Your saying that implies that you know what I mean. QED This is trolling.
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:29 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > FRANK! I have always admitted to the existence of the mind. I just don’t > think it’s what you think it is. > > > > Nick > > > > 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, May 18, 2020 3:21 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden > > > > At least you admit the existence of a mind. > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:13 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Glen, > > I wonder if this conversation is an example of itself. I do not possess > the knowledge, language, etc to understand what you are saying, here, hence > it is "hidden". A color blind person lacks the code to see the numeral > hidden within the diagram. Is this a fair oversimplification of the > concept you are getting at? > > Mind you, I have much less of a problem with "hidden" than I do with > "inside", which I think launches discussants into an endlessly useless > confusion between the mind and the brain, the latter being > uncontroversially enclosed within the skull, the latter being distributed > across the environment and actions of the person whose mind it is. > > 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 u?l? ? > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 1:16 PM > To: FriAM <[email protected]> > Subject: [FRIAM] hidden > > > The best layman's example of what I mean by "hidden X" (where X means a > category of things ... "states", "behaviors", "information", "spaces", > etc.) relies on steganography (which SteveS mentions a lot). But in last > week's Zoom, I mentioned to Jon (in response to his query to Frank about > RSA-encryption::mind) that I think homomorphic encryption is a better > analogy (to mind). But my own reliance on the *opacity* of the boundary > prevents me from communicating my point clearly, especially re: some kind > of holographic principle for modeling a person's internal world via their > observable behavior. > > So, even though I still think homomorphic encryption is an excellent > analogy for the mind, a particular *type* of steganography is an actual > example of (not a metaphor or analogy for) information hiding. Here are 2 > concrete examples: 1) hiding one image "inside" [†] another image, and 2) > hiding a QR code "inside" an image. > > Here are eg links: > (1) > https://towardsdatascience.com/steganography-hiding-an-image-inside-another-77ca66b2acb1 > (2) > https://projet.liris.cnrs.fr/imagine/pub/proceedings/ICPR-2016/media/files/0542.pdf > > (1) and (2) are examples (again, NOT metaphor [‡]) of a type I've tried to > call "thin models". Everything about the model is written right there on > the surface of it ... plain as day. All you have to do is *read it > correctly*. My canonical example is a typical (system of) ODE model. > Barring something pathological like it being "stiff" or whatever and > forcing a wise choice of integrator, a typical ODE model is very thin, > everything you need to know is right there in front of you. Of course, the > normal form of some expression can *hide* the intent of the modeler because > the modeler will group terms (bounded by operators like + and *) > mechanistically ... to communicate some sort of meta- or semantic > information about the model's components. The normalized form can hide the > modeler's intent through (e.g. algebric) transformations. But no > information is actually lost ... that apparent lossage is just an artifact > of the way the model is read ... just like in (1) and (2) above. > > I hope that helps explain my (perhaps perverse, but I don't think so) use > of the word "hidden". And I'm hoping that the 2 links will help with > not-really-mathematical-though-it-may-look-mathematical understanding. > > To get from this discussion to the one about scale, celery mechanisms, and > telescopes, all you need is to imagine either (1) or (2) with your phone in > between you and the image. Without the phone, with the phone, without the > phone. The hop-distance (in transformations, here the main one being the > phone) from your eyeball to the image *measures* the hiddenness of the > hidden information. The embedded information is 1 hop away. Maybe you can > imagine the hidden information is reversed so not only do you need the > phone, but you need to look at your phone in the mirror. Then the hidden > image would be 2 hops away, 2 transforms away. Etc. > > If you've read this far, thanks. I value the opportunity to clarify the > idea (even if I don't believe it). > > > > [†] Please dampen your *trigger* on the word "inside". An example of what > I mean, here, is something like a string of characters being "inside" a > word ... e.g. the letter "i" is inside the word "sit". It's only "inside" > if you process the string in a subset of ways. The same is true of both (1) > and (2) above. If you reallyreallyreally can't dampen your trigger and are > so impulsive that you simply can't think without arguing about the meaning > of that one little word, then change the word "inside" to something like > "side-by-side with" or "bracketed by" -- thx Jon -- or whatever you need to > do to force yourself to grok the idea. To boot, with the QR code, example, > it's arguable whether the QR code is inside the image or the image is > inside the QR code ... just like if you read "sit" as {s}i{t}, then you > could say "i" is outside but "s" and "t" are inside ... whatever. > > [‡] Except in the sense of some kind of set closure or equivalence class > where all the elements of the class are analogs for every other member of > the class. Extensional equivalence via intensional metaphor?!? [ptouie] >8^D > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > 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 > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > 505 670-9918 > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > 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 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... 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/
