date:20170809

I'm not following the public debate/discussion on this, but I think we 
discussed this here a few months ago?


Even though I lived and worked in the belly of the (Nuclear Weapons 
Complex) beast for decades, I admit to not knowing with any degree of 
certainty how direct the "Launch Codes" and mechanisms in the various 
command centers (white house situation, Cheyenne Mtn, ???) or via the 
"Nuclear Football"  are connected to the actual launching mechanisms.


I understand that the Nuclear Football is carried by an aide-de-camp 
(who is this for Trump, someone different every day/week?) and can 
imagine that person wrestling it away from him when he is in a fit of 
pique, as might the Sec'y of Defense or one of the Joint Chiefs 
body-check him as he reaches for the "FIRE!" button (is there actually a 
lock-out switch or something involved?).According to Wikipedia, the 
President's identity must be verified (the purpose of the launch code?) 
which the Sec'y of Defense is burdened with authenticating?   In 
principle, he does not have veto power, but in practice I like to 
visualize "Mad Dog" Madis decking "The Donald" when he tries to launch 
agains NK (or anyone), then politely reaching out to help him up off the 
floor and asking him "are you OK?  are you having a siezure?"  and then 
decking him again, eventually getting some help to haul him off to a 
hospital bed (with restraints) in a padded room in a coma.


I also understand that every "launch site" implements a two-man rule for 
the actual mechanism for arming/launching which I believe means that at 
each launch site we have two more people with "practical" (if not legal) 
veto power.   Meanwhile a (small) host of maintenance and operational 
staff in the subs/silos/bombers have some practical opportunity to at 
least disable (or fail to enable) the warheads or launch capabiities as 
well.


With that model, I would say there are a "few" fuses in the circuit that 
*might* prevent an other-than-sane President from actually effectively 
launching any missiles.   I'm waiting for the "Presidential Order" to 
come down directing that the launch mechanisms be connected directly to 
a twitter feed so that he can launch with nothing more than a clever 
hashtag "#nukemYooge  @NK" or somesuch?!


With the various leaky leaks and the leaking leakers who leak them afoot 
in spite of the AG's "don't do it!" admonition afoot, I would not be 
surprised if there aren't many Silo/Sub/Bomber operations people 
discussing among themselves in 2's and 3's or entire teams "what we do 
if he pulls the trigger??!!!"


I think I'm more worried for Japan than SK or US protectorates or the US 
west coast... seems like an easier target might be Japan (Okinawa is 
fat, but there are several other US Military targets as well).


If Putin was the friend Trump seems to want him to be, HE would take 
care of any retaliation for us I would think?  Let one bully's 
bully-friend smack down the little bully-wanna-be for the first bully?  
Trump is a whackadoodle loose cannon, but Putin is more of a Junkyard 
Dog, probably more intimidating to Kim Jong-Un than the Donald is?   But 
then that probably wouldn't play well with the third nuclear Super Power.


It probably doesn't matter which side of the equator you live in in 
Ecuador, but "back in the day" nuclear winter (and less outrageous 
alternatives) models were more gentle in the southern Hemisphere.


I hate to realize that I am even spending cycles thinking about this!?!

- Steve


On 8/9/17 5:05 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
It's bad enough that he's "out of his friggin' mind", but a CNN piece 
today asks, "Could Congress stop Trump from bombing North Korea?" The 
reporter's conclusion is basically that no, it couldn't. I think we 
all should scared witless that Trump may well pull the trigger. My 
only hope is that enough high-level generals would risk court martial 
and refuse to follow his orders. If the USA did launch a pre-emptive 
nuclear strike, the consequences for S Korea (and Japan?) would be 
horrific. And then there is the question of what China and Russia 
would do in response. This is really, really serious crap.


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:


Jochen,

He’s out of his friggin mind.  There are those who feel that the
risk arising from the stultification of our political system was
so bad that it justified taking this sort of existential risk
(Hey, Dave!), but I am not one of them.  Small interesting things
ARE starting to happen, (meetings amongst scared non-crazy people
in congress) and I am grateful for those, but whether they will
develop in time to rescue us, is by no means certain.

People keep offering me as comfort the fact that the South Koreans
aren’t worried …. 30 million people on the edge of obliteration
from conventional shells full of sarin.  Why does that not comfort

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Nick -

I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is 
properly returning!


What’s powerful about it?

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular 
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that 
there is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the 
innovation step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, 
said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection 
mechanism.   I think I held this misapprehension for the longest time, 
in the same way I *still* think of the Sun orbiting around the earth 
when I have plenty of reason to believe it is the other way around.


What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not 
mutations but “hypotheses” about ways to live.  And presumably 
epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce  more or 
less plausible hypotheses.


And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic 
or deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking 
of?)  Is "plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?


  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many 
we call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by 
random processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with 
appropriately broad distribution functions,


   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution 
than by the actual facts of it.


I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in 
the spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even sure 
I know what a "model-free" fact might be?   Facts (to me) imply 
measurements (qualitative, quantitative) which imply a object of said 
measurement which in turn implies a model.   There was a time, I believe 
when people felt they held "facts" about "the viscosity of the aether" 
and the "density of phlogiston".   When those models were superseded, 
those "facts" took on entirely new implications and meaning.


- Steve


Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 



*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jenny 
Quillien

*Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he shows up at 
the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or 
other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam 
but can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny


On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

/Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot
create them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free
Markets and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of
said Free Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase"
of development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it
seems it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of
competitive development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful,
and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing
and salesmanship. This is why we have so many near-identical
products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of
greed and fear when the "generic" or "store brand" version is
equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, but also possibly in
quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and other
embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the
Fittest: how nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.

