On the other hand if each bit string carries none of the content of the neighbors in the community, then the combined function will be fragile to failures of either individual. And either individual will need some shared bits just to coordinate their union -- to show up at the church at the same time and hand out duties, say. Yes, but the problem with that example lies in the assumption of a distinction between reflective (loopy) referents of parts of the bit strings. Yes, if individuals were flat/thin, then relatively simple operations like union or intersection would speak to both shared understanding and shared action. But individuals, by virtue of their loopiness, are deep/thick, loops within loops. And that loopiness doesn't stop at one's skin via extended phenotype (technology, language, etc.). This is one of the fundamental criticisms of the concept of memes. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." There are no shared ideas; no shared understanding. There is only shared action, mediated by some medium, which is why Steve's broaching of the commons is important. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen, somehow I missed your original post. Do you mind re-posting again? Thanks so much. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote: On 02/07/2017 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [hidden email] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 02/07/2017 11:36 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Glen, somehow I missed your original post. Do you mind re-posting again? I have that problem a lot, too. It seems to have made the archive. I wonder if there are issues with the mail queue at friam.com? I used to rely on the gmane copy as well. I'll have to see if they've restored their systems, yet. http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-February/048666.html -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
< This is one of the fundamental criticisms of the concept of memes. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." There are no shared ideas; no shared understanding. There is only shared action, mediated by some medium, which is why Steve's broaching of the commons is important.> It seems like you are just saying that the phenotype is not knowable, and that there is no inherent meaning until many individuals act and there are consequences. No problem with that. The phenotype is coupled to the environment of the community members, so it needs to be carried along as an instantaneous parameter or dynamically evolving state object. Even so, it seems to me that the individuals, via their control program (which also can be updated), can update the bits that relate the action to the outcome. It may or may not be the case that the individuals develop the same representation of that correlated event, but it seems unlikely that memory would take on a non-compressible representation involving a hugely different number of bits. I speculate that the encoding could be normalized across individuals to some common subset and that one would find some individuals encoding more or less detail and that those encodings could be reliably mapped to words like blue or soccer ball or delight. Given the post-fact world, we'd expect to find predicates with free terms to be grounded randomly against fictive chaff terms, so long as there weren't immediate pain cause by doing so. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 02/07/2017 11:44 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems like you are just saying that the phenotype is not knowable, and that there is no inherent meaning until many individuals act and there are consequences. No problem with that. The phenotype is coupled to the environment of the community members, so it needs to be carried along as an instantaneous parameter or dynamically evolving state object. Well, I did conflate the two issues. Sorry. The simpler issue is the co-evolution of the individuals and their co-construction of the environment. The more complex issue is that individuals are self-referential. The implications of that self-reference might be trivial. But lots of people have gone to great lengths to address whether or not it _is_ trivial. (E.g. Rosen, Wolpert, Gödel, etc.) Even our own Nick has tried to distinguish pseudo-circular from circular reasoning. So, whether individuals _can_ be flattened is interesting. And it relates to this conversation is the extent to which that depth allows or facilitates some sort of semantic slippage... ambiguous grounding of symbols so that things like fake news can prematurely register with the individual. Or so that reprehensible speech like we see from Trump can be chalked off as a joke or "locker room talk". Or so that an individual can identify with a group solely through reddit or youtube comments. > Even so, it seems to me that the individuals, via their control program (which also can be updated), can update the bits that relate the action to the outcome. It may or may not be the case that the individuals develop the same representation of that correlated event, but it seems unlikely that memory would take on a non-compressible representation involving a hugely different number of bits. I speculate that the encoding could be normalized across individuals to some common subset and that one would find some individuals encoding more or less detail and that those encodings could be reliably mapped to words like blue or soccer ball or delight. Right. That speculation is reasonable. But what I'm trying to distinguish is whether or not such a commonality/normalization can occur _without_ actions, solely with thoughts, memes, and non-face-to-face words. I think not. I think the actions in the richer medium of meat space is required for that normalization. > Given the post-fact world, we'd expect to find predicates with free terms to be grounded randomly against fictive chaff terms, so long as there weren't immediate pain cause by doing so. Yes, but not just immediate pain, immediate anything (head-nodding, facial expressions, interruptions, etc.). I can recall back in school, walking across campus with a friend of mine who, being an atheist, was very well versed in Judaism. I made some mistake in the way I pronounced Hava Nagila and he flat out laughed at me. That immediate correction toward consensus reality became canonical to me at the time. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
"But what I'm trying to distinguish is whether or not such a commonality/normalization can occur _without_ actions, solely with thoughts, memes, and non-face-to-face words. I think not. I think the actions in the richer medium of meat space is required for that normalization."
