Re: [FRIAM] Unpleasant dreams

[glen]

Evolutionary psychology is one of those disciplines where you see whatever you want to see. Now, I haven't 
read Nesse. But wherever anyone tries to reduce a high dimensional, dynamic space like whatever it is 
evolution operates over and within to a single cause-effect narrative, I get suspicious. Do bad feelings 
prevent "us" from doing things bad for us? My friends who've committed suicide might disagree. E.g. 
in one case of bipolar disorder, the bad (and good) feelings seemed purely cyclic and physiological. The 
highs caused him to do "bad" things. And the lows clearly did not prevent him from doing bad 
things. Of course, stories don't make for good science. So it's a wash either way. I suppose a charitable way 
to reword it is "bad feelings emerged from the milieu as a way to bias behavior toward self-sustenance 
and away from self-dissolution" ... like an amoeba extending a pseudopod along a gradient. But we 
already knew that without the sophisticated story telling in EvoPsych.

Re: dreams - I had a dream last night where I was living in an unfamiliar house 
with a bunch of people I didn't know. The house caught on fire. My cat Scooter 
was there. There was fire coming down the chimney and in through the back door 
... like it was more the outside was on fire than the house, I guess. Scooter, 
confused, tried to run up the chimney and all his fur burnt off, after which he 
came back out and I tried and failed to grab him. Then he ran out the door, 
into the fire, and burnt up the rest of the way. Does this dream help me 
prepare for unknown danger? I doubt it.

What's more likely is that it's an artifact of predictive processing where your brain is a random 
number generator (rng) and, while sleeping, there's no reality against which to impedance match. So 
the random numbers it generates can just propagate on however long, to whatever sequence obtains. 
Such exercises help with the rng's expression, making it more active and robust so that, while 
awake, one can think more energetically about, within, and around one's world of constraints. 
Again, charitably, I might restate Rvonsuo as "dreams help us find the nooks and crannies in 
the hull of constraints presented to us by reality - the edge cases - by exercising our random 
number generator brain". But this doesn't imply "danger" so much as interestingness 
... or something like a fractal or a space-filling curve.


On 6/3/24 22:44, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I do not find Paul's book completely convincing. Randolph M. Nesse's book "Good 
Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry" 
shows much more clearly that bad feelings prevent us from doing things which are bad for 
us. They are threat avoidance programs from our genes.


His remark about dreams are interesting nevertheless. He mentions for instance this paper 
from Antti Revonsuo, "The reinterpretation of dreams: An evolutionary hypothesis of 
the function of dreaming" in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6) (2000).  877–901; 
904–1018; 1083–1121.

http://behavioralhealth2000.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-reinterpretation-of-dreams-An-evolutionary-hypothesis-of-the-function-of-dreaming.pdf


Revonsuo argues one function of dreams may be to simulate threatening events. 
They may help to improve threat prevention by predicting dangerous situations 
and preparing us for unkown dangers. Some fears seem to be hardcoded but this 
method has limits. For example we are much more afraid of spiders and snakes 
than of cars and fast food which are more dangerous to us in the modern world

https://nautil.us/how-evolution-designed-your-fear-236858/


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Objective Reality Doesn’t Exist. We’ve Known This for a Century. It’s Time to Embrace It and Move On. | by Casper Wilstrup | Machine Consciousness | Medium

[glen]

I don't think "extreme" is the right concept. I think a concept like "insubstantial but high influence" ... something 
like "sensitive" or "agile". For that, I like canard: https://www.etymonline.com/word/canard, which I learned in the 
context of missiles. But "government by canard" seems close to "wag the dog". So that's where I'd start my search.

On 6/3/24 15:59, Santafe wrote:

Is there a Greek root to build a word for Government by the Extremes?


On Jun 4, 2024, at 6:42 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:

This is the article I had in mind

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-gen-z-wont-show-their-feet_l_64cd1b52e4b01796c06c0cc4


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Objective Reality Doesn’t Exist. We’ve Known This for a Century. It’s Time to Embrace It and Move On. | by Casper Wilstrup | Machine Consciousness | Medium

[glen]

The privileged are always surprised when their privilege is called out.

On 6/3/24 14:42, Frank Wimberly wrote:

This is the article I had in mind

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-gen-z-wont-show-their-feet_l_64cd1b52e4b01796c06c0cc4
 



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Unpleasant dreams

[glen]

I had a conversation with a psychiatrist friend of mine wherein she assumed the dichotomy between 
"good feelings" and "bad feelings" (e.g. an angry or relieved reaction to some 
thing like the Trump verdict). Through about an hour of conversation, I'd tried to convince her 
that dichotomy is false. Bad things are good and good things are bad. The valence we assign is 
post-hoc. I failed, of course. But...

I feel the same way about phobias. It's a bit trite to suggest that we like 
exploring our fears in a safe environment like at a movie theater with a friend 
or two. But it's testament to the milieu that monsters vs treasures is a false 
dichotomy. And it goes beyond some complementarity like banking present pain 
for future pleasure. It's truly a dual. The highs *are* the lows and vice 
versa. If there is such a thing as free will, your assignment of valence might 
be the only freedom you have.

I don't know if Bloom explores this aspect. But the body of work spawned from Friston and 
the minimization of surprisal targets it directly. It's reasonable to believe that 
*agency* is what provides the common substructure for an explanatory model of the 
ascription of valence to an experience. The hypothetical to explore is whether those 
experiences that promote agency are more often ascribed as (or felt like) 
"good" ones, whether painful, pleasurable, fearful, triumphant, or whatever the 
token ascribed.

On 6/3/24 13:15, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Did you notice that some of the most successful movies from Spielberg are about 
our deepest fears? Jurassic Park is about monsters from the past. Jaws is about 
monsters which lurk in the deep blue sea. Indiana Jones is about monsters (and 
treasures) hiding in dark tombs.


Paul Boom remarks in his book "The Sweet Spot" that psychologists have long 
known that unpleasant dreams are more frequent than pleasant ones. Why is that so? Do 
unpleasant dreams prepare us for possible dangers or are we just relieved that the are 
over if they end?

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-sweet-spot-paul-bloom?variant=40262533840930



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Objective Reality Doesn’t Exist. We’ve Known This for a Century. It’s Time to Embrace It and Move On. | by Casper Wilstrup | Machine Consciousness | Medium

[glen]

IDK. Were we to allow that

a) X merely means a singular, mostly atomic, thing, and
b) "determine" means what most of us think it means,

then you'd be right. A better way to state it would be:

In the US, our collection of mechanisms for selecting the most powerful, but not 
all-powerful, person in our federa[l|ated] and hierarchically composed government carries 
too much structural/systemic bias for a reasonable person to describe it as 
"democratic". Nick's gloss was way too vague for one to use that more refined 
statement to contradict his. If we allow democracy to be a spectrum, some more, some 
less, democratic, then Nick's statement stands well enough. But as my Gen Z friends are 
telling me on a daily basis, they're not going to vote in November because it doesn't 
matter. Biden and Trump are the same person. Both lie. And even if/when they're not 
lying, whatever they intend to do will be subverted by or enervated with the noxious 
intentions of the oligarchs or self-aggrandizing agendas of the rest of the politicians, 
including SCOTUS.

But even that sentiment (that the whole system is Borked) contradicts one of the normal interpretations of the word 
"determined". Such a frothing mess my be deterministic. But if it is, it's chaotic; so much so that morons 
like Trump wouldn't be capable of "determining our common reality". And even if we broaden the conception of 
"determine" out to mean something Rawlsian like the veil of ignorance, that which of Trump or Biden is 
elected will (or not) somehow affect the power status on the other side of the veil, my Gen Z friends would say it does 
not. The Musks and Thiels will still be the most powerful people on the planet come next year, regardless of who is 
elected. So neither Biden nor Trump "determine" our common reality in any meaningful sense, though they may 
well add a tiny little bias in some very large space.


On 6/1/24 08:28, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said,

/"In democracy, we find  some way to blend our experiences into a common view."/

If the "democracy" of which you speak is that of the New England Town Hall, or 
that of tribal societies of long ago, you are probably reasonably accurate.

However, that sense of "democracy" no longer exists, at least here in the US. 
Regardless of how one votes, the result is absolutely and completely *assigning   X   the 
job of determining our common reality*.

davew

On Fri, May 31, 2024, at 9:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

This (see below) got served up to me out of the blue this morning.  The way 
it's put here, Frank and Bruce might actually agree with it.  Still, it's 
straight Peirce.  I have no idea who the author is; do any of you?

Here's crucial passage.

/Our understanding of reality needs a complete overhaul. Rather than viewing it 
as a fixed, external stage upon which events play out, we should consider it as 
a dynamic interplay between observers and their environment [/experiences/]. 
Reality, in this view, doesn’t reside out there, independent of us. Instead, 
reality is our interactions with the world  [/one another/], shaped and defined 
by our observations [/experiences/]. Reality is nothing but [/the telos of/] 
those interactions between subjects./

I had to make those little changes because the author,  like so many aspiring monists, 
after arguing against observer independence for a hundred words, slips up by implying 
that the "environment" is anything but something else that we have to agree 
upon, if we are ever going to get on with life.

By the way,  I stipulate that nothing in his argument has ANYTHING to do with 
quantum mechanics. The argument would be sound even if the idea of a quantum 
had never been thought.  However, I like the idea of physics as some kind of 
language of convergent belief.

By the way,  In history there seem to have been two ways for people converge on 
a common experience, charisma and democracy.  In charisma, we pick some idiot 
(usually a psychopath) and share his or her experience.  In democracy, we find  
some way to blend our experiences into a common view.  Sometime in the next few 
months we will decide which way we want to go.   Do we want to assign Trump the 
job of determining our common reality, or do we want to continue to work it out 
amongst ourselves through experiment and argument.

Weather gorgeous here in the mosquito infested swamp.  Garden thriving.  A much 
better year.

Watch that dry line in TX.  It's truly amazing.  Can it really be true that I 
am the only weather fanatic on a list that is devoted to complexity?   How can 
that be?

NIck



https://medium.com/machine-cognition/objective-reality-doesnt-exist-it-is-time-to-accept-it-and-move-on-7524b494d6af
 



Objective 

Re: [FRIAM] words

[glen]

I disagree completely. Joe Rogan's podcast is the single most successful podcast (as far 
as I remember) in the world. And he platforms so many batshit people. There's plenty more 
evidence of the upward trend in viral bullshit. We're awash in "contrarianism". 
Of course, we should put glue on our pizza! And eat some rocks while we're at it.

On 5/30/24 11:58, Prof David West wrote:

There is little need to call bullshit, at least in the modern Western world, 
because sufficient forces already exist to marginalize any contrarian, in 
almost every aspect of life.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] words

[glen]

Hm. I suppose it's worth a shot. If we prompt with "All energy in the universe is expressed in 
motion. All motion is expressed in waves. All waves are curved. So where do the straight lines come 
from to make the Platonic solids?" Then it's possible the LLM would complete that with 
"There are no straight lines. So when I took the flower of life and opened it properly, I 
found all new wave conjugations that expose the in-between spaces. It's the thing that holds us all 
together." But I sincerely doubt it.

But maybe by "have to have", you mean that an LLM *could* be trained (and/or 
structured) to bias toward rare expressions/concepts in its training set instead of more 
common ones.

On 5/30/24 09:01, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I'm not going to watch Joe Rogan,  but I think LLMs don't have to have this 
homogenous mean problem.  They capture a distribution, so it is a question of 
the inference procedure to sample from it.  What is the (beam) search 
algorithm, how deep does it go, and what is the sampling temperature.

-Original Message-----
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 1:09 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] words

Terrence Howard | Full Address and Q | Oxford Union 
https://youtu.be/ca1vIYmGyYA?si=vhbtA5WUX1CV8LZH

Joe Rogan Experience #2152 - Terrence Howard
https://youtu.be/g197xdRZsW0?si=kFTa7lQJI1lKA6R1

I just can't help but wonder how many people, while listening to Howard talk, 
realize they're interacting with a sick individual (who deserves compassion but 
does not deserve gullibility). Or how many people are (like Rogan seems to have 
been) ... uh ... hypnotized by Howard's well-crafted word salad. In this LLM 
era, where many people, including some on this list, are enthralled by random 
bullshit, it seems like a reasonable thing to wonder about. Luckily, the clear 
cognitive power Howard exhibits puts him in some kind of rare quantile. So our 
LLMs, being driven mostly to a homogenous mean, their random bullshit will, by 
definition, match those of us within 1 or a few sigma and suppress the weirdest 
among us.

Being a fan of steel-manning, I'm having a bit of a crisis. The paradox of tolerance 
tells me that we absolutely must call bullshit at some point, even if it's not ruthless. 
Those Oxford Union attendees danced around egging him on and calling him out. Is this 
what the kids call "cringe"? Do we just cringe and tolerate it? Or, like Rogan, 
pretend to credibility relying on his weirdness to be so weird that it'll disappear into 
the tails? Or should we be deplatforming the bullshit?




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] words

[glen]

Terrence Howard | Full Address and Q | Oxford Union
https://youtu.be/ca1vIYmGyYA?si=vhbtA5WUX1CV8LZH

Joe Rogan Experience #2152 - Terrence Howard
https://youtu.be/g197xdRZsW0?si=kFTa7lQJI1lKA6R1

I just can't help but wonder how many people, while listening to Howard talk, 
realize they're interacting with a sick individual (who deserves compassion but 
does not deserve gullibility). Or how many people are (like Rogan seems to have 
been) ... uh ... hypnotized by Howard's well-crafted word salad. In this LLM 
era, where many people, including some on this list, are enthralled by random 
bullshit, it seems like a reasonable thing to wonder about. Luckily, the clear 
cognitive power Howard exhibits puts him in some kind of rare quantile. So our 
LLMs, being driven mostly to a homogenous mean, their random bullshit will, by 
definition, match those of us within 1 or a few sigma and suppress the weirdest 
among us.

Being a fan of steel-manning, I'm having a bit of a crisis. The paradox of tolerance 
tells me that we absolutely must call bullshit at some point, even if it's not ruthless. 
Those Oxford Union attendees danced around egging him on and calling him out. Is this 
what the kids call "cringe"? Do we just cringe and tolerate it? Or, like Rogan, 
pretend to credibility relying on his weirdness to be so weird that it'll disappear into 
the tails? Or should we be deplatforming the bullshit?

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Potential Vorticity and the Dynamic Tropopause

[glen]

How about "downward biasing"? Is that less ridicul[ous|e-deserving]? If I'm a high order 
Markov process and my historicity heavily biases me toward a subspace of behaviors, isn't that 
reasonable labeled "downward causation"?

On 5/16/24 08:32, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I'd like to take a moment to ridicule the notion of downward causality as I'm 
reading this.  


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Potential Vorticity and the Dynamic Tropopause

[glen]

I suppose the problem is that LLMs aren't really about language at all. They're about the 
"rolling up" of sequential data into a lossy memory device that can later be queried for 
those (somewhat mutated) memories. Those sequential streams are of different types (vision, 
hearing, touch, etc.), all of which can be memorized by "LLMs", much the same way various 
streams are memorized and recalled by an ecology of autocatalytic cycles in living systems.

The analogy breaks down both structurally (DNA, RNA, autocatalysis, etc. are different 
from the transformer architecture) and behaviorally (multidimensional stimulus-response 
vs aspect-oriented reinforcement learning). But when considering "life as it could 
be", Nick's right to consider the analogy.

I suppose the most important reason I don't care to encourage the flippant interaction with 
cloud-based bots like GPT has to do with the part of the structural breakdown in energetics. In 
line with the skeptical aphorism "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence", 
exceptional "intelligence" requires exceptional energetics. Living systems have found 
(through an ecology of ACs) an exceptional way to produce and maintain themselves. Sequential 
learning transformers also have an exceptional way of extracing energy from the world, massive 
world-destroying data centers. From 50k feet, it's the mainframe vs. the personal computer all over 
again. DaveW's liberal sensibility that True computation happens more in the leaves, less in the 
hubs, aligns with life as we know it, an exquisite composition of energy processors from the very 
tiny to the very large. The massive energy centralization mechanism is fragile and bears little 
resemblance to life as we know it.


On 5/15/24 12:16, Prof David West wrote:

Nick,

I hesitate to respond to your post because:

1) my interest in the weather is nominal, although I am bemused that here in 
St. Paul MN, we had more 50+ degrees in the December-February time frame than 
below 0 days (almost three times as many). Most unusual.

2) the response I wish to make is marginally related to the theme of your 
recent communications.

But, you said, "/Why is it so hard the grasp the thought that we are all of us, each 
of us, nothing but large language models in training?"/

To which I must respond, /Why do so many insist that programs capable of emulating the 
most trivial of human abilities are "intelligent?" /Or the inverse, /reducing 
humanity to the latest clever trick performed by a machine?/

LLM versions of AI are exemplars of the Mechanical Turk—whatever "intelligence" they exhibit is 
directly and solely derivative of the human intelligence of "LLM Tutors" and "Prompt 
Engineers." Both are six-figure salary professions that arose in the last year.

davew
(personal note: I sorely miss the conversations we once enjoyed, both in person 
in Santa Fe and online.)

On Tue, May 14, 2024, at 2:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Dear Stephen, n all.

I am sure you all will join me in condemning  the practice of calling somebody 
at the crack of dawn.  So, you will no doubt praise me (as I praise myself) for 
my generosity and flexiibility in taking the call from stephen, which came at 
the ungodly hour of 11.30 this morning.  Only to have him  me scold for not  
responding to the Gupta, Tucker,Thompson, and Guerin paper, kindly drafted by 
him, which will no doubt make us rich and famous some day.  First, let clarify 
that my collaborator's name is not Tucker, but is *G*eorge *P*hillipe 
*T*remblay. George (pronounced /jorj) /both forgives you and sends his regards.

Second, I am profoundly grateful to any one who would join me in this geriatric 
weather fantasy that I am going to update my 1980/WeatherWise Gardener/.  I 
need ever nerd I can get.  Please don't treat what follows as churlish.

Third, allow me once again to express my gratitude to Stephen for introducing 
me to Gupta and Tremblay.  They have an uncanny power to clabbor together 
plausible first drafts which are extraordinarily helpful in getting me started 
in thinking about a problem.   That these drafts are often hideously wrong 
enhances, rather than  dilutes their usefulness.

Second, I don't doubt that weather models and  financial models might have 
something to contribute to one another. As you all know, I love metaphors, and 
believe them to be at the root of science.  But to be honest, I can't see any 
reason to believe it either.   For one thing, unlike everything else in the 
world, money flows uphill.  But really, I shouldn't give reasons, because the 
truth is that I have my hands utterly full learning the weather stuff, and it 
will be a long time before I am competent to metaphorize from it to anywhere 
else.

As to Steve Smith's comments, I feel on much safer ground.  He wrote

/GuPTa, et al.'s "accent" is very subtle and powerful in this regard, tricking 
me often into imputing personality...   your example here was a wonderful satirical 

Re: [FRIAM] Potential vorticity and financial markets Fwd: CDS Friday seminar (CSI 899, CSS 898) for 26 April, 3 PM

[glen]

https://people.brandeis.edu/~blebaron/classes/agentfin/

On 4/26/24 07:44, Stephen Guerin wrote:

Nick,

If you have time, beam into Blake Lebaron's talk today and let the "depth of the 
order book relating volatility and liquidity" wash over you like some one was 
describing potential vorticity or other dynamic of the weather.

  The order book with zero intelligence traders has been a central research 
focus of the econophysicists and Doynes group and Blake's early related SFI 
stock market model.

Marcus did a bunch of work on this when he was at SFI. any comments?

Stephen




CEO Founder, Simtable.com
stephen.gue...@simtable.com 

Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu 

mobile: (505)577-5828

-- Forwarded message -
From: *CDS Department at GMU* mailto:c...@gmu.edu>>
Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 9:25 AM
Subject: CDS Friday seminar (CSI 899, CSS 898) for 26 April, 3 PM
To: mailto:cds-seminar-colloquium-announ...@listserv.gmu.edu>>


_Speaker_: Blake LeBaron, Brandeis University

__ __

_Title_: Dynamic Order Dispersion and Volatility Persistence in a Simple Limit 
Order Book model


_Abstract_: This preliminary paper extends the dynamics of a basic stylized limit 
order book model introduced in Chiarella & Iori (2002). The original model is 
capable of generating some key market microstructure features, but it cannot 
recreate longer range persistence in volatility. We explore a very simple and 
intuitive addition to the stylized, near zero intelligence behavior of traders that 
is capable of delivering persistent volatility. We also show that this strategy 
depends critically on certain key features in the dynamics of supply and demand for 
liquidity and depth in the limit order book. We believe this is fundamental to 
understanding both the dynamics of volatility in financial time series, along with 
variations in liquidity in financial markets. We contribute a parsimonious 
agent-based model to the literature that may be used as a test bed or sandbox for 
developing agents with more complex behavior.

__ __

Joint work with Andrew Hawley (Federal Reserve), Mark Paddrik (Office of 
Financial Research), and Nathan Palmer (Federal Reserve)

__ __

The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily 
reflect the position of the Office of Financial Research (OFR), the U.S. 
Department of Treasury, or the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

__ __

_Date_: Friday, 26 April 2024



_Time_: 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST



_Location_: Center on Social Complexity Suite (3rd floor, Research Hall), where 
light refreshments will be served, and  online (use the Zoom link below).





You are invited to a scheduled Zoom meeting



Topic: Friday CDS/CSI/CSS Seminars/Colloquia

Time: Apr 26, 2024 03:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

         Every week on Fri, until May 3, 2024

Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your 
calendar system.

Weekly: 
https://gmu.zoom.us/meeting/tJMpduquqzMiH9wHevniVsU-366oxXMVsbfq/ics?icsToken=98tyKuCvqjopHNGduByPRowEBoj4b-7wmFxHgvpKtBrzDSllcTa7ZbQUPapHPe7D
 




Join Zoom Meeting

https://gmu.zoom.us/j/97413658858?pwd=dE5oc2IyOVA3QXBjdmc0NURCdVZHZz09 




Meeting ID: 974 1365 8858

Passcode: 301532



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] rip Dennett

[glen]

Both Knox (who's back in Italian court) and Robinson are atheists, but I guess practice Zen. This 
leads to an interesting inside vs outside conception of who they "are". It strikes me 
that no amount of studying a person (or, more accurately, the detritus they've left behind and the 
dissipating wake their behavior dredged through the ambient goo) can capture that duality. I feel 
this despite my arguments in favor of a kind of holographic principle for behaviorism where 
whatever information is inside must be encoded on the outside. Even if we buy such a principle, 
perhaps including a kind of information loss through radiation, the "studying" of the 
person would be biased by when the studying occurs. A year that starts right after they die? A year 
that starts according to a validated [pre|retro]diction algorithm so that the studying is finished 
when they die? A temporally fenestrated study that happens in little bursts over one's entire 
lifetime, but cumulatively sums to a year?

In the podcast episode, they publicly ask each other "how do you want to die?" 
Robinson's waffle is interesting. Would a Zen person want to die while in some mushin 
state?

Back to Dennett, OS Card, Lovecraft, and all the wonderfully productive people with 
an Evil facet: Skeptoid had a recent episode on EMDR 
<https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4928>, where Dunning concludes it has its roots 
in the thoroughly debunked neuro-linguistic programming tradition. Yet it may 
accidentally have some clinical benefit. But again, I'm skeptical of the skeptics. 
This rationalist *need* we have for a fully grounded, trustworthy map from inside to 
outside, thoughts to actions, mind to body, just feels like arrogance ... an 
unjustified confidence in our own brain farts. People are complex enough that we can 
harvest what we want, cafeteria style, and leave the rest to disappear into the 
amnesiac void. We neither need nor want a *complete* understanding of anyone or any 
thing.

On 4/24/24 20:26, Steve Smith wrote:

I am lead by Glen's response to think of Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead" 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_for_the_Dead>

In Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead," the main and titular theme revolves 
around understanding and compassion through the truthful telling of one's life. The novel 
introduces the concept of a "Speaker for the Dead," someone who tells the unvarnished 
story of a person's life at their death in a way that aims to present all aspects of the 
individual—their good and bad traits, their successes and failures—in a balanced and empathetic 
manner.

This role of the Speaker is designed to allow those who are left behind to 
truly understand the deceased, fostering forgiveness and a more profound 
comprehension of the complexities of human nature. This practice contrasts with 
traditional eulogies that often gloss over a person’s flaws or reduce their 
life to a series of highlights.

The theme extends to broader philosophical and ethical questions about how 
societies deal with truth and reconciliation, the nature of forgiveness, and 
the possibility of understanding different forms of life. This is particularly 
explored through the interaction between humans and the alien species called 
the Pequeninos on the planet Lusitania. The novel challenges characters and 
readers alike to consider the ways in which understanding and compassion can 
lead to healing and peace, even across the divides of culture and species.

"Speaker for the Dead" thus delves into the necessity and challenge of 
empathy, advocating for a more comprehensive and compassionate approach to understanding 
both the living and the dead. This thematic focus on empathy and understanding is what 
drives the narrative and the development of its characters.

A spiritual woo-woo treatment might imply that a person's soul would not be fully free to 
"move on" until such a full accounting was done. In the book, the "Speaker" 
would spend a full year fully researching the person's life and relations to achieve this 
thorough/blunt eulogy on the anniversary of the Dead's passing... I don't remember how this was 
supported/funded but the idea moved me when I encountered it.

On 4/24/24 8:26 PM, glen wrote:


I could only wish I'd be criticized this well when I die:
"Dennett’s text is full of tirades wrought from petty grievances, is disorganized to 
the point of being unreadable, and like the rest of his books, will undoubtedly not have 
much influence."
<https://jacobin.com/2024/04/daniel-dennett-social-darwinism-philosophy>

There's this fantastic podcast by Amanda Knox called Labyrinths 
(https://antennapod.org/deeplink/subscribe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.megaphone.fm%2FDONSN6255278021=Labyrinths+with+Amanda+Knox
 
<https://antennapod.org/deeplink/subscribe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.meg

[FRIAM] rip Dennett

[glen]

I could only wish I'd be criticized this well when I die:
"Dennett’s text is full of tirades wrought from petty grievances, is 
disorganized to the point of being unreadable, and like the rest of his books, 
will undoubtedly not have much influence."


There's this fantastic podcast by Amanda Knox called Labyrinths 
(https://antennapod.org/deeplink/subscribe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.megaphone.fm%2FDONSN6255278021=Labyrinths+with+Amanda+Knox)
 where one episode is about death and things like 'how you want to die'. My 
best hope is that all the ppl who think I was a hack, or an idiot, or whatever 
would gather to trash me. The milquetoast accolades we present when a person 
dies are literally disgusting.-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Comparing negative numbers

[glen]

It seems like the relative stability argues for a translation from Ess space to 
the origin (0). So regardless of sign, you want to translate from absolute 
space (step number) to Ess space, which, in some cases, results in Russ' math. 
But would extend to negative steps as well.