From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond
dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can
/preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling
the change that creates them random is just another way of
admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that
accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a
discussion about how it is relevant to 'evolution' in
software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from
post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up

Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

2017-08-09 Thread Jochen Fromm

I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam in the 
Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital Seoul near the 
border with weapons bought from Russia or China. 
The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has forgotten how 
dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying to model mutually 
assured destruction is useless with people like Kim Jong-Un and Trump. How can 
he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?
-J.


null
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

2017-08-09 Thread Gary Schiltz

It's bad enough that he's "out of his friggin' mind", but a CNN piece today
asks, "Could Congress stop Trump from bombing North Korea?" The reporter's
conclusion is basically that no, it couldn't. I think we all should scared
witless that Trump may well pull the trigger. My only hope is that enough
high-level generals would risk court martial and refuse to follow his
orders. If the USA did launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, the
consequences for S Korea (and Japan?) would be horrific. And then there is
the question of what China and Russia would do in response. This is really,
really serious crap.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Jochen,
>
>
>
> He’s out of his friggin mind.  There are those who feel that the risk
> arising from the stultification of our political system was so bad that it
> justified taking this sort of existential risk (Hey, Dave!), but I am not
> one of them.  Small interesting things ARE starting to happen, (meetings
> amongst scared non-crazy people in congress) and I am grateful for those,
> but whether they will develop in time to rescue us, is by no means
> certain.
>
>
>
>
>
> People keep offering me as comfort the fact that the South Koreans aren’t
> worried …. 30 million people on the edge of obliteration from conventional
> shells full of sarin.  Why does that not comfort me?
>
>
>
> No, we are back to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jochen
> Fromm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2017 3:34 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The apocalypse
>
>
>
> What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the
> apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis
> or worse.
>
> http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/
>
>
>
> And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump
> administration ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

Jochen, 

 

He’s out of his friggin mind.  There are those who feel that the risk arising 
from the stultification of our political system was so bad that it justified 
taking this sort of existential risk (Hey, Dave!), but I am not one of them.  
Small interesting things ARE starting to happen, (meetings amongst scared 
non-crazy people in congress) and I am grateful for those, but whether they 
will develop in time to rescue us, is by no means certain.  

 

 

People keep offering me as comfort the fact that the South Koreans aren’t 
worried …. 30 million people on the edge of obliteration from conventional 
shells full of sarin.  Why does that not comfort me?  

 

No, we are back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

 

Nick 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 3:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

 

What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the 
apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis or 
worse.

http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/

 

And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump administration 
ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.

 

-J.

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?

Owen writes:


"The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can devastate 
SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike."


How about Trump defines SK as an undesirable economic competitor to the U.S. 
that steals jobs, and cuts them loose.   He has no doubt been briefed on the 
multi-lateral proliferation that would no doubt result, but it that assumes the 
message stays clear in his mind.


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Owen Densmore 

Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:40:59 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?

>From BBC a reasonable summary:
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879485

My question is simple: what *are* the alternatives? Is there an interesting 
game theoretic analysis?

The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can devastate 
SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike.

As rash as Trump's bluster has been, the real question remains: what is the 
reasonable response to NK's threat.
- Preemptive Strike? Likely a loser unless it is so massive as to obliterate 
every human in NK. SK would be seriously damaged in the aftermath.
- Wait 'til NK strikes? Again, hardly reasonable.
- Anti-missile defense? Possibly, but you just gotta miss one for apocalypse. 
And what do you do if you *do* succeed? SK is still hostage.
- Tit for Tat? Well, only in the bluster game. Our threats will match yours & 
vice versa.

Has anyone heard of an interesting strategy?

   -- Owen



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?

2017-08-09 Thread Owen Densmore

>From BBC a reasonable summary:
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879485

My question is simple: what *are* the alternatives? Is there an interesting
game theoretic analysis?

The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can
devastate SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike.

As rash as Trump's bluster has been, the real question remains: what is the
reasonable response to NK's threat.
- Preemptive Strike? Likely a loser unless it is so massive as to
obliterate every human in NK. SK would be seriously damaged in the
aftermath.
- Wait 'til NK strikes? Again, hardly reasonable.
- Anti-missile defense? Possibly, but you just gotta miss one for
apocalypse. And what do you do if you *do* succeed? SK is still hostage.
- Tit for Tat? Well, only in the bluster game. Our threats will match yours
& vice versa.

Has anyone heard of an interesting strategy?

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

Jochen,


"What's the matter with your president?"


And it is the west cost states at the most risk.  States that voted for H!


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Jochen Fromm 

Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 1:34:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the 
apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis or 
worse.
http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/

And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump administration 
ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.

-J.



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Some of us tend to care more about applied power more than the explanatory 
power.   Also as Frank suggested there are practical limits to the size of 
genomes that can be simulated.  I could imagine epigenetic / regulatory analogs 
being beneficial though.

Marcus

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:

Steve,

What’s powerful about it?

What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations but 
“hypotheses” about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are shaped 
by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.  The 
randomness is largely notional.   I still think you guys are more captured by 
your model of evolution than by the actual facts of it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the 
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and see 
what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow  e-mail 
threads to skype.   Jenny

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.
In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and 
Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may well 
be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something becomes 
a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to continue the 
illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, 
and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and 
salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical products on the 
market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the "generic" 
or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, but 
also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and other 
embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).

- Steve
On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature 
innovates by Andreas Wagner.

From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this 
power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot 
create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another 
way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some 
uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability 
to innovate, its innovability.

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it is 
relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value was 
determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last value.  So the next 
step in a random walk is “random” but the current value (it’s present position 
on a surface, say) is “the result of a stochastic process.”  From your 
responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am 
correct or not.