For a robot built on digital technology, sensor data would be quantized to bits, thus non face-to-face words. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 02/07/2017 01:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> For a robot built on digital technology, sensor data would be quantized to bits, thus non face-to-face words. I don't think so. Proprioception is a critical type of sensor data, especially enteroception. While it may seem like the robot's entire sensorimotor space can be flattened, I'm not convinced. I even doubt the parallelism theorem (that any parallel computation can be perfectly simulated by a sequential one) when we're talking about _multiple_ processors interacting in a cross-trophic (time and space) way with each other and the environment. To argue that all of what's inside can be adequately represented by what goes in or out (holographic principle) is fideistic. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Ok, one could imagine thousands of very lightweight processors that independently process very high resolution sensor data, and share it asynchronously. Also one could show that the sensors were as good or better than human sensitivity. All of the events could be tagged with very high precision atomic clocks and logged. Then the events could be sorted by that tag. Somehow `flattening' is important to you here, but I haven't figured out why. Anyway, once flattening was accomplished to understand what was going on it would just have to be unflattened again, like using some communication sequential processes formalism.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) On 02/07/2017 01:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > For a robot built on digital technology, sensor data would be quantized to bits, thus non face-to-face words. I don't think so. Proprioception is a critical type of sensor data, especially enteroception. While it may seem like the robot's entire sensorimotor space can be flattened, I'm not convinced. I even doubt the parallelism theorem (that any parallel computation can be perfectly simulated by a sequential one) when we're talking about _multiple_ processors interacting in a cross-trophic (time and space) way with each other and the environment. To argue that all of what's inside can be adequately represented by what goes in or out (holographic principle) is fideistic. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Right. But what you've done, here, is remove any lossy compression like what happens when humans [mis]identify with some demographic. Your robots are sharing their information in some perfect sense. And by doing that, you've _baked_ in the flattening. Your compression is non-lossy. And while I admit it may eventually be feasible to do such a thing (with robots), things don't generally happen that way. Reality as far as we know it is satisficing, not optimizing. So, we'll start with lossy compression as well as really faulty devices. To go a bit further in my rhetoric, it's plausible that the lossy and faulty integration is necessary for robustness. (Although I can't rely on it, I at least have Hewitt to cite: http://www.powells.com/book/inconsistency-robustness-9781848901599/61-1) On 02/07/2017 01:42 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ok, one could imagine thousands of very lightweight processors that independently process very high resolution sensor data, and share it asynchronously. Also one could show that the sensors were as good or better than human sensitivity. All of the events could be tagged with very high precision atomic clocks and logged. Then the events could be sorted by that tag. Somehow `flattening' is important to you here, but I haven't figured out why. Anyway, once flattening was accomplished to understand what was going on it would just have to be unflattened again, like using some communication sequential processes formalism. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I wasn't referring to interacting robots, I was referring to one robot. Doesn’t matter.. I'd say the same thing about a set of robots too. They could all broadcast their atomic-clock logs to some central server and a partial ordering of events could be established. It could be completely passive and they wouldn't need to know they were doing it.
