Yes --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:11 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Frank, > > > > Before I attempt an answer, can we set aside all the AI complexity and > simply consider this question as equivalent to saying you have the > combination of your gun safe in your mind and also on a piece of paper in > your safety deposit box and also in an encrypted file on your computer? > > > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2022 6:19 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] naive question > > > > Back in the 80s I wrote many Unix shell scripts. For my purposes they ran > identically on various workstations whether Sun, SG, or, eventually, Vax > (running Unix). The software existed in my mind/brain, in files in the > various filesystems, or on paper listings. What's wrong with my thinking? > > > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 3:52 PM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can't speak for anyone else. I'm a simulationist. Everything I do is in > terms of analogy [⛧]. But there is no such thing as a fully transparent > or opaque box. And there is no such thing as "software". All processes are > executed by some material mechanism. So if by "computational metaphor", you > mean the tossing out of the differences between any 2 machines executing > the same code, then I'm right there with you in rejecting it. No 2 machines > can execute the same (identical) code. But if you define an analogy well, > then you can replace one machine with another machine, up to some > similarity criterion. Equivalence is defined by that similarity criterion. > By your use of the qualifier "merely" in "merely the equivalent", I infer > you think there's something *other* than equivalence, something other than > simulation. I reject that. It's all equivalence, just some tighter and some > looser. > > [⛧] Everyone's welcome to replace "analogy" with "metaphor" if they so > choose. But, to me, "metaphor" tends to wipe away or purposefully ignore > the pragmatics involved in distinguishing any 2 members of an equivalence > class. The literary concept of "metaphor" has it right. It's a rhetorical, > manipulative trick to help us ignore actual difference, whereas "analogy" > helps us remember and account for differences and similarities. "Metaphor" > is an evil word, a crucial tool in the toolkit for manipulators and > gaslighters. > > > On 10/20/22 13:27, Prof David West wrote: > > > > Marcus and glen (and others on occasion) have posted frequently on the > "algorithmic "equivalent" of [some feature] of consciousness, human > emotion, etc. > > > > I am always confronted with the question of of "how equivalent?" I am > almost certain that they are not saying anything close to absolute > equivalence - i.e., that the brain/mind is executing the same algorithm > albeit in, perhaps, a different programming language. But, are their > assertions meant to be "analogous to," "a metaphor for," or some other > semi/pseudo equivalence? > > > > Perhaps all that is being said is we have two black boxes into which we > put the same inputs and arrive at the same outputs. Voila! We expose the > contents of one black box, an algorithm executing on silicon. From that we > conclude it does not matter what is happening inside the other black > box—whatever it is, our, now, white box is an 'equivalent'. > > > > Put another way: If I have two objects, A and B, each with an > (ir)regular edge. in this case the irregular edge of A is an inverse match > to that of B—when put together there are no gaps between the two edges. > They "fit." > > > > Assume that A and B have some means to detect if they "fit" together. I > can think of algorithms that could determine fit, a simplistic iteration > across all points to see if there was a gap between it and its neighbor, to > some kind of collision detection. > > > > Is it the case that whatever means used by A and B to detect fit, it is > _*/merely/*_ the equivalent of such an algorithm? > > > > The roots of this question go back to my first two published papers, in > _AI Magazine_ (then the 'journal of record' for AI research); one critical > of the computational metaphor, the second a set of alternative metaphors of > mind. An excerpt relevant to the above example of fit. > > > > /Tactilizing Processor > > / > > /Conrad draws his inspiration from the ability of an enzyme to combine > with a substrate on the basis of the physical congruency of their > respective shapes (topography). This is a generalized version of the > lock-and-key mechanism as the hormone-receptor matching discussed by > Bergland. When the topographic shape of an enzyme (hormone) matches > that of a substrate (receptor), a simple recognize- by-touch > mechanism (like two pieces of a puzzle fitting together) allows a > simple decision, binary state change, or process to take place, > hence the label “tactilizing processor.”/ > > > > Hormones and enzymes, probably/possibly, lack the ability to compute > (execute algorithms), so, at most, the black box equivalence might be used > here. > > > > [BTW, tactilizing processors were built, but were extremely slow (speed > of chemical reactions) but had some advantages derived from parallelism. > Similar 'shape matching' computation was explored in DNA computing as well.] > > > > My interest in the issue is the (naive) question about how our > understanding of mind/consciousness is fatally impeded by putting all our > research eggs into the simplistic 'algorithm box'? > > > > It seems to me that we have the CS/AI/ML equivalent of the quantum > physics world where everyone is told to "shut up and compute" instead of > actually trying to understand the domain and the theory. > > > > davew > > -- > 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/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
