[FRIAM] privacy games

Tue May 26 11:46:59 EDT 2020

See Larding, below. 

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: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 8:25 AM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] privacy games

So, to recap:

The "holographic" principle of [non]privacy: All valid questions about one's inner world can be properly asked as questions about one's interaction with the outer world. (Or for those triggered by "inside" and "outside": All valid questions about processes beyond a boundary can be properly asked as questions about the surface of the boundary.)

[NST===>I absolutely, slavishly, toadally, agree.  But like all metaphors, the metaphor of a hologram is intensional.  So, the fact that Glen knows a heluva lot more about holograms than I do is really important here.  I may not have a clue what I am toadally agreeing to. Thus, when working with metaphors, don’t we have to “specify them”, i.e., work out all those implications of the hologram that are part of its Extension that Glen Intends with his use of the metaphor. <===nst] 

1st order privacy: There's a combinatorial explosion of possible ways to decode the surface.

2nd order privacy: The map from encoder to decoder is many-to-many.

Feel free to continue to criticize [†] those. In the meantime, I'll just keep plugging along. >8^D My candidate for 3rd order privacy is *gaming*. We've (I think mostly SteveS, but Jon's mentioned "adversarial", too) talked about both instantaneous planned obfuscation of one's encoder choices in order to defeat the decoder choice(s). Lying, manipulation, plausible deniability (Trump's "perfect phone call"), etc. all fall into this category. I think more positive things like non-linear prose (I'm thinking Joyce or Moorcock, maybe) and poetry might qualify as well, depending on the author's intentions. But the critical distinction between 2nd order and 3rd is the purposeful gaming of the encode-decode map, not the mere accident that the map is many-to-many. We've even talked a little bit about non-instantaneous co-evolution, that the boundary is a dynamic thing and the encoders and decoders chosen can feed off one another, with both historicity and layering/depth.

[NST===>Oh, yes.  The boundary dance.  So are there dynamic patterns of coder/decoder relation.  By the way, there are two metaphors at work, here, now, the hologram and the coder/decoder relation, which we have now to specify the relation between.  How does the code relation work with the hologram relation. <===nst] 

At the root, the 3rd order is about "agency" and perhaps "algorithmicity" (thanks to both Jon and Nick for helping isolate these). It's difficult to imagine a purely mechanical homunculus being a difficult adversary in a privacy game. Sure, computer chess (or Watson) can win well-formulated games because they have access to computational powers a human opponent doesn't have. But if we could (somehow) ensure symmetry between the opponents, I expect we'd lose any *nonrandom* outcomes to any games they constructed. A lurking lemma somewhere in here is the idea that if humans are, ultimately, mechanical, then any game devised/played by 2 identical humans would reduce to tic-tac-toe (or tit-for-tat IPD).

[NST===>Ok, but now we have a third metaphor that needs to be specified, “mechanical”.  What would be to say that a human is “ultimately mechanical” except to beg every question that we are asking here. <===nst] 

But in any given practical, real, game we might find in the world we know, there seems to be something loopy therein ... some kind of meta-game, i.e. the game that includes [re]defining the game on top of playing the game. And *that's* the candidate for 3rd order privacy: meta-games, supergames, or hypergames. It's important to distinguish between well-founded and non-well-founded meta-games. 

[NST===>A fourth metaphor creeping in, here: 

“game”. <===nst] 

But I wouldn't want to hinge the conception of this "holographic" principle on metaphysical choices of which axioms we should [not] include, even if it is tempting to distinguish Frank from EricC/Nick by their tendency to adopt one set of axioms over another. >8^D I think we can play meta-games regardless of whether our fundamental metaphysics is well-founded or not.

So, to sum up: Even *if* all valid questions about one's inside can be properly formed as questions about the surface, when the inside and the outside are allowed to *game* each other, we can meet even stronger privacy criteria.

[NST===>I am afraid by pointing to all the metaphors lurking here I will be understood as trolling (=?trawling), rather than, as I want to be understood, as highlighting some of the extraordinary richness of what Glen has written here. By the way, thanks to you all, I know the title of my next academic essay:  The Intensionality of Models. Hmmm.  Maybe I had better Google that, before I commit myself to it. 

In any case, I would greatly profit from being able to read a description of a archetypal hologram.  I want to know, as precisely as possible, what Glen’s private understanding of a hologram is.   <===nst] 

[†] By "criticism", I mean the type of playing along, steelmanning, empathetic listening, constructive criticism to which I've tried to allude ... not sophist nit-picking about jargonal definitions of words, or appeals to authority requiring one first get a PhD in Peirce or the old dead phenomenologists, or pointing out that this principle is blatantly ridiculous in the first place. Etc. If I wanted peer-review, I wouldn't be posting this to a mailing list.

--

☣ 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> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200526/89e8e61d/attachment.html>