[FRIAM] words RE: words

[Prof David West]

I am going to plug into this conversation at a posting from Nick, and attempt to pose an answer to his question about why "we" 'cannot' or 'refuse to' offer a modicum of enlightenment. I would hope that others shred, or improve, my argument, but only Nick can say if it approximates an answer for him.

Begin with computational science (Ramon Lull via Leibniz) which is a science of an abstraction. Fast forward to computer science, which is also predominately about computational mathematics, still an abstraction. Turing adds yet another aspect, but still abstract.

Parallel efforts to embody the abstract begin with Descartes, Napier, et. al. and proceed via Babbage to von Neumann to your multi-core smart phone.

Combined, the abstract and the physical define a very interesting, realm — a space for exploration and experimentation. Alas, this realm is absolutely *_Artificial._* [Even efforts to graft biological cells onto chips or DNA-based computation are still artificial, and little more than alternative embodiment mechanisms.]

We are able to perform wondrous things, more than Horatio could imagine, in this artificial realm. But do those accomplishments tell us anything about "Reality?" if we can effect 'artificial emergence', 'artificial intelligence', 'artificial life', or, eventually, 'artificial consciousness', does that tell us anything about emergence, intelligence, life, or consciousness outside of the artificial realm in which we work our wonders?

In the case of mathematicians, as Frank has pointed out, the answer is, "who cares?" I suspect the same is true of most computational and computer scientists. I would cite, as partial evidence, the disdain expressed in CS departments at research institutions like UNM for things that smack of "applied;" like operating systems, databases, software engineering, and, heaven forbid, user experience design.

But suppose someone did care. A huge obstacle stands in the way. The artificial, the abstract, is never more than, can never be more than, an approximation of "Reality." If the 'answers' one seeks is in the space between the approximate and the actual, then the answer would be no.

Even metaphor fails us. We might posit that the 'emergence of a glider gun' in Conway's game can be used as a metaphor for understanding some of the elementary structural-couplings posited by Maturana and Varela. But, neither side of the metaphor offers any useful referents that we can seek analogs of on the other side of the metaphor, and therefore is is of not more use than "love is a rose."

So Nick, "we" "cannot." But I suspect that is unsatisfactory.

davew




On Tue, May 7, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Glen,

> 

> You see, this conversation just confirms me in my belief that you-guys have lost touch with just how remarkable your craft is. 

> 

> As I think Lee would say (dammit, Lee, where are you?), don't ask a fish about water; he knows nothing of it. 

> 

> What's the miracle of epigenesis? *E uno pluris*. We start with one thing, we make a few exact copies of it, and then, all of a sudden, we are making different things, tissues, organs, etc. We are surprised when uniformity generates variety. What’s the miracle of organisms? *E pluribus unum*. When the lion charges us on the Veldt, we face a huge collection of cells that somehow manages to act as a very concerted whole. We are surprised when variety coalesces into uniformity. 

> 

> Both phenomena are amply presented in the pages of Wolfram. Every day you go to work, you make both of these things happen on your screen. And yet you are not amazed by it? 

> 

> Nick

> 

> Nicholas S. Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

> Clark University

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

> 

> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 11:55 AM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

> 

> I would talk about analog computers, not digital ones. But I don't intend to rely on any persnickety concept of "computing". So, it might be better to talk about any physical system that produces counter-intuitive results. I suppose the question is what type of physical system would help target "emergence" best?

> 

> I don't know... I built a Lorenz wheel that behaved in unexpected ways. Jigsaw puzzles are interesting tools for getting close to the idea that the parts and their arrangements both do and don't contribute to the final product. Spiro-graph is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirograph You can buy sets of aperiodic tiles. Etc.

> 

> It all depends on what it is you think you're trying to understand, I guess.

> 

> On 5/7/19 10:38 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> > Given that my question about programming and emergence is a lifeless, flatulent piece of crap ... conceding ALL of that .. how would you breathe life into it?

> 

> 

> --

> ☣ uǝlƃ

> 

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190508/0b82a4b3/attachment.html>