A common objection to deep generative learning is that such models don’t offer explanations, at least without clever formulation. It seems to me that addresses Dave’s concern. As long as a distribution of measurable things is captured at high fidelity there are no preconceived biases about what matters or what “acceptable” models look like, algorithmically.
> On Sep 9, 2022, at 7:27 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think it's reasonable. But I also think it leans wrong, depending on what > you mean by "several conversations", "algorithmic", and "noise". > > Marcus' suggestion that there's an irreducible limit somewhere below whatever > SnR threshold is recognized is only a *bottom*. The distance between the > recognized threshold and the incompressible kernel of noise is non-zero, > almost by definition. And Frank's suggestion that there are established > methods to tease more signal from that non-zero band, indicates he sees it as > well. Hearken back to my and SteveS' discussion of interstitial spaces being > dual to the entity-objects they house and you could see us agreeing with you, > there, too. Jon and SteveG's discussions of duality tend to be less prosaic, > but nonetheless a bit mystical. Contra-pose the back and forth of Nick and > EricC's constant assertion of behaviorism, Frank's objection, yet the subtle > differences and challenges between them, and it should be clear there's a > non-zero band between recognized noise and the incompressible limit. Jochen > posts more questions than answers. Even EricS' conversations with Jon about > the expressive power of hypergraphs shows an impetus to circumscribe what's > computable and what's not. I mentioned a Wolpert paper awhile back, wherein > he gives some air to hypercomputation, to which nobody on the list responded. > And you've even defended brute force computation by highlighting the progress > and efficacy of techniques like Monte-Carlo simulation. > > I'm sure there are other arguments I've missed. Perhaps you're doing a bit of > "othering" in thinking your focus on the noise is unique? But perhaps, given > that we're 99% male and *old*, there's a tendency for most of us to pretend > to know more than we know? ... to inflate the epistemic status of our pet > hypotheses? Humility is punished in most contexts, despite the lip service we > pay to it. > > What I see is a persistent inability to play the games set up by others ... > an insistence that others always play our own game. When others don't play > the game proposed by someone, that someone takes their marbles and leaves. > The voyeuristic lurkers may enjoy watching different games, but won't play. > Some may be frustrated that some games have no clear rules by which to "win" > (i.e. come to a Peircian convergence, a belief in Modernist true Truth). Etc. > > IDK. Here's a paper coming up quick in my queue that may help demonstrate > you're not alone: > > The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review > https://thothermes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Cardena.pdf > > And I mentioned a long while back Broderick and Goertzel's similar effort: > > Evidence for Psi: Thirteen Empirical Research Reports > https://bookshop.org/books/evidence-for-psi-thirteen-empirical-research-reports/9780786478286 > > which, again, got no response on the list. No response or hostile response > doesn't mean you're unique in your perception or perspective. It can mean > many things. The only thing we *might* control is our own attitude. We can > choose to see ourselves in those around us. Or we can other those around us > and think we're alone. I try to choose the former. > > >> On 9/8/22 16:12, Prof David West wrote: >> It seems, to me, that several conversations here—AI, hallucinogens, >> consciousness, participant observation, and epistemology—have a common >> aspect: a body of "data" and disagreement over which subset should be >> attended to (Signal) and that which is irrelevant (Noise). >> Arguments for sorting/categorization would include: lack of a Peircian >> convergence/consensus; inability to propose proper experiments; anecdotal >> versus systematic collection; an absolute conviction that everything is >> algorithmic and, even if the algorithm has yet to be discerned, it, >> ultimately, must be; etc.. >> I often feel as if my positions on these various topics reduces, in some >> sense, to a conviction that there is overlooked Signal in everyone else's >> Noise; even to the point of believing the Noise IS the Signal. >> Is this in any way a "fair' or "reasonable" analysis? > > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (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 Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (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/
