In my opinion XOR is useful in mathematics but rarely in human affairs. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Oct 4, 2021, 10:14 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, yeah, I agree. But even that dichotomy isn't clean. Humans are > computers, at least a large share of what those bodies do each moment is > computation. And, I'd argue that computers are human, at least a large > share of the programmed-in sensibilities we see in our applications orbit > humanity/humanness. When dogs finally get around to designing computers, > that may not be the case. But so far, it is. Or, i.e., we can infer quite a > bit about the tool maker from the tool. > > It's that tendency to assume clean dichotomies, predicates, partitions, > XOR, that's an artifact of consistency thinking. [ζ] Completeness thinking > facilitates constructs like analog computing, even if only slightly. > Consistency thinking tends to devolve into sophistry (both the good type > like paradox and the bad type). > > I suppose this is why things like quantum woo are so attractive. Or even > why it's so easy for middle aged fat men to preach all day about how best > to play american football. It's all about where the tight focus butts up > against the loose focus. For some reason, this evokes foam and high > dimensional, irregular tessellation for me. > > [ζ] Which argues that attempts to isolate, reduce, essentialize what it is > humans do that computers don't or vice versa is equivalently fraught ... > like that discussion we had recently about whether (or how to make) > computers feel. If nothing else, that isolation/essentialism/reductionism > of "the hard problem" is, itself, the problem. Our myopia (aka focusable > attention) is the problem. We spend lots of time tightening the focus down > to things like coherent light, and too little time defocusing out to the > universe as a whole. > > On 10/4/21 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > I don’t see it that way. Consistency is work for computers and > creativity is work for humans. Want the best of both.. > > > >> On Oct 4, 2021, at 8:11 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> So, here again, we seem to be dancing around the hegemony [ξ] of > consistency. EricS brings in "coherence", which I like better. But I think > it's the same concept. Monism, "not being self-contradictory", objective > Bayesian priors, coherence, the ontological status of actual infinities, > integrated personality, value alignment, partition/predicate crispness, XOR > choices, etc. all target the same fundamental bogey: > >> > >> inconsistency > >> > >> And that's fine. But it seems, to my biased eye, that we usually leave > "completeness" to take care of itself ... as part of the negative space in > the picture. The best definition I've seen of completeness is from a > presentation by Greg Restall (paraphrasing): "If X models A completely, > then we can derive A from X." I like this because it smells like > reachability, "can we get there from here". When we harp too much on not > being inconsistent, we end up in some sort of word game ... like some wak > logicbro trying to pwn the libs. But when we talk about completeness, we > talk about what is *sayable* in our language ... It's less about what we > can't say and more about what we can say. > >> > >> That makes consistency the spastic little sibling of completeness. Yes, > mom told me I have to take it along with me on the bike ride. But everyone > hates it because it never shuts up and always says stupid stuff. > >> > >> [ξ] I wanted to use a new phrase, "linguistic salience bias", in place > of "hegemony". But my epistemic status for the use of that phrase is 50%. > Hegemony has a nice political tone, too. I kinda like dominance or tyranny. > Maybe I should have gone with "gravity well" to indicate that consistency > is a kind of least common denominator ... the type of thing people like > grammar nazis and logicbros focus on. But I'd rather highlight the more > accurate state of affairs, which is that those who study expressibility are > underclass citizens compared to those who study correctness. Sure, when the > expressors finally "make it" (such that nobody can deny their impact --- > think Tom Waits, not Elon Musk), we all gather round and use them as an > excuse to party. But we never go back and knead the tortuous pipeline of > consistency they *survived* to get there. > >> > >>> On 10/3/21 9:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>> A compiler for a programming language with an advanced type system can > essentially reject loose talk, but also give powerful tools for > >>> automated reasoning about consistency. Getting past this merciless > editor gives one confidence, or even a certification, that one is not being > self-contradictory. > >> > >>> On 10/3/21 2:43 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > >>> ... and when they got comfortable that they had a constructive > language whose propositions would carry some weight and not break into > inconsistencies, they stopped protesting against taking limits. So one > could dig back into all that laborious history, which > >>> ... Then we can go round and round about the axiom of choice and so > forth, versus Voevodsky and univalent foundations, or Brouwer and > intuitionism. There were a few turns of that wheel of samsara here a few > months ago, but I think people ran out of things to comment on and drifted > away. > >>> > >>> ... and still be coherent. > >>> > >>> ... there is no “objective Bayesianism”. ... then chooses however one > will. The point is not to ask God to save you from making a choice. The > point is to acknowledge and embrace that you will make a choice, and then > accept that all the consequences of it are yours as well. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." > >> ☤>$ uǝlƃ > >> > >> > >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- > - . > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > >> archives: > >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - > . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: > > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > -- > "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