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you 
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this “evolution” of 
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are speaking 
of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  The 
alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in which that 
actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that 
EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the place in 
the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In other words, the 
randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations concerning the 
phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon, itself.

So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up, here.

nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

[FRIAM] The apocalypse

2017-08-09 Thread Jochen Fromm

What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the 
apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis or 
worse.http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/
And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump administration 
ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.
-J.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Steve, 

 

What's powerful about it?  

 

What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations but
"hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.
The randomness is largely notional.   I still think you guys are more
captured by your model of evolution than by the actual facts of it. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Totally agree. 

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and
see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow
e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny

 

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and
Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may
well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something
becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to
continue the illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful
and even harmful, and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to
marketing and salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical
products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear
when the "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants
and odorants and other embellishments required to differentiate one product
from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature
innovates by Andreas Wagner.

>From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
ability to innovate, its innovability. 

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it
is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's
e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

 

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi everybody, 

 

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog. 

 

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours. 

 

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
I am correct or not.  

 

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this "evolution" of
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --
The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in
which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all
over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations
concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon,
itself. 

 

So what kind of "evolution" are you guys talking about?

 

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
here. 

 

nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
 

 







FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Thanks, Glen, 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Maybe you're looking for the term "Markovian"?  
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovProcess.html

On 08/09/2017 07:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last 
> value.  So the next step in a random walk is "random" but the current 
> value (it's present position on a surface, say) is "the result of a 
> stochastic process."  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
> Wikipedia, I still can't tell if I am correct or not.

--
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant

2017-08-09 Thread glen ☣

On 08/09/2017 08:58 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It helps a little, though, I think that comedians and commentators keep 
> pounding on the moron theme.   It clearly worked with the White House because 
> they started doing off-camera interviews.

I actually laughed out loud at this segment:  
https://youtu.be/jovN0MbKJUA?t=3m25s

And I don't think it was shadenfreude.  It was truly funny.  I have no idea if 
I would have laughed if they'd said analogous things about me... but I think I 
would have.

"Here's your desk.  This is your extension number.  Now clean out your desk."

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread glen ☣


I think Wagner and Monod agree, actually.  If I extrapolate what Jenny said 
Wagner said, *mutation's* randomness is a statement of ignorance, presumably 
about where innovation comes from in biological evolution.  So, both Monod and 
Wagner would say innovation comes from mutation.

On 08/09/2017 10:22 AM, Grant Holland wrote:
> According to Jacques Monod, chance mutations are the /only /form of 
> innovation in living systems.
> 
> On p. 112 of  his book "Chance and Necessity" he says "...since they [chance 
> mutations] constitute the /only/ possible source of modifications in the 
> genetic text,...it necessarily follows that chance /alone/ is at the source 
> of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. [Emphasis is his.]


> On 8/9/17 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Jenny -
>>
>> What a powerful quote:
>>
>> /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
>> create them./


>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>>
>>> An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how nature 
>>> innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>>>
>>> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but 
>>> this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it 
>>> cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just 
>>> another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- 
>>> some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's 
>>> ability to innovate, its innovability.


-- 
☣ glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Steve,

According to Jacques Monod, chance mutations are the /only /form of 
innovation in living systems.


On p. 112 of  his book "Chance and Necessity" he says "...since they 
[chance mutations] constitute the /only/ possible source of 
modifications in the genetic text,...it necessarily follows that chance 
/alone/ is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the 
biosphere. [Emphasis is his.]


Geneticist Monod was a winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Medicine or 
Physiology.


Grant


On 8/9/17 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

/Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
create them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems 
it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market 
being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the 
"generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior 
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the 
colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to 
differentiate one product from the other?).


- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:


An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
relevant to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical 
fog.


I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one 
whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s 
last value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the 
current value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the 
result of a stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a 
short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I 
will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of 
which we are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa 
over time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Frank Wimberly

The random + current thing sounds like a Markov process.  If the next value
is independent of the current value then it's random.  If it depends on the
current value and no previous values it's Markov of order 1.  If it depends
only on the current value and the one before and none before that, order
2.  Etc.  Or something like that.  I'm rusty.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 9, 2017 8:48 AM, "Nick Thompson"  wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
>
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
>
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last value.
> So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current value (it’s
> present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a stochastic
> process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I
> still can’t tell if I am correct or not.
>
>
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
> confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this “evolution” of
> which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
> speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  
> *The
> alteration of the design of taxa over time*.   Hard to see any way in
> which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into
> the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
> vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability
> all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are
> predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
> your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
>
>
> So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?
>
>
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
> here.
>
>
>
> nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

thanks for the reference, I was not aware of the Renesan 
 Institute 
before this, though I had heard somewhere about the first listed 
lecture/course/seminar on "the Trickster".   I don't see your course in 
the lineup?  I will be out of town on the 7th so I wouldn't try to 
attend anyway, but as always "good on ya" for your efforts to continue 
to spread the enlightenment.


I've a friend who introduced me to Jack... he was in middle school in 
Portales when someone introduced him to "that old professor who writes 
Science Fiction" (then in his 50s?).  They became fast friends despite 
the many decades between them, and my friend Joe even influenced several 
of Jack's titles, if not characters and narratives.  He claims he helped 
Jack come up with the title "Terraforming Earth", although Joe's 
throwdown was "Terraforming Terra" which apparently Jack loved but his 
editor said "not enough people know what 'Terra' is".  Oh well.


In Jack's life story, his parents moved him from their hardscrabble farm 
near Bisbee AZ where he was born to a relative's more productive ranches 
in Mexico/TX but eventually eventually they migrated to NM in 1915 in a 
covered wagon.  He has(d) stories!