On April 12, 2024 2:48:00 PM PDT, Russell Standish  
wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:00:06PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> My Dear Phellow Phriammers, 
>> 
>> Over the years I have asked you some doozies.  Still, I am pretty sure this 
>> the
>> stupidest question I have ever asked this forum, so I am at your mercy.
>> 
>> I am in one of those situations where language and mathematics are rubbing
>> together and driving crazy. 
>> 
>> Let say that my patio is ten steps down from my back door.  I have two cats, 
>>  
>> Dee and Ess, and  Dee is dominant to Ess.  So, if I go out to let them in, 
>> and
>> I find  Ess on step -2   and  Dee on step -8,  I know I have an unstable
>> situation. I fear that I will have a cat fight as Dee rushes past Ess to 
>> claim
>> his rightful position by the preferred cat bowl.  Intuitively, I would  rate
>> the degree of instability as a positive 6.  How would I compare the two 
>> numbers
>> mathematically to get +6?
>> 
>> But let’s say that for theoretical reasons I now want to conceive of the
>> situation as a degree of stability, with negative stability corresponding  to
>> instability.   Now, according  to my index, the situation is a minus 6.  How
>> would I compare the two numbers mathematically to get  a -6?
>> 
>> The situation I am trying to model here is the origin of the notion of static
>> stability in meteorology.  Static Stability has a lot to do with differential
>> lapse rates, the degree to which temperature declines with increasing 
>> altitude.
>>   Lapse rates are minus numbers.  So a parcel is unstable if it has a lower
>> lapse rate (a less minus lapse rate?) than surrounding parcels, and the 
>> greater
>> the absolute value the difference between them, the greater the instability.
>> 
>> I asked “George” (GPT) to help me with this, but he (?) suggested I just take
>> absolute values and give them whatever sign I want.  However, somebody told 
>> me,
>> way back when, that taking absolute values was not kosher in mathematics.  
>> (Why
>> else would the variance be the mean SQUARED deviation about  the mean?).  
>
>I don't know about kosher, but abs is not differentiable at zero,
>which may or may not be an issue.
>
>In terms of what you're looking for, -8-(-2) = -6.
>
>Take their difference - it accords with your intuition. George speaks shit.
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>
>-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
>https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] move fast, break things

[glen]

I'm sure there are heuristics like the rule of large numbers. I like 80/20 for 
most things. If we assume we will, within some space and time window, see 20% 
of what's there, then there are ~4 of these exploits sitting on your system 
right now, active or sleeping.

On 4/2/24 09:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:

And how many similar exploits are out there, sponsored by GCHQ, NSA, etc.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:52 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] move fast, break things


What we know about the xz Utils backdoor that almost infected the world 
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/04/what-we-know-about-the-xz-utils-backdoor-that-almost-infected-the-world/


almost immediately, a never-before-seen participant named Jigar Kumar joined 
the discussion and argued that Lasse Collin, the longtime maintainer of xz 
Utils, hadn’t been updating the software often or fast enough.




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] move fast, break things

[glen]

What we know about the xz Utils backdoor that almost infected the world
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/04/what-we-know-about-the-xz-utils-backdoor-that-almost-infected-the-world/


almost immediately, a never-before-seen participant named Jigar Kumar joined 
the discussion and argued that Lasse Collin, the longtime maintainer of xz 
Utils, hadn’t been updating the software often or fast enough.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity

[glen]

Fantastic! I try to be a little absurd [‡] invoking aliens and the dark side of 
the moon, and Steve finds a way to make it seem reasonable. You clearly 
out-meta'd me on that one.

[‡] Can one be a little absurd? A↛(B⇒A) and B↛(A → A), despite what 'they' tell 
you.

On 3/28/24 16:37, Steve Smith wrote:

REC sed:


but the "dark side" of the moon is sunlit for half of every month?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer




On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:33 AM glen  wrote:

Bandwidth might be a problem. But the dark side of the moon seems like an option ... assuming you can negotiate with the aliens that live over there. 

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] A hundred words for swindle

[glen]

Why do you list KBJ as "less savory"?

On 3/31/24 12:40, Steve Smith wrote:

... even the less savory ( to my pinko-liberal palate) of the high bench 
(Thomas/Alito/Kavanaugh/Brown, in descending order?) are as able and serious as 
Breyer came across in this interview...



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity

[glen]

I feel like what we really need are wet computers 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_computing> ... we have all this 
peri-computation going on around us all over the place, in cells, chemistry, protein 
morphogenesis, etc. But we're just so ignorant and ham-handed w.r.t. that 
computation, we have to plow it down and and pave it over with our own conception of 
computing ... like some myopic 18th century biological control strategy.

I mean... I guess we're getting there. But. It's. S. Slw.

On 3/28/24 12:51, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Way offshore in some cases, but also deep.   Maybe the underwater mass could 
help hold the platform in place?

https://www.aegirinsights.com/offshore-wind-in-california-faces-four-main-challenges-depth-waves-ports-and-grid-connection
 
<https://www.aegirinsights.com/offshore-wind-in-california-faces-four-main-challenges-depth-waves-ports-and-grid-connection>

The moon idea reminds me of this center:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Region_Supercomputing_Center 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Region_Supercomputing_Center>

*From: *Friam  on behalf of glen 

*Date: *Thursday, March 28, 2024 at 10:33 AM
*To: *friam@redfish.com 
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity

Bandwidth might be a problem. But the dark side of the moon seems like an option ... 
assuming you can negotiate with the aliens that live over there. The best thing about 
coral is you don't have to negotiate for their "land". You can just take it and 
let them die like the stupid little creatures they are.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/asia/south-china-sea-philippines-coral-reef-damage-intl-hnk/index.html
 
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/asia/south-china-sea-philippines-coral-reef-damage-intl-hnk/index.html>

On 3/28/24 10:17, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It's not really my thing, but I noticed there were several very large exhibits 
at Supercomputing 23 for cooling technology.   Even immersive cooling 
solutions.  I think that could be improved a lot.   Without superconducting 
processors, I don't see how energy use can be dramatically reduced though.  For 
that there will just need to be new generation.    Could put these near large 
off short windfarms..

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/china-deploys-1400-ton-commercial-underwater-data-center/
 
<https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/china-deploys-1400-ton-commercial-underwater-data-center/>

I suppose there are some that would say gentrification is genocide -- a slow 
coerced displacement.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 9:49 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity

Maybe. But way before that happens, it will(has) force(d) the disaffected 
(people, animals, plants) of any such region to die, move, or adapt.

In the Gaza kerfuffle, I've heard some describe coerced displacement as "genocide". I guess the more 
reasonble term is ethnic cleansing. The settlers seem mostly fine with their ethnic cleansing agenda. But, by 
analogy, how would we describe the coercive adaptation put upon a region by a massive water-sucking data center? 
Biology cleansing? If there really were an AI, would they worry about the forced displacement caused by their 
silicon incubators? ... or maybe "incubator" isn't a good word. How about "galls": 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall> Yeah, that might be a good analogy. 
The machines are parasitic. They hijack the iDNA (information generators) of the local biology to form galls within 
which they grow and thrive.

On 3/28/24 07:51, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It will force innovation on energy-efficient microarchitecture (e.g. Groq) and 
on renewable power generation near data centers.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 7:09 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity


As we frivolously replace meatspace conversation with obsequious chatbots, the 
world burns.

The industry more damaging to the environment than airlines 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/30/silicon-valley-data-giants-net-zero-sustainability-risk/
 
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/30/silicon-valley-data-giants-net-zero-sustainability-risk/>

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2024/03/engineers-often-need-a-lot-of-water-to-keep-data-centers-cool
 
<https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2024/03/engineers-often-need-a-lot-of-water-to-keep-data-centers-cool>





--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursd

Re: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity

[glen]

Maybe. But way before that happens, it will(has) force(d) the disaffected 
(people, animals, plants) of any such region to die, move, or adapt.

In the Gaza kerfuffle, I've heard some describe coerced displacement as "genocide". I guess the 
more reasonble term is ethnic cleansing. The settlers seem mostly fine with their ethnic cleansing agenda. 
But, by analogy, how would we describe the coercive adaptation put upon a region by a massive water-sucking 
data center? Biology cleansing? If there really were an AI, would they worry about the forced displacement 
caused by their silicon incubators? ... or maybe "incubator" isn't a good word. How about 
"galls": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall Yeah, that might be a good analogy. The machines are 
parasitic. They hijack the iDNA (information generators) of the local biology to form galls within which they 
grow and thrive.

On 3/28/24 07:51, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It will force innovation on energy-efficient microarchitecture (e.g. Groq) and 
on renewable power generation near data centers.

-Original Message-----
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 7:09 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] death by ubiquity


As we frivolously replace meatspace conversation with obsequious chatbots, the 
world burns.

The industry more damaging to the environment than airlines 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/30/silicon-valley-data-giants-net-zero-sustainability-risk/

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2024/03/engineers-often-need-a-lot-of-water-to-keep-data-centers-cool


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] death by ubiquity

[glen]

As we frivolously replace meatspace conversation with obsequious chatbots, the 
world burns.

The industry more damaging to the environment than airlines
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/30/silicon-valley-data-giants-net-zero-sustainability-risk/

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2024/03/engineers-often-need-a-lot-of-water-to-keep-data-centers-cool

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

[glen]

I guess the question returns to one's criteria for assuming decoupling between 
the very [small|fast] and the very [large|slow]. Or in this case, the inner vs. 
the outer:

Susie Alegre on how digital technology undermines free thought
https://freethinker.co.uk/2024/03/interview-susie-alegre/

It would be reasonable for Frank to argue that we can generate the space of 
possible context definitions, inductively, from the set of token definitions, 
much like an LLM might. Ideally, you could then measure the expressiveness of 
those inferred contexts/languages and choose the largest (most complete; by 
induction, each context/language *should* be self-consistent so we shouldn't 
have to worry about that).

And if that's how things work (I'm not saying it is), then those "attractors" 
with the finest granularity (very slow to emerge, very resistant to dissolution) would be 
the least novel. Novelty (uniqueness) might then be defined in terms of fragility, short 
half-life, missable opportunity. But that would also argue that novelty is either less 
*real* or that the universe/context/language is very *open* and the path from fragile to 
robust obtains like some kind of Hebbian reinforcement, use it or lose it, win the hearts 
and minds or dissipate to nothing.

I.e. there is no such thing as free thought. Thought can't decouple from social 
manipulation.

On 3/21/24 13:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:

In the LLM example, completions from some starting state or none, have specific 
probabilities.   An incomplete yet-unseen (unique) utterance would be completed 
based on prior probabilities of individual tokens.

I agree that raw materialist uniqueness won't necessarily or often override 
constraints of a situation.  For example, if an employer instructs an employee 
how to put a small, lightweight product in a box, label it, and send it to a 
customer by UPS, the individual differences metabolism of the employees aren't 
likely to matter much when shipping more small, lightweight objects to other 
customers.   It could be the case for a professor and student too.   The 
attractors come from the instruction or the curriculum.  One choice constrains 
the next.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:50 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

I was arguing with that same friend yesterday at the pub. I was trying to describe how 
some of us have more cognitive power than others (he's one of them). Part of it is 
"free" power, freed up by his upper middle class white good diet privilege. But 
if we allow that some of it might be genetic, then that's a starting point for deciding 
when novelty matters to the ephemerides of two otherwise analogical individuals (or 
projects if projects have an analog to genetics). Such things are well-described in twin 
studies. One twin suffers some PTSD the other doesn't and ... boom ... their otherwise 
lack of uniqueness blossoms into uniqueness.

His objection was that even identical twins are not identical. They were 
already unique ... like the Pauli Exclusion Principle or somesuch nonsense. 
Even though it's a bit of a ridiculous argument, I could apply it to your sense 
of avoiding non-novel attractors. No 2 attractors will be identical. And no 1 
attractor will be unique. So those are moot issues. Distinctions without 
differences, maybe. Woit's rants are legendary. But some of us find happiness 
in wasteful sophistry.

What matters is *how* things are the same and how they differ. Their qualities 
and values (nearly) orthogonal to novelty.


On 3/21/24 11:29, Marcus Daniels wrote:

If GPT systems capture some sense of "usual" context based on trillions of internet tokens, and 
that corpus is regarded approximately "global context", then it seems not so objectionable to call 
"unusual", new training items that contribute to fine-tuning loss.

It seems reasonable to worry that ubiquitous GPT systems reduce social entropy by 
encouraging copying instead of new thinking, but it could also have the reverse effect:  
If I am immediately aware that an idea is not novel, I may avoid attractors that agents 
that wrongly believe they are "independent" will gravitate toward.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

A friend of mine constantly reminds me that language is dynamic, not fixed in 
stone from a billion years ago. So, if you find others consistently using a 
term in a way that you think is wrong, then *you* are wrong in what you think. 
The older I get, the more difficult it gets.

But specifically, the technical sense of "unique" is vanishingly rare ... so rare as to be merely 
an ideal, unverifiable, nowhere, non-existent. So if the "unique" is imaginary, unreal, and doesn't 
exist, wh

Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

[glen]

I was arguing with that same friend yesterday at the pub. I was trying to describe how 
some of us have more cognitive power than others (he's one of them). Part of it is 
"free" power, freed up by his upper middle class white good diet privilege. But 
if we allow that some of it might be genetic, then that's a starting point for deciding 
when novelty matters to the ephemerides of two otherwise analogical individuals (or 
projects if projects have an analog to genetics). Such things are well-described in twin 
studies. One twin suffers some PTSD the other doesn't and ... boom ... their otherwise 
lack of uniqueness blossoms into uniqueness.

His objection was that even identical twins are not identical. They were 
already unique ... like the Pauli Exclusion Principle or somesuch nonsense. 
Even though it's a bit of a ridiculous argument, I could apply it to your sense 
of avoiding non-novel attractors. No 2 attractors will be identical. And no 1 
attractor will be unique. So those are moot issues. Distinctions without 
differences, maybe. Woit's rants are legendary. But some of us find happiness 
in wasteful sophistry.

What matters is *how* things are the same and how they differ. Their qualities 
and values (nearly) orthogonal to novelty.


On 3/21/24 11:29, Marcus Daniels wrote:

If GPT systems capture some sense of "usual" context based on trillions of internet tokens, and 
that corpus is regarded approximately "global context", then it seems not so objectionable to call 
"unusual", new training items that contribute to fine-tuning loss.

It seems reasonable to worry that ubiquitous GPT systems reduce social entropy by 
encouraging copying instead of new thinking, but it could also have the reverse effect:  
If I am immediately aware that an idea is not novel, I may avoid attractors that agents 
that wrongly believe they are "independent" will gravitate toward.

-----Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 7:49 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

A friend of mine constantly reminds me that language is dynamic, not fixed in 
stone from a billion years ago. So, if you find others consistently using a 
term in a way that you think is wrong, then *you* are wrong in what you think. 
The older I get, the more difficult it gets.

But specifically, the technical sense of "unique" is vanishingly rare ... so rare as to be merely 
an ideal, unverifiable, nowhere, non-existent. So if the "unique" is imaginary, unreal, and doesn't 
exist, why not co-opt it for a more useful, banal purpose? Nothing is actually unique. So we'll use the token 
"unique" to mean (relatively) rare.

And "unusual" is even worse. Both tokens require one to describe the context, domain, or universe within which the 
discussion is happening. If you don't define your context, then the "definitions" you provide for the components of 
that context are not even wrong; they're nonsense. "Unusual" implies a usual. And a usual implies a perspective ... a 
mechanism of action for your sampling technique. So "unusual" presents even more of a linguistic *burden* than 
"unique".

On 3/20/24 13:14, Frank Wimberly wrote:

What's wrong with "unusual"?  It avoids the problem.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 1:55 PM Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:


 I'm hung up on the usage of qualified  "uniqueness"  as well, but in 
perhaps the opposite sense.

 I agree with the premise that "unique" in it's purest, simplest form does 
seem to be inherently singular.  On the other hand, this mal(icious) propensity of 
qualifying uniqueness (uniqueish?) is so common, that I have to believe there is a 
concept there which people who use those terms are reaching for.  They are not wrong to 
reach for it, just annoying in the label they choose?

 I had a round with GPT4 trying to discuss this, not because I think LLMs are the 
authority on *anything* but rather because the discussions I have with them can help me 
brainstorm my way around ideas with the LLM nominally representing "what a lot of 
people say" (if not think).   Careful prompting seems to be able to help narrow down 
 *all people* (in the training data) to different/interesting subsets of *lots of people* 
with certain characteristics.

 GPT4 definitely wanted to allow for a wide range of gradated, speciated, spectral uses of 
"unique" and gave me plenty of commonly used examples which validates my position that 
"for something so obviously/technically incorrect, it sure is used a lot!"

 We discussed uniqueness in the context of evolutionary biology and 
cladistics and homology and homoplasy.  We discussed it in terms of cluster 
analysis.  We discussed the distinction between objective and subjective, 
a

Re: [FRIAM] the inequities of uniquity

[glen]

A friend of mine constantly reminds me that language is dynamic, not fixed in 
stone from a billion years ago. So, if you find others consistently using a 
term in a way that you think is wrong, then *you* are wrong in what you think. 
The older I get, the more difficult it gets.

But specifically, the technical sense of "unique" is vanishingly rare ... so rare as to be merely 
an ideal, unverifiable, nowhere, non-existent. So if the "unique" is imaginary, unreal, and doesn't 
exist, why not co-opt it for a more useful, banal purpose? Nothing is actually unique. So we'll use the token 
"unique" to mean (relatively) rare.

And "unusual" is even worse. Both tokens require one to describe the context, domain, or universe within which the 
discussion is happening. If you don't define your context, then the "definitions" you provide for the components of 
that context are not even wrong; they're nonsense. "Unusual" implies a usual. And a usual implies a perspective ... a 
mechanism of action for your sampling technique. So "unusual" presents even more of a linguistic *burden* than 
"unique".

On 3/20/24 13:14, Frank Wimberly wrote:

What's wrong with "unusual"?  It avoids the problem.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 1:55 PM Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:


I'm hung up on the usage of qualified  "uniqueness"  as well, but in 
perhaps the opposite sense.

I agree with the premise that "unique" in it's purest, simplest form does 
seem to be inherently singular.  On the other hand, this mal(icious) propensity of 
qualifying uniqueness (uniqueish?) is so common, that I have to believe there is a 
concept there which people who use those terms are reaching for.  They are not wrong to 
reach for it, just annoying in the label they choose?

I had a round with GPT4 trying to discuss this, not because I think LLMs are the 
authority on *anything* but rather because the discussions I have with them can help me 
brainstorm my way around ideas with the LLM nominally representing "what a lot of 
people say" (if not think).   Careful prompting seems to be able to help narrow down 
 *all people* (in the training data) to different/interesting subsets of *lots of people* 
with certain characteristics.

GPT4 definitely wanted to allow for a wide range of gradated, speciated, spectral uses of 
"unique" and gave me plenty of commonly used examples which validates my position that 
"for something so obviously/technically incorrect, it sure is used a lot!"

We discussed uniqueness in the context of evolutionary biology and 
cladistics and homology and homoplasy.  We discussed it in terms of cluster 
analysis.  We discussed the distinction between objective and subjective, 
absolute and relative.

The closest thing to a conclusion I have at the moment is:

 1. Most people do and will continue to treat "uniqueness" as a 
relative/spectral/subjective qualifier.
 2. Many people like Frank and myself (half the time) will have an allergic 
reaction to this usage.
 3. The common (mis)usage might be attributable to conflating "unique" with 
"distinct"?



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

[glen]

This is exactly why Trump needs to stay on the ballot(s) and be defeated by a 
"normal" election. Every cry of Martyr is more fuel for the much smarter 
younger traitors waiting in the wings. Or, if he is elected again, those of us in a 
position to bolster whatever Rule of Law we have left will need support.

On 2/28/24 20:11, Roger Critchlow wrote:

I went looking for depressing news in 1924, you know, lying politicians and 
cancerous social movements:

April 1 

  * Adolf Hitler  is sentenced to 5 years in 
Landsberg Prison  in Germany for his 
participation in the 1923  Beer Hall Putsch 
 (he serves less than 9 months).




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

[glen]

If we reframe _angry & want more power_ from a peculiar ascription to a 
particular populist ethic, it makes more sense. Victimhood is a common part of 
populist ethics. And even if/when they get power, e.g. in Trump's case, they can 
maintain that ethic by relying on conspiracy theories about things like the deep 
state. Or in Putin's case, as Jochen points out, use such an ethic (cynically in 
his case) to manipulate a population by Othering.

While collections of facts/inferences might contradict each other, the bond is consistent. 
"The people" cohere as Us against the Them. It seems to me that, for example, Trump and 
Putin are starkly different populist leaders. Trump leads by some kind of intuition (or trial and 
error), whereas Putin leads by conscious executive function. It's unclear to me which is more 
stable in a society deeply awash in "content". If our experience with things like monte 
carlo simulation, evolution, and generative AI tell us anything, I think it is that the Putin's are 
on their way out and the Trump's are on the way in. It seems like bullshit generation, combined 
with aggressive and flexible selection strategies, will win out in less stable environments ... or 
in environments where it's not easy to estimate their moments or fixed points.

On 2/27/24 13:09, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I don't see a problem with mixing the ethic of a tribe with an ethic of an 
individual.  If the party fails worse things happen then if an individual ethic 
is violated.   There is the same sort of ethic of the tribe trumping (heh) 
individual ethic of evangelicals.   A reasonable person is simply aware of 
where, when, how, and why one steps away from the party line.The problem 
with populists is that there is no ethic.  Complaints are reinforced and 
corralled only for sake of creating political force.  If it starts out being 
for one thing and turns into something else that is contradictory, that's fine. 
  We see that daily with Trump, but my local left-leaning politicians do it 
too.  The peculiar thing is that the MAGA folks mostly seem to like that they 
are a tribe, even if the tribe isn't about anything.   They are the angry white 
rural voter, and they want more power.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 11:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

Yeah, good point. MAGA was actually coined (?) by Ronald Reagan's campaign, I think. But the 
sentiments behind it (nostalgia, exceptionalism, jingoism, etc.) are age old. And they seem more 
nest/hive/collective oriented than individualist mandates like the Commandments. It would be less 
like "What would Jesus do?" and more like "What would the Catholic Church do?"

In some ways, right populism is a different phenomenon from the same generator 
as left populism. As irritating as it is to have to take Wokeism seriously as a 
concept, it rings true for me. Does one support Palestinians because it's right 
to support *everyone*? Or does one support them because the Other/They supports 
the Israeli state? Similarly, does support Israeli victims of Oct 7 because all 
asymmetric warfare is evil? Or does one support the Israeli state because it's 
ensconced as sovereign by Us/Ours? How does one balance the ethic of one's 
tribe against the ethic of oneself?

On 2/27/24 10:56, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Hmmm I am not sure. I'm still trying to understand cultural evolution better 
and how exactly fascism and authoritarianism fit into this picture.

One thing I just noticed is that Trump's slogans are actually very similar to commandments - which serve as cultural 
genes in religious contexts. For instance "Make America Great Again" is a political slogan and the name of 
Trump's MAGA movement, but it is also a commandment like "You shall not murder". A call to action and an 
abstract instruction how to act. It appeals to all those people who do not feel great - Hillary Clinton's deplorable 
people. "Build the wall" and "Lock her up" are similar political slogans which are also 
commandments to expel immigrants and to imprison opponents. These are the genes of Trump's primitive strongman ideology.

-J.


 Original message 
From: glen 
Date: 2/27/24 7:26 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

IDK. It seems like ecDNA, in general, can be either good or bad. And
mitochondrial DNA feels like a boon, overall. Maybe a better analogy would be ecDNA 
<-> media and MAGA to the oncogenes being promoted. I think a useful foil for 
stressing the analogy is the difference between a filter bubble and an echo chamber. 
If we define a filter bubble as the sieve through which the ambience extrudes and an 
echo chamber as an agent-oriented selection bias, we can classify MAGA cult members 
as victims (incompetent consumers

Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

[glen]

Yeah, good point. MAGA was actually coined (?) by Ronald Reagan's campaign, I think. But the 
sentiments behind it (nostalgia, exceptionalism, jingoism, etc.) are age old. And they seem more 
nest/hive/collective oriented than individualist mandates like the Commandments. It would be less 
like "What would Jesus do?" and more like "What would the Catholic Church do?"

In some ways, right populism is a different phenomenon from the same generator 
as left populism. As irritating as it is to have to take Wokeism seriously as a 
concept, it rings true for me. Does one support Palestinians because it's right 
to support *everyone*? Or does one support them because the Other/They supports 
the Israeli state? Similarly, does support Israeli victims of Oct 7 because all 
asymmetric warfare is evil? Or does one support the Israeli state because it's 
ensconced as sovereign by Us/Ours? How does one balance the ethic of one's 
tribe against the ethic of oneself?

On 2/27/24 10:56, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Hmmm I am not sure. I'm still trying to understand cultural evolution better 
and how exactly fascism and authoritarianism fit into this picture.

One thing I just noticed is that Trump's slogans are actually very similar to commandments - which serve as cultural 
genes in religious contexts. For instance "Make America Great Again" is a political slogan and the name of 
Trump's MAGA movement, but it is also a commandment like "You shall not murder". A call to action and an 
abstract instruction how to act. It appeals to all those people who do not feel great - Hillary Clinton's deplorable 
people. "Build the wall" and "Lock her up" are similar political slogans which are also 
commandments to expel immigrants and to imprison opponents. These are the genes of Trump's primitive strongman ideology.

-J.


 Original message 
From: glen 
Date: 2/27/24 7:26 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

IDK. It seems like ecDNA, in general, can be either good or bad. And mitochondrial DNA feels like a boon, overall. Maybe a better analogy would be ecDNA <-> media and MAGA to the oncogenes being promoted. I think a useful foil for stressing the analogy is the difference between a filter bubble and an echo chamber. If we define a filter bubble as the sieve through which the ambience extrudes and an echo chamber as an agent-oriented selection bias, we can classify MAGA cult members as victims (incompetent consumers of media) and perpetrators. The perpetrators might be like the Federalist Society, where they seek echoes of their beliefs and put them in power. Or they might be like Joe Rogan, where they promote/amplify toxic materials they find in the wild. The latter seem like trans-acting ecDNA ... and Rachel Maddow might be similar to Joe Rogan in that sense, only considered toxic based on what they promote, not promotion in itself. The former seem like oncogenes. The rest, 
like some random soccer mom at the Jan 6 riot, don't seem like either of those to me.



On 2/27/24 08:51, Jochen Fromm wrote:
 > The lies of Trump and his MAGA cult are a bit like extrachromosomal DNA that is 
apparently behind many malignant cancers. Both are normally part of selfish entities - 
single cell organisms or narcissistic con men -  and disrupt or distort the normal fabric of 
the world they live in. Interestingly ecDNA takes the form of tiny circles just like 
plasmids in bacteria. And it spreads faster than DNA in chromosomes, just as lies spread 
faster than the truth. As Jonathan Swift said "Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping 
after it"
 > 
https://www.the-scientist.com/cancer-may-be-driven-by-dna-outside-of-chromosomes-68590




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The lies of Trump and ecDNA

[glen]

IDK. It seems like ecDNA, in general, can be either good or bad. And mitochondrial 
DNA feels like a boon, overall. Maybe a better analogy would be ecDNA <-> media 
and MAGA to the oncogenes being promoted. I think a useful foil for stressing the 
analogy is the difference between a filter bubble and an echo chamber. If we define a 
filter bubble as the sieve through which the ambience extrudes and an echo chamber as 
an agent-oriented selection bias, we can classify MAGA cult members as victims 
(incompetent consumers of media) and perpetrators. The perpetrators might be like the 
Federalist Society, where they seek echoes of their beliefs and put them in power. Or 
they might be like Joe Rogan, where they promote/amplify toxic materials they find in 
the wild. The latter seem like trans-acting ecDNA ... and Rachel Maddow might be 
similar to Joe Rogan in that sense, only considered toxic based on what they promote, 
not promotion in itself. The former seem like oncogenes. The rest, like some random 
soccer mom at the Jan 6 riot, don't seem like either of those to me.


On 2/27/24 08:51, Jochen Fromm wrote:

The lies of Trump and his MAGA cult are a bit like extrachromosomal DNA that is 
apparently behind many malignant cancers. Both are normally part of selfish entities - 
single cell organisms or narcissistic con men -  and disrupt or distort the normal fabric 
of the world they live in. Interestingly ecDNA takes the form of tiny circles just like 
plasmids in bacteria. And it spreads faster than DNA in chromosomes, just as lies spread 
faster than the truth. As Jonathan Swift said "Falsehood flies, and truth comes 
limping after it"
https://www.the-scientist.com/cancer-may-be-driven-by-dna-outside-of-chromosomes-68590



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The problems of interdisciplinary research

[glen]

Discussions of curiosity are like discussions of side effects, spandrels, and the rest. The simple 
conception of curiosity is information seeking to no purpose, no "instrumental benefit". 
But that's clearly nonsense, barring some sophistry around "instrumental benefit".

