Agreed-upon -> model that makes predictions that can be observed and repeated. No human social system need be involved in that.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/ From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, August 30, 2026 at 1:11 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum maybe we call this Steve's law. Steve's law says "what we call "objective truth" is ultimately just a deeply shared, agreed-upon model rather than an absolute, independent reality" Marcus you can throw your shoe now -J. -------- Original message -------- From: Steve Smith <[email protected]> Date: 8/29/26 7:25 PM (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum Let me try: I segment this into a modal continuum of subjective - intersubjective - objective. with some fuzzy/moving thresholds. Underlying this are mappings and models where a model is a mapping which exposes exploitable consequences of what is mapped. Our sensorium is a transduction layer at it's simplest. Our perceptions layer a very low level model of meaning or relevance or actionability via various categories and valences (good/bad, fight/flight, ...). What we conventionally call "Modeling" is a bit more abstract and may be an artifact of, or at least thresholded by language. We have a grammar and vocabulary of "what matters" (proto-meaning?) which we can both share and/or save/revisit/operate logic or intuition over. I would claim that even sensing is "subjective" in the sense that the transducers represent a proto-model... while the pulse train traversing our ganglia, cortices, and other neural structures are in some sense "objective reports", they have already been transduced/produced/conditioned/compressed by the sensory hardware in an idiosyncratic way to the organism's (significantly nature-formed, but nurture-modified) hardware/firmware. Perception is yet more "subjective", but sill in a very limited or constrained and normative way. The (possibly) apocryphal) business of folks raised in the country-side vs those in the city having somewhat different edge/shape detector firmware, etc... Fight v Flight is also significantly "conditioned" by nurture and experience. Valence (good/bad) is yet more conditioned by expectation and collective norms. Thus proto-intersubjective. We fight or flee from the things our instincts bias us towards but also what we are taugh/modeled by parents/community. Without any *language* as such, these intersubjective norms can be established and transmitted but language gives them more reach (space/time/social-network) and more "stiffness" ("as it is written, so it shall be"). The more explicit and elaborate and abstract models (e.g. truth, beauty, and the American Way) we consider, the more intersubjective they may be. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex, heavy lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident" (introspection) and "truths" (implied objectivity). The very declaration is an attempt to fix an intersubjective reality Model across a nation/culture with implications of it being held across time and aspiring (implicitely) to influence others outside the in-group ('Murricans). While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized "objective reality", I see no evidence to the contrary that we construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right) people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting yet new evidence through repeatability under current standards of such. My Q-Anon and/or MAGA and/or KryptoKreacher friends believe they are part of a network of TruthSeekers/Tellers with who hold and follow equally "stiff" procedures and filters, yielding *equally* objectively true Truths like Michelle Obama and the Williams' sisters are male, that Barack was born in Kenya and is a Crypto-Muslim, and that Chelsea Clinton is not Bill's child. Aside from "whose business is this?", all such also smells of confirmation bias-generated nonsense. AntiVaxxers (seem to) believe the same about the CDC and Anthony Fauci (and claim they have their own objectively validated counter-narrative). So... in psuedo-summary, the spectrum seems to be something about where one's models are sourced (evolution, development, enculturation, theological/philosophical tradition, scientific (or other) method). I prefer (choose?) to live in a world where my world-view is (mostly) aligned with lots of other people, even though I long ago came to understand that many/most people don't even think, much less care about many things I have come to. Mumble, - Steve a On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote: Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less subjective because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's paradox of subjectivity? -J. -------- Original message -------- From: glen <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00) To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame. While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one. So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity. [⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time. On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby. > > *From: *Friam <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > on behalf of Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum > > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts > as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant > through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person > who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure > fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of > living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is > certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a > close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head. > > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not > Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective. > > -J. > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00) > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum > > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. The protagonist > (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about > his latest brush with death. (These brushes occur several times per episode.) > This is just what he does and must do. The only thing he won’t tolerate is > the reactive individual. Whatever happened to the male role model that can > suck up their doubts and fears to push through? > > *From:*Friam <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum > > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and > Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok > nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two > views, subjective and objective, isn't it? > > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies > are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive > the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to > communicate their needs to their parents. > > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great > blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by > intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely > subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else. > > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the > value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective > view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in > his book of the same name. > > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low > selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully > objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective > view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view > detachment. We see it normal child development: > > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups > > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as > selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, > musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and > emotions to be creative in their works. > > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons > (subjectivity for good purpose) > > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that > postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created > the attached image for it. > -- 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω. .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