I have a copy of Jack's 2005 autobiography, "Wonder's Child" if 
perchance you would like to borrow it.   The duality of Science/Fiction 
( or more generally the interplay between the literal/actualized and the 
imagined is a fascinating study to me).   This second wave of Scientific 
Romancing (after Verne, Swift, Burroughs, even London/Twain) was so 
smack-dab in the middle of the golden age of transportation and 
communication, into information processing that it deeply 
informs/reflects our contemporary psyche, even for those who think they 
don't like or care about Science Fiction.   The more modern adoption of 
Science Fiction into mainstream cinema/TV has put titles/tropes like 
"the Matrix" and "BladeRunner", "Avatar" and "Dr. Who" squarely in the 
face (most literally) of the masses.


I believe this is for the better and the worse.  Like everything I 
suppose!  Nothing Aristotelian about MY logic!?


- Steve

   /"The best thing about being on the fence is that the view is better
   from up there"/ - R. Edward Lowe

Steve, it is a Renesan course on Tue, September 7 and 14. I have read 
Jack Williamson, not all 90, and he would have been included in 
another course I proposed to Renesan on science fiction themes. Maybe 
in the future.


davew



On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 09:57 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Dave -

Most excellent of you to do this, and what will be your venue for 
this class?


Are you familiar with our own Jack Williamson 
's vague parallel work 
in his "Humanoids" which began in 1947 with the Novelette: "With 
Folded Hands". I do not know if he ever acknowledged an influence in 
this work from Asimov's introduction to the "three laws" in 1941? He 
investigates the (unintended/unexpected catastrophic consequences of 
something like the three laws on humanity, having the human spirit 
"quelled" by being "niced" or "safed" near-to-death)


He claims  to have written this as a cathartic project to shake off 
the existential angst/depression he felt from the (ab)use of atomic 
weapons at the end of WWII.  Jack was too old to serve in the 
military when the war broke out (he was 36?), but instead volunteered 
to work in the South Pacific as a civilian meteorologist.  He had 
started his career in Science Fiction before the term was fully 
adopted (Scientific Romance and Scientifiction being precursors 
according to Jack) with the publication of a short story "Metal Man" 
In Hugo Gernsbach's /Amazing Stories /in 1928.  Up until the end of 
WWII he claims to have been somewhat of a techno-utopianist, 
believing that advancing technology would (continue to ) simply 
advance the quality of life of human beings (somewhat?) monotonically.


I hosted Jack at an evening talk at LANL/Bradbury Science Museum in 
1998 during the Nebula Awards on the theme of how Science and Science 
Fiction inform one another.   Jack was 90 that year and had over 90 
published works at that time.  His work was always somewhat in the 
vein of Space Opera and his characters were generally quite two 
dimensional and his gender politics typical of his generation of 
science fictioneers, yet he was still loved by his community.  His 
use of this pulpy/pop medium as a way to investigate and discuss 
fundamental aspects of human nature and many of the social or even 
spiritual implications of the advance of technology was nevertheless 
quite inspired (IMO).


He died in 2007 at the ripe young age of 98 and was still producing 
work nearly up to the day of his death.  In 1998 when I first met 
him, the OED was creating an appendix/section of "neologisms from 
science fiction" and he was credited (informally?) with having the 
most

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Jenny Quillien


Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at 
the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or 
other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but 
can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny



On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

/Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
create them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems 
it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market 
being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the 
"generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior 
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the 
colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to 
differentiate one product from the other?).


- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:


An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
relevant to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical 
fog.


I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one 
whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s 
last value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the 
current value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the 
result of a stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a 
short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I 
will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of 
which we are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa 
over time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-09 Thread Prof David West

Steve, it is a Renesan course on Tue, September 7 and 14. I have read
Jack Williamson, not all 90, and he would have been included in
another course I proposed to Renesan on science fiction themes. Maybe
in the future.
davew



On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 09:57 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave -


> Most excellent of you to do this, and what will be your venue for
> this class?> Are you familiar with our own Jack Williamson[1]'s vague 
> parallel work
> in his "Humanoids" which began in 1947 with the Novelette: "With
> Folded Hands".  I do not know if he ever acknowledged an influence in
> this work from Asimov's introduction to the "three laws" in 1941?  He
> investigates the (unintended/unexpected catastrophic consequences of
> something like the three laws on humanity, having the human spirit
> "quelled" by being "niced" or "safed" near-to-death)> He claims  to have 
> written this as a cathartic project to shake off
> the existential angst/depression he felt from the (ab)use of atomic
> weapons at the end of WWII.  Jack was too old to serve in the military
> when the war broke out (he was 36?), but instead volunteered to work
> in the South Pacific as a civilian meteorologist.  He had started his
> career in Science Fiction before the term was fully adopted
> (Scientific Romance and Scientifiction being precursors according to
> Jack) with the publication of a short story "Metal Man" In Hugo
> Gernsbach's *Amazing Stories *in 1928.  Up until the end of WWII he
> claims to have been somewhat of a techno-utopianist, believing that
> advancing technology would (continue to ) simply advance the quality
> of life of human beings (somewhat?) monotonically.> I hosted Jack at an 
> evening talk at LANL/Bradbury Science Museum in
> 1998 during the Nebula Awards on the theme of how Science and Science
> Fiction inform one another.   Jack was 90  that year and had over 90
> published works at that time.  His work was always somewhat in the
> vein of Space Opera and his characters were generally quite two
> dimensional and his gender politics typical of his generation of
> science fictioneers, yet he was still loved by his community.  His use
> of this pulpy/pop medium as a way to investigate and discuss
> fundamental aspects of human nature and many of the social or even
> spiritual implications of the advance of technology was nevertheless
> quite inspired (IMO).> He died in 2007 at the ripe young age of 98 and was 
> still producing
> work nearly up to the day of his death.  In 1998 when I first met him,
> the OED was creating an appendix/section of "neologisms from science
> fiction" and he was credited (informally?) with having the most
> entries in the not-yet-published project.   His most famous throwdown
> in this category at the time was his "invention" of anti-matter, which
> he called "contra-terrene" or more colloquially "seetee" (a
> phoneticization of the contraction "CT")!   He was also quite proud of
> being interrogated by the FBI during the Manhattan project for having
> written a story about Atomic Weapons... they wanted to assume he had
> access to a security leak until he showed them a 1932(?) short story
> on the same theme, making it clear that the ideas of nuclear fission
> (fusion even?) as a weapon were not new (to him anyway)...  that
> apparently satisfied them and of course, he didn't appreciate the full
> import of their interrogation until after the war.> Carry On!