Curiosity seems to me to be an affect(ation), i.e. it refers to some other 
thing. Of course, that begs us to ask whether more curious people have a larger 
domain for the curiosity operator than other people. So if you can call Sally 
curious about nearly every topic and Bob only curious about particular topics, 
then Sally is more curious than Bob. But that suffers from so many confounders 
as to be meaningless. If Sally only engages with any particular topic for an 
hour, whereas Bob, when he does engage, engages for decades, then which is more 
curious?

And if curiosity is always about some (domain of) referent(s), then how is it 
distinguishable from any other appetite (e.g. inquisitiveness, paraphilia, 
obsessive-compulsion)?

I can't help but hearken back to our past exchanges on this list discussing concepts like 
free will, consciousness, or qualia, all of which seem to me to occupy the same category 
as curiosity. The distinguishing factor seems only to be "energy" and a 
willingness to play others' games -- or any particular game that happens to plop down on 
the table. If one has the energy, one can entertain whatever arbitrary game others 
propose. But when you lack the energy, you're accused of incuriosity or whatever other 
epithet the privileged find convenient.

On 2/12/24 08:30, Marcus Daniels wrote:

With a robot using a generative model, one way a curiosity could manifest is in 
how it learns from experience.   With a somewhat higher sampling temperature, 
the performance of a skill would vary.  At a much higher temperature, the skill 
would not be evident.   If the skill had not been mastered, or there were 
equivalently good ways to perform it, random deviations might find these 
variants.   This sampling temperature doesn’t itself change the model, but the 
feedback loop from the robot in its environment would lead to different losses, 
that would then be corrected through the model, e.g. through back propagation.

An example for me is learning sculling -- finding a rhythm is as much about 
feeling the consequences of a set of movements on the water, as water 
conditions vary, as it is executing a specified set of moves in order.

*From:*Friam  *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
*Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2024 7:15 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The problems of interdisciplinary research

The notion of search brings to mind two different experiences:

1- traditional "searching" of the library via the card catalog (yes, I know I 
am old) for relevant inputs; and,

2- the "serendipity of the stacks"—simply looking around me at the books I 
located via search type 1 to see what was in proximity.

My experience: the second type of "search" was far more valuable, to me, than 
the first.

Also, with the books found via search '1-', the included bibliography was 
frequently of more ultimate use than the book containing the bibliography.

Computerized search—ala Google—has always seemed limited; precisely because it is 
exclusively search type '1-'. (Even Google Scholar) Attempts to "improve" 
search by narrowing it on the basis of prior searches makes it really, really, worse.

LLM based search seems, to me, to have some capability to approximate the 
serendipity of the stacks.

davew

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024, at 6:12 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:

It’s kind of fascinating.

I imagine that one of the next concepts to come into focus will be 
“curiosity”.  I remember a discussion years ago (15? 18?), I think involving 
David K., about what the nature of “curiosity” is and what role it plays in 
learning.

Where the paper talks about supervision to train weights, but eschewing 
“search” per se as a component of the capability learned, it makes me think of 
the role of search in the pursuit of inputs, the ultimate worth of which you 
can’t know at the time of searching.  I can imagine (off the cuff) that 
whatever one wants to mean by “curiosity”, it has some flavor of a non-random 
search, but one not guided by known criteria, rather by appropriateness to fit 
existing gaps in (something: confidence? consistency?).

This also seems like it should tie into Leslie Valiant’s ideas in Probably 
Approximately Correct about how to formally conceptualize teaching in relation 
to learning.  I guess Valiant is now considered decades passe, as AI has 
charged ahead.  But the broad outlines of his argument don’t seem like they 
have become completely superseded.

We already have “attention” as a secret sauce with important impacts.  I 
wonder when some shift of architectural paradigm will include a design that we 
think is a good formalization of the pre-formal gestures toward curiosity.

Eric

  

Re: [FRIAM] 2000-year-old scrolls

[glen]

That's how I felt about Hanson's latest post:

Why Crypto
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/why-crypto

I suppose the basic point is that crypto has generated parasitic people just 
like older financial instruments, but the parasites crypto generates are 
*younger* and more energetic than older, slower instruments. So the diversity 
of the new canals sloughed out by these younger parasites will be higher than 
that of the old parasites.

Hanson's smart enough to think about (if not empathize with) those on the other 
side of the asymmetry, the hosts/victims. But the post relishes the beauty of 
the consequence of their suffering, largely leaving out the (perhaps short 
half-life) suffering of the victims.

I kinda feel the same way when watching my friends "euthanize" bumble bees to 
study them ... or in videos like this: 
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-022-04507-5/MediaObjects/41586_2022_4507_MOESM6_ESM.mp4
 I can't help but wonder how it must feel to wear one of those implants while trying to 
compete with the dominant for food. Is the science really worth the (short half-life) 
discomfort of the mice? If so, then you too might succumb to Effective Altruism. >8^D

On 2/8/24 09:38, Jochen Fromm wrote:

There is book by Cody Cassidy named "How to Survive History: How to Outrun a 
Tyrannosaurus, Escape Pompeii, Get Off the Titanic, and Survive the Rest of History's 
Deadliest Catastrophes".
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/668982/how-to-survive-history-by-cody-cassidy/

Sometimes escaping disasters is not what we want though. The Pompeii disaster 
for instance conserved an ancient Roman city as it was 2000 years ago. And now 
we can even hope to read their ancient texts. Julian Schilliger, Youssef Nader 
and Luke Farritor have won the Vesuvius prize of $700,000 because they managed 
to read an badly charred scroll.
https://scrollprize.org/grandprize

They have used AI and machine learning to decipher the text of 2,000-year-old 
charred papyrus scripts. The deciphered scrolls contain musings on music, food 
and life's pleasures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00346-8

Will people in 2000 years discover books from our time beneath the ruble, for 
instance Joyce Carol Oates or Craig Johnson, and desperately try to decipher 
them?



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] imputation

[glen]

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/05/no-data-no-problem-undisclosed-tinkering-in-excel-behind-economics-paper/#more-128696
In email correspondence seen by Retraction Watch and a follow-up Zoom call, Heshmati told the student he had used Excel’s autofill function to mend the data. He had marked anywhere from two to four observations before or after the missing values and dragged the selected cells down or up, depending on the case. The program then filled in the blanks. If the new numbers turned negative, Heshmati replaced them with the last positive value Excel had spit out. 
[...]
But it got worse. Heshmati’s data, which the student convinced him to share, showed that in several instances where there were no observations to use for the autofill operation, the professor had taken the values from an adjacent country in the spreadsheet. New Zealand’s data had been copied from the Netherlands, for example, and the United States’ data from the United Kingdom. 


Wow. I mean, I use different types of imputation all the time. And although they're 
expressing shock about the process in that first paragraph, it's not outlandish (assuming 
you disclosed it in the paper). That he used Excel at all makes me sad. 8^D And the 
copying data between countries might even be considered reasonable for "synthetic 
data", were it done carefully (described, and justified in the methods section).

We got all these chicken littles worried about AI generated content, when what 
we really have to worry about is Excel Abuse. How is ChatGPT any different from 
Autofill? Haptic prompting?

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Bad news about the climate

[glen]

Yeah, I'm not so sure that's the right tack. I mean, airlines (and airplane 
mfgs) aren't the most earth friendly enterprises, at their core. Even if we 
could magically swap out a zero emissions fuel (which we can't: 
https://www.wri.org/insights/us-sustainable-aviation-fuel-emissions-impacts), 
we will still see door plugs popping out because we can't be bothered to check 
every little nook and cranny just to save a few measly human lives. (Why do we 
freak out so much when an airplane goes down? So many more people die horribly 
in other circumstances.)

This entitled fetish we have for synchronous meatspace interactions makes for a 
more efficient target. Powering your internet bandwidth with more sustainable 
electricity is way more likely to reduce emissions than biofuel ever will.


On 1/29/24 19:20, Leigh Fanning wrote:

At some point we'll have SAF at scale.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/sustainable-aviation-fuels



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] Policy Modeling

[glen]

I'm confident many of y'all have seen this. But each of the snippets below, from 
Roger & Merle's nihilistic takes to Leigh and Cody's optimistic takes, bounce 
around policy modeling. What can one estimate in the face of overwhelming 
uncertainty? And given one's high uncertainty estimates, what is there to *do* 
about it at an institutional scale?

cf the theme of the Humans, Societies and Artificial Agents at 
ANNSIM this year:

Taylor Anderson, George Mason University, USA and Petra Ahrweiler, Johannes 
Gutenberg University, Germany

Agent-based models (ABMs), cellular automata, and microsimulations model 
systems through the lens of complex systems theory. More specifically, such 
approaches simulate populations of possibly heterogeneous individuals as they 
utilize either simple behavioral rules or learning models to govern their 
interactions with each other and their environment, and from which system-level 
properties emerge. Such modeling and simulation approaches have supported a 
wide range of applications related to human societies (e.g., traffic and urban 
planning, economics, natural hazards, national security, epidemiology) and 
research tasks (e.g., exploring what-if scenarios, predictive models, data 
generation, hypothesis testing, policy formation and generation).
Despite the multitude of advancements in the last few decades, there remain 
longstanding challenges that limit the usefulness of such models in the policy 
cycle. Such challenges include but are not limited to: capturing realistic 
individual and collective social behaviors; basic issues in model development 
(calibration, scalability, model reusability, difficulties in generalizing 
findings); and making transparent the strengths and limitations of models. This 
track focuses generally on advancements in modeling and simulation approaches 
in application to human societies that seek to overcome these challenges, with 
a special interest in policy modeling and the inclusion of models in the policy 
cycle.



On 10/23/11 10:10, Roger Critchlow wrote:

No one knows where the slime mold will choose to extend its  pseudopodia, or 
which of the pseudopodia will thrive or wither, or what the novel beneficial or 
lamentable consequences will be.  Some of us worry about the suffering caused 
by the gold-goo-excrement, others worry about not killing the beast that makes 
the gold-goo, many just fight for the largest share they can get, and most of 
us could care less until the bucket of gold-goo-excrement lands in our 
neighborhood or the gold-goo pseudopod feeding our investments dries up.


On 1/28/24 16:55, Frank Wimberly wrote:

One of my father-in-law's best friends was a man named Eli Shapiro who was the Alfred P 
Sloan Professor of Economics at MIT.  My FIL asked him some question about stock 
investing.  Shapiro said, "Chuck, nobody knows anything."


On 1/29/24 08:29, Steve Smith wrote:

I think this is one of the reasons that an open-ended "growth economy" is so popular, it 
make everyone willing to take on the mantle, a /_"tide whisperer"_/, pretending their 
shamanic actions/words are lifting those boats?


On 1/29/24 19:20, Leigh Fanning wrote:

At some point we'll have SAF at scale.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/sustainable-aviation-fuels


On 1/29/24 19:35, Michael Orshan wrote:

so removing fossil fuels from power plants is the key. [snip] Still there are 
many political and resource bottlenecks.


On 1/29/24 22:36, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Sorry, Jochen, just about everything you recommend will make things worse.  I 
also wrote about the failure of the climate models almost ten years ago.  You 
nailed one of the biggest problems, though: even really smart guys don't know 
shit about global warming.


On 1/30/24 00:59, Jochen Fromm wrote:

The basic facts seem to be simple. 8 billion people burning fossil fuels are 
causing global warming. Is there a point I have overlooked? What can we do to 
stop global warming?


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Bad news about the climate

[glen]

I feel like individual actions (like sorting recycling, buying/using EVs, etc.) 
are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to institutional actions. For example, 
the NIH recently held a meeting in Maryland explicitly stating a *preference* 
for in person attendance. This seemed egregious to me. I mean, I know they're 
not a department of ecology or biology ... or climate science or whatever. But 
surely ... shirley they know that institutional pressure to fly around the 
earth is a part of the problem, right? Like, how are we supposed to compete for 
federal funds ... social network wise, when all the flesh-pressing rich people 
fly around pressing the flesh in meatspace?

Similarly, ALife is in Copenhagen. Very cool. I've always wanted to go there. Luckily, IACAP (RussA mentioned) is in 
Eugene. I can take the train there. Maybe if we change your "life is at stake" to "career is at 
stake", we could make some interim progress. Anyone who flies to a conference is immediately spray-painted with a 
scarlet letter. But, really. It's not about us. It's about Amazon, Microsoft, P, Maybelline 
, Dupont, etc. ... and 
maybe even the NIH. We should make it about their "corporate life is at stake" and execute the bad actors.

Speaking of the death penalty for corporations:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2024/01/29/taking-away-trump-s-business-empire-would-stand-alone-under-new-york-fraud-law

"An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed 
that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands 
apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a 
shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses."

Freewill? Agency? Pffft. The real touchstone is "identify the victim".

On 1/29/24 14:41, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I saw this article mentioned by Eliot Jacobson on his X/Twitter profile which 
argues that our actions will most likely not be enough until there is a big 
shock which motivates real change. It also uses the Covid pandemic to 
illustrate that people are able to change if they are convinced their lives are 
at stake
https://time.com/6565499/apocalyptic-optimism-climate-change/

It fits to my own observations here in Europe: there are more and more EVs and charging 
stations, but not enough. There are more heat pumps replacing gas heatings, but not 
enough. There is more use of renewable energy but not enough. I fear people will only 
start to change fundamentally if they feel their life is at stake. Will it be too late 
then? I don't know. Let's be optimistic. "Keep your face always toward the sunshine 
- and shadows will fall behind you"
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/03/05/sunshine/

-J.


 Original message 
From: Steve Smith 
Date: 1/28/24 8:16 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Bad news about the climate

I love me a good dose of Sabine... her flat-delivery of equally serious and glib lines is killer IMO... and for the 
most part I feel compelled to defer to her facts and analyses (almost) without reserve. (/around 13:30 she said 
"so mind-f#%#%ingly stupid" /). I'm surprised she didn't actually invoke the biblical "four 
horsemen"!  Her closing statement with the "stop gluing yourself to things" sorta made Sabine the 
anti-Greta?  Both of those made me choke on my coffee .

The whole North-Atlantic circulation thing (AMOC tipping point) threatening to 
undermine the British Isles and Scandinavia's relatively mild winters 
(moderated by oceanic heat transport from the equator) is one of the things I 
expect to crash a lot of expectations (and economies and ???) around the 
industrial north.   New England is also implicated in a major/abrupt local 
climate change from this as well.

I did a short stint with a pre-climate (atmospheric-ocean model coupling) modeling team 
at LANL in the 90s and what I enjoyed most was the cognitive dissonance amongst the 
researchers who on one hand felt they couldn't predict *anything* confidently but 
recognized the incredibly high stakes and the emerging awareness of the implications of 
dynamical systems theory on the domain... how many bifurcation points likely surrounded 
the relatively linear "basin" the climate has been wandering in since the 
Younger Dryas.

Without exception, every scientist I worked with then privately declared "we have a 
problem!" even though they didn't feel they had anywhere near the evidence to say 
anything that strongly in their publications.

Anecdotally, I've been experiencing a fairly steady winter-warming at my 
high-desert location 20 miles outside Santa Fe at about 5400ft where I catch 
the cold-air flow off of both the Sangre de Christo and the Jemez mtns.   
Winters have gotten drier for the most part and while the lows still maintain 
(see above), the highs 

Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

[glen]

erm to get attached to 
those kinds of feelings.

But then what is all this “choice” and “free will” language doing, beyond just 
allowing us to label feelings?  Where does it come from?  What role is it 
playing?

I can imagine that it is something like a socially constructed prosthetic 
system.  There is lots of stuff that happens in mind-activity, which minds 
don’t carry out regularly (or maybe at all) in isolation, but which they can 
scaffold their way through by evolving external prosthetic systems.  So, game 
boards for playing combinatorial games.  Counting and rhythm for dealing with 
enumeration, time and other stuff.  Many structure of language for organizing 
thought patterns and images.  We wouldn’t say that the minds aren’t “thinking” 
or “solving” whatever the problem is because they employ a prosthetic system in 
doing so.  We can instead say that, like neoteny and like lots of other things 
that are extreme in human minds, they have taken on capacity for a lot of 
complexity by offloading the completion of many parallelizable tasks to 
constructed niches, which the minds as a community then generate, maintain, and 
evolve.

Likewise, one can imagine that these abstractions of “will” and “choice” get 
used by some of the resolving-activities, to direct attention or imagination 
(among the many places it could be directed at any moment) to images of others, 
social sanction, imaginations of fear of blame, guilt, reprisal, or whatever, 
and then one navigates through the language-mediated rules of that game, to 
results that feed back as part of the resolution-activity to send the hive to 
one place or another.  This would be consistent with thinking that a lot of 
freewill and choice language takes it most concrete form in legal and punitive 
institutionalism. There it is not only the hive of actions in individual minds 
that make some joint move; it is all of those in a population of people with 
yet further constructed niches (rules, roles, authorizations of force, etc.) 
that act collectively to serve inputs to the coordinating activities at the 
“times of choice”.

I don’t supposed I could weave a philosophical system out of such vague 
imagery, or even make it into anything psychological.  But at least it gives me 
some metaphors to attach the terms to that don’t seem completely unanchored (to 
me, by my admittedly arbitrary tastes).

Eric




On Jan 26, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Marcus Daniels  wrote:

LLMs are causal models.   Science is about building causal models.    It is 
bizarre to me that there are scientists that carve out a special case for their 
own mind.   Even people like Scott Aaronson talk this way.   As far as I can 
tell, it is just vanity.
*From:*Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>*On 
Behalf Of*Steve Smith
*Sent:*Friday, January 26, 2024 7:38 AM
*To:*friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:*Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will


Does ChatGPT have choices?

I "can't help myself", so here goes:

I've been reading Sopolsky's "Behave" which paves the runway (or exit ramp) for his 
recent "Determined".  His deep background in neuroendocrinology leads to some very 
compelling arguments which pretty much degenerate to:

"do you believe in causality? if so, then where do you suppose the spirit or soul 
intervene to break the chain dominoes that have been set up by everything that you are 
and has happened to you up to that instant?"

He does a fancy little mocking dance, three card monte style, of homunculii he 
contrives for the purpose of debunking any fanciful regression/recursion escape 
plans you might have in that direction.

To hear him tell it we (as are all AIs/LLMs/etc) essentially giant pachinko 
machines:

:

His arguments on the topic seem unassailable in spite of my own deep and abiding sense of 
"choice" at many levels.  It also doesn't help my cognitive dissonance that he 
speaks entirely colloquially using many words we all associate with choice...  he speaks 
_as if_ he makes choices and others do as well even if he seems to ignore the specific 
word, choice.

I like the conceit of:  "the universe is deterministic but not prestateable"

I guess this is why they call it "the HARD problem of consciousness"?

For those of you who read this far, it would seem you "couldn't help yourself" or as my mother used to quip 
"you must not have had anything better to do", and for those who have not, the same goes for hitting 
 or  (or having set up a spam-filter at an earlier time to avoid repeating the 
"decision" personally)...

PS re: Breaking Bad

I've only dropped a few Pachinko balls in my life, but I couldn't help agonizing over the trajectory of each one, 
feeling as if at every bounce they were at risk of "breaking bad" (or "good")...   since many here 
are at least part-time simulants (as Glen I believe refers t

Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

[glen]

Yeah, but it all boils down to what "same way" means. Addiction is canalized by 
dopaminergic pathways, right? So if you're canalized to that, then even if there are 
small effect differences in the way you react, they might be swamped by the large effect 
sameness forced by the need for dopamine. I haven't looked into it. But I've heard that 
psychopaths have higher levels of dopamine, whereas those of us with restless leg 
syndrome don't have enough of it. Maybe the answer is to give everyone restless leg! 
Yeah, that's the ticket.

On 1/26/24 11:35, Marcus Daniels wrote:

We don’t have the same molecular composition from identical histories, so there 
is no reason to think we’d all react the same way.

*From:*Friam  *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
*Sent:* Friday, January 26, 2024 11:18 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

 > The more one identifies with some (set of) narrative(s), the less free will 
one has.

Interesting. Yes, probably.

I believe the question of free will is related to the question if we all 
experience the world in the same way. This is also a question we have discussed 
frequently here at FRIAM if I recall correctly. Do we all act in the same way 
if we are confronted with a situation where we have to make a decision? In 
general no, but all drug addicts act alike if they are confronted with a 
situation which involves the stuff they are addicted to. The more addicted they 
are, the less free will.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/02/the-big-idea-could-you-have-made-different-choices-in-life
 



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

[glen]

The concept of causality is so irritating. It's like some kind of cafeteria 
style religion, where you pick and choose whatever attribute you like and toss 
all the attributes you dislike. So Marcus' identification of uncorrelated 
observations speaks directly to SteveS' assignation of an independent 
trajectory mutation at each pin in the game. The trajectory isn't random, but 
each turn in the trajectory is random. Similar with the difference between 
determinism and prestatability. Similar with the difference between causal 
chains versus causal networks.

All this is simply to torque my arm out of place patting myself on the back 
again. What matters is the *scope*, not some penultimate reduction to some 
Grand Unified Theory/Philosophy of the world. Nobody can say anything coherent 
without mentioning the scope of whatever it was they said ... the language 
within which they said it, etc.


On 1/26/24 07:37, Steve Smith wrote:

I've only dropped a few Pachinko balls in my life, but I couldn't help agonizing over the trajectory of each one, 
feeling as if at every bounce they were at risk of "breaking bad" (or "good")...   since many here 
are at least part-time simulants (as Glen I believe refers to himself), even the most aggressive attempts at 
introducing "random" (noise, annealing, etc.) either degenerate to "pseudo-random" or engage with a 
physical system (e.g. sample a pixel-value from a webcam trained on a lava lamp) which of course is deterministic if 
arbitrarily complex.


On 1/26/24 08:14, Marcus Daniels wrote:

One of the usual claims is that science couldn’t occur without independent 
observations.   I would co-opt Glen’s rhetoric here about parallax.  What’s 
need is largely uncorrelated observations.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad and Free Will

[glen]

+1

Every failed communication effort I engage in is followed by my reaction to the 
failure. When I've been primed that day/week to be calm and collected, my 
reaction is to either try again or politely quit the effort. But when I've been 
primed to be reactionary and aggressive, my reaction matches that priming. The 
only difference between me and a dog is that my computer is slightly more 
universal than the dog's computer.

On 1/26/24 10:00, Marcus Daniels wrote:

For example, my dog has a sequence of actions she takes to indicate she would 
like to go outside and pee.   If I am asleep, I may not see or hear them.   
Nonetheless she appears to have guilt if there is a mistake.   Apparent guilt 
is just a thing that happens when her intent is not realized.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] "SSRN-id3978095.pdf" was shared with you

[glen]

Words matter: how ecologists discuss managed and non-managed bees and birds
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04620-2

I'm continuing this thread because I really want to classify types of ad 
hominem. The most obvious bifurcation is human vs. source ... so against the 
human versus against the source. E.g. I've been using https://ground.news. And 
this morning, they had some 100% right (as in political right, not correct) 
article where all the sources were Mixed or Low Factuality. I found myself 
trusting the Mixed Factuality Fox News more than any of the others. So ... 
familiarity? I guess?

Re loaded language and the birds and the bees: I don't think it's possible to remove the loading 
from loaded language. The best you can do is be aggressively transparent about your loading. And 
that's what triggers my "ad hominem". It's a reaction to closed or obfuscated loading. 
E.g. when some older white dude at the pub insists on using politically incorrect language that 
makes the kids cringe, you have to do a little analysis and modeling of the speaker. Are they doing 
it 'cause they're just too stupid? 'Cause it stirs up the kids? 'Cause it makes them feel 
"free"? Etc. It's less *against* the person and more of an attempt to infer their loading.

On 1/8/24 11:06, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

I am particularly grateful for the ad hominem stuff.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] diamond doping

[glen]

ons, which are helium nuclei. Beta decay means the nucleus 
spits out electrons and gamma decay means that the nucleus spits out photons.  
The Chinese company uses beta decay and calls itself betavolta after that.  
They use nickel 63, which has a half-life of roughly 100 years, and layer it 
between diamond semiconductors with a PN junction. This sounds kind of 
technical, and I guess it is.  But maybe it helps to know that this 
semiconductor stuff is the same type of material that's normally used in solar 
cells. In the solar cells, it's in falling light that creates a current.  For 
the nuclear battery, it's not in falling light, but the electrons emitted in 
the beta decay that create the current. The company Betavolta won third prize 
for their battery in a recent innovation competition by the China National 
Nuclear Cooperation. The technology itself isn't new, but the push to the 
consumer market is. The company's first product is called the BV100 battery. It 
has a power of 100 microwatts and a voltage of 3 volts. It has about the same 
size as the typical cell battery. The power is somewhat lower than what the 
British company is aiming at, but the voltage they quote is somewhat higher. So 
the Chinese battery looks plausible enough, but like the other nuclear 
batteries, it's probably going to remain in niche technology for low power 
devices that need to last a long time. It's a shame because if you had a phone 
battery that lasted 20,000 years, you could watch all my videos in one go. Many 
thanks to our sponsors on Patreon, especially those of you in tier 4 and 
higher. This channel would not be possible without your help. And you too can 
help us. Go check out our Patreon page or support us right here on YouTube by 
clicking on the join button below. Thanks for watching. See you
tomorrow.




On 1/10/24 07:14, glen wrote:

I've been tricked before. Is this true? I find plenty of hits on diamond doping 
and β-based batteries. And the Sri Lanka Guardian seems like a credible source. 
But I can't help but doubt claims from https://www.betavolt.tech/

https://slguardian.org/chinese-firm-developed-nuclear-battery-that-can-produce-power-for-50-years/

Betavolt, however, has taken a different technical approach. They have 
developed a unique semiconductor made of single-crystal diamond capable of 
generating a current through the β particles (electrons) emitted from the 
radioactive source nickel-63. By placing a 2 micrometer-thick nickel-63 thin 
film between two diamond semiconductor converters, the decay energy of the 
radioactive source can be converted into electrical current, creating an 
independent modular unit.


https://www.betavolt.tech/359485-359485_645066.html via Google Translate

Beijing Betavolt New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. announced on January 8 that it has 
successfully developed a miniature atomic energy battery. This product combines nickel 63 
nuclear isotope decay technology and China's first diamond semiconductor (4th generation 
semiconductor) module to successfully realize the miniaturization of atomic energy 
batteries. , modularization and low cost, starting the process of civilian use. This 
marks that China has achieved disruptive innovation in the two high-tech fields of atomic 
energy batteries and fourth-generation diamond semiconductors at the same time, putting 
it "way ahead" of European and American scientific research institutions and 
enterprises.

Betavolt atomic energy batteries can generate electricity stably and 
autonomously for 50 years without the need for charging or maintenance. They 
have entered the pilot stage and will be put into mass production on the 
market. Betavolt atomic energy batteries can meet the needs of long-lasting 
power supply in multiple scenarios such as aerospace, AI equipment, medical 
equipment, MEMS systems, advanced sensors, small drones and micro robots. This 
new energy innovation will help China gain a leading edge in the new round of 
AI technological revolution.

Atomic energy batteries, also known as nuclear batteries or radioisotope batteries, work 
on the principle of utilizing the energy released by the decay of nuclear isotopes and 
converting it into electrical energy through semiconductor converters. This was a 
high-tech field that the United States and the Soviet Union focused on in the 1960s. 
Currently, there are only thermonuclear batteries used in aerospace. This kind of battery 
is large in size and weight, has high internal temperatures, is expensive, and cannot be 
used by civilians. In recent years, miniaturization, modularization and civilian use of 
nuclear batteries have been the goals and directions pursued by European and American 
countries. China's "14th Five-Year Plan and 2035 Vision Goals" also propose 
that the civilianization of nuclear technology and the multi-purpose development of 
nuclear isotopes are future development trends.

