On 1/26/24 4:18 PM, glen wrote:
You're probably more competent at parsing it than I am, which is why I
said "enjoyed" rather than some other stronger description of my
reaction. But when you say "plain language" and "common sense", I
blanch a bit. I thought they were talking about things like
This was stuck in my mailtool, waiting for me to complete a closing
sentence and hit send...
On 1/22/24 12:46 PM, glen wrote:
Words matter: how ecologists discuss managed and non-managed bees and
birds
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04620-2
Words do matter, acutely in
On 1/26/24 3:13 PM, glen wrote:
I enjoyed this brief assessment of subjective probability/plausibility:
https://home.snafu.de/erich/ibe_2023.pdf
And I kindasortamaybe agree with their conclusion in favor of
"convergence":
"Convergence: Traditional epistemic values can over time yield
Yeah, but it all boils down to what "same way" means. Addiction is canalized by
dopaminergic pathways, right? So if you're canalized to that, then even if there are
small effect differences in the way you react, they might be swamped by the large effect
sameness forced by the need for
On 1/26/24 12:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
We don’t have the same molecular composition from identical histories,
so there is no reason to think we’d all *react* the same way.
is that technically *act* or *re-act*? Like my pachinko analogy, it is
all *re*action, all the way down... no
I just learned about the work of De Finetti who apparently added the
notion of "subjective probability" to the extant body of Bayesian
probability at the time (1937). "Probability is not about the system
but rather about your knowledge of the system"...
From Wikipedia
*Bruno de
We don’t have the same molecular composition from identical histories, so there
is no reason to think we’d all react the same way.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 11:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Breaking
> The more one identifies with some (set of) narrative(s), the less free will
> one has.Interesting. Yes, probably.I believe the question of free will is
> related to the question if we all experience the world in the same way. This
> is also a question we have discussed frequently here at
The concept of causality is so irritating. It's like some kind of cafeteria
style religion, where you pick and choose whatever attribute you like and toss
all the attributes you dislike. So Marcus' identification of uncorrelated
observations speaks directly to SteveS' assignation of an
+1
Every failed communication effort I engage in is followed by my reaction to the
failure. When I've been primed that day/week to be calm and collected, my
reaction is to either try again or politely quit the effort. But when I've been
primed to be reactionary and aggressive, my reaction
For example, my dog has a sequence of actions she takes to indicate she would
like to go outside and pee. If I am asleep, I may not see or hear them.
Nonetheless she appears to have guilt if there is a mistake. Apparent guilt
is just a thing that happens when her intent is not realized.
I don’t think it is the explanation in their case. They are just sociopaths.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 9:32 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will
The person that knows their path is bound, rationally discards the
The person that knows their path is bound, rationally discards the
self-regulation of guilt, and in that sense has more “freedom”.
Yah... that's kinda the vibe I get from DT, Bannon, Stone, Miller and
many of the Jan 6 crowd.
I have a thing with the triad of Blame/Shame/Guilt I think
The person that knows their path is bound, rationally discards the
self-regulation of guilt, and in that sense has more “freedom”.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 8:41 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will
Science
good to hear your "voice", DaveW!
Finally, the ideal of "non-attached" action and the omniscience that
comes with achievement of Satori allows one to consciously and
intentionally take the "correct," non karma accruing, action at every
moment seems like the ultimate 'free will' in the sense
GPT is dead, long live LLMs!
The following is a pretty good (IMO) reflection on what GPT is bad (and
good) for.
https://medium.com/@jordan_gibbs/how-to-not-use-chatgpt-8088ec559681
I've been messing with GPT3/4 and Bard for most of a year now and the
honeymoon is definitely over, not that
Science fiction: *The Traveler*, by John Twelve Hawks is set in a dystopian
(near future) 'Big Brother' world of absolute and constant surveillance. The
hero, a "Traveler" uses a random number generator to make every action choice,
else be eliminated by the evil forces controlling the world.
One of the usual claims is that science couldn’t occur without independent
observations. I would co-opt Glen’s rhetoric here about parallax. What’s
need is largely uncorrelated observations.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 8:07 AM
To: The Friday
LLMs are causal models. Science is about building causal models.It is
bizarre to me that there are scientists that carve out a special case for their
own mind. Even people like Scott Aaronson talk this way. As far as I can
tell, it is just vanity.
From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve
On 1/25/24 13:34, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Could you say that a strong character or personality reduce our free
will too, because they restrict our choices and decisions?
On 1/26/24 8:18 AM, glen wrote:
Absolutely. If we parse out what character or personality means, we
might come to the idea
Does ChatGPT have choices?
I "can't help myself", so here goes:
And in the spirit of recursion, I fed my text to both GPT-4 and Bard
asking for a "concise summary"
Bard: "I'm just a language model,so I can't help you with that."
and
GPT:
"The text is a contemplative reflection on
Does ChatGPT have choices?
I "can't help myself", so here goes:
I've been reading Sopolsky's "Behave" which paves the runway (or exit
ramp) for his recent "Determined". His deep background in
neuroendocrinology leads to some very compelling arguments which pretty
much degenerate to:
The choice could be drawn from a deterministic random number generation, which
I claim could not be discriminated from a quantum random number generator in
any meaningful way.
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 7:19 AM
To:
23 matches
Mail list logo