>  - Steve


> 
> On 8/9/17 9:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in
>> Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1)
>> the robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows
>> them to eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact
>> opposite of Hawking et. al.'s fears that our  creations will not love
>> us; 2) how the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel
>> Suarez'* Kill Decision* - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war
>> and death to humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the
>> future that Asimov advanced.>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not
>>> entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least
>>> insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of
>>> "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez
>>>  wrote: Future will be quite interesting. How will 
>>> be the human being of
 the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know. 
 http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
  
 
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

   /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot create
   them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it 
might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market being 
pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the "generic" or 
"store brand" version is equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, 
but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and 
other embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).


- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:


An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
relevant to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last 
value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current 
value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a 
stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage 
in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness. There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit. I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant

Dave writes:


"Watching Bill Maher with some friends - also hard
core liberal democrats - I was struck by two things: 1), all the fury
and ridicule heaped on Trump (deservedly so) is really nothing more than
schadenfreude at the misery of Trump and his circle. Pleasurable
perhaps, but just as pointless as my gloating after the election; 2)
speaking purely tactically, the actions of the media and the liberal
establishment in reaction to Trump is going to assure his re-election to
a second term instead of prevent it."


Michael Moore was on Steven Colbert a week or so ago and said various 
confrontational things about living in a country where Trump is president.

Paraphrasing, that he wouldn't tolerate it, but that he also wouldn't move.   
(It was the kind of rhetoric he is known for.)

But it sounded at first like a potential call for violence, but then he walked 
it back a bit.  Even so, Colbert seemed uncomfortable.   I must admit I am 
getting tired of people on the left who think their indignation matters for 
squat, and that the system of checks and balances will just fix this.It 
helps a little, though, I think that comedians and commentators keep pounding 
on the moron theme.   It clearly worked with the White House because they 
started doing off-camera interviews.


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:42:29 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant

After Trump won, something I had been telling people would happen since
January last year, Nick constantly questioned me as to my
schadenfreude-ic attitude - taking pleasure in the misery of all the
astounded liberals. Watching Bill Maher with some friends - also hard
core liberal democrats - I was struck by two things: 1), all the fury
and ridicule heaped on Trump (deservedly so) is really nothing more than
schadenfreude at the misery of Trump and his circle. Pleasurable
perhaps, but just as pointless as my gloating after the election; 2)
speaking purely tactically, the actions of the media and the liberal
establishment in reaction to Trump is going to assure his re-election to
a second term instead of prevent it. Nothing is being done at present to
reduce his popularity among those that voted for him while
simultaneously creating a platform for next time, " I tried to keep my
promises to you, but those liberal and democratic SOB's didn't let me.
Give me a real mandate and we will show them just how big a bunch of
losers they really are." (More sophisticated than that, but that is the
gist.)

Russia will not save us. Nothing will be found except more nasty,
vulgar, and immoral — but absolutely legal — behavior. At most, some
peripherals who illegally exploited their association with the Trump
campaign - e.g. Flynn - will suffer. Mobilizing bases, better
candidates, etc. will not save us - it will merely increase the shouting
the mutual animus and the polarization of our country.

My friends and I engaged in heated discussion - mostly the same kind of
"how can you," "my side is right," "Trump's supporters are morons but
Democrat supporters are universally enlightened," etc. etc. that
everyone is engaged in right now - before coming to a consensus.

Government has become locked into ideas, philosophies, and programs that
are grounded in, and straight jacketed by, things that worked in the
1940s (Democrats) and 1950s (Republicans). More of any of that cannot
possible work or be useful today. The only answer is true innovation.

Bringing innovation to government will not be easy. No institution is
more adverse to change - except maybe academia. Built in barriers, e.g.
procurement rules that guarantee only those who have proven they are
huge,  incompetent and with a history of expensive failures are even
allowed to bid on government contracts, will make it near impossible.

But, should we not be able to come up with original ideas along with
strategies and tactics to leverage the Web and social media to make them
possible? Would that not be an interesting and challenging, and
worthwhile endeavor?

davew



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Dave -

Most excellent of you to do this, and what will be your venue for this
class?

Are you familiar with our own Jack Williamson
's vague parallel work in
his "Humanoids" which began in 1947 with the Novelette: "With Folded
Hands". I do not know if he ever acknowledged an influence in this work
from Asimov's introduction to the "three laws" in 1941? He investigates
the (unintended/unexpected catastrophic consequences of something like
the three laws on humanity, having the human spirit "quelled" by being
"niced" or "safed" near-to-death)

He claims to have written this as a cathartic project to shake off the
existential angst/depression he felt from the (ab)use of atomic weapons
at the end of WWII. Jack was too old to serve in the military when the
war broke out (he was 36?), but instead volunteered to work in the South
Pacific as a civilian meteorologist. He had started his career in
Science Fiction before the term was fully adopted (Scientific Romance
and Scientifiction being precursors according to Jack) with the
publication of a short story "Metal Man" In Hugo Gernsbach's /Amazing
Stories /in 1928. Up until the end of WWII he claims to have been
somewhat of a techno-utopianist, believing that advancing technology
would (continue to ) simply advance the quality of life of human beings
(somewhat?) monotonically.