Betavoltaic nuclear batteries develop a comp

Re: [FRIAM] Breaking Bad

[glen]

On 1/15/24 11:01, Don Lemons wrote:

"Virtue ethics" is a standard phrase in philosophy.


Yes, that's the way my friend intends to use it. He claims to have been 
formally trained in philosophy. But I don't care very much about the jargon. 
What I care about is what he says when he graduates from the jargon into 
authentic expressions of intent and behavior. I'll take Diogenes over the rest 
of 'em any day. 8^D

On 1/15/24 12:40, Steve Smith wrote:

My modern (most of my adult life) experience is that the 
progressive/enlightened amongst us lean toward the idea of having any E and P 
represent character flaws that should be at least concealed if not stifled in 
some way. I'm hooked on this myself.  I don't like having the scarlet E or P 
branded on my forehead, even (because?) the brand fits my circumstance.   Maybe 
it is more accurate to say the fact of P leads to an illusion of E which when 
exercised (free-will assumed) is where the C flaw resides?



Yeah, but in my conception of P, they are undoubtedly good things. When 
someone is entitled, it means they have a foundation of expectation ... like the 
expectation that trains run on time, that you can walk down the street without 
being mugged, that other drivers on the road have been through some kind of minimal 
certification process, that the food you buy isn't infected, that the drugs you 
take work, etc. This is entitlement. And it's a good thing. (I feel strongest when 
I hear grumpy old people complain about kids these days. Yes, they *should* be 
entitled. You *want* them to have a better life than you ... or you should anyway. 
They won't because you let the world go to shit on your watch. But you want them 
to.)

Of course, there are those of us who take E a little too far. And there are 
those of us who feel *overly* entitled. But that's the same with everything. Some 
of us drink too much. Some of us are mansplaining boors. Etc. But it's like the 
thickness of the earth's crust compared to its mantle. At least in developed 
countries, we have a mantle of laws and norms that bestow a warranted entitlement 
(like not having to hunt for food every damned day). And everybody complains about 
the very thin layer of too-much-entitlement that festers on the surface. Frankly, 
our myopia is very weird.

Walter White simply learned to see the E And he responded accordingly.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] diamond doping

[glen]

I've been tricked before. Is this true? I find plenty of hits on diamond doping 
and β-based batteries. And the Sri Lanka Guardian seems like a credible source. 
But I can't help but doubt claims from https://www.betavolt.tech/

https://slguardian.org/chinese-firm-developed-nuclear-battery-that-can-produce-power-for-50-years/

Betavolt, however, has taken a different technical approach. They have 
developed a unique semiconductor made of single-crystal diamond capable of 
generating a current through the β particles (electrons) emitted from the 
radioactive source nickel-63. By placing a 2 micrometer-thick nickel-63 thin 
film between two diamond semiconductor converters, the decay energy of the 
radioactive source can be converted into electrical current, creating an 
independent modular unit.


https://www.betavolt.tech/359485-359485_645066.html via Google Translate

Beijing Betavolt New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. announced on January 8 that it has 
successfully developed a miniature atomic energy battery. This product combines nickel 63 
nuclear isotope decay technology and China's first diamond semiconductor (4th generation 
semiconductor) module to successfully realize the miniaturization of atomic energy 
batteries. , modularization and low cost, starting the process of civilian use. This 
marks that China has achieved disruptive innovation in the two high-tech fields of atomic 
energy batteries and fourth-generation diamond semiconductors at the same time, putting 
it "way ahead" of European and American scientific research institutions and 
enterprises.

Betavolt atomic energy batteries can generate electricity stably and 
autonomously for 50 years without the need for charging or maintenance. They 
have entered the pilot stage and will be put into mass production on the 
market. Betavolt atomic energy batteries can meet the needs of long-lasting 
power supply in multiple scenarios such as aerospace, AI equipment, medical 
equipment, MEMS systems, advanced sensors, small drones and micro robots. This 
new energy innovation will help China gain a leading edge in the new round of 
AI technological revolution.

Atomic energy batteries, also known as nuclear batteries or radioisotope batteries, work 
on the principle of utilizing the energy released by the decay of nuclear isotopes and 
converting it into electrical energy through semiconductor converters. This was a 
high-tech field that the United States and the Soviet Union focused on in the 1960s. 
Currently, there are only thermonuclear batteries used in aerospace. This kind of battery 
is large in size and weight, has high internal temperatures, is expensive, and cannot be 
used by civilians. In recent years, miniaturization, modularization and civilian use of 
nuclear batteries have been the goals and directions pursued by European and American 
countries. China's "14th Five-Year Plan and 2035 Vision Goals" also propose 
that the civilianization of nuclear technology and the multi-purpose development of 
nuclear isotopes are future development trends.

Betavoltaic nuclear batteries develop a completely different technological 
approach, generating electric current through the semiconductor transition of 
beta particles (electrons) emitted by the radioactive source nickel-63. To do 
this, Betavolt's team of scientists developed a unique single-crystal diamond 
semiconductor that is just 10 microns thick, placing a 2-micron-thick nickel-63 
sheet between two diamond semiconductor converters. The decay energy of the 
radioactive source is converted into an electrical current, forming an 
independent unit. Nuclear batteries are modular and can be composed of dozens 
or hundreds of independent unit modules and can be used in series and parallel, 
so battery products of different sizes and capacities can be manufactured.

Zhang Wei, chairman and CEO of Betavolt, said that the first product the 
company will launch is BV100, which is the world's first nuclear battery to be 
mass-produced. The power is 100 microwatts, the voltage is 3V, and the volume 
is 15 X 15 X 5 Cubic millimeters are smaller than a coin. Nuclear batteries 
generate electricity every minute, 8.64 joules per day, and 3153 joules per 
year. Multiple such batteries can be used in series and parallel. The company 
plans to launch a battery with a power of 1 watt in 2025. If policies permit, 
atomic energy batteries can allow a mobile phone to never be charged, and 
drones that can only fly for 15 minutes can fly continuously.

According to reports, the atomic energy battery is a physical battery, not an 
electrochemical battery. Its energy density is more than 10 times that of 
ternary lithium batteries. It can store 3,300 megawatt hours in a 1-gram 
battery. It will not catch fire or explode in response to acupuncture and 
gunshots. Because it generates self-generated electricity for 50 years, there 
is no concept of the number of cycles of an electrochemical battery (2,000 
charges 

Re: [FRIAM] sui generis

[glen]

I agree almost completely. Where I may disagree goes back to a conversation we (I've forgotten who was 
"there", though) had on vFriAM awhile back. There is something to uniqueness. An expression from 
the Very Weird is different from expressions from the less weird. I tend to think of it in terms of 
non-convex space and strictures in the manifold. If you've got a pathologically malformed space and 
"we" are all meandering around in that space, then some proportion of us will end up in little 
niches with few (or zero) neighbors. The puffs of "content" expressed by those weirdos will be more 
unique than the puffs from those with many neighbors.

Of course, if you have zero neighbors, then your puffs may not be "remembered" at all by anyone. (I 
prefer "recognized" to "remembered". But to each her own.) So, there's some λ parameter 
for weirdness. Personally, although I appreciate, say, Frank Zappa's expressions, I don't enjoy many of them. 
Similarly, I don't appreciate or enjoy the expressions of Taylor Swift. But without such large pockets of 
convex space, where would our little white holes of weirdness be? We'd have no safe harbor at all.

On 1/9/24 08:47, Prof David West wrote:

Ancient Greek notions of "creativity" lacked any sense of egocentric novelty. To 'create' 
was to 'remember'. This was grounded in the more general philosophy that denied the possibility of 
"something-from-nothing."

In my Design Thinking book, there is a large section about this and about who 
"creation" is akin to midwifery, assisting something to express itself.

Just as a midwife lacks "authorship" of a baby, so too do all "intellectuals" 
lack authorship of novel, innovative, or creative work— despite the boilerplate prefacing every 
Ph.D. thesis.

davew

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, at 10:28 AM, glen wrote:

https://www.science.org/content/article/billionaire-launches-plagiarism-detection-effort-against-mit-president-and-all-its

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4392624-new-york-times-chatgpt-lawsuit-poses-new-legal-threats-to-artificial-intelligence/

I just can't help but analogize between Intelligent Design and these
arguments of ownership/novelty of [ahem] "content". It all feels like
the argument from design to me. For a paywalled for-profit like the NYT
to go after a for-profit like OpenAI and a rapacious
<https://www.thenation.com/article/society/william-ackman-harvard-donor/>
billionaire to go after prestige-mongering elite institutions seems
like a clear instance of elite overproduction
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction>. And to have it
all leveraged on the fantasy fulcrum of novelty and ownership is making
my head spin.

But deep down, there's something to be said about intuitionism. At our
last salon, someone asked how much ontological status we might give to
stories about the Astral Plane. My answer derives entirely from what
little I know about intersubjectivity and cross-species mind reading.
If there is a commonality to nootropic or psychonaut experience, it
derives from our common *structure*, including whatever deeply
historical things like genetic memory that may (not) exist.

It's fine to give lip service to intellectual humility. But such
rhetoric can't persuade ... uh ... "people" like Ackman. Surely ...
surely people like that are smart enough to grok things like gen-phen
maps, robustness and polyphenism, etc. Right? And if they do get it,
then we grass tufts can go on about our work, trying to be open, accept
and apply credit and blame to the best of our abilities and ignore
these fighting elephants. Right?

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] sui generis

[glen]

https://www.science.org/content/article/billionaire-launches-plagiarism-detection-effort-against-mit-president-and-all-its

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4392624-new-york-times-chatgpt-lawsuit-poses-new-legal-threats-to-artificial-intelligence/

I just can't help but analogize between Intelligent Design and these arguments of ownership/novelty 
of [ahem] "content". It all feels like the argument from design to me. For a paywalled 
for-profit like the NYT to go after a for-profit like OpenAI and a rapacious 
 billionaire to go 
after prestige-mongering elite institutions seems like a clear instance of elite overproduction 
. And to have it all leveraged on the 
fantasy fulcrum of novelty and ownership is making my head spin.

But deep down, there's something to be said about intuitionism. At our last 
salon, someone asked how much ontological status we might give to stories about 
the Astral Plane. My answer derives entirely from what little I know about 
intersubjectivity and cross-species mind reading. If there is a commonality to 
nootropic or psychonaut experience, it derives from our common *structure*, 
including whatever deeply historical things like genetic memory that may (not) 
exist.

It's fine to give lip service to intellectual humility. But such rhetoric can't persuade 
... uh ... "people" like Ackman. Surely ... surely people like that are smart 
enough to grok things like gen-phen maps, robustness and polyphenism, etc. Right? And if 
they do get it, then we grass tufts can go on about our work, trying to be open, accept 
and apply credit and blame to the best of our abilities and ignore these fighting 
elephants. Right?

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] "SSRN-id3978095.pdf" was shared with you

[glen]

The argument seems pretty clear to me. "Officer" is jargonal, not intuitive. 
Were I to read it charitably, I'd agree. Appointees are not elected. Electees should have 
more leeway than appointees ... like the difference between an elected Sheriff and her 
deputies. But like all dichotomies, this one is a bit false, especially given that the 
[Vice]Presidents aren't really elected at all. The Electoral College process feels more 
like a complicated appointment mechanism than an election.

Anyway, everything that document says is monastery quality sophistry. Were the "rule 
of law" actually like an axiomatic system, running it forward from start to finish 
would be formal and automatic. But it's just not that formal. It's cafeteria/buffet 
style; you can make anything you want out of it. Beware the monks claiming it's axiomatic 
... and that they alone are qualified to turn the crank.

FWIW, I'm not familiar with Tillman. But Blackman's positions are one reason I 
unsubscribed from the Volokh Conspiracy RSS feed: cf. 
https://reason.com/people/josh-blackman/

At first, I read many of his posts with as much charity as I could. (Analyses 
and opinions, not so much the historical ones. He's a competent scholar.) Then 
I started skipping over them most of the time and focusing on the other posters 
that were more reason-able (Ha!). Then I finally couldn't take it anymore and 
removed the feed. [sigh] I'm not proud of that. My charity muscles are 
fatigued. Blackman's opinions feel, to me, similar the Johns' (Yoo and Rizzo) 
legal justification for waterboarding. It all makes me a bit queasy.

p.s. Here's a more reliable link: 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3978095

On 1/6/24 10:16, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, Everybody,

I have been curious about how (on earth!) the president could not be
considered to be an Officer of the United States.  After all, the
Constitution, Article II, tells us that "The President ...shall hold
office..."etc. This law review article  seems to be the source  I thought I
would post in in case anyone wants to read it. I won't get to it until later
today.
Nick



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The last Lighthouse Keeper in America

[glen]

I agree. Ever since this: 
https://bookshop.org/p/books/from-transgender-to-transhuman-a-manifesto-on-the-freedom-of-form-martine-rothblatt/8478365?ean=9780615489421
 I've been swayed that the reactionary stance of the JK Rowlings of the world look 
similar to that of the Trumpists (or Tea Party people). But the R in TERF is supposed to 
stand for "radical", right? People like Rowling don't seem that radical to me. 
So, I'd prefer if we use the R in TERF to stand for reactionary. (Now the NeoRx crowd 
like Yarvin and whatnot. They do seem radical, even though reactionary is in their name 
... radical reactionary, maybe?)

On a similar note, I notice both very "left" seeming people and very "right" seeming 
people are into tattoos. The number of tattoos these days is enough that they would have been called 
"radical" body modifiers in the past. But now, to be radical, you have to do even more than 
piercing ... like you have to install metal pieces under the skin, or engage in decorative scarring to be 
thought of as radical ... maybe CRISPR your genome or eat nothing but Soylent. IDK. I can't imagine any kind 
of radical anyone who wasn't pro-trans.

But, again, it's a field, not a particle zoo.

On 12/28/23 08:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It seems one informative interstitial space is populated by the TERFs.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 6:53 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The last Lighthouse Keeper in America

I thought about ... no, actually I crafted an entire post but deleted it ... posting this 
in response to Roger's "good old sci fi" (GOSF) arc. It's a fantastic TESCREAL 
narrative arc, reactive to such GOSF. And as allergic to narrative as I am, I still think 
it's a good story:

https://emilygorcenski.com/post/making-god/

Plus, they use one of my favorite words: apotheosis. I get a distinct scent of 
the feminist critique of artificial life [⛧] in there, somewhere ... a kind of 
cynical us versus them vibe. But it's a vibe with which I often resonate. Like 
Diogenes, I believe truth is found in the gritty interstitial, not the lofty 
isolate.

[⛧] Aggressively expressed as: artificial life is the (white|privileged) man's 
attempt to appropriate women's ability to rear children ... given that this 
list is prolly mostly (white|privileged) men, I can't help but wonder if any 
reaction to that concept is, would be, can be, authentic, including my own. But 
it's a bit sexist. Many women are fantastic analysts and can cut it up and 
isolate as well or better than any man. So the argument against TESCREAL isn't 
actually sexist. It just so happens to be that those of us who inhabit gritty, 
interstitial spaces recognize the phenomena better than those of us well 
ensconced in our silos.


On 12/27/23 15:28, Steve Smith wrote:

When we invented gods in our own image we did a bad job, I'm not sure we are 
doing any better with the AI?  Please gods, not in Elon's image!  But hope 
springs infernal.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The last Lighthouse Keeper in America

[glen]

I thought about ... no, actually I crafted an entire post but deleted it ... posting this 
in response to Roger's "good old sci fi" (GOSF) arc. It's a fantastic TESCREAL 
narrative arc, reactive to such GOSF. And as allergic to narrative as I am, I still think 
it's a good story:

https://emilygorcenski.com/post/making-god/

Plus, they use one of my favorite words: apotheosis. I get a distinct scent of 
the feminist critique of artificial life [⛧] in there, somewhere ... a kind of 
cynical us versus them vibe. But it's a vibe with which I often resonate. Like 
Diogenes, I believe truth is found in the gritty interstitial, not the lofty 
isolate.

[⛧] Aggressively expressed as: artificial life is the (white|privileged) man's 
attempt to appropriate women's ability to rear children ... given that this 
list is prolly mostly (white|privileged) men, I can't help but wonder if any 
reaction to that concept is, would be, can be, authentic, including my own. But 
it's a bit sexist. Many women are fantastic analysts and can cut it up and 
isolate as well or better than any man. So the argument against TESCREAL isn't 
actually sexist. It just so happens to be that those of us who inhabit gritty, 
interstitial spaces recognize the phenomena better than those of us well 
ensconced in our silos.


On 12/27/23 15:28, Steve Smith wrote:

When we invented gods in our own image we did a bad job, I'm not sure we are 
doing any better with the AI?  Please gods, not in Elon's image!  But hope 
springs infernal.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] arg

[glen]

British teenager behind GTA 6 hack receives indefinite hospital order
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/21/british-teenager-behind-gta-6-hack-receives-indefinite-hospital-order

One person's criminal is another's hero. Such pearl clutching by the 
capitalists.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] institutional home for Rowena He

[glen]

I know some here have more than a passing interest in China and a peri-China 
network. So I thought I'd bump this post a bit:

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7694


This post has a practical purpose. Since her exile from China, Rowena has spent 
basically her entire life moving from place to place, with no permanent 
position and no financial security. In the US—a huge country full of people who 
share Rowena’s goal of exposing the lies of the CCP—there must be an excellent 
university, think tank, or institute that would offer a permanent position to 
possibly the world’s preeminent historian of Tiananmen and of the Chinese 
democracy movement. Though the readership of this blog is heavily skewed toward 
STEM, maybe that institute is yours. If it is, please get in touch with Rowena. 
And then I could say this blog had served a useful purpose, even if everything 
else I wrote for two decades was for naught.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Off the wall question about turbulence

[glen]

FWIW, here's some more kewl acoustic emission:

https://kuaishen.bandcamp.com/album/stridulation-amplified-compositions-with-the-stridulatory-organ-of-atta-cephalotes


The compositions are recordings of the acoustic vibrations, scientifically 
known as stridulations, which are produced by leaf-cutter ants (species Atta 
cephalotes, native of the Neotropics in South America) in order to modulate 
their messages as part of their social communication. The recordings were 
engraved in a vinyl record, a medium which is in fact a polymer derivative of 
the organic polymer, which naturally composes the exoskeleton of ants and most 
insects on the planet, i.e., chitin.

The ants produce these acoustic vibrations by using the stridulatory organ, 
which consists of a sharp scraper located on the posterior border of the 
post-petiole, the plectrum, and of a file of transverse ridges located on the 
upper surface of the anteriormost part of the abdominal segment, the pars 
stridens. When the abdomen is jerked up and down, the plectrum rubs against the 
pars stridens, producing a stridulation between 2kHz-46kHz depending on the 
size of the ant: this physical rubbing produces acoustic energy which is in 
itself a mechanism analogous to dragging a vinyl record back and forth on a 
turntable, producing what is commonly known as scratching. Thus, this reveals 
the connection between scratching, as an aesthetic expression created by human 
culture, and the stridulation phenomena produced by ants as a modulation 
mechanism for social communication.

This if the first time (as far as I am aware of) in the history of insect 
bioacoustics, that the sound of this species of leaf-cutter ants has been 
captured, engraved and mastered in a vinyl.

"Stridulation Amplified: Compositions with the stridulatory organ of Atta cephalotes" was produced for the Manifesta 9th Biennial exhibition in 2012 as part of Kuai Shen's reactive sound installation, "0h!m1gas: biomimetic stridulation environment", which shows my leaf-cutter ant family being monitored with open computer vision and amplified by piezo-microphones connected to a pair of turntables which produces scratching sounds using this same vinyl. 
credits

released November 8, 2017

The field recording was made at the Reserva Natural Otonga, in Sto. Domingo de los Tsachilas, Ecuador. The production costs for the vinyl were partially sponsored by Kunststiftung NRW. 




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] AI Alliance

[glen]

 article on in-sync planetary system 
<https://mashable.com/article/nasa-exoplanets-orbit-star-sync>

https://science.nasa.gov/missions/tess/discovery-alert-watch-the-synchronized-dance-of-a-6-planet-system/

On 12/6/23 10:57 AM, Pietro Terna wrote:

    Genius!


Il 06/12/23 15:11, glen ha scritto:

For those of us who refuse to contribute to Musk's reality distortion field: 
https://thealliance.ai/

Yeah, it's interesting. 2 questions came to my mind: 1) Where is Mozilla? Are they a part 
of it? And 2) "open" is not a simple concept. Is it possible that so many 
organizations have a clear understanding of what it means? If so, what do they mean? 
We've seen, over and over again, a kind of exploitation of Utopian values, especially in 
infrastructure-level software. (I'd love to get Stallman's opinion.)

One way to clarify someone's position on their private conception of "open" is to ask 
how they feel about limits to the exportation of encryption software. 
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/us-export-controls-and-published-encryption-source-code-explained>

Another tack is to ask how they feel about fake news, trust in institutions, 
free speech, platforming, etc.

IDK. The AI Alliance smells, to me, kinda like more TESCREAL [1], ripe for exploitation 
and *-washing [2] by the privileged. If a tech is open and stays open, it'll most likely 
do so because individuals commit to it, not because some meta-corp of mega-corps get 
together as "allies". But I'm a bit cynical.

[1] Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singulatarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, 
Effective Altruism, Longtermism
[2] Green-washing (fossil fuel lobbyists at cop28), ethics-washing ("ai 
safety"), dei-washing (sensitivity training), etc.

On 12/5/23 23:47, Pietro Terna wrote:

Dear all,

what about the post below?

Star Wars?



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] AI Alliance

[glen]

For those of us who refuse to contribute to Musk's reality distortion field: 
https://thealliance.ai/

Yeah, it's interesting. 2 questions came to my mind: 1) Where is Mozilla? Are they a part 
of it? And 2) "open" is not a simple concept. Is it possible that so many 
organizations have a clear understanding of what it means? If so, what do they mean? 
We've seen, over and over again, a kind of exploitation of Utopian values, especially in 
infrastructure-level software. (I'd love to get Stallman's opinion.)

One way to clarify someone's position on their private conception of "open" is to ask 
how they feel about limits to the exportation of encryption software. 


Another tack is to ask how they feel about fake news, trust in institutions, 
free speech, platforming, etc.

IDK. The AI Alliance smells, to me, kinda like more TESCREAL [1], ripe for exploitation 
and *-washing [2] by the privileged. If a tech is open and stays open, it'll most likely 
do so because individuals commit to it, not because some meta-corp of mega-corps get 
together as "allies". But I'm a bit cynical.

[1] Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singulatarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, 
Effective Altruism, Longtermism
[2] Green-washing (fossil fuel lobbyists at cop28), ethics-washing ("ai 
safety"), dei-washing (sensitivity training), etc.

On 12/5/23 23:47, Pietro Terna wrote:

Dear all,

what about the post below?

Star Wars?

Best from Italy, Pietro

Post of Yann LeCun (@ylecun) 6:16 PM dic 05, 2023:
IBM & Meta are launching the AI Alliance to advance *open* & reliable AI.
The list of over 50 founding members from industry, government, and academia 
include AMD, Anyscale, CERN, Hugging Face, the Linux Foundation, NASA
https://t.co/NdcMb7GMXv 
(https://x.com/ylecun/status/1732086572529365136?t=wI9-xlsgfRTiFkS0zhh8nQ=03 
)

Invio dal telefono, prego scusare gli errori.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] metathesis

[glen]

I made the mistake of confessing my handicap to a friend. Now he purposefully 
says nukular as a kind of Castañedan slap on the back, or the master's whack 
with the stick. He knows it knocks me out of whatever canal I was in. It's 
irritating, but a good thing overall.

Actually, it started with the pronunciation of diacetyl, which most of my friends at the brewery pronounce "die-ASS-uh-tul". That's another one that doesn't 
give me the hiccups. My Mansplainer homunculus doesn't even notice. But I did get a chance to discuss it with the owner, wherein I suggested that "ASS-uh-tal" 
is a chemical group that's fundamentally different from acetyl. And, even though there's almost zero chance of anyone *ever* saying the word "diacetal", it's 
still reasonable to prefer the more common "die-uh-SEE-tul". After all, nobody says "ASS-uh-tul-kole-een" or "ASS-uh-tul-een torch". On the 
other hand, hangovers are discussed a lot in places like breweries ... with taprooms at least. And acetaldehyde is (almost) pronounced like 
"ASS-uh-tul-dee-hide" (with some wiggle around "tul" vs "tal").  So, again, there is some slight reason prefer one pronunciation over the 
other.

No such luck with nukular. Any desire to correct someone when they say it that 
way is empty (and actually false) pedantry. I still hate it, though.

On 12/1/23 07:28, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My dad was a nuclear engineer and nukular has always bothered me greatly.  I try to help 
people to say it right by telling them to think "new clear".  I'm not sure that 
would help Bush.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 8:21 AM glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:


So, on the death of The War Criminal, I've been reflecting on the most 
irritating thing to me about George W Bush's stint: nukular. Sure. It's 
irritating that he started a war for no good reason. If we learn anything from 
Kissinger's treatment by the press, it's that those sorts of things don't 
actually matter.

But the way you pronounce "nuclear"? That matters ... to me, anyway. I've managed to grind off the burrs 
in my thinking when someone says "axe" instead of "ask", glottals their Ts, etc. But I just can't 
get over nukular. Every time someone says it that way, whatever it was I was doing or thinking goes straight out the 
fscking window. With, say, "axe", I can actually do it myself without feeling shame. Same with t-flapping. 
(And vocal fry.)

Wikipedia gives me a nice list of triggerable attributes of language: 
metathesis, elision, epenthesis, flapping, assimilation, dissimilation, etc. My 
request, here, is for examples from anyone that rankle you or that you've 
overcome. Presumably, the more aware I am with others' struggles with such, the 
less I'll be triggered by my own.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] metathesis

[glen]

So, on the death of The War Criminal, I've been reflecting on the most 
irritating thing to me about George W Bush's stint: nukular. Sure. It's 
irritating that he started a war for no good reason. If we learn anything from 
Kissinger's treatment by the press, it's that those sorts of things don't 
actually matter.

But the way you pronounce "nuclear"? That matters ... to me, anyway. I've managed to grind off the burrs in 
my thinking when someone says "axe" instead of "ask", glottals their Ts, etc. But I just can't get 
over nukular. Every time someone says it that way, whatever it was I was doing or thinking goes straight out the 
fscking window. With, say, "axe", I can actually do it myself without feeling shame. Same with t-flapping. 
(And vocal fry.)

Wikipedia gives me a nice list of triggerable attributes of language: 
metathesis, elision, epenthesis, flapping, assimilation, dissimilation, etc. My 
request, here, is for examples from anyone that rankle you or that you've 
overcome. Presumably, the more aware I am with others' struggles with such, the 
less I'll be triggered by my own.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] artificial clouds

[glen]

I'm sure y'all have seen this already. But it was new to me.

https://www.berndnaut.nl/works/molds/
https://youtu.be/GRHWCcOktHI

- Smilde is a Dutch artist who has been creating artworks involving real clouds formed indoors since 2010. 
- The clouds are created using a fog machine and water vapor. He builds a "wall" of vapor then introduces smoke which interacts with the vapor to briefly form cloud shapes.

