[FRIAM] More on levels of sequence organization

[glen∈ℂ]

Right. But that's the point, I think. To what extent are semantics invariant across these supposed "levels"? My argument is that "levels" are figments of our imagination. The best we can say is that iteration constructs something that we find convenient to name: "level". But what reality is actually doing is mere aggregation and the meanings of the primitives are no different from the meanings of the aggregates.

These private algorithms are a fiction, allowed (in some abstracted idealism) by our general purpose computers. Constructive logic/math disallows, to some extent, that complete abstraction. Every constructive method will, at some point, puncture the "levels".  More to the point, *every* model that includes (a priori or not) "levels" is false and will eventually be falsified.

You're asking something like "who cares?" or "does it matter?". Maybe not. But if we're trying to talk about consciousness and what a Turing machine knows or the difference between specific and general intelligence, it *is* reasonable, maybe even necessary.

On 5/4/19 10:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Considering how we go back-and-forth in long threads here, trying to sort out semantics, I don't see why it is reasonable to expect a generative learning approach to employ internal neurons that have easily interpretable meanings.  Same with ADF:  "Here's a program written in a private language, how does it work?"  Like an Egyptologist trying to figure out hieroglyphics and understand the ancient culture.