I hosted Jack at an evening talk at LANL/Bradbury Science Museum in 1998
during the Nebula Awards on the theme of how Science and Science Fiction
inform one another. Jack was 90 that year and had over 90 published
works at that time. His work was always somewhat in the vein of Space
Opera and his characters were generally quite two dimensional and his
gender politics typical of his generation of science fictioneers, yet he
was still loved by his community. His use of this pulpy/pop medium as a
way to investigate and discuss fundamental aspects of human nature and
many of the social or even spiritual implications of the advance of
technology was nevertheless quite inspired (IMO).

He died in 2007 at the ripe young age of 98 and was still producing work
nearly up to the day of his death. In 1998 when I first met him, the
OED was creating an appendix/section of "neologisms from science
fiction" and he was credited (informally?) with having the most entries
in the not-yet-published project. His most famous throwdown in this
category at the time was his "invention" of anti-matter, which he called
"contra-terrene" or more colloquially "seetee" (a phoneticization of the
contraction "CT")! He was also quite proud of being interrogated by
the FBI during the Manhattan project for having written a story about
Atomic Weapons... they wanted to assume he had access to a security leak
until he showed them a 1932(?) short story on the same theme, making it
clear that the ideas of nuclear fission (fusion even?) as a weapon were
not new (to him anyway)... that apparently satisfied them and of
course, he didn't appreciate the full import of their interrogation
until after the war.

Carry On!

- Steve

On 8/9/17 9:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in
Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1)
the robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows
them to eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact
opposite of Hawking et. al.'s fears that our creations will not love
us; 2) how the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel
Suarez'/Kill Decision/ - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war
and death to humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the
future that Asimov advanced.

davew

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not
entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least
insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of
"reining it in" are probably not going to fly.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez
> wrote:

Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of
the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.

http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Nick,

Re: your queston about stochastic processes

Yes, your specific description "AND its last value" is what most uses of 
"stochastic process" imply. But, technically all that is required to be 
a "stochastic process" is that each next step in the process is 
unpredictable, whether or not the outcome of one step influences the 
outcome of the next. An example of this is the process of flipping a 
coin several times in a row. Generally, we assume that the outcomes of 
two adjacent flips are stochastically (or statistically) independent, 
and that there is no influence between the steps. So, the steps of an 
independent stochastic process are not dependent on their previous steps.


On the other hand, selecting dinner tonight probably depends on what you 
had last night, because you would get bored with posole too many nights 
in a row. And maybe your memory goes back more than just one night, and 
your selection of dinner tonite is affected by what you had for 2 or 
more nites before. If your memory goes back only one night, then your 
"dinner selection process" is a kind of stochastic process called a 
"Markov process". Markov processes limit their "memory" to just one 
step. (That keeps the math simpler.)


In any event, stochastic processes whose steps depend on the outcomes of 
previous steps are "less random" than those that don't, because the 
earlier steps "give you extra information" that help you narrow down the 
options and to better predict the future steps - some more than others.  
So, LEARNING can occur inside of these dependent stochastic processes.


In fact, the mathematics of information theory is all about taking 
advantage of these dependent (or "conditional") stochastic processes to 
hopefully predict the outcomes of future steps. The whole thing is based 
on conditional probability. Info theory uses formulas with names such as 
joint entropy, conditional entropy, mutual information and entropy rate. 
These formulas can measure /how much /stochastic dependency is at work 
in a particular process - i.e how predictable it is. Entropy rate in 
particular works with conditional stochastic processes and tries to use 
that "extra information" provided by stochastic dependencies to predict 
future outcomes.


Re: your "evolution" question... I have been speaking of biological 
evolution.


HTH

Grant


On 8/9/17 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last 
value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current 
value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a 
stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that 
you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread glen ☣

Maybe you're looking for the term "Markovian"?  
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovProcess.html

On 08/09/2017 07:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
> was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
> next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
> position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
> your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
> I am correct or not.  

-- 
☣ glen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant

2017-08-09 Thread Prof David West

After Trump won, something I had been telling people would happen since
January last year, Nick constantly questioned me as to my 
schadenfreude-ic attitude - taking pleasure in the misery of all the
astounded liberals. Watching Bill Maher with some friends - also hard
core liberal democrats - I was struck by two things: 1), all the fury
and ridicule heaped on Trump (deservedly so) is really nothing more than
schadenfreude at the misery of Trump and his circle. Pleasurable
perhaps, but just as pointless as my gloating after the election; 2)
speaking purely tactically, the actions of the media and the liberal
establishment in reaction to Trump is going to assure his re-election to
a second term instead of prevent it. Nothing is being done at present to
reduce his popularity among those that voted for him while
simultaneously creating a platform for next time, " I tried to keep my
promises to you, but those liberal and democratic SOB's didn't let me.
Give me a real mandate and we will show them just how big a bunch of
losers they really are." (More sophisticated than that, but that is the
gist.)

Russia will not save us. Nothing will be found except more nasty,
vulgar, and immoral — but absolutely legal — behavior. At most, some
peripherals who illegally exploited their association with the Trump
campaign - e.g. Flynn - will suffer. Mobilizing bases, better
candidates, etc. will not save us - it will merely increase the shouting
the mutual animus and the polarization of our country.

