[FRIAM] Optimizing for maximal serendipity or how Alan Turing misdirected ALife

[Jon Zingale]

In another post, Glen mentions an application of the parallelism theorem to
2nd
order privacy. I wish here to express caution wrt application of this
theorem to
questions of consciousness, private or otherwise. Because conscious
experience
(say in the sense of Tononi) may in fact be or contain fully-integrated and
irreducible complexes, parallel-experience should be handled as a
potentially
very different thing than its serial cousin.

In some ways, what gives material life a foot up on simulated life is a
sense
of *maximal serendipity*. To a large extent, I feel that this is the central
argument of analog-high-fidelity loving nerds. There is a recognition that
functions (plural) may in-fact follow from form. In those fiery digital vs.
analog
debates, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that transistors are by their
very
nature, *analog devices*. They are chunks of matter influenced by the world
at
large. The function space for how such matter is influenced is likely non-
enumerable, much less what can be done with such influence. The imposition
that a transistor *behaves* digitally is an imposition demanding that the
device
act as a unit for symbolic manipulation, to act within clearly delimited
bounds.

Consider, by analogy, the tails of aquatic mammals. Before they were tails,
these appendages were evolved for walking. Later, they would be improved
upon
for swimming. Nature appears to work with what is readily at hand, and the
space
of possible functions is not likely to be concretely specifiable. To my
mind,
this is where the hypnotizing concept of a Turing test led the program to
develop
artificial life, astray. Here we set up a useless paradox. We demand that
whatever
system we design *forcibly* participate in our investigation. We demand
that it
*behave* like a good and servile device, and then we complain that we have
failed.
Perhaps, my chair is conscious in-part because it, like the sadists, says
no. I am not
necessarily committed to this position about my chair, but I do think it
points
to the self-defeating nature of Turing tests. In another post, Merle
emphasizes
the importance of identifying transdisciplinary research. In particular, she
mentions its connection to the *adjacent possible*. Whatever will one day
be called
ALife, will only be interesting if it is capable of exploring such a domain.
In an effort to contribute to this program, I advocate for taking seriously
ideas
like embodiment and potential for serendipity. Given consciousness, the
question
of *How do we know? *maybe the least interesting path of investigation.

I suspect that I am preaching to the pulpit, but I thought it fruitful to
write
down these ideas. Thank you for the space to do so.

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200527/5e6a07e9/attachment.html>