- The clouds only last for a few seconds before dispersing. His art aims to 
capture transience.
- He photographs the clouds, often with professional photographers, striving 
for technically perfect images.
- The photos typically show the clouds set against the backgrounds of rooms or 
buildings, like a church nave where he was recently invited to work.
- Smilde sees ambiguity and duality in the works - the clouds can seem 
threatening or divine, building up then quickly falling apart.
- His cloud photos have spread widely online since 2012 when Time Magazine 
highlighted them. They have universal appeal.
- He has staged fashion shoots with designers using the clouds. His works sell 
for thousands of euros.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Mirror Neurons & Intersubjective Reality

[glen]

Thanks for the links to the predictive coding paper and the mirror mech survey. What 
continues to drive my skepticism, even for the weaker "mirror mechanism" 
hypothesis is stated well in a perspective on the recent brain cell atlas:

"There is no single prototypical human; a spectrum of differences in genetic 
variation and environmental response exists both in healthy individuals and in disease 
states." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk4857

This seems to be mirrored (no pun intended, but I have to admit I'm abusing the 
word) in fMRI results we're studying for chronic pain. There seems to be 
reliable and precise regularity between multiple fMRI results in any given 
individual, but wildly variant results across individuals. I'm not very close 
to the data, though. So it's hearsay. But if it holds, then what drives our 
fanatical motive to say things like this about, say, all humans? Or all 
primates? Etc. Maybe *you* have a mirror mechanism that helps you learn stuff. 
But maybe *I* do not? Or maybe some of our brains are simply very different 
from others of our brains.

And how big would the experimental trial have to be in order to establish 
"neurotypicality" beyond so-called common sense or heuristic guessing?

It's not unrelated to the argument about downward causation. Social context grooms us to 
adhere to various intersubjective patterns and the brain may be plastic enough to 
instantiate those patterns with a variety of different mechanisms. You only get hints at 
that vast "robustness" (same phenomenon, multiple generators) when you reach an 
edge case, a phenomenal quality that one machine can generate but another can't. Any 2 
mechanisms (or brain wirings, or brain cell type population distributions) are merely 
similar, never identical. They simulate each other.

OCEAN is, I think, the most scientifically justified of the personality estimators; and it's not 
even *that* justified. But we often talk about some people being more open to new experiences and 
others being more focused on threat. E.g. if you're lucky enough to travel as a kid, you're more 
likely to be socially groomed to discover/engineer your brain wiring mechanism so that your machine 
*covers* more phenomena than would have been covered had you never traveled and sat comfy in your 
small world of limited grooming. The same might be said of, say, physicists vs. biologists. The 
biologist might (maybe) learn mechanisms that extend empathy to, say, bugs or fish or ... whatever, 
where the physicist may (maybe) learn mechanisms that extend empathy to machines, planets, 
galaxies, or whatever mechanistic (i.e. "lawful", "law-like") phenomena that 
groom them.

And, as with Roger's link to Stross' argument, if you groom yourself with 
fiction, maybe you're building mechanisms that align more with fiction than 
with fact. And I'm guessing vice versa.

On 11/15/23 07:58, Steve Smith wrote:

I have not (yet) read this critically, the introduction just tweaked my 
(confirmation biased) interests:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-11-brain.html

When I first encountered the Mirror Neuron research 
 
(decades ago) it fit my own experience fairly well and in fact helped to explain 
(just so stories?) many of the intuitive ways I apprehended my 
emotional/intellectual/physical entrainment experience with others.  I suppose this 
is a self-referential example of the topic (i.e. confirmation bias, entrainment, etc).

Recent /mirror neuron/ review: 
https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(22)00134-6

In my recent reminders of the general concept of (reading Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" and "Homo Deus" 
) I was left with a stronger impression than ever 
that so much of human experience seems to be like living in a shared dream driven or at least constrained by our 
"tribe". Religion, Politics, Economics, or generally "Culture" seems to be the stigmergic field that 
mediates that.  The role of media (print, then broadcast, now internetty) has been to broaden the scope somewhat arbitrarily 
or according to the interests of those who control those resources.

Now with LLMs and text-to-image generators are becoming so capable and broadly engaged with, it 
seems that our "intersubjective reality" at least has a new fidelity to this shared dream 
offered up, if not a broader scope.   The fever dreams/hallucinations of various extremist 
perspectives is already problematic (but inevitable?) so this increased fidelity seems likely to 
only aggravate that (e.g. deepfake "evidence" for various conspiracy theories, etc.).

My own preferred understanding of this larger phenomena is that we are on the cusp of an emergence 
of a qualitatively different type of collective behaviour/experience not quite covered by the 
various examples that fit in the 

Re: [FRIAM] Theil

[glen]

In addition to the github repository with the mathematica notebooks (and the 
assembly-data.zip supp.), there are 2 interesting sources for more cronin group 
code.

https://github.com/orgs/croningp/repositories (parent of the mathematical 
repository)
https://gitlab.com/croningroup

Browsing the code makes it clear why Chemify seems well supported. cf

https://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/

Also notable is Azarian's book: 
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-romance-of-reality-how-the-universe-organizes-itself-to-create-life-consciousness-and-cosmic-complexity-bobby-azarian/17454111?ean=9781637740446
wherein he cites Sara a LOT! ... and EricS some, too. 8^D But I'm a little 
concerned at Azarian's galaxy brainness.


On 11/14/23 16:12, Roger Critchlow wrote:

The stars have aligned to make this assembly theory day!

First this article on How Did Life Begin:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/11/14/1082828/how-did-life-begin/ 


pointed me to an open access article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9 

    Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution

and then Eric S noticed the interview with Walker and Cronin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFxIazwNP_0 


The interview itself, even with Fridman, is much more entertaining than 
Claude's summary.

Walker and Cronin have a shared idiom for talking about the history of 
complexity in the universe which they use quite casually in the interview.  
This is probably the result of long familiarity with each other (Sara Walker, 
Lee Cronin, and Eric Smith were part of the Science Organizing Committee and 
speakers at Reconceptualizing the Origin of Life in November 2015) and of 
intense collaboration and arguments over Skype during the covid lockdown.  They 
also talk informally about a lot of ideas they've been thinking about.




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Theil

[glen]

I suspected that the distance between you and Walker might be relatively low. But 
csauthors.net only gives me a  = 6. It's interesting that 
 = 6 as well. Obviously, there are plenty of spots uncertainty could 
creep in there. Distance to me is only 5 (!), which I think proves beyond a shadow of a 
doubt that csauthors.net (or dblp) is unreliable. 8^D

D. Eric Smith
co-authored 1 paper with
Steven A. Frank
co-authored 1 paper with
Frank J. Bruggeman
co-authored 1 paper with
Mark A. Girolami
co-authored 1 paper with
Karl J. Friston
co-authored 2 papers with
Michael Levin
co-authored 3 papers with
Sara Imari Walker
distance = 6

D. Eric Smith
co-authored 1 paper with
Steven A. Frank
co-authored 1 paper with
Frank J. Bruggeman
co-authored 1 paper with
Rainer Breitling
co-authored 6 papers with
Michael P. Barrett
co-authored 3 papers with
Mohammed Al-Rawhani
co-authored 1 paper with
Leroy Cronin
distance = 6


On 11/13/23 17:42, David Eric Smith wrote:

Well in that case, definitely look up the interview he did with Sara Walker and 
Lee Cronin.

I will not comment further.

Eric




On Nov 13, 2023, at 5:57 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:


On 11/13/23 12:06 PM, glen wrote:

You might want to check the Gurometer. Lex has an entry:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oe-af4_OmzLJavktcSKGfP0wmxCX0ppP8n_Tvi9l_yc/edit?usp=sharing

While Lex's scores are relatively low compared to some of the wackos on the 
list, we are known by association. And many of Lex's guests score relatively 
high.


Fascinating resource,  thanks!  You are a veritable font (fount) of things like 
this that I should probably be able to find for myself.

I had to look a little to find a key to the columns of the table, I don't know 
if this is the preferred or only one, but it seemed close enough to be useful 
for my purposes:

https://techhenzy.com/gurometer/

I haven't listened to enough of Lex's podcasts (did I mention 1-2 hours each?!) to be able to 
evaluate what his "coupling" is with his guests... even without the GuruMeter I felt that 
theme ("known by association") from the more prominent/recent interviewees he has 
engaged... but my contingent judgement of the *content* and *style* of the interviews 
counterbalanced that almost to an extreme.   Which is why I brought it up here.

Implicit but likely opaque/arcane to your own references to community (self) 
policing and ?agonism?, I feel (with limited experience so far) that Fridman 
may well provide a regulating role within some community (of Galaxy-Brain 
Gurus?)...

I doubt I will get the 'round t'uits but it seems like there is a tensor 
product to be explored among these folks and their various interactions with 
one another...   something interesting might emerge?   Maybe this only occurs 
to me because Lex is more of a coupling agent than a primary source of any 
ideas/theories/positions from what I've seen so far.   I haven't investigated 
the GuruMeter guys enough to understand their methods but I take it for granted 
they are not unserious in this work.




On 11/13/23 10:08, Steve Smith wrote:

It seems (maybe only to me?) that "will" is what defines the intersection of memory and imagination? The 
free-will-less-ness-ers among us (ala Sopolsky 
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/24/determined-life-without-free-will-by-robert-sapolsky-review-the-hard-science-of-decisions>)
 may find this an entirely specious thing to consider or discuss (though without free will, what means "specious" 
or "discuss" or "consider" sans free-will?).

I recently discovered Lex Fridman's podcasts <https://lexfridman.com/podcast/> and was quite surprised by several things (albeit with very limited sampling... all of his most recent interview with Musk and a bit of his interview with Isaacson and about half of the Harari one):   I don't significantly disagree with the general mistrust of Musk in his Autistic-ish style and affect, but I'd say that Lex brings out the best in him, showing him to be capable of thoughtful and even empathetic-ish observations.  As I understand it (from my reading of Isaacson's biography of Musk) brother Kimball may also be a significantly similar "regulating influence" on Elon.   Grimes maybe, maybe not.  The other mothers of his children, same-same... probably each and all of them for a period of time or within certain frameworks.   And again, same with the children... though maybe projection on my part having been moderately well-regulated in several modes by my own children during each of 
their phases (right up to their current middle-agedness).


As an aside, Fridman's other interviews also all sound potentially fascinating... though I cringe at the 
fact/thought of interviews with Netanyahu, KanYE, Kushner, Rogan... the commentary I've read around those 
interviews tends to skew toward "how could you normalize (amplify?) those A**holes by even giving th

Re: [FRIAM] Theil

[glen]

 with Netanyahu 
and Kushner or Rogan...

Lex just commented "/discovering wisdom through nuanced disagreement/?" and it 
seems to be good support for Glen's agonism...

Argh...  "why does head hurt when Hulk try to think?"  maybe I should sign up 
for the Neuralink Beta and get the GPT-shield to go with it?  With a power-tower count of 
components

(./... must... stop... now.../ )







On Nov 13, 2023, at 5:57 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:


On 11/13/23 12:06 PM, glen wrote:

You might want to check the Gurometer. Lex has an entry:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oe-af4_OmzLJavktcSKGfP0wmxCX0ppP8n_Tvi9l_yc/edit?usp=sharing

While Lex's scores are relatively low compared to some of the wackos on the 
list, we are known by association. And many of Lex's guests score relatively 
high.


Fascinating resource,  thanks!  You are a veritable font (fount) of things like 
this that I should probably be able to find for myself.

I had to look a little to find a key to the columns of the  table, I don't know 
if this is the preferred or only one, but it seemed close enough to be useful 
for my purposes:

https://techhenzy.com/gurometer/

I haven't listened to enough of Lex's podcasts (did I mention 1-2 hours each?!) to be able to 
evaluate what his "coupling" is with his guests... even without the GuruMeter I felt that 
theme ("known by association") from the more prominent/recent interviewees he has 
engaged... but my contingent judgement of the *content* and *style* of the interviews 
counterbalanced that almost to an extreme.   Which is why I brought it up here.

Implicit but likely opaque/arcane to your own references to community (self) 
policing and ?agonism?, I feel (with limited experience so far) that Fridman 
may well provide a regulating role within some community (of Galaxy-Brain 
Gurus?)...

I doubt I will get the 'round t'uits but it seems like there is a tensor 
product to be explored among these folks and their various interactions with 
one another...   something interesting might emerge? Maybe this only occurs to 
me because Lex is more of a coupling agent than a primary source of any 
ideas/theories/positions from what I've seen so far. I haven't investigated the 
GuruMeter guys enough to understand their methods but I take it for granted 
they are not unserious in this work.




On 11/13/23 10:08, Steve Smith wrote:

It seems (maybe only to me?) that "will" is what defines the intersection of memory and imagination?   The 
free-will-less-ness-ers among us (ala Sopolsky 
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/24/determined-life-without-free-will-by-robert-sapolsky-review-the-hard-science-of-decisions>)
 may find this an entirely specious thing to consider or discuss (though without free will, what means "specious" 
or "discuss" or "consider" sans free-will?).

I recently discovered Lex Fridman's podcasts <https://lexfridman.com/podcast/> and was quite surprised by several things (albeit with very limited sampling... all of his most recent interview with Musk and a bit of his interview with Isaacson and about half of the Harari one):   I don't significantly disagree with the general mistrust of Musk in his Autistic-ish style and affect, but I'd say that Lex brings out the best in him, showing him to be capable of thoughtful and even empathetic-ish observations.  As I understand it (from my reading of Isaacson's biography of Musk) brother Kimball may also be a significantly similar "regulating influence" on Elon.   Grimes maybe, maybe not.  The other mothers of his children, same-same... probably each and all of them for a period of time or within certain frameworks.   And again, same with the children... though maybe projection on my part having been moderately well-regulated in several modes by my own children during each of 
their phases (right up to their current middle-agedness).


As an aside, Fridman's other interviews also all sound potentially fascinating... though I cringe at the 
fact/thought of interviews with Netanyahu, KanYE, Kushner, Rogan... the commentary I've read around those 
interviews tends to skew toward "how could you normalize (amplify?) those A**holes by even giving them 
the time of the day???!!!?". Lex's interviews are definitely long-form (1-2 hours) compared to today's 
tik-tok/ad-jingle/bumper-sticker/snark-pith calibrated sound-bitery.    I find myself avoiding them for this 
reason (not wanting to commit to listening past some of my own prejudices long enough to hear what they are 
really about?) but recognize (and have already begun to practice) that as with long-form written journalism, 
I can take it in bits, like I might eat a rich holiday meal... not try to gulp it down quickly in one sitting 
like a TV-dinner (for you X-ers, "Hot-Pocket", and Millenials == "??") for the mi

Re: [FRIAM] Theil

[glen]

You might want to check the Gurometer. Lex has an entry:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oe-af4_OmzLJavktcSKGfP0wmxCX0ppP8n_Tvi9l_yc/edit?usp=sharing

While Lex's scores are relatively low compared to some of the wackos on the 
list, we are known by association. And many of Lex's guests score relatively 
high.

On 11/13/23 10:08, Steve Smith wrote:

It seems (maybe only to me?) that "will" is what defines the intersection of memory and imagination?   The 
free-will-less-ness-ers among us (ala Sopolsky 
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/oct/24/determined-life-without-free-will-by-robert-sapolsky-review-the-hard-science-of-decisions>)
 may find this an entirely specious thing to consider or discuss (though without free will, what means "specious" 
or "discuss" or "consider" sans free-will?).

I recently discovered Lex Fridman's podcasts <https://lexfridman.com/podcast/> and was quite surprised by several things (albeit with very limited sampling... all of his most recent interview with Musk and a bit of his interview with Isaacson and about half of the Harari one):   I don't significantly disagree with the general mistrust of Musk in his Autistic-ish style and affect, but I'd say that Lex brings out the best in him, showing him to be capable of thoughtful and even empathetic-ish observations.  As I understand it (from my reading of Isaacson's biography of Musk) brother Kimball may also be a significantly similar "regulating influence" on Elon.   Grimes maybe, maybe not.  The other mothers of his children, same-same... probably each and all of them for a period of time or within certain frameworks.   And again, same with the children... though maybe projection on my part having been moderately well-regulated in several modes by my own children during each of their 
phases (right up to their current middle-agedness).


As an aside, Fridman's other interviews also all sound potentially fascinating... though I cringe at the 
fact/thought of interviews with Netanyahu, KanYE, Kushner, Rogan... the commentary I've read around those 
interviews tends to skew toward "how could you normalize (amplify?) those A**holes by even giving them 
the time of the day???!!!?".   Lex's interviews are definitely long-form (1-2 hours) compared to today's 
tik-tok/ad-jingle/bumper-sticker/snark-pith calibrated sound-bitery.    I find myself avoiding them for this 
reason (not wanting to commit to listening past some of my own prejudices long enough to hear what they are 
really about?) but recognize (and have already begun to practice) that as with long-form written journalism, 
I can take it in bits, like I might eat a rich holiday meal... not try to gulp it down quickly in one sitting 
like a TV-dinner (for you X-ers, "Hot-Pocket", and Millenials == "??") for the mind.

My recent fascination with Deacon's "Teleodynamics", Jeff Hawkins' take on the structure/function of the neocortex and Ian McGilchrist's updated  take on brain bicameralism (Master and Emissary <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_His_Emissary>) feeds into this question of the intersection of memory and imagination and the implications of Transformer Models and other Generative Models in general.   My direct experience with GPT-4 and DALL-E is significant (many 10s of hours of engagement) but still a drop in the bucket.  There are times when I feel that all I've done is engaged with an incredibly high-dimensional french-curve/bezier spline and thereby been able to smoothly interpolate/extrapolate a handful of interesting (to me) data points into what feels like a powerful elaboration of what is implied by said curve-fit in the past (unknown knowns?) and future (unknown unknowns)?    When I'm not totally enraptured by the (apparent?) novelty (relative to my 
expectations/predictions) of it's responses I'm generally disappointed at it's limited creativity...   and left puzzling over the question of "novelty vs creativity".


Bumble,

  - Steve

On 11/13/23 10:27 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It seems to me that neither Musk and Thiel are interested in the unknown. They 
are interested in doing things they can already imagine.For Musk I thought 
that was because it is how he raises money.   Now I think he is not imagining 
consciousness in a, say, a transporter pattern buffer, he imagines life on the 
Enterprise bridge in his body.   Rockets are comparatively science fictiony for 
people that can't imagine transport without a car, so he gets some points for 
that.

On Nov 13, 2023, at 10:11 AM, glen  wrote:

There's an interesting parallel between the Stross and Gellman pieces: Stross 
both laments and implicitly appreciates the bureaucracy of getting a book 
published, where Thiel's aggrieved by the bureaucracy of societal evolution.

It reminds me of the engineering-vs-biology dichotomy (yes, false, like all of 
them)

Re: [FRIAM] Theil

[glen]

There's an interesting parallel between the Stross and Gellman pieces: Stross 
both laments and implicitly appreciates the bureaucracy of getting a book 
published, where Thiel's aggrieved by the bureaucracy of societal evolution.

It reminds me of the engineering-vs-biology dichotomy (yes, false, like all of 
them) I came to appreciate after being exposed to enough biomimetics (to kill a 
horse). Some of us see the world and think about how to change it, build a 
better world ... or perhaps destroy the world, whatever floats your inner 
engineer. And some of us see the world and are awestruck, hypnotized, baffled 
by its qualities (whether beautiful or horrifying). It's easy to give the 
latter a pass and denigrate the former when confronted with, say, butterflies 
or the Grand Canyon. And it's easy to give the former a pass when confronted 
with poverty and war.

But the next time you're at the DMV or arguing with some poor sucker manning 
the phones at the IRS, it can be useful to remember the falseness of the 
dichtomy. Similarly, when all you want to do is sleep under the stars and those 
damned gnats keep homing into your ears, it can be useful to think like an 
engineer.

Policy and science fiction aren't that far apart.

On 11/10/23 13:46, Marcus Daniels wrote:

original.png
Peter Thiel Is Taking a Break From Democracy 



On 11/10/23 11:26, Roger Critchlow wrote:

Text of Charlie Stross' talk to Next Frontiers Applied Fiction Day in Stuttgart 
on Friday November 10th, 2023, concerning where the techno-industrial elite 
found their horrible philosophies/secular religions.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2023/11/dont-create-the-torment-nexus.html 


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] agonism and policing the community with a keisaku?

[glen]

I intended to reply to Eric's local ("lower-level") criticism of Elliott's 
bullshit with this article:

https://theconversation.com/how-to-deal-with-visual-misinformation-circulating-in-the-israel-hamas-war-and-other-conflicts-216059

In particular: "... or merely continuing to watch images of war and atrocities tends to lead to additional encounters with such 
content." It makes some progress on agonism (perhaps against agonism?) because it raises Brandolini's Law to the foreground. 
ChatGPT was made "safe" by destroying the mental health of some very non-Presty people in the Global South. When is very 
local, tightly bound, debunking a good thing and when is it a bad thing? When I get an "image of war" in my inbox ... or on 
the front page of my favorite news medium, how much time do I spend on it? It strikes me that the "research" done by Flat 
Earthers and QAnon ... or even, say, Bellingcat <https://www.bellingcat.com/>, is too local. And that tightly bound locality is 
what makes them vulnerable to the Ur-narrative. Granted, *some* of us may be more robust to "mind viruses". But *how*? What's 
the mechanism for such robustness?

I'd argue that those of us who are narrative agonize between un-integrated 
narratives. But with that mechanism, you eventually get old and tired. You're 
finally overcome by the suction of 1 or a handful of narratives and either die 
that way, or have to get some shrooms from your drug dealer ... uh ... 
therapist to reach escape velocity. Those of us who have trouble maintaining 
*any* narratives, are privileged, lucky to be so stupid.

And FWIW, I suspect members of this list (and any other that suffers my presence) 
 my posts waay more than they do yours. My guess is some of yours, by 
virtue of their verbosity or targeted salutation, may languish unread. But I suspect 
mine are sent to /dev/null as soon as procmail hits the From: line. Don't forget to 
Like and Subscribe! https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smash-the-like


On 10/25/23 15:16, Steve Smith wrote:

Glen -

As always I'm at least as intrigued as confounded by the layered language puzzles you lay here for us.  I was drawn through the looking 
glass (down the rabbit hole?) with your reference both to "Presty" and "Legibility" and "Zetetic" realizing I 
could not read your post for more than "emotional content" without reading at least the one main link/reference you offered up 
and I was nicely rewarded (kicking myself) with realizing "Presty" refers to "those who honor or defer to the prestige of an 
institution (such as an alma mater".   Zetetic were more technical and more familiar but useful to have to dig down into.

I feel also "honored" to be a participant in your "Associative Memory by Internet Forum" 
technique I feel as if getting to overhear your maunderings I am absorbing useful (to me, or my affinity group 
of some sort) perspective as well as maybe information.  I don't know if you get the  as much as I 
probably do, but I for one appreciate the depth and breadth of your reflections... maybe I have too much time and 
would be more well served if did duck out with a "TLDR" response... or not.

  I am not particularly a "Presty" although I think I *am* proud of my BS from 
a state (Northern AZ) university as opposed perhaps to a 4 year private diploma mill of 
some kind.  But only because I know that at least some of my professors were of high 
quality and dedication and their courses and the overal curricula showed it in many 
cases.  Perhaps a presumed third rate college would have equal or greater examples.

My daughter who pulled a PhD from UNM (Molecular Biology) struggles cyclically with the feeling 
that her proposals to various funding agencies are sorted by "Presties" and hers thereby 
get shuffled down the stack from ones submitted by Stanford or Berkeley (or many other prestigious 
universities) grads... I don't know how real that is or if it is a phigment of her imagination or 
something else.  In any case it interferes with her professional progression (either enforced from 
the outside or from the phantasm of her imagination)... she probably doesn't put as much effort 
into her proposals because of this real or imagined fact?  I think she would defer to your 
"legibility" argument.

I *do* agree with your/Dorst's "Legibility" argument and your anecdotal reflection on voting.  I helped Reagan run over 
the top of Carter "back in the day" and was so ashamed once I realized what I'd done (starting a few months into his 
term, but continuing well through the next two decades).   The shame of having been such a "tool" lead me to choose not 
to vote again for nearly 2 decades under the cynical cover "I don't want to encourage the bastards!" and the more 
rational &quo

Re: [FRIAM] "What Work Means"

[glen]

That's a great article! But I have a bit of a bone to pick with it. (I know, right? What a boor I am.) I just can't 
help but read this as inherently Presty. I work with a handful of GenZ at my minimum wage side gig. They are hustlers, 
through and through. So a theme of the Presty article does ring, that of "financially stable" (never ever 
ever mind "well-off"; that's not even in the lexicon). But in that pursuit, my decidedly non-Presty friends 
work more than one job. One of them has a job at 2 breweries, working as an assistant brewer in one and as a 
"cellar person" at the other because Assistant Brewer doesn't provide quite enough income to pay the rents 
sought by our Land Lords. Another has 2 jobs, one as a bartender and the other as a ... what? ... "accounting 
logistics" (?) person at a car dealership.

So the perspective and focus presented by Aden in the Presty article seems VERY 
privileged to me ... but no more so than the privilege expressed by, say, Steve's story 
about a state school graduate's perspective on the grant submission/evaluation process. 
Is it any wonder we see more graffiti like "Eat the Rich" these days? Is it any 
wonder my non-Presty friends don't vote?

Another theme implicit in the article is Sam Bankman-Fried's huckster rhetoric of Effective Altrusim. When 
Presties talk of "service", "mission", and "meaning", I get this icky feeling 
deep down. An article from Harvard talking about work-life balance makes me a bit sick to my stomach in the 
same way as listening to Peter Thiel talk about the Straussian Moment (or Robin Hanson arguing we should have 
more babies). Yuck. I need a shower to wash off this Presty filth.

But similar to Eric's local deconstruction of Elliott's bullshit about bimodal 
distributions, what's a hyper-privileged Presty to do? What options are there other than 
going with the flow? What? Should Aden quit college and ... walk the earth? 
https://youtu.be/dLdRsofkCVs?si=quzxQt7wOUZT375g Nah. He should stay in the game and 
propel the criminal enterprise until he finds his golden parachute. If he can't suppress 
his appetite for "meaning", he can snack on some Greenwashing and, say, support 
the paper straw initiative at the local county commissioner meetings.

On 10/26/23 13:19, Tom Johnson wrote:

FRIAM-ers:
Many of us, probably a majority, have spent a lot of years in or around college 
campuses.  We dealt with students for decades.  The latest issue of Harvard 
Magazine has an interesting essay by a graduating senior describing his and his 
classmates' outlook on their future and the world.  All I can say is I'm glad I 
am retired.
See "What Work Means 
."


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] more agonism

[glen]

Along these same lines, I know there's a significant contingent of "Presties" 
on this list. And I still don't have a good note-taking app that I find convenient enough 
to use. So I'll post this here, in part because it's a higher order form of ad hominem, 
in part because of our Presty friends, and in part because I need to note it somewhere so 
I can find it again.

Bayesian Injustice
Why rational people often replicate unfairness
https://kevindorst.substack.com/p/bayesian-injustice

A tiny part of the red flag for Zach Elliott's bullshit (cf 
https://simonesun.com/blog/2022/5/12/stop-pretending-transphobia-is-scientific-debate
 for why I assert his rhetoric is designed bullshit), is his training institution, 
Oklahoma State. I'm sure it's a fine school ... maybe not as good as mine (Texas 
A), but prolly in the same tier. And neither OSU nor TAMU produce what I'd 
call well-rounded students ... at least not like what I've seen come out of Reed 
(in Portland) or Evergreen (here). And while Reed definitely has some prestige, I 
don't think Evergreen's in the same tank.

Yet another tangent: We have an upcoming election for several commissioner and director spots on 
various local boards. Now, I don't know most of these people. I see all the yard signs and such. We 
got a flyer in the mail where a challenger pointed out the entitlement of an incumbent. ("Do 
you know who I am? I'm the fscking mayor of Tenino!" 8^D) Yaddayadda. But what do you do when 
you're aware of your own ignorance but still believe in voting? You have a similar risk for zetetic 
injustice. I ended up almost blindly taking the recommendation for 3 of the board seats, the 
candidates for which I was completely ignorant. But everyone else on the ballot was equally 
"legible" ... I think.

I've had the same complaint about the fideistic shunt surrounding open source software. 
Just because some package is open source, doesn't mean you should import it, for a wide 
variety of reasons. A really funny example is 
https://qz.com/646467/how-one-programmer-broke-the-internet-by-deleting-a-tiny-piece-of-code,
 which provides a moral something like "Yeah, maybe reinventing the wheel isn't as 
bad as they say it is." High order legibility is not only a function of the 
legibility of the atoms, but also of the composition, including both composition through 
time (e.g. provenance of data) and composition over space (high-order or cumulative 
structures).

And finally, just a tangent about Zach's trumpeting that he's written books. 
https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-launches-boom-ai-written-e-books-amazon-2023-02-21/
 To be honest, I think I'd ascribe more *Authority* to a ChatGPT-written book 
on Gender Dichotomy than to a Zach Elliott book on it ... which is to say, 
Authority=0. Is Zach more or less legible than ChatGPT? I just don't know.


On 10/19/23 14:39, glen wrote:

Ha! I care much less about any particular false dichotomy than I do about the 
causes of dichotomies. The causes of dichotomies lie in agonistics, us versus 
them, this vs that, inside vs outside. Whatever triage methods we *happen* to 
adopt (or have impinged upon us) are always subject to fining and coarsening. 
When policing your tribe, you have to choose a (set of) scope(s). Which tribes 
are you policing?

One element of the 5Ws approach to media literacy is "Who". Who is Zach? He writes 
books! And makes videos! Surely, as a trained architect, he's an authority on gametes, 
right? An expert on probability distributions? Of course! >8^D This post is helpful in 
determining who Zach is and whether you might want to propagate his bullshit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/h81ymm/trust_fund_cismale_20_year_old_undergrad_is_new/

He's abandoned his named TLDN. But it's still available here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220915143439/https://zacharyaelliott.com/about-me.html
and here:
https://www.genderparadox.com/about-me.html

Yes, I'm guilty of ad hominem. But, as I've argued here before, the assessment 
that a fallacy is always a fallacy is, itself, a fallacy. I guess, as an 
admitted postmodernist, I should be proud of Zach for his ultracrepidarianism 
... the same way I'm proud of my anti-vaxx friends who think they understand 
vaccines better than, say, their PCP. It's OK. They prolly stayed at a Holiday 
Inn Express last night. Network theory seems helpful, here. When deciding which 
tribe to police, it's useful to track the cliques and components of the graph. 
We're known by our friends as much as our enemies.

On 10/19/23 09:48, Steve Smith wrote:


On 10/18/23 11:27 AM, glen wrote:

Here's PZ Myers policing his community:

The Gamete Delusion
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2023/10/17/the-gamete-delusion/



https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/is-sex-bimodal




I don't really have a dog in this fight other than the general feeling that I 
support underdogs (and no

Re: [FRIAM] Constraint Propagation and "Wave Function Collapse" Algorithm

[glen]

FWIW, I played around with the WFC algorithm when it was brought to my attention. I don't remember when. But 
my interest in it is just as a particular instance of "procedural generation", "glitch", 
and their relation to "systemic games". As I wrote in 2020:

On 05/27/20 13:02, gepr wrote:
And although I'm blown away by the things we (well someone, not me) can achieve with GAN, it still feels stilted to me ... a bit like the exploitation pitfalls in evolutionary computing (EC, e.g. negative altitude) or overfitted models. It brings to mind /procedural generation https://github.com/mxgmn/WaveFunctionCollapse>/ as well. What I think EricS's idea of a multi-method constructing structure brings to the table is that collaboration can take many forms. And it maybe *must* take multiple forms in order to "round out" the composite probability distribution(s). A GAN (or EC) still seems a bit "flat" or "thin" in it's schematic guiding of a trajectory through the possible-needed space ("space" isn't the right word for such a self-constructing, dynamic thing, obviously). A minimal set of structures ... a kind of spanning basis for the collection of constructing/correcting mechanisms would be an ideal goal. And generation (the "G", what I've called Twitch) and discrimination are only 2 of them. Discrimination, in particular, seems ripe for a finer-grained, composite, implementation ... maybe that's why GANs still seem "thin" to me. But "adversarial" is also over-simplified. E.g. in the exquisite corpse (and our bad faith collaborative fiction), any one player's intention is not *entirely* adversarial, only slightly so. In the end all the players *want* some mix of cooperation, competition, syndication, and a sense of "fair play" ... as well as the ability to "game"/"cheese" it in bad faith sometimes. 


What's interesting (to me, anyway) isn't really constraints, specifically, but schema, in 
general ... the evolution of the "slots" and what can fit into them, the way 
the scheme relates the slots, the logical depth of the schematic system, etc. Clever 
methods for binding schema are interesting, but mostly as technical flourish on the 
larger background of meta-gaming.


On 10/21/23 15:23, Steve Smith wrote:

SG> Just went down a 2-hour rabbit hole on the "wave function collapse" 
algorithm that emerged in graphics in 2016 but just
SG>  came onto my radar... Has anyone else explored it already?
SG> https://github.com/mxgmn/WaveFunctionCollapse

I think I 'get' from our myriad discussions about both dual-fields and bidirectional 
search why you got "rabbit holed" by this...

FWIW my "associative memory" self "squinting" from 100k ft saw some 
near-adjacents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife

     On one hand it is "memoization" up front, but it also has a 
possibility for a WFC style application for a *dynamic* landscape?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_quantization

     SOFMs seem like an apt near-adjacent to what you are maundering on?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_(machine_learning)

The Text-Image transformers of DALL-E (et alia) seem to be a softer version 
of the constraint business?

I may be overgeneralizing or missed the focus of your fascination?

mumble,

  - Steve



Many of you have written versions of constraint propagation algorithms in one 
form or another. I like how this is framed by satisfying local constraints with 
tiles (forward) and global constraints with overlaps (backward propagation).  
Of course, the name of the algorithm may be metaphorical to QM as is its use of 
superposition for local stacks of possible states, but I can't help wonder how 
Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory or Cramer's Transactional Interpretation might 
be cast as similar kinds of the same algorithm.

more general applications:
https://robertheaton.com/2018/12/17/wavefunction-collapse-algorithm/

always like Dan Shiffman's Coding Train
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI_y2GAlQFM

https://github.com/avihuxp/WaveFunctionCollapse#demo

A nice interactive to get the feel for it:
https://oskarstalberg.com/game/wave/wave.html

A version in Julia :
https://github.com/roberthoenig/WaveFunctionCollapse.jl/blob/master/usage.ipynb


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] more agonism

[glen]

Ha! I care much less about any particular false dichotomy than I do about the 
causes of dichotomies. The causes of dichotomies lie in agonistics, us versus 
them, this vs that, inside vs outside. Whatever triage methods we *happen* to 
adopt (or have impinged upon us) are always subject to fining and coarsening. 
When policing your tribe, you have to choose a (set of) scope(s). Which tribes 
are you policing?

One element of the 5Ws approach to media literacy is "Who". Who is Zach? He writes 
books! And makes videos! Surely, as a trained architect, he's an authority on gametes, 
right? An expert on probability distributions? Of course! >8^D This post is helpful in 
determining who Zach is and whether you might want to propagate his bullshit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/h81ymm/trust_fund_cismale_20_year_old_undergrad_is_new/

He's abandoned his named TLDN. But it's still available here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220915143439/https://zacharyaelliott.com/about-me.html
and here:
https://www.genderparadox.com/about-me.html

Yes, I'm guilty of ad hominem. But, as I've argued here before, the assessment 
that a fallacy is always a fallacy is, itself, a fallacy. I guess, as an 
admitted postmodernist, I should be proud of Zach for his ultracrepidarianism 
... the same way I'm proud of my anti-vaxx friends who think they understand 
vaccines better than, say, their PCP. It's OK. They prolly stayed at a Holiday 
Inn Express last night. Network theory seems helpful, here. When deciding which 
tribe to police, it's useful to track the cliques and components of the graph. 
We're known by our friends as much as our enemies.

On 10/19/23 09:48, Steve Smith wrote:


On 10/18/23 11:27 AM, glen wrote:

Here's PZ Myers policing his community:

The Gamete Delusion
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2023/10/17/the-gamete-delusion/



https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/is-sex-bimodal




I don't really have a dog in this fight other than the general feeling that I 
support underdogs (and not just the ones who fly off in all directions at once).


to paraphrase one of the more notable FriAM-Sages... "people should be called what they want 
to be called"...  harping on the emic/etic conflation some more, I find these discussions 
(e.g. Dawkins et al) rather off-point in this regard.   I understand (vaguely) why we all feel we 
must make sweeping generalizations about *other people's business*... some of it is an empathetic 
response, wanting to understand, but some of it is the response of someone who wants to control 
others. These *are* conflated by circumstance in the sense that  in spite of the pithy aphorism 
"your opinion of me is none of my business", most of us actually *do* care what others 
think of us and it does effect how they interact with us.   It always feels unfortunate that those 
who want to tell others how to present/feel/be too often set the subject of debate.


I *expect* someone with their own dog in the fight to have an insider/personal 
view of these things and am generally interested and curious about their 
perspective up to their privacy.   For those who mostly just want to stir up a 
dogfight, I'm not particularly interested in their view beyond preparing myself 
for when *they* might choose to try to stir up a dog(cat?)fight in *my* 
backyard.




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] more agonism

[glen]

Here's PZ Myers policing his community:

The Gamete Delusion
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2023/10/17/the-gamete-delusion/

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] natalism

[glen]

Yep. And the same is true with Frank's trolling about the well-definedness of truth. 
Consistency, like reduction and isolation, is a fantastic tool but a bad master. When 
Hanson argues that we must continue to have babies or risk the halt of innovation, it's 
with a fixed backdrop, worldview. Adopting his "coordinate system" is pretty 
easy for me, having been reared in what I expect is a similar context. It's more 
difficult to adopt a radical view. I'm just not a radical. But still, I find myself 
fairly easily slipping into the perspectives of some radicals I've had the privilege to 
read (e.g. Fannon). That might mean I'm inherently unstable, disintegrated, or whatever. 
And maybe that implies I shouldn't be doing any entheogens. Booo! Conservatism is wasted 
on old people. Old people should proudly don and doff various freak flags. And young 
people should cling desperately to their myopia as best they can, exploit their niche 
while their energy maintains.

I just returned from a visit to Utah. The hotel was hosting a reunion of some arbitrary collection of 
ancient Marines. Wow. Just. Wow. All the handicap parking places were full every night ... every one of 
them adorned with various sorts of macho posturing bumper stickers (e.g. "Secured By: F*ck around 
and find out" - or "Smith & Wesson" - or some ironic nonsense about the scourge of 
socialism). Of course, there were a few of us bearded long-hairs in and out of the breakfast area. But 
boy howdy did we get the Evil Eye from the majority of those old farts. I can only imagine what the 
upside down pentagram on my t-shirt might mean to them (maybe that I'm a member of O9A), or the fact 
that I'm the sole escort for a gaggle of Renee's grandkids ... god only knows what heresy I teach those 
kids when nobody's around.

Were I an actual cynic, I'd carry baggies of mushrooms to dose the breakfast 
materials before those fogies even arose. (I'm sure they'd be surprised to find 
out I'm up at the crack of dawn every day.) It'd be Freakin' Hilarious to see 
them *liberated*, prone on the floor in the lobby pondering the beautiful 
shapes in the false ceiling ... or staring deeply into their coffee, watching 
the milk mimic the swirling galaxies.

If Hanson's right about anything, it's a corollary: society advances one 
funeral at a time.

On 10/12/23 10:49, Steve Smith wrote:

I think I agree with this spirit...  and the invocation of a high-dimensional 
(but finitely so) landscape is not only the constraints we live in, but in some 
sense the ones we *choose* to live in?   I think excess/sloppy meaning might be 
another term for a local/temporary increase (or exchange) of dimensionality, 
effectively lowering the thresholds between basins?

In anthropological terms I think we are in "shaman" territory (the perspective/insight to 
selectively shift the dimensions around for the group as-needed)?  Also maybe the point of 
psychedelic/entheogenic substances?  We are reading Pollan's "How to Change your Mind" at 
the moment.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] natalism

[glen]

Well, *if* one is constrained to inhabiting attractors to begin with, then a mechanism for hopping 
between attractors is a "good thing". But I'd argue that this is a mere band-aide, 
treating the symptom rather than the cause. The real disorder is the tendency to inhabit attractors 
... or perhaps the intensity with which one gets trapped in such ruts. There seems to be a tyranny 
of specialization ... "siloization". If I have any hope for LLMs, it's to remove the 
burden of depth and free us up for more breadth ... or at least those of us wealthy enough to use 
LLMs. Let them eat cake.

On 10/9/23 10:52, Steve Smith wrote:

It feels as if the very "excess meaning" (or sloppy meaning?) you ?disparage? in cognitive metaphor is, in 
fact, what makes them so "powerful". To the extent the point of "powerful speech" or "powerful 
thoughts" might be to jump over the threshold/saddle from one attractor to another, this makes sense (for better 
and worse)...


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Language Model Understanding

[glen]

I think that's an ideological stance, not a brute fact. The use of the term "better" is nothing but 
an "ought", which is difficult to derive from an "is".

On 10/9/23 10:07, Marcus Daniels wrote:

 We are better off if the ones that carry demonstrably false claims are 
proportionately devalued.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Language Model Understanding

[glen]

OK, I agree, mostly. But "truth" is no more well-defined than any other 
specific grounding style. E.g. the insistence that there is truth in fiction. There is 
affective truth in MAGA, just like there's truth in whatever justification Hamas might 
give for its reaction to the bloodshed of the Israeli settlements. But such truths are so 
abstracted, they can be [a|mis]used at will and the narrative spin used to whip up the 
adherents provides any glue needed to make it seem as true as it needs to seem to spur 
the adherents to action.

It's a bad analogy from, say, Hamas to shut up and calculate. But it can be 
made. It's fun watching intra-science tribe members pick at each other for 
their sloppiness in communicating science. E.g. Sabine's take on transitioning. 
Whatever. If a tribe polices itself, then their trustworthiness is much higher 
... for me, at least. I'm glad the Republicans are in a civil war. It's 
evidence they may recover as a party. If people stop telling me I'm wrong, then 
I'm most likely very wrong. As long as I've still got people telling me I'm 
wrong, then I'm at least somewhere near not-wrong.


On 10/9/23 08:24, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I mean there are some categories that are disjoint or mostly disjoint.   
Similarly, the grounding is not total.   I agree that value systems like MAGA 
have power, but they don't have truth.  There is no truth.  All there is, is 
power, which is my point.  QM and demagoguery are both tools, with different 
contexts for use.


On Oct 9, 2023, at 7:48 AM, glen  wrote:

Hm. Even with the caveat of "generally", I think this complementarity argument fails 
because all the various categories are not disjoint. And it's the (somewhat) lack(ing) of 
grounding/binding that allows the mixing of the modes. I'd tried to point this out by using 
"computation", the idea that human innovation might be more universal than microbial 
innovation. It's not really that the values *lack* grounding. It's that their grounding is 
complicated, perhaps iterative? maybe heterarchical? IDK, but certainly not lacking any grounding.

An abstracted value system like that of the 09A OR MAGA cults may have *more* 
power, more chances to hook and unhook because it gives the donner and doffer 
of that value system more opportunities to do the donning and doffing at 
whatever arbitrary points they choose, to lazily benefit themselves without 
having to handle any unintended/unconsidered entailments.


On 10/8/23 18:18, Marcus Daniels wrote:
This doesn't make them more valuable because they lack grounding.



On 10/8/23 13:21, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Generally attaching to one value system means not attaching to another value 
system.   For example, adopting the value of tolerance logically is at odds 
with policing intolerance, e.g., one Jewish neighbor remarked this morning he 
drove past a home with a Hamas flag on it and was scared.   (Reducing that fear 
by removing the flag would be reducing tolerance.)
It seems to me that ideas that work have power and things that don’t work don’t 
have power.


--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] natalism

[glen]

As usual, there's too much in your post for me to follow a thread. But I can cherry-pick 
this one: affect - or what it is to be about/for something. An option is to think in 
terms of soft types such that the lower order objects over which the higher order 
operators ... uh, operate, have some "flex and slop", allowing the higher order 
operators to become schema and the lower order objects to constitute (nearly? ... quasi?) 
equivalence classes.

The ontological status "engrams" 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_(neuropsychology)> came up recently in another 
context. I'm told they're quite *specific*. But I'm not convinced. I think they can be specific 
(e.g. the efficacy of things like a Memory Palace). But I also think they can be accidentally 
invoked in non-specific or specific, but various ways. The non-specificity might provide for 
variation in stimulus (memory triggered by something different, different part of the body, 
smell vs taste, etc.) or components (memory of a visual scene versus that of a somatic context).

All my speculation is subject to falsifying or validating data, of which I have none. But 
whatever. My point, here, is that overly simple hypotheses for the spread of (largely) 
cultural or psychological behaviors are so impoverished that they feel like just-so 
stories to me. E.g. Dawkin's memes ... or Hanson's "innovation" ... or the 
nihilistic mode-switching facility of cult-members.

Deutsch's "hard to vary" constraint for good scientific theories comes to mind, I guess. Call me contrarian if you 
want. But in order for a "theory" to convolve into all the other "theories" wallowing out there in the 
ambience, it has to percolate into the unoccupied interstitial spaces left blank by the others. And that requires them to have a 
little flex and slop, allowing them to "be about" or "be for" things other than what you might think they're 
about or for.

Abuse seems to be the norm, not the exception.

On 10/6/23 09:28, Steve Smith wrote:

Another fancy word I've come to like is /"Ententional"/ which combines the ideas of what something 
is "about" with what it is "for".

This leads me around to Deacon's "Teleodynamics" which might be obliquely related to your 
invocation recently of a physics "Lagrangian vs Eulerian" rather than the Anthropological 
"Emic vs Etic" axis of understanding first-third person, reductionist-holistic, nominal-real 
perspectives?   This also leads me back around to the (nearly) ineffable discussion of Stationary Action 
revisited from time to time here?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary-action_principle#Disputes_about_possible_teleological_aspects



--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Language Model Understanding

[glen]

Hm. Even with the caveat of "generally", I think this complementarity argument fails 
because all the various categories are not disjoint. And it's the (somewhat) lack(ing) of 
grounding/binding that allows the mixing of the modes. I'd tried to point this out by using 
"computation", the idea that human innovation might be more universal than microbial 
innovation. It's not really that the values *lack* grounding. It's that their grounding is 
complicated, perhaps iterative? maybe heterarchical? IDK, but certainly not lacking any grounding.

An abstracted value system like that of the 09A OR MAGA cults may have *more* 
power, more chances to hook and unhook because it gives the donner and doffer 
of that value system more opportunities to do the donning and doffing at 
whatever arbitrary points they choose, to lazily benefit themselves without 
having to handle any unintended/unconsidered entailments.

On 10/8/23 18:18, Marcus Daniels wrote:

This doesn't make them more valuable because they lack grounding.


On 10/8/23 13:21, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Generally attaching to one value system means not attaching to another value 
system.   For example, adopting the value of tolerance logically is at odds 
with policing intolerance, e.g., one Jewish neighbor remarked this morning he 
drove past a home with a Hamas flag on it and was scared.   (Reducing that fear 
by removing the flag would be reducing tolerance.)

It seems to me that ideas that work have power and things that don’t work don’t 
have power.


--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] natalism

[glen]

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/shrinking-economies-dont-innovate

There's something about this rhetoric that seems to rely on hierarchical separation, the 
separability of levels. I mean, obviously, if we draw a hard boundary around "innovation" 
such that it only contains things we human organisms care about or understand, then sure. 
Innovation halts/slows with birth rate. But isn't, say, the evolution of our gut biome also 
"innovative"? Or totally sans-human, isn't most of earth's history a story of innovation? 
What is it about the human-particular level of (primarily cultural) innovation that makes it so 
special? If I'm cynical, it's just navel gazing.

But if I'm generous, there's something inherently computational (or universal, 
cognitive, translational, or Platonic) about the kind of innovation Hanson's 
talking about. I guess it's a longtermist or transhumanist way of thinking ... 
that Our innovations can possibly be stored and percolated more so than the 
modest, tightly bound to circumstances, innovations of our less computational 
sibling species. I don't buy it. But I'd like to be able to make the argument 
anyway.

--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] cults

[glen]

Rather than -emic vs -etic, I prefer Lagrangian vs Eulerian, respectively. This avoids the concept 
of "inside" vs "outside", which then avoids the scoping issue Marcus raised re: 
nation vs other types of boundaries.

A self-imposed identity is just as imposed as an other-imposed identity. While 
some of us may chafe at other-imposed vs self-imposed, I think there's another 
type of person, those who resist any stable identity, whether other- or 
self-imposed. And resistance is the wrong way to frame it. It's more like a 
tendency to swirl around in an attractor versus a tendency to hop from one 
basin to another.

He/Him may be relatively accurate today. But I'm not committing to its accuracy 
tomorrow.

On 10/5/23 12:50, Steve Smith wrote:
on Emic vs Etic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic> POVs.  My own "individualism" is armatured significantly around "/I don't like to be told/" with being */told who I am/* perhaps the most egregious, even if I'm being told that "/I'm someone who doesn't like to be told who I am"/.   

--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] cults

[glen]

All reasonable, as is Steve's suggestion that socially stable options for identification 
can be dynamic/emergent (e.g. populism's various forms). But I'd argue that one cannot 
build one's own identity/narrative in a quiet space ... hedging a bit on what 
"quiet" might mean. This article was interesting:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2023/10/why-i-dont-have-pronouns-in-my-bio/

"Ironically, my experience of interpellation might itself reflect how I am 
interpellated. Us WEIRD people are individualists, and we’re individualists because 
social forces make us this kind of being. If I weren’t interpellated as an individualist, 
I probably wouldn’t feel uncomfortable at being interpellated as the kind of subject I 
am. Interpellation as an individualist is a kind of ironic interpellation: it’s 
inherently unstable insofar as it leaves the interpellation person unhappy with their 
interpellation on the grounds that it is interpellation. Nevertheless, my discomfort is 
real."

The idea that _one_ might be able to settle on a narrative somewhat isolated from the 
ambient goo indicates a conclusion embedded in the premise of individualism. Rather, I'd 
argue there is no such thing as an individual. There is no self to "dissolve" 
and any narrative construct that seems to be an individual is, at least, fraught with 
loopy causation or, at worst, incoherent. So while I like the idea that some individuals 
are more robust against modal identification, it relies on a flimsy approximation to the 
real situation.

With internet, we _are_ no longer what we would be without internet. 
Counterfactuals are useful, but only actionable in the most antisceptic 
environments (e.g. randomized controlled trials)..

On 10/4/23 07:57, Marcus Daniels wrote:

If there were no internet, the MAGA, QANON and the anti-WHO/UN folks would find 
it harder to maintain a narrative.   With social media they can find people to 
mirror the craziest ideas and leaders to reveal them.   Musk says the same is 
true on the left and woke.

Parochialism is another way that ungrounded beliefs find comfort.   Members 
protect their bubble enforcing norms and being antagonistic to people that are 
different.  Typically in spatial vicinities.

In both cases, participants adopt a group story instead of building their own.  
If they were required to build their own story in a quiet space, they might 
learn to think and be less reliant on a social role to maintain self esteem.

Enforcing this could be done with a DMZ, or it could be done with some 
indoctrination about the risks of groupthink and the benefits of stoicism and 
scientism.


On Oct 4, 2023, at 6:52 AM, glen  wrote:

Well, there is no such thing as a "mind virus". It's a bad metaphor. But 
Steve's right that we're (at least) modal in our non-rationality, flipping this way and 
that according to whatever criticality presents itself. The 09A concept of culling seems 
to me similar to Musk's elitism ... a Nietzschean conceit.


On 10/3/23 09:23, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I realized I kind of agree with Musk about the benefits of more isolation.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1625732016896458755
However, national boundaries are not the right cutoff.   Any community or cult 
is the potential nucleation of a mind virus.
I expect his advocacy above is about creating chaos so that people such as 
himself are the only ones that have the resources to influence governments.
A particularly virulent mind virus (like white supremacy, or 09A) could cross 
national boundaries and not be impeded by law enforcement.
What does the world look like if P% of the population has broad resistance to 
mind viruses and (100-P)% does not?
If P is <= 10, maybe better to fan the flames of crazy and let the chips fall 
where they may.  Perhaps that is how Musk sees it.
Marcus
-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 6:37 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: [FRIAM] cults
It's been awhile since I've run across a new-to-me cult. But 09A certainly 
qualifies as a meaty one:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/28/new-york-satanic-cult-764-fbi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2195065
I can't reconcile the apparent contradiction between fascism and individuality. 
I guess the closest some analysts come is to suggest that they're only aligning 
with the fascists, for now, to bring about the end of the current aeon and the 
colonization of the galaxy.
I guess it reminds me of the "no enemies to the [right|left]" rhetoric: 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/30/conservative-christopher-rufo-florida-twitter-debate
But otherwise, O9A's ... "beliefs and structure" seem incoherent enough to write them off 
as just too stupid to care about. However one author nailed it in saying that there are plenty of 
both impressionable and antisocial p

Re: [FRIAM] cults

[glen]

Well, there is no such thing as a "mind virus". It's a bad metaphor. But 
Steve's right that we're (at least) modal in our non-rationality, flipping this way and 
that according to whatever criticality presents itself. The 09A concept of culling seems 
to me similar to Musk's elitism ... a Nietzschean conceit.

On 10/3/23 09:23, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I realized I kind of agree with Musk about the benefits of more isolation.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1625732016896458755

However, national boundaries are not the right cutoff.   Any community or cult 
is the potential nucleation of a mind virus.
I expect his advocacy above is about creating chaos so that people such as 
himself are the only ones that have the resources to influence governments.
A particularly virulent mind virus (like white supremacy, or 09A) could cross 
national boundaries and not be impeded by law enforcement.

What does the world look like if P% of the population has broad resistance to 
mind viruses and (100-P)% does not?
If P is <= 10, maybe better to fan the flames of crazy and let the chips fall 
where they may.  Perhaps that is how Musk sees it.

Marcus
-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 6:37 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: [FRIAM] cults

It's been awhile since I've run across a new-to-me cult. But 09A certainly 
qualifies as a meaty one:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/28/new-york-satanic-cult-764-fbi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2195065

I can't reconcile the apparent contradiction between fascism and individuality. 
I guess the closest some analysts come is to suggest that they're only aligning 
with the fascists, for now, to bring about the end of the current aeon and the 
colonization of the galaxy.

I guess it reminds me of the "no enemies to the [right|left]" rhetoric: 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/30/conservative-christopher-rufo-florida-twitter-debate

But otherwise, O9A's ... "beliefs and structure" seem incoherent enough to write them off 
as just too stupid to care about. However one author nailed it in saying that there are plenty of 
both impressionable and antisocial people using the internet, susceptible to the 
"sinister" allure, to cause real damage.



--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] cults

[glen]

It's been awhile since I've run across a new-to-me cult. But 09A certainly 
qualifies as a meaty one:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/28/new-york-satanic-cult-764-fbi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2195065

I can't reconcile the apparent contradiction between fascism and individuality. 
I guess the closest some analysts come is to suggest that they're only aligning 
with the fascists, for now, to bring about the end of the current aeon and the 
colonization of the galaxy.

I guess it reminds me of the "no enemies to the [right|left]" rhetoric: 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/30/conservative-christopher-rufo-florida-twitter-debate

But otherwise, O9A's ... "beliefs and structure" seem incoherent enough to write them off 
as just too stupid to care about. However one author nailed it in saying that there are plenty of 
both impressionable and antisocial people using the internet, susceptible to the 
"sinister" allure, to cause real damage.