My friends and I engaged in heated discussion - mostly the same kind of
"how can you," "my side is right," "Trump's supporters are morons but
Democrat supporters are universally enlightened," etc. etc. that
everyone is engaged in right now - before coming to a consensus.

Government has become locked into ideas, philosophies, and programs that
are grounded in, and straight jacketed by, things that worked in the
1940s (Democrats) and 1950s (Republicans). More of any of that cannot
possible work or be useful today. The only answer is true innovation.

Bringing innovation to government will not be easy. No institution is
more adverse to change - except maybe academia. Built in barriers, e.g.
procurement rules that guarantee only those who have proven they are
huge,  incompetent and with a history of expensive failures are even
allowed to bid on government contracts, will make it near impossible.

But, should we not be able to come up with original ideas along with
strategies and tactics to leverage the Web and social media to make them
possible? Would that not be an interesting and challenging, and
worthwhile endeavor?

davew



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-09 Thread Prof David West

For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in
Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1) the
robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows them to
eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact opposite of
Hawking et. al.'s fears that our  creations will not love us; 2) how
the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel Suarez'* Kill
Decision* - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war and death to
humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the future that
Asimov advanced.
davew

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely
> on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it
> may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are
> probably not going to fly.> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez
>  wrote:>> Future will be quite interesting. How will be 
> the human being of the
>> future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.>> 
>> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>>
>>  
>> 
>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>  to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>  
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Jenny Quillien

An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, 
but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them 
random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's 
any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles 
that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant 
to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last 
value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current 
value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a 
stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that 
you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Gillian Densmore

Ah, good to see you nick.
How fairs you?

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
>
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
>
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last value.
> So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current value (it’s
> present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a stochastic
> process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I
> still can’t tell if I am correct or not.
>
>
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
> confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this “evolution” of
> which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
> speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  
> *The
> alteration of the design of taxa over time*.   Hard to see any way in
> which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into
> the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
> vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability
> all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are
> predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
> your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
>
>
> So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?
>
>
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
> here.
>
>
>
> nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Hi everybody, 

 

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog. 

 

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours. 

 

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
I am correct or not.  

 

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this "evolution" of
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --
The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in
which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all
over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations
concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon,
itself. 

 

So what kind of "evolution" are you guys talking about?

 

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
here. 

 

nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-09 Thread gepr ⛧

FWIW, I tend to use stochastic to mean a process with a collection of 
variables, some of which are (pseudo) randomly set and some of which are not. A 
"random process" would imply a process where either all the variables are 
random OR where the randomly set variables are dominant. A process can be 
stochastic even if the randomness has little effect.

My use of indeterminate is ambiguous. In processes where we're ignorant of how 
a variable is set, those variables are indeterminate. But I also use it to 
mean unset variables. E.g. a semaphore that's being polled for a value or state 
change. But as with stochasticity, a "don't care" variable can be indeterminate 
without making the whole process indeterminate.

On August 8, 2017 11:23:29 PM PDT, Grant Holland  
wrote:
>Nick,
>
>In science, these three terms are generally interchangeable. Their 
>common usage is that they all describe activities, or "events", that
>are 
>"subject to chance". Such activities, events or processes that are 
>described by these terms are governed by the laws of probability. They 
>all describe activities, events, or "happenings" whose repetitions do 
>not always produce the same outcomes even when given the same inputs 
>every time (initial conditions). In other words, uncertainty is
>involved.
>
>However, like most words, these enjoy other usage, meanings, as well. 
>For example "random" is sometimes used to mean "disorganized" or 
>"lacking in specific pattern". This is a very different meaning than 
>"activities that don't always produce the same outcome given the same 
>inputs". Consider what a math formula for each of these tow meanings 
>wold consist of. One of them would be based on probabilities; but the 
>other would involve stationary relationships.
>
>On 8/8/17 5:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Grant,
>>
>> I think I know the answer to this question, but want to make sure:
>>
>> What is the difference beween calling a process “stochastic”, 
>> “indeterminate”, or “random”?
-- 
⛧glen⛧

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

"Right.  Then you use gradient ascent.  But what if you are scheduling a job 
shop for throughput when there are thousands of variables most of which have 
discrete values?"

I'd try to code it up for a SMT solver like Z3, or look for a SMT solver that 
had theories that closely matched the domain of the job shop.  Or try something 
like this on a D-Wave.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly 

Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:35 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Right.  Then you use gradient ascent.  But what if you are scheduling a job 
shop for throughput when there are thousands of variables most of which have 
discrete values?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:41 PM, "Marcus Daniels" 
> wrote:

Frank writes:

"My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a 
straw-man (straw-men?)."

Unless there is a robust meta-rule (not heuristic) or single deterministic 
search algorithm to rule them all, then wouldn't those other suggestions also 
be straw-men too?   If I knew that there were no noise and the domain was 
continuous and convex, then I wouldn't use a stochastic approach.

Marcus

From: Friam > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly >
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:15:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a 
straw-man (straw-men?).

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels" 
> wrote:

Frank writes:

"Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And 
these are just classical search methods."

Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic 
programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in 
principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined 
library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary consists of 
simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.

In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse diversity. 
  It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million little 
refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that solution!)  
More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to decent-performing but 
weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to properties of sub-populations 
and how I can keep the historically good performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but 
a GA where communities also have fitness functions matching my heavy hand of 
justice..  (If I prove that conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to 
pass it along.)

Marcus

From: Friam > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly >
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And 
these are just classical search methods.

Feank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" 
> wrote:

"But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast 
ways to find answers."

Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding attention! ]

From: Friam > on 
behalf of Marcus Daniels >
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ☣
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Grant writes:

"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree 
with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "

I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. 
Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age 
before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose 
constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first 
search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted 
to SMT solvers

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

2017-08-09 Thread Frank Wimberly

Right.  Then you use gradient ascent.  But what if you are scheduling a job
shop for throughput when there are thousands of variables most of which
have discrete values?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:41 PM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:

> Frank writes:
>
>
> "My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only
> as a straw-man (straw-men?)."
>
>
> Unless there is a robust meta-rule (not heuristic) or single deterministic
> search algorithm to rule them all, then wouldn't those other suggestions
> also be straw-men too?   If I knew that there were no noise and the domain
> was continuous and convex, then I wouldn't use a stochastic approach.
>
>
> Marcus
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimber...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:15:05 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as
> a straw-man (straw-men?).
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:
>
>> Frank writes:
>>
>>
>> "Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search,
>> etc.  And these are just classical search methods."
>>
>>
>> Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic
>> programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in
>> principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined
>> library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary
>> consists of simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.
>>
>>
>> In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse
>> diversity.   It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million
>> little refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that
>> solution!)  More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to
>> decent-performing but weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to
>> properties of sub-populations and how I can keep the historically good
>> performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but a GA where communities also have
>> fitness functions matching my heavy hand of justice..  (If I prove that
>> conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to pass it along.)
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
>> wimber...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>
>> Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.
>> And these are just classical search methods.
>>
>> Feank
>>
>> Frank Wimberly
>> Phone (505) 670-9918
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:
>>
>>> "But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just
>>> fast ways to find answers."
>>>
>>>
>>> Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding
>>> attention! ]
>>> --
>>> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Marcus Daniels <
>>> mar...@snoutfarm.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ☣
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>>
>>>
>>> Grant writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> "On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
>>> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
>>> another one.) "
>>>
>>>
>>> I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI
>>> research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp)
>>> from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible
>>> way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and
>>> depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems
>>> to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving
>>> algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming
>>> languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way
>>> and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural
>>> language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets
>>> (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like
>>> nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches
>>> (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come
>>> together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high
>>> dimensional discrete systems can be solved,

Re: [FRIAM] the self

2017-08-09 Thread gepr ⛧

Ha! We bald people clearly have a stronger sense of self than hairy people.

On August 8, 2017 6:06:12 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>Gasp.   Loss of _hair_?  _Who_ would say such a thing?

-- 
⛧glen⛧


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

"Genetic algorithms need not be, but can be, stochastic. Genetic algorithms are 
adaptive; but they need not be stochastically adaptive"

[..]

"Without this particular stochasticicty, there would only ever have been one 
species on earth, if that, and that species would now be long extinct because 
of its inability to adapt."


If an algorithm can result in there being one species it is not adaptive.   I 
meant to imply a GA has a non-zero mutation rate (not just selection) and that 
mutation is random, without specifying particular distributional properties or 
distinguishing between pseudo-random and `truly' random.


Marcus


From: Grant Holland 
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 12:40:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Marcus Daniels; glen ☣
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Marcus,

Let me clarify what I meant by saying that evolution is stochastic

By "evolution", I do not mean genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms need not 
be, but can be, stochastic. Genetic algorithms are adaptive; but they need not 
be stochastically adaptive. On the other hand, biological evolution of life on 
earth is necessarily stochastically adaptive - due to chance mutations.

As Jacques Monod points out in his book "Chance and Necessity", chance 
mutations are the only natural mechanism by which new species are created. And 
it is completely subject to chance. Without this particular stochasticicty, 
there would only ever have been one species on earth, if that, and that species 
would now be long extinct because of its inability to adapt.

On 8/8/17 6:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree 
with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. 
Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age 
before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose 
constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first 
search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted 
to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have 
somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine 
learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated 
with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even 
dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided 
by groups like nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both 
approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be 
mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by 
using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional 
discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific 
heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic 
algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in 
fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus


From: Friam  on 
behalf of Grant Holland 

Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ☣
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. 
And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree 
with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A 
good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by 
Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that 
proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that 
clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as 
they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations 
of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in 
biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the 
complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to 
tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like 
that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as 
an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than 
any of our

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Marcus,

Let me clarify what I meant by saying that evolution is stochastic

By "evolution", I do not mean genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms 
need not be, but can be, stochastic. Genetic algorithms are/adaptive; 
/but they need not be/stochastically /adaptive. On the other hand, 
biological evolution of life on earth is necessarily stochastically 
adaptive - due to chance mutations.


As Jacques Monod points out in his book "Chance and Necessity", chance 
mutations are the /only/ natural mechanism by which new species are 
created. And it is completely subject to chance. Without this particular 
stochasticicty, there would only ever have been one species on earth, if 
that, and that species would now be long extinct because of its 
inability to adapt.



On 8/8/17 6:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not 
disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right 
was another one.) "



I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI 
research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in 
Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very 
flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that 
breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find 
answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and 
specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat 
less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine 
learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally 
associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are 
now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the 
range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu really 
impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and 
machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.



Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come 
together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which 
high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on 
fragile or domain-specific heuristics.



I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  
Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to noise (or if you like 
ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.



Marcus


*From:* Friam  on behalf of Grant Holland 


*Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ☣
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are 
ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!


For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not 
disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right 
was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is 
"Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it 
for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)


G.


On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows 
the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they 
don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the 
unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said 
it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one 
order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object." 
 Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative 
construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than 
any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus 
our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set 
matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, 
not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires 
a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will 
*always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment 
isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr.

Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence