Was your laptop recycled from the White House perchance? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121980&page=1
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:47:22PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Hmm! I don't think I (or glen) have to be a creationist. Only a > "start-in-the-middle-ist". I am not interested in the "first structure". > Let's figure out hoW all the others Work and then We'll Worry about the first > one. (sorry, my doubleU key is effed up and Lenovo is back ordered on > keyboards. Does anybody kno a Lenovo executive I could have slaughtered. ) > The interest in the first of anything is just creationism set loose from the > constraints of religion. > n > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:36 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > > How about Try random stuff and possibly reproduce? It is starting to sound > like you are a creationist. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:45 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > > The AI has to have something to *do*. That mechanism amounts to a theory. If > the AI looks for patterns in digits, then "look for patterns in the digits" > is a type of theory. If the AI tries to copy a set of encrypted digits, then > "decrypt and copy the digits" is the theory. > > I would further argue that the AI cannot exist, the recipe/algorithm can't > exist, without some schematic definition of the things it'll operate on and > for tests of a successful operation. So, it would make sense to claim that > all 3 are required for there to be a theory. I'm not making that strong of a > claim. I'm only trying to back up Nick on his claim that there must be some > sort of prior theory for any of it to "work" ... however "work" might be > understood. > > On 11/30/20 4:35 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > The one is the AI or the rat and its related gene sequence? Or you need > > all three? I claim that the last two are not a theory, and that an AI > > could do that data mining. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:29 PM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > > > > Well, that *system*, {one, person, genetic sequence} contains an endogenous > > theory (or a set of possible theories). If you slice out the {one} doing > > the operating, then you lose the theory. > > > > On 11/30/20 4:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> So if one is given a person (or a rat) and a genetic sequence that animal > >> amounts to an endogenous theory? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:14 PM > >> To: friam@redfish.com > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > >> > >> Well, sure. But just because the theory is endogenous, doesn't imply that > >> theory does not *exist*, nor that it's not *prior* to the launch. So, even > >> in that case, Nick's correct that the theory (or a spanning kernel of it) > >> exists before-hand. > >> > >> On 11/30/20 4:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>> Once one figures out how the monitor reacts then one can see how certain > >>> registers change as a result of changes in instruction sequences. The > >>> relationship of a perturbation to an outcome is simple, learnable and > >>> relatively unambiguous for a typical microprocessor. Assembly of > >>> subroutines follow the same principles. (One can observe a stack with > >>> enough experimentation.) The language is learned (not given) and the > >>> axioms implied by the structure of the machine. The goal of copying is > >>> sort of beside the point. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > >>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:51 PM > >>> To: friam@redfish.com > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > >>> > >>> But if we use the word "theory" in its minimal sense of "a language and a > >>> set of axioms", then your "to be copied so that it does the same thing" > >>> *is* a theory, albeit a different theory (or containing theory) for one > >>> that would treat the [un]copyable application over and above the act of > >>> copying. What would be interesting would be the *number* and diversity of > >>> theories validatable/executable against any given set of tokens. > >>> > >>> On 11/30/20 3:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>>> I spent a fair amount of my youth disassembling boot procedures of > >>>> various copy protection schemes. There one is given a list of numbers > >>>> that bootstrap an operating system and an application. A small portion > >>>> of that list of numbers is relevant to preventing that list of numbers > >>>> from being copied from one media to another. It wasn’t really > >>>> necessary to have a theory of the application, generally, to understand > >>>> how to change the numbers to make that list copyable. If one had no > >>>> theory of a computer instruction set or of an operating system, but was > >>>> just given a disk and the goal of copying it to get the computer to do > >>>> the same thing when the copied disk was put in to the disk drive instead > >>>> of the original disk, it is possible to learn everything that is needed > >>>> to learn which numbers to change. No oscilloscope needed, no theory of > >>>> solid state physics, etc. Ok, maybe one reference manual. Biology is > >>>> the same, but without a concise reference manual. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of > >>>> *thompnicks...@gmail.com > >>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 1:25 PM > >>>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > >>>> <friam@redfish.com> > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I feel like this relates to a discussion held during Nerd Hour at the > >>>> end of last Friday’s vfriam. I was arguing that given, say, a string > >>>> of numbers, and no information external to that string, that no AI could > >>>> detect “order” unless it already possessed a theory of what order is. I > >>>> found the discussion distressing because I thought the point was trivial > >>>> but all the smart people in the conversation were arguing against me. > > > > -- > > ↙↙↙ 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/ > > > > -- > ↙↙↙ 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/ > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > 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/ -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