--
glen

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] saRNA

[glen]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/self-amplifying-rna-vaccines/?utm_source=rss_medium=rss_campaign=self-amplifying-rna-vaccines

"It is also likely that there will be another round of fear-mongering about the 
new technology. It probably best for scientists to get ahead of this, to 
introduce and explain the technology to the public, so that at least it will be 
somewhat familiar before the next COVID. "
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Science Fiction Books

[glen]

One of the things we could easily try is cumulative, iterative prompting, 
particularly with some of the lower scoring responses. Dreams are nothing but 
lower scoring responses, right? While you're sleeping, your 
evaluation/selection mechanism is inhibited, which allows you to invest a 
little more in the total bullshit your own next-token generator generates. So 
for, say ChatGPT to dream, it simply needs instructions, including higher 
temperatures, to be less critical of its own responses. It would be annoying to 
try to do it with the web interface, but trivial to do with the API. The hidden 
pre-prompt could be engineered such that the n+1 prompt is a (algorithmic or 
random) composition of the, say, 10 responses to the nth prompt. Etc. This 
would be akin to dreaming, I think. At the end of however many iterations, you 
wake it up and write the highest scoring result down in its dream journal.

Maybe I'll try that with Falcon. I can't divert my OAI budget to it.

On 9/7/23 12:37, cody dooderson wrote:

I asked ChatGPT if it dreamed and it said that it didn't. However, is 
adversarial training of neural networks much different than dreaming?

A new class from MITX showed up in my email today. It is called /Minds and Machines: 
An introduction to philosophy of mind, exploring consciousness, reality, AI, and 
more. The most in-depth philosophy course available online. 
/https://mitxonline.mit.edu/courses/course-v1:MITxT+24.09x/ 
<https://mitxonline.mit.edu/courses/course-v1:MITxT+24.09x/>
It may help with this question.
/
/
_ Cody Smith _
c...@simtable.com <mailto:c...@simtable.com>


On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:

Great observations as usual Glen...   I have lapsed into *listening* to
almost all long-form writing, whether fiction or non  and it
definitely distorts (torts?) my perception/conception of the
material/subject/message.   A corollary to McLuhan's Medium/Message
duality?

   I find the "output" side to be more specific (or conscious) for me
than the "input" side.   Your point of cuneoform
sticks/quills/pencils/keyboard/gestural-interpreters being part of our
extended phenotype is very apt as is the idea that (if I understand your
intentions) it (intrinsically) effects our interoception and
inter-subjective realities.

I also appreciate your reflections on "mal" and "dis" which I have lived
with all of my life... "judging" or "discriminating" in ways which
themselves are "adaptive" for one suite of purposes but perhaps
"mal"/"dis" for another suite.   Having a vector or tensor fitness
function with (arbitrary) signs on the elements doesn't guarantee they
themselves are "fit" for what you think they are.

Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?   Do LLM's (or larger adaptive
systems they are embedded in?) dream of the tensor fields they are
embedded in or create or co-create with the fields of human
activity/history/knowledge/experience/future/manifesting-destiny they
were designed to model/emulate/expose/facilitate/co-evolve with?

I dunno,  but it sure is a fascinating milieu to be surfing through in
these auspicious days at the beginning (or end) of the Anthropocene.

   - Steve

On 9/7/23 1:01 PM, glen wrote:
 > Both keyboards and pencils are part of our extended phenotype and play
 > (multiple) roles in interoception, including the induction of
 > inter-subjectivity. I've forgotten who it is, but there's someone on
 > this list who *listens* to our posts, rather than reads them. I tried
 > that with a blog post this morning during my mobility routine:
 >
 > https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/preferences-can-be-sick-mental-illness 
<https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/preferences-can-be-sick-mental-illness>
 >
 > 
 > Then because I had an allergic reaction to what I heard, I *read* it
 > later. Listening to it disgusted me. I came away thinking this
 > Kirkegaard dude's akin to a scientific racist ... or maybe a
 > eugenecist. I admit to being a fan of Thomas Szasz back in the day. (A
 > friend's mom actually dated him at some point ... allegedly.) But at
 > this point, I've been infected by the Woke Mind Virus; and it's
 > difficult to stomach phrases like "strict homosexuality is more
 > disordered than bisexuality." Reading it, however, helped me remember
 > that maladaption is part and parcel of adaption. Disorder is part and
 > parcel of order. The "mal" and "dis" prefixes are nothing but
 > value-laden subjectivity. The goo of reality extruded through the mold
 > of the author/thinker/subject. For someone like Kirkegaard to claim
 > 

Re: [FRIAM] Science Fiction Books

[glen]

Both keyboards and pencils are part of our extended phenotype and play 
(multiple) roles in interoception, including the induction of 
inter-subjectivity. I've forgotten who it is, but there's someone on this list 
who *listens* to our posts, rather than reads them. I tried that with a blog 
post this morning during my mobility routine:

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/preferences-can-be-sick-mental-illness


Then because I had an allergic reaction to what I heard, I *read* it later. Listening to it disgusted me. I came away thinking 
this Kirkegaard dude's akin to a scientific racist ... or maybe a eugenecist. I admit to being a fan of Thomas Szasz back in the 
day. (A friend's mom actually dated him at some point ... allegedly.) But at this point, I've been infected by the Woke Mind 
Virus; and it's difficult to stomach phrases like "strict homosexuality is more disordered than bisexuality." Reading 
it, however, helped me remember that maladaption is part and parcel of adaption. Disorder is part and parcel of order. The 
"mal" and "dis" prefixes are nothing but value-laden subjectivity. The goo of reality extruded through the 
mold of the author/thinker/subject. For someone like Kirkegaard to claim they're being "objective" while using the 
"mal" prefix is not even wrong. It's just bullshit. Apparently, my Woke Virus infection is worse near my ears than near 
my eyes.


But the point is that *which* extended trait you use (pencil, audio, text, 
etc.) chooses which interoceptive cycle you engage. And when you pretend to 
make such a choice on purpose, at will, any assignation of fault would be 
transitive. Which wolf do you feed?

On 9/4/23 10:29, Steve Smith wrote:

I'm not sure my facility with the keyboard actually serves me. As many of you may 
suspect, and I suspect so myself, it allows me to be much less thoughtful and rigorous 
than I would be in handwriting or if I had some other throttle or impedance elements 
between linguistic centers and "paper"?


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] DRA

[glen]

https://davesredistricting.org/

I think some of you are interested in (fair) districting. Is that a word? Yuck.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] What is an agent [was: Philosophy and Science}

[glen]

Hm. It seems to me that self-attention allows a kind of circularity, where dependence on ancestors (or a built 
environment, or whatever "deep" structure exists in one's current context) does not. Nick's diatribe against 
teleonomy back in '87 focuses on circularity and, I suspect, would appeal to those of us who think circularity is a 
bug. I suppose it's reasonable to think of the sequential versus parallel inputs into such a beast and make the analogy 
of the parts that depend (crucially) on iteration as "fundamental" and those that depend (crucially) on 
synchrony/now/instantaneous as "ordinary". And I guess that's why Eric brought it up. A weakly stable thing 
like a hurricane seems to depend more on now-ness and less on any kind of deep structure memorized in the weather. But 
we might claim the structure, size, geology, of the earth as a fundamental driver for any *particular* hurricane 
(though not the abstract class of hurricane-like things). So, the "fundamental" conditions serve as a 
long-term memory structure or a canalization, where structured here-and-now objects serve as a proxy for distant past, 
high order Markovian things.

This might imply that the registration of an agent is simply a forgetting, a 
way to truncate the impossibly long/big details we would have to yap about in 
order to treat it as non-agent. I.e. agency is a convenient fiction, a 
shortcut, similar to free will.

But unlike some, I'm not allergic to circularity and don't tend to believe that unrolled 
iteration is identical to rolled iteration. Even if self-attention in transformers is 
ultimately unrollable (which I think it is), it still allows for a kind of circularity upon 
which one might be able to found agency (or "anti-found" anyway >8^D).

On 7/17/23 21:27, Roger Critchlow wrote:



On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 2:35 PM David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote:

[...] [Yoshi Oono's The Nonlinear World]
in which he argues that the phenomena you mention are only 
“pseudo-complex”.  Yoshi, like David but with less of the predictable 
“Darwin-was-better; now what subject are we discussing today?” vibe, argues 
that there is a threshold to “true complexity” that is only crossed in systems 
that obey what Yoshi calls a “Pasteur principle”; they are of a kind that 
effectively can’t emerge spontaneously, but can evolve from ancestors once they 
exist.  He says (translating slightly from his words to mine) that such systems 
split the notion of “boundary conditions” into two sub-kinds that differ 
qualitatively.  There are the “fundamental conditions” (in biology, the 
contents of genomes with indefinitely deep ancestry), that mine an indefinite 
past sparsely and selectively, versus ordinary “boundary conditions”, which are 
the dense here-and-now.  The fundamental conditions often provide criteria that 
allow the complex thing to respond to parts of the here-and-now, and ignore 
other
parts, feeding back onto the update of the fundamental conditions.

I don’t know when I will get time to listen to David’s appearance with 
Sean, so with apologies cannot know whether his argument is similar in its 
logic.  But Yoshi’s framing appeals to me a lot, because it is like a kind of 
spontaneous symmetry breaking or ergodicity breaking in the representations of 
information and how they modulate the networks of connection to the space-time 
continuum.  That seems to me a very fertile idea.  I am still looking for some 
concrete model that makes it compelling and useful for something I want to 
solve.  (I probably have written this on the list before, in which case 
apologies for being repetitive.  But this mention is framed specifically to 
your question whether one should be disappointed in the demotion of the 
complexity in phenomena.)
[...]

On Jul 18, 2023, at 4:37 AM, Stephen Guerin mailto:stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu>> wrote:

[...]

 1. Teleonomic Material: the latest use by David Krakauer on Sean Carroll's 
recent podcast 

 in summarizing Complexity. Hurricanes, flocks and Benard Cells according to David 
are not Complex, BTW. I find the move a little frustrating and disappointing but I 
always respect his perspective.


Okay, I listened to the podcast.

DK says that real complexity starts with teleonomic matter, also known as particles that 
think.  He says that such agents carry around some representation of the external world.  
And then the discussion gets distracted to other topics, at one point getting to 
"large language model paper clip nightmares".

My response to Eric's description of Oono's  "Pasteur principle" was that it sounds a lot like 
"Attention Is All You Need" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf 
), the founding paper of the Transformer class of neural 
network models.

The "fundamental conditions" in a 

Re: [FRIAM] What is an agent [was: Philosophy and Science}

[glen]

EricS gives what looks a bit like a derivation of "closure to efficient cause" 
from first principles. 8^D And Dave's reference to autopoesis is perfectly apt. (There's 
a lot of hemming and hawing about whether Rosen's M-R Systems are a particular instance 
of autopoiesis.) But Eric's more traditional build-up from control systems and 
information theory is probably better, less prone to woo/mysticism.

No, I see no *essential* [⛧] difference between the solar-battery-powered garden light 
versus the flashlight equipped with a sensor and a robotic arm (presumably with a battery 
that powers the arm and the light ... a battery that could be charged with a solar 
panel). But it is slightly different. To see how, forget the flashlight and compare the 
garden light to something like a mercury mechanism thermostat. The "inner life" 
of the garden light lies in the circuit architecture and the battery. Cf Eric's 
discussion of simulation, the circuitry of the garden light is (just a tiny bit) 
virtualized/simulated. The mercury mechanism thermostat is a mechanical computer, whereas 
the circuitry in the garden light is an electrical computer. Were we alien 
anthropologists, from which do we think it would be easier to agnostically *infer* the 
purpose/intention of the computer?

I argue it would be easier to infer the purpose of the electrical computer than the 
mechanical one because of the virtualization. Virtualization is directly proportional to 
expressibility. Hence, again cf Conant & Ashby (or Shannon), if the controller is more 
expressive than the system being controlled, then given *one* purpose/intention, it's more 
reasonable that the maker of the artifact intended it to do that one thing. The 
anthropologist might think to herself "Of all the things I might do with this 
controller, *this* is what they chose to do with it?"

Personally, I think the antikythera 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism> is an excellent foil for 
resolving one's thoughts on agency (both passthrough/open and sticky/closed).


[⛧] I use "essential" as a slur. Details are not merely important. They're 
crucial. But I realize most people are essentialist. So I have to talk this way a lot and 
might give the impression I like talking this way.


On 7/14/23 16:28, Russ Abbott wrote:

I'm not sure what "closure to efficient cause" means. I considered using as an example an 
outdoor light that charges itself (and stays off) during the day and goes on at night. In what 
important way is that different from a flashlight? They both have energy storage systems 
(batteries). Does it really matter that the garden light "recharges itself" rather than 
relying on a more direct outside force to change its batteries? And they both have on-off switches. 
The flashlight's is more conventional whereas the garden light's is a light sensor. Does that 
really matter? They are both tripped by outside forces.

BTW, congratulations on your phrase /epistemological trespassing/!
_
_
__-- Russ

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 1:47 PM glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm still attracted to Rosen's closure to efficient cause. Your flashlight 
example is classified as non-agent (or non-living ... tomayto tomahto) because 
the efficient cause is open. Now, attach sensor and effector to the flashlight 
so that it can flick it*self* on when it gets dark and off when it gets bright, 
then that (partially) closes it. Maybe we merely kicked the can down the road a 
bit. But then we can talk about decoupling and hierarchies of scale. From the 
armchair, there is no such thing as a (pure) agent just like there is no such 
thing as free will. But for practical purposes, you can draw the boundary 
somewhere and call it a day.

On 7/14/23 12:01, Russ Abbott wrote:
 > I was recently wondering about the informal distinction we make between 
things that are agents and things that aren't.
 >
 > For example, I would consider most living things to be agents. I would 
also consider many computer programs when in operation as agents. The most obvious 
examples (for me) are programs that play games like chess.
 >
 > I would not consider a rock an agent -- mainly because it doesn't do anything, especially on 
its own. But a boulder crashnng down a hill and destroying something at the bottom is reasonably 
called "an agent of destruction." Perhaps this is just playing with words: "agent" 
can have multiple meanings.  A writer's agent represents the writer in negotiations with publishers. 
Perhaps that's just another meaning.
 >
 > My tentative definition is that an agent must have access to energy, and 
it must use that energy to interact with the world. It must also have some 
internal logic that determines how it interacts with the world. This final 
condition rules out boulders rolling down a hill.
 

Re: [FRIAM] What is an agent [was: Philosophy and Science}

[glen]

I'm still attracted to Rosen's closure to efficient cause. Your flashlight 
example is classified as non-agent (or non-living ... tomayto tomahto) because 
the efficient cause is open. Now, attach sensor and effector to the flashlight 
so that it can flick it*self* on when it gets dark and off when it gets bright, 
then that (partially) closes it. Maybe we merely kicked the can down the road a 
bit. But then we can talk about decoupling and hierarchies of scale. From the 
armchair, there is no such thing as a (pure) agent just like there is no such 
thing as free will. But for practical purposes, you can draw the boundary 
somewhere and call it a day.

On 7/14/23 12:01, Russ Abbott wrote:

I was recently wondering about the informal distinction we make between things 
that are agents and things that aren't.

For example, I would consider most living things to be agents. I would also 
consider many computer programs when in operation as agents. The most obvious 
examples (for me) are programs that play games like chess.

I would not consider a rock an agent -- mainly because it doesn't do anything, especially on its 
own. But a boulder crashnng down a hill and destroying something at the bottom is reasonably called 
"an agent of destruction." Perhaps this is just playing with words: "agent" can 
have multiple meanings.  A writer's agent represents the writer in negotiations with publishers. 
Perhaps that's just another meaning.

My tentative definition is that an agent must have access to energy, and it 
must use that energy to interact with the world. It must also have some 
internal logic that determines how it interacts with the world. This final 
condition rules out boulders rolling down a hill.

But I doubt that I would call a flashlight (with an on-off switch) an agent 
even though it satisfies my definition.  Does this suggest that an agent must 
manifest a certain minimal level of complexity in its interactions? If so, I 
don't have a suggestion about what that minimal level of complexity might be.

I'm writing all this because in my search for a characterization of agents I looked at the 
article on Agency  in the 
/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy./ I found that article almost a parody of the 
"armchair philosopher." Here are the first few sentences from the article overview.

In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and 
‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity. The philosophy 
of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of 
action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter 
explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s 
mental states and events.

_
_
That seems to me to raise more questions than it answers. At the same time, it 
seems to limit the notion of /agent/ to things that can have intentions and 
mental models.  (To be fair, the article does consider the possibility that 
there can be agents without these properties. But those discussions seem 
relatively tangential.)

Apologies for going on so long. Thanks, Frank, for opening this can of worms. 
And thanks to the others who replied so far.

__-- Russ Abbott
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles



On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 8:33 AM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Joe Ramsey, who took over my job.in  the Philosophy 
Department at Carnegie Mellon, posted the following on Facebook:

I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson a lot, but I saw him give a spirited defense of 
science in which he oddly gave no credit to philosophers at all. His straw man 
philosopher is a dedicated *armchair* philosopher who spins theories without 
paying attention to scientific practice and contributes nothing to scientific 
understanding. He misses that scientists themselves are constantly raising 
obviously philosophical questions and are often ill-equipped to think about 
them clearly. What is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? What is 
the right way to think about reductionism? Is reductionism the right way to 
think about science? What is the nature of consciousness? Can you explain 
consciousness in terms of neuroscience? Are biological kinds real? What does it 
even mean to be real? Or is realism a red herring; should we be pragmatists 
instead? Scientists raise all kinds of philosophical questions and have 
ill-informed opinions about them. But *philosophers* try to answer
them, and scientists do pay attention to the controversies. At least the 
smart ones do.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe 

Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy and Science

[glen]

This merely seems like triggered gatekeeping to me. Yeah, sure, working 
philosophers have skills and behaviors working [insert your favorite other clique] 
don't have. But, if it's not already obvious, especially to anyone who's had ANY 
contact with organizations like the SFI, epistemic trespassing can be wildly 
productive. We're all bad at things we're not good at. >8^D I haven't seen the 
Tyson rant that seems to have triggered Ramsey. But *leaving someone out* of your 
cf list is NOT a snub ... despite what the hip-and-trendy might claim. It's merely 
evidence that any presentation is limited in space and time. My guess is that if 
you listen to Tyson with a little generosity, you'd hear him make sounds 
sympathetic to the expertise of the peri-science cliques.

Now, Hawking and Mlodinow's explicit claim that philosophy is dead ... now, 
that's a different story.

On 7/14/23 08:33, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Joe Ramsey, who took over my job.in  the Philosophy Department 
at Carnegie Mellon, posted the following on Facebook:

I like Neil DeGrasse Tyson a lot, but I saw him give a spirited defense of science in which he oddly gave no credit to philosophers at all. His straw man philosopher is a dedicated *armchair* philosopher who spins theories without paying attention to scientific practice and contributes nothing to scientific understanding. He misses that scientists themselves are constantly raising obviously philosophical questions and are often ill-equipped to think about them clearly. What is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? What is the right way to think about reductionism? Is reductionism the right way to think about science? What is the nature of consciousness? Can you explain consciousness in terms of neuroscience? Are biological kinds real? What does it even mean to be real? Or is realism a red herring; should we be pragmatists instead? Scientists raise all kinds of philosophical questions and have ill-informed opinions about them. But *philosophers* try to answer them, 
and scientists do pay attention to the controversies. At least the smart ones do.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] McCarthy v Peirce

[glen]

Ha! Yes. That's a doozy of a metaphor right there, something the 
metaphor-addicted amongst us can sink their teeth into.

On 7/12/23 17:56, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It's hard for me not to draw some life lesson from this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.04836.pdf

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 8:48 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] McCarthy v Peirce

It's been mulled over. E.g.

What can we know about that which we cannot even imagine?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03886v1

"Experience" seems, by definition, hopelessly fragile to context. If your 
experience is similar to someone else's experience, then you're in a cult. Get out! 
There's nothing more frightening than a commitment to a common experience. What I'm 
looking for are things I can't imagine, not things other people imagine, much less things 
other people are committed to.

The idea came up recently that we might want to implement a virtual reality (VR) interface to allow 
a user to walk a graph. My 1st reaction was to draw the (false) distinction between the Eulerian vs 
Lagrangian point of view (maybe translated to subjective experience: as if you're a point in space 
versus as if you're a particle in space). VR seems, to me, hopelessly Eulerian. Simultaneously 
(well, interleaved with), I was listening to a podcast "analyzing" the Nick Cage movie 
"Color Out of Space". I read the Lovecraft story within the last decade, though I can't 
remember when. But the movie was pretty good. Anyway, when you, as a point in space, look out at a 
sub-graph of which you're not a member, can't resist being arrogant/tribal about the sub-graph of 
which you are a member ... a kind of temporal/spatial bias. But if you look at the largest 
sub-graph you can (every visible node and edge from you as a node, everything that you are not, 
minimizing the sub-graph you're in) and watch that largest sub-graph morph and flicker, you can't 
help but feel the Cosmic Horror. Lovecraft's racism was rooted in his admission that the world is 
larger than whatever Norms you may be habituated to. Reduce the diversity of the experiences and 
you homogenize the world to its least common denominator.

Monism, in this context, looks to me like Cosmic Horror. I'd prefer to embrace 
my smallness and avoid pretending to Cosmic Homogeneity ... aka I wouldn't want 
to be a member of any group that would have me as a member.

On 7/10/23 10:37, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

In the following lines, the patient character expresses an opinion on the 
central issue of Pragmat[ic]ism.

/Patient:] …The world you live in is shored some up by a collection of
agreements.Is that something you think about?The hope is that the
truth of the world somehow lies in the common experience of it.Of
course the history of science and mathematics and even philosophy is a
good bit at odds with this notion.Innovation and discovery by
definition war against the common understanding.One should be
wary.What do you think? [pp 91-2]/

I am not going to comment.I just thought you might like to have the quote to 
mull over.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] McCarthy v Peirce

[glen]

It's been mulled over. E.g.

What can we know about that which we cannot even imagine?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03886v1

"Experience" seems, by definition, hopelessly fragile to context. If your 
experience is similar to someone else's experience, then you're in a cult. Get out! 
There's nothing more frightening than a commitment to a common experience. What I'm 
looking for are things I can't imagine, not things other people imagine, much less things 
other people are committed to.

The idea came up recently that we might want to implement a virtual reality (VR) interface to allow 
a user to walk a graph. My 1st reaction was to draw the (false) distinction between the Eulerian vs 
Lagrangian point of view (maybe translated to subjective experience: as if you're a point in space 
versus as if you're a particle in space). VR seems, to me, hopelessly Eulerian. Simultaneously 
(well, interleaved with), I was listening to a podcast "analyzing" the Nick Cage movie 
"Color Out of Space". I read the Lovecraft story within the last decade, though I can't 
remember when. But the movie was pretty good. Anyway, when you, as a point in space, look out at a 
sub-graph of which you're not a member, can't resist being arrogant/tribal about the sub-graph of 
which you are a member ... a kind of temporal/spatial bias. But if you look at the largest 
sub-graph you can (every visible node and edge from you as a node, everything that you are not, 
minimizing the sub-graph you're in) and watch that largest sub-graph morph and flicker, you can't 
help but feel the Cosmic Horror. Lovecraft's racism was rooted in his admission that the world is 
larger than whatever Norms you may be habituated to. Reduce the diversity of the experiences and 
you homogenize the world to its least common denominator.

Monism, in this context, looks to me like Cosmic Horror. I'd prefer to embrace 
my smallness and avoid pretending to Cosmic Homogeneity ... aka I wouldn't want 
to be a member of any group that would have me as a member.

On 7/10/23 10:37, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

In the following lines, the patient character expresses an opinion on the 
central issue of Pragmat[ic]ism.

/Patient:] …The world you live in is shored some up by a collection of 
agreements.Is that something you think about?The hope is that the truth of the 
world somehow lies in the common experience of it.Of course the history of 
science and mathematics and even philosophy is a good bit at odds with this 
notion.Innovation and discovery by definition war against the common 
understanding.One should be wary.What do you think? [pp 91-2]/

I am not going to comment.I just thought you might like to have the quote to 
mull over.



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Fwd:  Virtual FRIAM - recurring Zoom meeting on July 6, 2023 @ 9:00 AM | Read Meeting Report

[glen]

How creepy. I've been on Brin's side since I read his piece claiming privacy is obsolete. 
And in exploring collaborative tools, I set one up for our regular salon at the pub, 
regularly typing up some notes on what was said and interesting arguments. One attendee 
kinda freaked out about having such write-ups "on the internet", even though it 
was fairly private (i.e. not as easy as Discord to hack). Even though I disagreed with 
him because this wasn't mere chatting at the pub, I deleted the database.

Read.ai and tools like it will (should?) spawn legislation like 
https://recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/ Now that Kaczynski's 
dead, I can't help but wonder if his perspective will grow or shrink.

On 7/6/23 13:19, Steve Smith wrote:




 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Fwd:  Virtual FRIAM - recurring Zoom meeting on July 6, 2023 @ 
9:00 AM | Read Meeting Report
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:15:30 -0600
From:   Steve Smith 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 



Fascinating!  I feel  like I was there!


It Reads a bit like the monthly newspaper for my "county of origin" (the Reserve Roundup with a distribution of 600)...  a 6 page rag with high points like every year a listing of the sleepover birthday party my mother arranged for me including the theme of the cake, the other boys' names and party favors provided (one year it was tiny plastic dinosaurs, another army men with parachutes, etc).   What wasn't mentioned was the one kid who always brought chewing tobacco (he was feral but charming) and who got sick trying it...  I think the local grocery and the bar and the 30 seat theatre (when open) had standing adverts in case anyone forgot they were there?  Neither of the two gas stations advertised (both priced at 19.9c per gallon the whole 6 years we lived there?).  I think during the summer after my 4th grade year, my mom submitted a poem to each issue from the daily ones I was forced to write as penance for having refused to do any Geography homework that year after my 
teacher who loved her own hand-drawn maps left out Switzerland from Europe and got mad at me when I asked about it.  The only one I remember was about "a Herd of Birds"... it was more like a limerick (as were all of them I suspect).  Now I just write run-on-sentences that parse but only with supreme effort.


Sadly I don't think our ((great?)grand?) children will be having many of these 
experiences while hanging from meat-hooks strapped into VR Gear in the Matrix 
with a Huel or Soylent branded IV in their neck veins?   Or maybe it is a 
really good thing?   I just hope the AI Overlords will be kind to us as we go 
gently (or not) into that good future...




 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Virtual FRIAM - recurring Zoom meeting on July 6, 2023 @ 9:00 
AM | Read Meeting Report
Date:   Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:52:04 + (UTC)
From:   Read Assistant 
Reply-To:   Read Assistant 
To: s...@lava3d.com



You've been invited to view this report at read.ai!
The meeting began with Frank and John engaging in light-hearted small talk 
about the weather and sharing personal stories about their lives. They then had 
a meandering conversation that touched on various topics, including age 
differences in relationships, the challenges of old age, and the cost of 
education. They also...

 You've been invited to view this report because Stephen Guerin added Read to 
the meeting and wanted to share the recap with you.


Virtual FRIAM - recurring Zoom meeting
July 6, 2023 at 9:00 AM
 


 
The meeting began with Frank and John engaging in light-hearted small talk 
about the weather and sharing personal stories about their lives. They then had 
a meandering conversation that touched on 

Re: [FRIAM] Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube

[glen]

Well, sure. But another piece of [mal|mis|dis]information in Sutter's video was "I 
can use a little trick called the Calculus of Variations ..." blahblahblah. I chose 
to focus on integration, in general, mostly because of Stephen's response, but also 
because it's less on point toward the ultimate metaphor Nick seems to want. I'm sure the 
results of applying the mystical Calculus of Variations to typical physically relevant 
functions can also be tabulated (especially in these near-lookup-table-like ANNs that 
have the media in such an uproar these days). But my guess is that sophomores aren't 
doing the up-looking. 8^D

It would be reasonable to simply think "integration" means "to sum up". And, if that were the case, then 
Nick's focus on the minus sign in "Ev-Ep" and "positive and negative vectors" would make reasonable sense. 
But even a brief trip down the rabbit hole that is "integration" would argue that it really means something more akin 
to the standard English definition:

e.g. MW -
1: to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole : unite
2a: to incorporate into a larger unit
2b: to unite with something else
3a: desegregate
3b: to end the segregation of and bring into equal membership in society or an 
organization

Physically, it doesn't matter whether the pieces are aperiodic tiles or regular building 
blocks. Mathematically, it does. But physically, it doesn't ... or it 
"shouldn't", up to some tolerance for aggressive metaphor.

