[FRIAM] hidden

Mon May 18 18:04:35 EDT 2020

Not trolling but a sincere question, In my opinion.

When I was in elementary school my report cards always said something
like.  "Frank demonstrates mastery of the material but he dreams too much.
Perhaps he will find fifth grade more challenging and interesting."  What I
claim to have private access to is the content of those dreams, fantasies,
memories, plans, etc which remain unexpressed through language to another
person.

Frank

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:41 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry.  I don’t mean to troll.  I think you think your mind is a space to
> which you alone have access which controls your behavior, and which you
> uniquely control.  Is that wrong?  I think your mind is a complex property
> of the relation between your behavior and your circumstances, to which any
> patient observer, including yourself, may have access, and which is
> controlled by your  circumstances, including your history.  Hence, I think
> we both believe in the existence of mind but disagree on what a mind IS.
>
>
>
> How is this trolling?
>
> nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2020 3:31 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden
>
>
>
> Your saying that implies that you know what I mean.  QED
>
>
>
> This is trolling.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:29 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FRANK!  I have always admitted to the existence of the mind.  I just don’t
> think it’s what you think it is.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2020 3:21 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden
>
>
>
> At least you admit the existence of a mind.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:13 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
> I wonder if this conversation is an example of itself.  I do not possess
> the knowledge, language, etc to understand what you are saying, here, hence
> it is "hidden".  A color blind person lacks the code to see the numeral
> hidden within the diagram.  Is this a fair oversimplification of the
> concept you are getting at?
>
> Mind you, I have much less of a problem with "hidden" than I do with
> "inside", which I think launches discussants into an endlessly useless
> confusion between the mind and the brain, the latter being
> uncontroversially enclosed within the skull, the latter being distributed
> across the environment and actions of the person whose mind it is.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 1:16 PM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] hidden
>
>
> The best layman's example of what I mean by "hidden X" (where X means a
> category of things ... "states", "behaviors", "information", "spaces",
> etc.) relies on steganography (which SteveS mentions a lot). But in last
> week's Zoom, I mentioned to Jon (in response to his query to Frank about
> RSA-encryption::mind) that I think homomorphic encryption is a better
> analogy (to mind). But my own reliance on the *opacity* of the boundary
> prevents me from communicating my point clearly, especially re: some kind
> of holographic principle for modeling a person's internal world via their
> observable behavior.
>
> So, even though I still think homomorphic encryption is an excellent
> analogy for the mind, a particular *type* of steganography is an actual
> example of (not a metaphor or analogy for) information hiding. Here are 2
> concrete examples: 1) hiding one image "inside" [†] another image, and 2)
> hiding a QR code "inside" an image.
>
> Here are eg links:
> (1)
> https://towardsdatascience.com/steganography-hiding-an-image-inside-another-77ca66b2acb1
> (2)
> https://projet.liris.cnrs.fr/imagine/pub/proceedings/ICPR-2016/media/files/0542.pdf
>
> (1) and (2) are examples (again, NOT metaphor [‡]) of a type I've tried to
> call "thin models". Everything about the model is written right there on
> the surface of it ... plain as day. All you have to do is *read it
> correctly*. My canonical example is a typical (system of) ODE model.
> Barring something pathological like it being "stiff" or whatever and
> forcing a wise choice of integrator, a typical ODE model is very thin,
> everything you need to know is right there in front of you. Of course, the
> normal form of some expression can *hide* the intent of the modeler because
> the modeler will group terms (bounded by operators like + and *)
> mechanistically ... to communicate some sort of meta- or semantic
> information about the model's components. The normalized form can hide the
> modeler's intent through (e.g. algebric) transformations. But no
> information is actually lost ... that apparent lossage is just an artifact
> of the way the model is read ... just like in (1) and (2) above.
>
> I hope that helps explain my (perhaps perverse, but I don't think so) use
> of the word "hidden". And I'm hoping that the 2 links will help with
> not-really-mathematical-though-it-may-look-mathematical understanding.
>
> To get from this discussion to the one about scale, celery mechanisms, and
> telescopes, all you need is to imagine either (1) or (2) with your phone in
> between you and the image. Without the phone, with the phone, without the
> phone. The hop-distance (in transformations, here the main one being the
> phone) from your eyeball to the image *measures* the hiddenness of the
> hidden information. The embedded information is 1 hop away. Maybe you can
> imagine the hidden information is reversed so not only do you need the
> phone, but you need to look at your phone in the mirror. Then the hidden
> image would be 2 hops away, 2 transforms away. Etc.
>
> If you've read this far, thanks. I value the opportunity to clarify the
> idea (even if I don't believe it).
>
>
>
> [†] Please dampen your *trigger* on the word "inside". An example of what
> I mean, here, is something like a string of characters being "inside" a
> word ... e.g. the letter "i" is inside the word "sit". It's only "inside"
> if you process the string in a subset of ways. The same is true of both (1)
> and (2) above. If you reallyreallyreally can't dampen your trigger and are
> so impulsive that you simply can't think without arguing about the meaning
> of that one little word, then change the word "inside" to something like
> "side-by-side with" or "bracketed by" -- thx Jon -- or whatever you need to
> do to force yourself to grok the idea. To boot, with the QR code, example,
> it's arguable whether the QR code is inside the image or the image is
> inside the QR code ... just like if you read "sit" as {s}i{t}, then you
> could say "i" is outside but "s" and "t" are inside ... whatever.
>
> [‡] Except in the sense of some kind of set closure or equivalence class
> where all the elements of the class are analogs for every other member of
> the class. Extensional equivalence via intensional metaphor?!? [ptouie] >8^D
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200518/bfd5d9aa/attachment.html>