Being that LLMs are probabilistic may get the user of a LLM in some trouble
here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_and_Quranic_narratives
From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 12:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re:
"Truth" is well defined. It is the set of propositions which assert that
what is the case is the case. Determining whether a given proposition is
true may be difficult.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, 10:23 AM glen
On 10/9/23 9:24 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I mean there are some categories that are disjoint or mostly disjoint.
Similarly, the grounding is not total. I agree that value systems like MAGA
have power, but they don't have truth. There is no truth. All there is, is
power, which is my
Glen -
In the spirit of succinctness (succinctity?) my intuition aligns with
your argument here about the relevance/utility of flex/slop... I think
this is a corollary to Deacon's "absential" but to pursue it more
formally would puncture the walls of my aspired /succintity/.
At the risk
People can interact with the world and find groundings for symbols using their
senses. Some of their semantic bindings may be learned from works of fiction.
Some of their bindings may be copied from other people that did the same.
Other bindings may be from planting things in dirt or
OK, I agree, mostly. But "truth" is no more well-defined than any other
specific grounding style. E.g. the insistence that there is truth in fiction. There is
affective truth in MAGA, just like there's truth in whatever justification Hamas might
give for its reaction to the bloodshed of the
I mean there are some categories that are disjoint or mostly disjoint.
Similarly, the grounding is not total. I agree that value systems like MAGA
have power, but they don't have truth. There is no truth. All there is, is
power, which is my point. QM and demagoguery are both tools, with
As usual, there's too much in your post for me to follow a thread. But I can cherry-pick
this one: affect - or what it is to be about/for something. An option is to think in
terms of soft types such that the lower order objects over which the higher order
operators ... uh, operate, have some
Hm. Even with the caveat of "generally", I think this complementarity argument fails
because all the various categories are not disjoint. And it's the (somewhat) lack(ing) of
grounding/binding that allows the mixing of the modes. I'd tried to point this out by using
"computation", the idea
