glen wrote:
I think it's reasonable. But I also think it leans wrong, depending on
what you mean by "several conversations", "algorithmic", and "noise".
<tangent>I particularly like your use of the idiom "lean's wrong" which
triggers for me "Tell all the Truth but Tell it Slant" - Emily Dickenson
<https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56824/tell-all-the-truth-but-tell-it-slant-1263>
</tangent>
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.
Seems a bit like Absolute Zero Kelvin? Theoretically meaningful but in
some sense never achievable in any observational context?
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.
I remember some of those discussions and appreciate that you reference
them here (ER-Graph duals as a rough formalism thereof?)
Jon and SteveG's discussions of duality tend to be less prosaic, but
nonetheless a bit mystical.
These must be (mostly) convos on vFriam to which I am (willfully) not
privy to? I have elaborate experience with SteveG's daul
(field-mostly) ideas, though I'm always open for more. I'm not sure
I've enjoyed the same from JonZ yet... but look forward to it. It
would not surprise me, esp. in the context for example, of the game of
Go... a sort of particle-field duality...
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.
Referencing back to the earlier "irreducaeble" I think there is
something fundamental (about "reality" or any given finite
"consciousnesses" abilty to apprehend it) in these questions which I
hope get more (meta) insight on in this and other threads here (or my
own independent pursuits of the topics).
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 remember your reference and waded as deeply into it as I could before
my cerebro-spinal fluid got saturated with lactic acid (or depleted of
ketones?) and remember hoping/trusting that someone with fresher fluid
(or more of it) would pick up the discussion and help me take a go at it
with more parallax or maybe only once-rested. I'm not clear on how/if
you mean that EricS/JonZ's "expressive power of hypergraphs" relates
directly to Wolpert's cogitations on "hypercomputation"? I *do*
connect hypergraph thinking to Simon's "nearly decomposable" systems and
think if there might be a specific link between the two hypers
(graph/computation) it might be in the definition (and relevance) of
"nearly"? This refers back to the "nearly random" or "nearly noise" or
"mostly noise" or "irreduceable limit" to noise.
I'm sure there are other arguments I've missed.
This was a very useful review/summary for me in any case. I hope this
stimulates a "folding" of some of the existing threads ("noodles"... nod
ot Nick).
Perhaps you're doing a bit of "othering" in thinking your focus on the
noise is unique?
I personally find the foreground/background "dual" of any topic
interesting to "necker" in my mind. I admit that I do often (myself,
though I assume you were addressing DaveW here?) "other" folks or
discussions which don't seem to allow for the
graph-dual/necker-cube-dual/fore-background-dual way of contemplating a
problem/question/conundrum. This may just be an extremum of my
preference/proclivity for breadth-v-depth.
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?
In the spirit of foreground/background, I think I have to acknowledge
without prejudice that in our society (especially the subculture of
sci/tech professionals) male and old do correlate with
high-epistimic-status. But conversely, I have to wonder if the
correlation isn't *through* something more/less than gender and
years-on-earth. Science and Technology have experienced a privileged
position in our larger culture for their *predictive* and *causative*
strengths... "age" of course correlates well with "experience" though
it can also be mitigated by old-dog/new-trick paradoxes, ossified
values/models, and degenerative cognition.
As an aside (or a precursor) I do remember when being young-male it was
indicated/rewarded/offered-traction to "act as if" or "pretend ot know
more than I knew"... as a youth it was not only allowed but encouraged
to float my own strawmen understandings as a way to have my friends,
colleagues, mentors help me polish those turds into something more like
your "steelman" understandings.
Humility is punished in most contexts, despite the lip service we pay
to it.
Yeh, like that, and Hubris rewarded. Again, the brashness of youth
(and male gender?) enhances that... and perhaps (segue/tangent/aside)
this is what has 30+% of our population continuing to forgive (nay
encourage) the likes of DJT and the new "Repubicans" (RITOIs -
Republicans In Trump's Own Image?) whose only "positive" features are
narccisism and hubris to the extreme?
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.
I've spent my life trying to play other's games and while I *have* taken
my marbles (the ones I still had intact) and left for other playgrounds
(not so much "home" as such)... I don't know that there is *any other
game* than the Infinite Game (ala James Carse) of the meta-game,
negotiating what damn game we are playing at? I think this is the
point of Your and Marcus discussion (of late) about auto-generation of
journal publications, etc. it feels to some of us that the
introduction of a new player in the meta-game (what is a legitimate
journal/paper/author?) muddies the playing field until baseball becomes
survival in the tarpits?
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.
As a lurker myself (despite my prolific typing here) I will admit to
both of those sketches... I sometimes simply "won't play" because I'm
over my head, I don't feel like (despite my low-threshold for blathering
on here) I have anything to add/offer... that any
comment/observation/retort I might offer would be below some
signal/noise threshold. Other times, I'm witholding
statements/observations/thoughts (i.e. Wolpert) hoping that someone more
erudite or engaged in the topic than I will elaborate (EricS and RogerC
are two examples of folks I 'bate my breath waiting for their
engagements on various topics, thinking I they will provide useful
floculance to the discussion).
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.
Which seem parallel to the myriad cryptozoological and UFO "serious
science".... I am *mostly* exposed to the marginal/pseudoscientific
bits, and sometimes note (to myself) that the best way to cover *real*
conspiracies is to gen up a lot of flak unserious bits to displace the
serious.
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.
World as Lover, World as Self
<https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545908/world-as-lover-world-as-self-30th-anniversary-edition-by-joanna-macy/>(World
as Battleground, World as Trap) - Joanna Macy
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?
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
