[FRIAM] constructive explanations (was Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?)

[uǝlƃ ☣]

[sorry] And please note that I didn't say "If you *can* make it happen, then you *do* understand it." That's not true. Just because I digest my food doesn't mean I understand food digestion, despite it being a constructive proof of the existence of digestion. The making is necessary for understanding, but maybe not sufficient.

On 12/12/19 9:38 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Heh, I worried you (or someone else) might go there, which is why I included the addendum about manipulation. There are some of us (me included) who think there is no such thing as creation or innovation, only differentiation and manipulation. But others allow for wide or narrow definitions of it. I have a whole constellation of colleagues who believe "innovation" is a real thing, for example. I've also mentioned on this list that I like the word "naturfact" to indicate something modified by humans, as opposed to an "artifact", which seems to carry an implication of pure synthesis.
> 
> So, if we adopt the manipulationist conception of constructive explanations, we don't need to go down the rabbit hole of "what is creation". You're still under requirement by Feynman, which I'll rephrase:
> 
>   If you can't *make* it happen, then you don't understand it.
> 
> E.g. I can't, for my life, tell a joke. Therefore, I clearly don't understand humor. But to answer more directly, as Dave pointed out, a line of code is just another arrangement of the 1s and 0s extant in the machine in the form of high and low voltage. So, a line of code is nothing more than an arrangement of extant stuff, a naturfact, as it were. And where did the 1s and 0s come from(?), some other constructive explanations like how to make a transistor. And where did that come from?  Etc.
> 
> This is what you're paper cries out for. A tutorial on how to write the Methods section of bench science paper.
> 
> On 12/12/19 9:24 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>> It is redolent with Pragmatism ... a concern with the "practicial", as Eric insists that I say.  But there is something else lurking here which blind sided me and which I need to think hard about.  It's the word "creation".   Now, you computer folks are truly Gods to me; to me, you create stuff all the time.  To me, perhaps in my naivety, one of those crazy-mad cellular automata, that's life and somebody has created it.  Did Schelling create segregation.  By god, I think he did. Did Steve Guerin create ants.  Yup, by god, he did.  So when a computer scientist, programmer, software engineer, ai person, whatever you guys prefer to call yourselves, starts talking about "creation", my ears perk up. 
>>
>> What the hell is the meaning of 'creation" in those sentences above?  Here's a  proposal: One has "created", when one has written a recipe for emergence.  One collects stamps; one creates a cake.  
>>
>> Is it possible that my model of monism is based on my understanding of a line of code.  It would not be the first time that a theory in once discipline was based on an imperfect understanding of another.  
>>
>> How you drive my thinking on!  
> 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