On 7/3/23 09:06, Frank Wimberly wrote:

As a senior at Berkeley I took a course in integration.  It was all about 
Lebesgue measure and integration, Fubini's theorem etc.  We didn't calculate 
the integral of any function arising from physics.  That's for sophomores and 
they can look the integrals up in tables.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Mon, Jul 3, 2023, 9:32 AM glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:

What do you think "integrate" means?

On 7/3/23 08:28, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
 > BEGIN HARRUMPH!
 >
 > Just so's you know, I did write:
 >
 > *" And for some reason, the path taken by the object through space will 
integrate this difference across the distance between any two points "*
 > *
 > *
 > But never doubt the capacity of some group of experts, when challenged 
to make sense of themselves, to congeal around some picky point of language.  And 
yes, this is me, saying that.(};-)]
 >
 > And why do we keep calling it by it/s cult name, rather than calling it 
what it is?  The difference between the energy of a moving object conveyed by its 
velocity and that conveyed by its position in a field. If you want jargon,  why 
not just call it Ev-Ep.
 >
 > And yet, nobody tackles the basic question.  Why on earth would E in the 
v-Ep be something that every moving object in the universe tries to accomplish.
 >
 > END HARRUMPH!
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:17 AM Stephen Guerin mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com> <mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com 
<mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com>>> wrote:
 >
 >     The Action is the integral of the Lagrangian along the whole path, 
not just a single instant.
 >
 >     On Sun, Jul 2, 2023, 9:12 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
 >
 >         So the difference is at a positive max when the ball hits the 
ground and at a negative maximum when the ball reaches its highest altitude?  So 
how am I to understand positive and negative?    vectors?
 >
 >         Instantaneious Action is at a minimum when the two terms are 
equal?
 >
 >         I have no intuitive sense of what is going on here.
 >
 >         But thanks for trying, Frank.
 >
 >         N
 >
 >
 >
 >         N
 >
 >         On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 12:27 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
 >
 >             Frank,
 >
 >             Thanks SO  MUCH for forwarding this to me.  To any other 
defrocked english majors on Friam, who have listened to these guys blather on 
about LaGrangians for all these years,  I highly, HIGHLY recommend the video. 
Pretty short, AND, you might possibly, conceivably understand Steve Guerin when 
you  get to the end.   Yeah.  Really.
 >
 >             Nick
 >
 >             -- Forwarded message -
 >        

Re: [FRIAM] Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube

[glen]

What do you think "integrate" means?

On 7/3/23 08:28, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

BEGIN HARRUMPH!

Just so's you know, I did write:

*" And for some reason, the path taken by the object through space will integrate 
this difference across the distance between any two points "*
*
*
But never doubt the capacity of some group of experts, when challenged to make 
sense of themselves, to congeal around some picky point of language.  And yes, 
this is me, saying that.(};-)]

And why do we keep calling it by it/s cult name, rather than calling it what it 
is?  The difference between the energy of a moving object conveyed by its 
velocity and that conveyed by its position in a field. If you want jargon,  why 
not just call it Ev-Ep.

And yet, nobody tackles the basic question.  Why on earth would E in the v-Ep 
be something that every moving object in the universe tries to accomplish.

END HARRUMPH!








On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 2:17 AM Stephen Guerin mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com>> wrote:

The Action is the integral of the Lagrangian along the whole path, not just 
a single instant.

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023, 9:12 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

So the difference is at a positive max when the ball hits the ground 
and at a negative maximum when the ball reaches its highest altitude?  So how 
am I to understand positive and negative?    vectors?

Instantaneious Action is at a minimum when the two terms are equal?

I have no intuitive sense of what is going on here.

But thanks for trying, Frank.

N



N

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 12:27 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Frank,

Thanks SO  MUCH for forwarding this to me.  To any other defrocked 
english majors on Friam, who have listened to these guys blather on about 
LaGrangians for all these years,  I highly, HIGHLY recommend the video. Pretty 
short, AND, you might possibly, conceivably understand Steve Guerin when you  
get to the end.   Yeah.  Really.

Nick

-- Forwarded message -
From: *Frank Wimberly* mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 2:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle 
of Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube
To: Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>




---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

-- Forwarded message -
From: *Frank Wimberly* mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 12:51 PM
Subject: Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of 
Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube
To: Thompson, Nicholas mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>, Barry MacKichan mailto:barry.mackic...@mackichan.com>>


https://youtu.be/UuqpCBZoX3M 



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube

[glen]

Yeah, Sutter triggered me when he said "but you don't have to worry about that if 
you don't know what an integral is". I mean ... maybe? This stuff is like heroin to 
an addict, right? Models upon models upon models. And not just in a simple stack, but a 
hairball heterarchy of metaphor.

You kinda do need to know what an integral is, right? I mean ... [sigh] ... I 
guess that's a rabbit hole, too. The only way you can understand what an 
integral *is* (not merely those pesky aspects like what a particular type of 
integration is *good for* ... noo, we don't need to know that, we're after 
the *essence* of integration) is to use it to do work. To understand 
integration, you must integrate some particular thing over some particular 
domain.

That same principle ("What I can't create, I don't understand.") applies to 
Action ... and brewing ... and cleaning your carburetor. You will never understand 
carburetors until you *use* carburetors to do some particular thing ... like drive across 
the country in broken down jalopy.

I feel like there's an analogy waiting to be made between [mal|mis|dis]information and the 
popularization of [physics|math|biology]. Books like Thiel's "The Straussian Moment" seem 
similar to books like Kaku's "Quantum Supremacy". And the category they compose seems 
similar to arm-chair opining on:

• foreign affairs like Prigozhin's mutiny,
• epidemiology like the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and
• deep sea physics and the Titan submersible.

I've probably mentioned this before. But I learned a new word awhile back: 
ultracrepidarian cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutor,_ne_ultra_crepidam. 
Yes, I'm as guilty as the next shoemaker. But sometimes it's good to simply 
stay in one's lane, at least until you've done some homework.

Just to complete the arc of this rant, am I crazy for getting a distinct Cult Prophet 
vibe circa 13:39 in the video: https://youtu.be/UuqpCBZoX3M?t=819 ? When Sutter says, 
with cadence envied by every budding preacher in every small town church across the 
country: "The Least Action Principle is a generator of Physics. The Least Action 
Principle is a Creator of Physics. It is a Mother Principle that allows Physicists to 
generate Laws of Physics and Equations of Motion. It's . right . there. Folks you can 
write down a Lagrangian ..." I mean, that's some good ole down home fever-eyed 
preachin' right there. Reminds me of Keith Raniere of the NXIVM sex cult.

Do you see it?!?! Do you?!? It's right there! The Secret 
 to the universe.

On 7/2/23 23:16, Stephen Guerin wrote:

The Action is the integral of the Lagrangian along the whole path, not just a 
single instant.

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023, 9:12 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

So the difference is at a positive max when the ball hits the ground and at 
a negative maximum when the ball reaches its highest altitude?  So how am I to 
understand positive and negative?    vectors?

Instantaneious Action is at a minimum when the two terms are equal?

I have no intuitive sense of what is going on here.

But thanks for trying, Frank.

N



N

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 12:27 PM Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Frank,

Thanks SO  MUCH for forwarding this to me.  To any other defrocked 
english majors on Friam, who have listened to these guys blather on about 
LaGrangians for all these years,  I highly, HIGHLY recommend the video. Pretty 
short, AND, you might possibly, conceivably understand Steve Guerin when you  
get to the end.   Yeah.  Really.

Nick

-- Forwarded message -
From: *Frank Wimberly* mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 2:53 PM
Subject: Fwd: Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of 
Least Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube
To: Nicholas Thompson mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>




---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

-- Forwarded message -
From: *Frank Wimberly* mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 12:51 PM
Subject: Watch "The Most Important Idea in Physics: The Principle of Least 
Action - Ask a Spaceman!" on YouTube
To: Thompson, Nicholas mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>, Barry MacKichan mailto:barry.mackic...@mackichan.com>>


https://youtu.be/UuqpCBZoX3M 




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  

Re: [FRIAM] Trees as wind farms.

[glen]

"make use of" imputes agency on the trees. A better way to phrase it would be 
how/whether trees benefit from wind. But, if I'm a little more generous, maybe you're 
asking if there are any transduction or energy storage mechanisms triggered by the wind.

https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.93.10.1466
"Touch, wind, and wounding all induced increased lipoxygenase (LOX) mRNA 
transcription in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings (Mauch et al., 1997). The 
mechanical stress induced response occurred within 1 h after treatment, and the amount of 
transcript was reported to be strongly dose-dependent. LOXs are involved or implicated in 
a number of metabolic pathways associated with plant growth and development, ABA 
biosynthesis, senescence, mobilization of lipid reserves, wound responses, resistance to 
pathogens, formation of fatty acid hydroperoxides, and synthesis of jasmonic acid and 
traumatic acid (for review, see Mauch et al., 1997)."

Maybe?

On 6/27/23 09:19, Barry MacKichan wrote:

I would think the energy is too dispersed to be collectable. At risk of bending 
this infant thread … you reminded me of John Muir:

It has been said that trees are imperfect men, and seem to bemoan their 
imprisonment rooted in the ground. But they never seem so to me. I never saw a 
discontented tree. They grip the ground as though they liked it, and though 
fast rooted they travel about as far as we do. They go wandering forth in all 
directions with every wind, going and coming like ourselves, traveling with us 
around the sun two million miles a day, and through space heaven knows how fast 
and far!

—Barry

On 27 Jun 2023, at 11:38, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Sitting here at the farm, watching the Normandy poplars bend in the 
Southeast wind, I am led to wonder why trees don’t make use of wind energy. 
There must be a tangible amount of heat generated by the bending of branches. 
Is there no way to use that heat for, for instance, convection of fluids within 
the tree?

Or do they? And I am just too ill educated to know it.
Nick



--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] The Three Toed Sloth meets the Shoggoth

[glen]

Being completely ignorant of everything mentioned, here, I can't help but wonder 
whether there is a path from not-even-wrong to schema-for-the-data. Going back to 
EricS' prior comment regarding when a (time/speed) difference of scale becomes a 
difference of kind, I have trouble accepting the convexity (or even closure) of any 
of the referent spaces. (I have no trouble accepting the convexity and closure of 
the models, as defined/abstracted from the referent, just the fidelity of the 
assumptions.) Like Farrell & Shalizi imply in their comment, such models work 
well for description. The problems arise when the description is fed *back* into 
the control. LLMs currently have a sticky re-training hurdle, requiring 
hybridization in order to complete the loop. And that's also been the case with 
economic models. Rather than map to systems biology, I'd prefer to map to progress 
in cyber-physical systems, where the models are more tightly and granularly coupled 
with the systems they control.

It feels idealistic ("rationalist"?) to think that these models-in-a-vat (will?, can?, do?) capture 
the "tacit knowledge" adequately, faithfully. I'm reminded of the relationship between idealized 
neurons and neuronal networks, including neurotransmitters, hormones, glial cells, etc. Add to that long 
distance signals like proprioception, nociception, etc. and it seems clear that a monolithic LLM cannot be as 
good at "on the fly" model building as an organism can be.

Maybe it's obviously modeled as [a] hypergraph[s]. And that might be the only way it can 
be built to dynamically/appropriately adjust fine to coarse granularity and tight to 
loose coupling for any given subset of covariates ... *as* the data is extruded through 
the model[s] into the data[base|lake]. But for each node and edge in such a graph, it 
seems like it needs a complementary, shadow node and edge of parameters that regulate the 
graph. I guess the graph "plus" its complementing shadow is also a (larger?) 
graph. But are they different things? Or the same thing? And if they're different things, 
meta-things, is there an infinite regress lying about? (e.g. the parameter graph also 
needs its own parameter graph, etc.)

I know I shouldn't hit Send on this one

On 6/24/23 20:03, David Eric Smith wrote:

Stephen, thank you for these,

Continuous your paragraphs at the bottom, there is a project I have wanted to 
pursue off and on for 25 years, and which gets cheaper each year.  I probably 
described it before on the list (maybe more than once), in which case apologies 
for the repeat.

The neoclassical paradigm from much of the past century turned on finding price 
systems as the separating hyperplanes that separated convex models of consumer 
preference and producer technology.  Besides the fact that those models are 
often not-even-wrong, lots else, like ecosystems, the polity, etc., are left 
out of the account altogether.

A conceptually easy piece of low-hanging fruit, though laborious to populate 
with data, would be to make an underlying model of the system you are trying to 
analyze economically as a real-goods input-output problem.  Then you could find 
the separating hyperplanes that are price systems relating it to whatever-other 
model you want to make of decision priorities.

Real-goods input-output analysis, with price systems as the separating 
hyperplanes, is ancient; it is called the von Neumann growth model.  Like many 
other things von Neumann, it was picked up, demonstrated, played with for a 
bit, and largely abandoned as people went wherever-else.

Today, of course, input-output models become far more useful than they ever 
could have been in von Neumann’s time, because big computation allows us to 
aggregate patchwork descriptions into larger models, which track the 
stoichiometric dependencies between the sectors.  This is some part of the 
information that the separating hyperplanes discard (by their nature and 
construction).  The models are of course hypergraphs, which means we know 
things about their topological analysis, and can study correlation of 
fluctuations as well as constraints on average behavior.  Systems biology now 
does this sort of thing routinely with models big enough that they are no 
longer just illustrative “toys”, where the separating hyperplanes are 
biological molecule inventories needed for cells to reproduce, and outputs of 
wastes to the surroundings can be tracked and their consequences computed as 
well.  All the usual stuff.

Most importantly, since ecology is already stoichiometric (in terms of much more than 
just chemical elements), we can put the Venn diagram in the right order, with the 
economy < polity < society < ecosphere, and at least represent ecological 
inputs and outputs as the containers for transient economic activity.

Another thing that would be a good use for the capacity of organizations like 
google to vacuum up data would be to embed lifecycle analysis of 

Re: [FRIAM] I am not Unique

[glen]

Goodhart's Law.

On June 24, 2023 3:48:14 PM PDT, Russ Abbott  wrote:
>Frank, Thanks for the link.
>
>Agnes Callard, the author of the article, sneers at tourists who visit
>Paris in order to visit the Louvre in order to see the Mona Lisa (and then
>spend 45 seconds looking at it)--because that's what one does in Paris. But
>presumably, Callard would find it perfectly acceptable to visit Paris in
>order to visit the Louvre in order to see the Mona Lisa, and then spend
>hours examining Da Vinci's brush strokes.
>
>What's the difference between these two kinds of activities? Callard quotes
>Emerson, who is not critical of "a person who travels when his
>'necessities' or 'duties' demand it. Nor does Emerson object to traversing
>great distances 'for the purpose of art, of study, and benevolence,'” as in
>the case of the student of DaVinci's painting technique. Here's a clue.
>Callard defines "tourism" as the kind of travel that aims at the
>interesting—and, if Emerson and company are right, misses."
>
>In other words, one will not find "the interesting" by going in search of
>it. The same goes for happiness. One will not find happiness by going in
>search of it. These are both consequences of other activities and make no
>sense as stand-alone goals.
>
>-- Russ Abbott
>Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
>California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
>On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 2:13 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
>> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/the-case-against-travel
>>

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] mind candy

[glen]

IDK. I can't help but wonder how I'd have felt if Blue Origin had blown up with 
Shatner in it. I mean, that would be a great way to die ... among the possible 
ways to die. Were I up there, I *wish* I could die like that. Instead, I'll 
prolly die in a bike crash, bleeding out all over the asphalt or maybe from 
some nasty disease while rotting in bed ... maybe from an infection by a novel 
virus. Yuck. Dying in space or at tremendous depth seems like a much better 
option. Sign me up!

On 6/22/23 11:06, Jochen Fromm wrote:

Yes, the Greek shipwreck was horrific but the Titan(ic) story sadly got much 
more media attention.

One aspect is the rich/poor divide: the Titan submersible contained 5 very rich 
passengers, while the ship from Africa was full of poor people looking for a 
better life. African migrants are for Europe what Mexican migrants are for the 
USA. People are afraid that there will be too many which take away their jobs 
and their appartments.

Another aspect is that the Titan story had for the last days the possibility of 
a happy ending that people long to hear. Unfortunately the latest news about a 
debris field near the Titanic has destoyed the hope for a happy ending too.

-J.


 Original message 
From: glen 
Date: 6/22/23 6:57 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] mind candy

The Greek shipwreck was a horrific tragedy. Yet it didn’t get the attention of 
the Titanic story
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/22/the-greek-shipwreck-was-a-horrific-tragedy-yet-it-didnt-get-the-attention-of-the-titanic-story

By analogy with eye candy, where the Eloi get all the attention and the Morlocks spin the world, it's difficult to believe that any of us (well, most of us) actually value human life. When dorks like Yudkowsky fret over AI as an existential threat (and the only such intelligences we can see are birthed by immense wealth), are they fretting over, say, the 100 children below deck in the migrant ship? Is that what they're fretting over? I don't think so. It reminds me of the idea of elite overproduction <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction>. Yudkowsky is an elite, but of a different stripe than, say, Samuel Alito (rubbing shoulders with billionaires). When an elite like Musk calls for a "pause" and an elite like Microsoft barrels on like a bull in a china shop ... and most of what we see in The Media (stupid English) is those fighting elephants, where do the 100 children rank? Are we merely biomass, providing the scaffolding to a higher order life form, much like 
some of us think fungus and insects are scaffolding for us? If so, then who cares about a few dead bodies at the bottom of the ocean at all, whether millionaires or the forgettable poor?





--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] mind candy

[glen]

The Greek shipwreck was a horrific tragedy. Yet it didn’t get the attention of 
the Titanic story
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/22/the-greek-shipwreck-was-a-horrific-tragedy-yet-it-didnt-get-the-attention-of-the-titanic-story

By analogy with eye candy, where the Eloi get all the attention and the Morlocks spin the 
world, it's difficult to believe that any of us (well, most of us) actually value human life. 
When dorks like Yudkowsky fret over AI as an existential threat (and the only such 
intelligences we can see are birthed by immense wealth), are they fretting over, say, the 100 
children below deck in the migrant ship? Is that what they're fretting over? I don't think so. 
It reminds me of the idea of elite overproduction 
. Yudkowsky is an elite, but of a 
different stripe than, say, Samuel Alito (rubbing shoulders with billionaires). When an elite 
like Musk calls for a "pause" and an elite like Microsoft barrels on like a bull in a 
china shop ... and most of what we see in The Media (stupid English) is those fighting 
elephants, where do the 100 children rank? Are we merely biomass, providing the scaffolding to 
a higher order life form, much like some of us think fungus and insects are scaffolding for us? 
If so, then who cares about a few dead bodies at the bottom of the ocean at all, whether 
millionaires or the forgettable poor?

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] From Merle--AI News

[glen]

Well, there's an argument that the Search usage pattern is incompatible with 
next token predictors. E.g. 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/lawyer-chatgpt-research-avianca-statement-ai-risk-openai-deepmind.
 But maybe it depends on what one's searching for?

On 6/19/23 09:43, Roger Critchlow wrote:

There probably already is a law, but no one knows what it is?  The law suffers 
from the same curse as the scientific literature, most of it gets ignored 
because no one has the time to read it all.

So maybe that's what LLM's are for.  We can set one to read the collected works 
of Carl Friederich Gauss, and we'll finally be able to find out how much of 
mathematics he invented/discovered.  We can set one to read the laws of each 
podunk in the US and find out exactly what's permitted and what's forbidden and 
what's hopelessly confused.

-- rec --

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 10:25 AM Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:


    glen wrote:
 > IDK. The implication that we already have laws that cover (80%?) of
 > the use cases for new tech we, as a society, want to discourage, is a
 > good default. It resists the "there ought to be a law" sensibility
 > held by old people and curmudgeons everywhere. And it keeps our legal
 > system a little more adaptive than it would be were we to burden it
 > with even more persnickety case-by-case rulings.
 >
 >
I share your feeling that "there oughtta be a law!" is a red-herring,
though I don't know about it being that tightly coupled with "old
people"...  my experience is that people whose experiences and
sensibilities which are much different from mine are more apt to express
those sentiments, but I think this related to confirmation bias.  If
they are shaking their fist with "there oughtta be a law!" sentiments
about something I feel the same way about it goes right past me, but if
it is somehow "off" from my alignments it grates.   I find young people
(when I was in HS, my civics/history/government/etc classes were filled
with them) full of the more egregious phrase "that's ILLEGAL!" in place
of "that OFFENDS ME!".   I try to hear "there oughtta be a law" as
pining for a new and relevant heuristic where the old one(s) don't work
(well)?


 > The point being that behaviorism is insidious. You are not a shallow
 > narrative comprising Instagram "stories" in the same way ChatGPT is
 > not an organism. But it's not merely behaviorism. There's a similar
 > problem with the concept of an integrated personality
 > <https://dictionary.apa.org/integration 
<https://dictionary.apa.org/integration>>.

I identify as a self-organized/ing complex adaptive system coupled with
other complex systems in such a way as to be an all-subsuming (read
panpsychic) system of systems (nearly-decomposable in Herb Simon's
sensibilites).   Or in Schwietzer's sensibilities: "I am life which
wills to live amongst life which wills to live".   Does the biosphere of
Earth "will to live"? (and in the image of Gaia, does it nurture us, or
in the image of Medea, does it seek to shed itself of the blight which
is us?)   How about the solar system or the galaxies or galactic
clusters?   Maybe not even as much as a jellyfish or an amoeba does...
but not less than a grain of sand or am molecule or an interstellar photon?

Depending on the focus/locus of my awareness in a given moment, I am
likely identified differently... like whether I'm having coffee with an
old friend, looking through a telescope or microscope, or blathering on
on FriAM...   an analog to glen's "homunculii"?   I think I can be
episodic and diachronic, or is it only an episodic identity who can
actually imagine both while diachronics are forever shut off from the
experience of being episodic?  Or is it an illusion like "free will"
(pervasive and undeniable, yet nevertheless an illusion)?

Is this not the point of holidays like Juneteenth (not formed but maybe
exploited by Hallmark?), to focus our awareness (and therefore
identity?) on a subset of "life which wills to live" that we normally do
not (fathers day, juneteenth, independence day, thanksgiving, new years,
etc.)?




--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] From Merle--AI News

[glen]

IDK. The implication that we already have laws that cover (80%?) of the use cases for new 
tech we, as a society, want to discourage, is a good default. It resists the "there 
ought to be a law" sensibility held by old people and curmudgeons everywhere. And it 
keeps our legal system a little more adaptive than it would be were we to burden it with 
even more persnickety case-by-case rulings.

I'm more interested in the deeper threats of new tech. E.g. "Altered Images": 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-016-0327-1 and our tendency to "identify 
as". Annoying story time. Maybe I've mentioned this before, but ...

I was at the pub with one of those people who describe themselves as left or liberal. But over the course of the conversation, it came out 
that he was largely anti-trans ... basically a TERF ... but perhaps not so radical, maybe replace radical with reactionary. In an attempt 
to constructively criticize his stance, I asked him whether he "identifies as a man". He quickly said "Yes." I 
responded, "I don't." I also don't identify as Texan ... or Washingtonian ... or White (or Scotch-Irish, which is what the nuns 
told my parents I was) ... or as a Ropella (which is easy being adopted). Etc. We didn't have the time to go into diachronic vs. episodic. 
But by highlighting the fact that he identifies with various tribes (e.g. "men" and "American" - he's got ethnic 
features, but doesn't identify with the ethnicities they're associated with), I'd hoped to demonstrate that "identifying as" is 
problematic no matter what it is you identify with. So maybe I'm also anti-trans because *anyone* who identifies as a man is simply 
confused ... including him.

The point being that behaviorism is insidious. You are not a shallow narrative comprising 
Instagram "stories" in the same way ChatGPT is not an organism. But it's not merely 
behaviorism. There's a similar problem with the concept of an integrated personality 
. Faced with such severe and disastrous 
delusional separation from one's environment, focusing on the suffering that can be caused by 
particular instances of abuse (as in DeStefano) seems overly Utilitarian, flattening experience 
into a 1-dimensional spectrum. It's a different symptom of the same disease.

On 6/16/23 16:07, Steve Smith wrote:



Extortion is illegal, no?


Apparently there are both federal and (all 50) state laws against 
(im)personation (to achieve gain or cause harm).   As far as I know this 
doesn't keep Halloween stores from selling Richard Nixon and Donald Trump 
masks,  but *might* have something to say if they were realistic enough to pass 
for *real* in casual contexts.

Extortion as in this case would be on the more extreme end of "intending harm" and "achieving 
gain"?   Does the (im)personation qualify as "aggravated"?

An early application of DeepFake photo/video was to generate mashup pornography  and much of that 
is pursued under "defamation" rules...   the same was what applied to hand-work in a film 
print lab and air-brush artistry.   It has added an extra degree of freedom for generating 
"revenge porn" as one might guess.

During Gulf War zero, LANL was developing simulation models of human vocal 
tracts so as to allow for on-demand deepfake audio with Saddam Hussein as the 
reference example (and likely prime target).  Back then digital 
radio/encryption were not ubiquitous. This work was declassified a decade 
later...  or maybe I just thought it was/should-be?

Presumably a studied voice-actor could have faked DeStefano's daughter's voice to a suitable degree 
for the purpose, but the lowering of thresholds seems to be what might need attention? There are 
lots of ways to cause dangerous explosions...  the fact that a stick of dynamite with a fuse on one 
end and a match make it "trivial" differentiates the need for regulations on that from 
say "pressure cookers" ?  I'm glad I can buy a pressure cooker without a background check 
and (mostly) glad that to acquire dynamite (or most other highly convenient/concentrated 
explosives) requires some scrutiny by my community (via the ATF, etc?).

Farmers who use both fuel oil and Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer for their work (aka 
ANFO when mixed and ignited properly) are often resentful of this oversight.   I 
don't know that Tim McVeigh had an easier time renting a big box truck to deliver a 
load of same than the guy in Boston a few years ago 
?
   I *do* think airliners filled with jet fuel are more respected than they were 
before 9/11 but then so are box-cutters...

I think most laws about "aggravated" assault/homicide/rape/??? specify "deadly weapon" of which we have a conventional 
range of "usual suspects" (gun, knife, poison, bludgeon) and another range of unsurprising examples (moving vehicle, etc.)  and 
more esoteric ones ("frozen limp noodle 

[FRIAM] What, me worry?

[glen]

Four indicted over ‘appalling’ theft of body parts from Harvard Medical School
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/15/stolen-body-parts-harvard-medical-school

There's so much embedded in the culture behind this story. I love how 
"appalling" is in scare quotes. 8^D Is it appalling? Really?

Everyone's SO worried about AI, climate change, long-termist stuff. But, sheesh. It's 
not even slightly appalling. We have nazis roaming the streets with AR15s, people selling 
human tissue to boutique curiosity shops, billionaires buying and selling our trigger 
happy feelings, etc. When I heard that Treat Williams died in a bike crash at 71, I first 
thought maybe I should quit riding my bike ... Then I thought, "hell yes! that's a 
great way to die". I need to ride it more, much more, and in dangerous places like 
switch back forest roads on the sides of mountains. You'd *have* to be a billionaire to 
want to live forever given this culture.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/