[FRIAM] Newborn Heart Rate

Mon Oct 4 12:51:38 EDT 2021

In my opinion XOR is useful in mathematics but rarely in human affairs.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021, 10:14 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, yeah, I agree. But even that dichotomy isn't clean. Humans are
> computers, at least a large share of what those bodies do each moment is
> computation. And, I'd argue that computers are human, at least a large
> share of the programmed-in sensibilities we see in our applications orbit
> humanity/humanness. When dogs finally get around to designing computers,
> that may not be the case. But so far, it is. Or, i.e., we can infer quite a
> bit about the tool maker from the tool.
>
> It's that tendency to assume clean dichotomies, predicates, partitions,
> XOR, that's an artifact of consistency thinking. [ζ] Completeness thinking
> facilitates constructs like analog computing, even if only slightly.
> Consistency thinking tends to devolve into sophistry (both the good type
> like paradox and the bad type).
>
> I suppose this is why things like quantum woo are so attractive. Or even
> why it's so easy for middle aged fat men to preach all day about how best
> to play american football. It's all about where the tight focus butts up
> against the loose focus. For some reason, this evokes foam and high
> dimensional, irregular tessellation for me.
>
> [ζ] Which argues that attempts to isolate, reduce, essentialize what it is
> humans do that computers don't or vice versa is equivalently fraught ...
> like that discussion we had recently about whether (or how to make)
> computers feel. If nothing else, that isolation/essentialism/reductionism
> of "the hard problem" is, itself, the problem. Our myopia (aka focusable
> attention) is the problem. We spend lots of time tightening the focus down
> to things like coherent light, and too little time defocusing out to the
> universe as a whole.
>
> On 10/4/21 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > I don’t see it that way.  Consistency is work for computers and
> creativity is work for humans.  Want the best of both..
> >
> >> On Oct 4, 2021, at 8:11 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, here again, we seem to be dancing around the hegemony [ξ] of
> consistency. EricS brings in "coherence", which I like better. But I think
> it's the same concept. Monism, "not being self-contradictory", objective
> Bayesian priors, coherence, the ontological status of actual infinities,
> integrated personality, value alignment, partition/predicate crispness, XOR
> choices, etc. all target the same fundamental bogey:
> >>
> >>   inconsistency
> >>
> >> And that's fine. But it seems, to my biased eye, that we usually leave
> "completeness" to take care of itself ... as part of the negative space in
> the picture. The best definition I've seen of completeness is from a
> presentation by Greg Restall (paraphrasing): "If X models A completely,
> then we can derive A from X." I like this because it smells like
> reachability, "can we get there from here". When we harp too much on not
> being inconsistent, we end up in some sort of word game ... like some wak
> logicbro trying to pwn the libs. But when we talk about completeness, we
> talk about what is *sayable* in our language ... It's less about what we
> can't say and more about what we can say.
> >>
> >> That makes consistency the spastic little sibling of completeness. Yes,
> mom told me I have to take it along with me on the bike ride. But everyone
> hates it because it never shuts up and always says stupid stuff.
> >>
> >> [ξ] I wanted to use a new phrase, "linguistic salience bias", in place
> of "hegemony". But my epistemic status for the use of that phrase is 50%.
> Hegemony has a nice political tone, too. I kinda like dominance or tyranny.
> Maybe I should have gone with "gravity well" to indicate that consistency
> is a kind of least common denominator ... the type of thing people like
> grammar nazis and logicbros focus on. But I'd rather highlight the more
> accurate state of affairs, which is that those who study expressibility are
> underclass citizens compared to those who study correctness. Sure, when the
> expressors finally "make it" (such that nobody can deny their impact ---
> think Tom Waits, not Elon Musk), we all gather round and use them as an
> excuse to party. But we never go back and knead the tortuous pipeline of
> consistency they *survived* to get there.
> >>
> >>> On 10/3/21 9:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> >>> A compiler for a programming language with an advanced type system can
> essentially reject loose talk, but also give powerful tools for
> >>> automated reasoning about consistency.   Getting past this merciless
> editor gives one confidence, or even a certification, that one is not being
> self-contradictory.
> >>
> >>> On 10/3/21 2:43 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> >>> ... and when they got comfortable that they had a constructive
> language whose propositions would carry some weight and not break into
> inconsistencies, they stopped protesting against taking limits.  So one
> could dig back into all that laborious history, which
> >>> ... Then we can go round and round about the axiom of choice and so
> forth, versus Voevodsky and univalent foundations, or Brouwer and
> intuitionism.  There were a few turns of that wheel of samsara here a few
> months ago, but I think people ran out of things to comment on and drifted
> away.
> >>>
> >>> ... and still be coherent.
> >>>
> >>> ... there is no “objective Bayesianism”.  ... then chooses however one
> will.  The point is not to ask God to save you from making a choice.  The
> point is to acknowledge and embrace that you will make a choice, and then
> accept that all the consequences of it are yours as well.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
> >> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
> >>
> >>
> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .-
> - .
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> >> archives:
> >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> >
> > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- -
> .
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> > archives:
> >  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> >  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> >
>
> --
> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211004/67970f9a/attachment.html>