As for lossy compression, one could look to physiology research for mathematical models of how it actually happens in animals or humans, and then have the robots simulate those models to introduce lossy compression. After doing all this, there will still be some globally addressable bit string, that is either coupled to other bit strings or not. I don’t see why it matters in some deep way if there is a partial or total ordering, except to the extent the robots would have some retry events. Like when people talk at nearly the same time and one of them waits for the other. -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) Right. But what you've done, here, is remove any lossy compression like what happens when humans [mis]identify with some demographic. Your robots are sharing their information in some perfect sense. And by doing that, you've _baked_ in the flattening. Your compression is non-lossy. And while I admit it may eventually be feasible to do such a thing (with robots), things don't generally happen that way. Reality as far as we know it is satisficing, not optimizing. So, we'll start with lossy compression as well as really faulty devices. To go a bit further in my rhetoric, it's plausible that the lossy and faulty integration is necessary for robustness. (Although I can't rely on it, I at least have Hewitt to cite: http://www.powells.com/book/inconsistency-robustness-9781848901599/61-1) On 02/07/2017 01:42 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ok, one could imagine thousands of very lightweight processors that independently process very high resolution sensor data, and share it asynchronously. Also one could show that the sensors were as good or better than human sensitivity. All of the events could be tagged with very high precision atomic clocks and logged. Then the events could be sorted by that tag. Somehow `flattening' is important to you here, but I haven't figured out why. Anyway, once flattening was accomplished to understand what was going on it would just have to be unflattened again, like using some communication sequential processes formalism. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Heh, it's the "except to the extent the robots would have some retry events" that is the subject of the conversation. 8^) The point is that meat space is necessary for truth seeking. And the critical thing about meat space is that it is _not_ loopy ... at least we assume it's not loopy. Hence, no matter how deep the individuals are, they can come to a common ground through _actions_. But we can't (necessarily) say the same thing about thoughts/ideas/concepts/memes. Therefore, going back to the original topic of how a part can represent and discover its wholes, it has to determine it's membership through actions, not words. On 02/07/2017 02:04 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I don’t see why it matters in some deep way if there is a partial or total ordering, except to the extent the robots would have some retry events. Like when people talk at nearly the same time and one of them waits for the other. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
"Hence, no matter how deep the individuals are, they can come to a common ground through _actions_. But we can't (necessarily) say the same thing about thoughts/ideas/concepts/memes."
Boycotts, stock trades, votes, and pulling down of walls with pickup trucks are all actions. We can also learn from previous experience or history how certain events play out and form approximate models in meme space. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
But the point was how do you know what communities to which you belong, or not. And, moreover, when we talk about expectations of a community to "police its own worst actors", how does a putative member of a community know whether an actor needs policing or correction. My claim is that none of that can occur in meme space. Boycotts, stock trades, votes, etc are required to establish the part-whole relationship. On 02/07/2017 02:24 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Boycotts, stock trades, votes, and pulling down of walls with pickup trucks are all actions. We can also learn from previous experience or history how certain events play out and form approximate models in meme space. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Why is an organizational concept needed here? I threw out a couple examples of what one could call a community, but really I think it is a silly, vague concept that points to some kind of psychological flaw or need people have for mirroring. Can't one individual just punch another one (or whatever) and that will be an action? Do we talk about expectations of a community to police its own worst actors? Until there is enough experience with punching, etc. there are no learnable patterns and no way to ground meaning.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:31 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again) But the point was how do you know what communities to which you belong, or not. And, moreover, when we talk about expectations of a community to "police its own worst actors", how does a putative member of a community know whether an actor needs policing or correction. My claim is that none of that can occur in meme space. Boycotts, stock trades, votes, etc are required to establish the part-whole relationship. On 02/07/2017 02:24 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Boycotts, stock trades, votes, and pulling down of walls with pickup trucks are all actions. We can also learn from previous experience or history how certain events play out and form approximate models in meme space. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |