You may consider the question closed as soon as you tell me the name of my 6th grade classmate. :-)
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:28 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > My mind doesn't feel trivialized, Jon. I like being an example--of most > things that I am. > > Frank > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:56 PM Jon Zingale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> EricS, >> >> Philosophically, I most closely identify with what I perhaps could call >> phenomenological-materialism. For me all ideas we have, we have exactly >> because they are *afforded* by the world. There may not be unicorns, but >> horses and animals with horns do exist. Unicorns then are *afforded*. >> The role of >> the trump card in a game of bridge† is nowhere to be found in the atomic >> structure of the card, but the role is *afforded* by our world. Straight >> lines >> and symmetry groups may be nowhere measured, but are exactly accessible >> to us because we exist in a world which *affords* them. For me, this is >> how I >> thinly justify not needing a spiritual or platonic meta-physics. Also on >> a personal >> level, I *do* believe that mind is public. I am interested in following >> this line, in part, >> because I wish to understand exactly how wrong I am. >> >> While Tononi (in the development of his IIT) >> <https://www.academia.edu/39597783/Integrated_information_theory_of_consciousness_an_updated_account> >> aims to be very clear about >> the *reducibility floor* of consciousness, he also puts forth positive >> assertions >> about what consciousness is/isn't. For example, Tononi claims that >> *The internetis not conscious exactly because it isn't fully integrated*. >> The technical details of >> his concept of *fully integrated* can be summarized as the observation >> that when I >> go to a wikipedia page there aren't bits of my email and other webpages >> mixed in. >> He, like I believe we are attempting here, is working to develop a formal >> model of >> consciousness. It may be that we are committing the sin of naming things >> and >> abstracting, and that we will ultimately have in our hands nothing but a >> silly-horribly- >> wrong tool. I feel that doing this kind of work is a wonderful break from >> binge >> watching another season of 'Eureka'. >> >> Frank, >> >> You and Nick have been arguing for and against (respectively) the private >> nature >> of mind as long as I have known you both. I apologize if placing you in >> these >> examples was in bad taste. I certainly believe you have a rich and >> beautiful >> mind, and I will be careful in the future to not trivialize it by using >> your >> mind in examples. For the record, anything I had said in regards to your >> mind, >> I meant to say about my mind as well. >> >> Glen, Steve, >> >> If I understand Glen's comprehension of strings example, there are many >> arbitrary >> functions which can act as a *choice of representative* for a given >> *extensional* >> transformation. To some limited extent, the claim that *the mind is not >> opaque* may >> be the claim that there are more structured categories than Sets with >> arbitrary >> functions which are applicable to the mind/behavior problem. If we had >> such a >> category, I might go so far as to define a fiber over each point on the >> holographic >> surface and consider liftings to a bundle or sheaf. Now while >> simultaneously **ducking** >> fistfuls of hay from various strawman arguments posed, I suggest that it >> may be >> reasonable to define a connection (damn, are we back to covariance) on >> the bundle. >> Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret *tracing a thought*. >> >> With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could use >> more >> clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that >> sorting is >> not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling >> algorithm >> does not require Ord >> <http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class >> constraint, where it *is* required for sorting. >> If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic surface >> is >> complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At >> the end >> of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological >> status of >> information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this? If >> our >> holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better analogy? >> >> If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic >> ambiguity than >> the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an >> others >> language, I may wish to consider the question closed in favor of the mind >> being >> public. I do suspect we would run into many many more (perhaps >> unresolvable) >> problems along the way, but this exercise is exactly an exercise to me. >> Learning >> the nature of these problems is reward enough. >> >> Jon >> >> †) This example coming from Rota's lectures on 'The end of objectivity >> <https://www.worldcat.org/title/end-of-objectivity-a-series-of-lectures-delivered-at-mit-in-october-1973/oclc/32972152> >> '. >> >> ‡) Bzip is a great example of a seemingly lossy algorithm that amazingly >> enough >> is not. The fact that the Burrows-Wheeler >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrows%E2%80%93Wheeler_transform> >> transform is invertible and is statistically useful >> more-often-than-it-is-not provides a high bar for what can be >> accomplished with data >> compression. >> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . >> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... >> 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 > -- 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/
