I was responding to the example you gave about the coffee cup. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 10:38 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t think I meant to take any of its uses. I meant to take a > pragmaticist position on knowledge: that the *only* consequence that > follows for saying that X knows Y is that you can count on X to act as if Y > were the case, and there is no other. > > > > N > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2020 10:34 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] At the limits of thought > > > > To take every possible utterance of the know and it's conjugations as > evidence for what it means seems weak to me. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 9:49 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dave, > > At the risk of doing a very shallow dive into your deep pool, here: > > I tried to do some careful thinking some months back about the concept of > "knowledge" and came to the conclusion that it's traditional philosophical > definition -- justified true belief -- is absurd. Now, I just think of > knowledge is just "strong belief." "I could have sworn that I left my > wallet on the dining room table." I KNEW where it was. > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] At the limits of thought > > Glen, > > I waited a long time in hopes that others would comment and pursue the > issues being raised here. The subject matter is near and dear to my heart > as well as current explorations. > > The first article prompted the following: > > We speak of "knowing" in different ways: > 1- I know that 2+2=4. > 2-I know that the sun will rise later this morning. (It is still quite > dark outside as I write this.) 3-I know what kind of clothing I should wear > on "Casual Friday." > 4-I know how to move to intercept and catch a high fly ball. > 5-I know that there is a God. > > Are there multiple modes of "knowledge acquisition" behind these > statements? I believe that there are. Among them: the formalist/algorithmic > mode that underlies most of science (following the lead of the first paper > you cited); another the "story absorption" mode by which you acquired all > your knowledge of the culture(s) within which you operate and how to > conform your behavior to cultural norms; and the kind of "direct > perception" of the mystic. > > My reaction to the understanding versus algorithm paper tended to ignore > the binary choice presented by the authors, but to interpret the issue > raised in the paper in terms of — there are multiple modes of knowledge > acquisition but, since the Age of Reason, we have neglected our > understanding of all but the "scientific" mode and, as we reach the limits > of that mode, we are left adrift in a sea of incomprehension because we > have neglected the modes of though that might have led to comprehension and > understanding. > > The Master and His Emissary, by Iain McGilchrist argues, I believe, a > parallel point. > > The second article argues, "context matters." This supports long held > beliefs; beliefs that underpin my criticism of software engineering (the > context of the domain is irrelevant as long as you have set of complete, > unambiguous, and consistent requirements) and AI (one kind of context is > embodiment and an AI lacks such context). I do not mean embodiment in a > human body, but embodiment in the world. > > I hope that others will take up this discussion. > > davew > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, at 3:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > I suppose it's delusional synergy that I saw Krakauer's essay the same > > (sleepless) morning I saw this: > > > > Experience Grounds Language > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10151 > > > > And since all the news all the time is about the parasite, I can't > > help but think Krakauer's wrong in the main thread that understanding > > and prediction are distinct. In Bisk et al above, the current machine > > learning algorithms are parasitic. Their predictions are akin to state > > space reconstruction algorithms that posit some deep structure that's > > expressive enough to mimic our linguistic output, but that's very > > different from our (internal) state machines. (And to be clear, our > > internal state machines are just as opaque as those of the machines. > > That we think our state machines are "understanding" whereas the > > machines' state machines are opaque, however predictive, is illusory > > ... or perhaps anthropocentric.) And although I'd claim the machines, > > like SARS-CoV-2, *understand*, it's *what* they understand that > > differs, not *that* they don't understand. > > > > The machines' algorithms are parasitic because they depend deeply on > > our state machines' output (WS1 and WS2 in the Bisk paper). But as the > > machines' scopes grow (from disembodied binaries pushed by hardware > > clocks to fully parallel, sensorimotor manifolds in real or virtual > > space and time), the machines' understanding will be less opaque > > because it will be less parasitic and more autonomous ... in the same > > way we go "Awwww" when one of Karl Sims' virtual creatures walks > > across the virtual landscape. They'll still be as opaque as, say, > > Nick's mind is to mine ... which is pretty damned opaque. But it'll be > > much easier for us to "see where they're coming from" because they, > > like us, will have grown up poking around in the world. > > > > On 4/22/20 8:01 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > > > > > https://aeon.co/essays/will-brains-or-algorithms-rule-the-kingdom-of > > > -science > > > > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- > > ... .... . ... > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > > 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 unsubscribe > 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 > unsubscribe 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 > unsubscribe 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 unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
