Glen writes: "I suppose we could argue that objectives and tasks are different things. But my counter would be that they're something like [near]duals, or there's something like a Curry-Howard correspondence between them ... objectives are the initial and target state and tasks are the paths through the state space that connect the initial and target state, perhaps even some kind of path integral. An objective with no (possible) path toward that end is not a well-formed objective."
Yeah, not clear where the intuition for infinite sampling (path integral) comes from in connecting the two. Although sometimes it seems like I DO try everything. Given your remark about men possibly having a smaller number of objectives than women, why not turn over every damn rock? :-) "Unless the contexts for any 2 well-defined tasks can be unified, the context switch is pure overhead. And, usually, the contexts can be divided into parts, some of which are common to multiple tasks and some of which need to be switched out." Even with no stateful change, there's the disruption of the "instruction cache" by jumping around a lot. I would think there would be some analogous neural locality to different tasks too, and longer spreading signals to jump between different tasks. "Narratives are inherently serial ... diachronic, more suited to the CPU, where context switching is fundamental, at least compared to more parallelizable things like POSETs. It wouldn't be surprising if people who believed humans were fundamentally narrative tended to disbelieve in human multi-tasking. It seems contradictory or paradoxical for someone who believes people are fundamentally story-tellers and, yet, also believe people are parallelist." I think part of it is that the parallelist ways are harder to unpack and explain. So when asked how it is one makes a judgement (say about a social situation), it is hard to start from the start. That means bringing to bear the diachronic tools to rationalize a story. I wonder how many good writers and artists are really diachronic. I suspect they cannot be. "And *that* you can run on a treadmill at all says something about your architecture. I absolutely despise treadmills ... they violate everything I know (and hate/love) about running. What kind of monster are you?" Controlled exertion. What's not to love? If I could do it hanging on a hook in a spacesuit, I would. Snap off my head and do some work while the Neurallink driver pushes the body through spinal interfaces. :-) - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
