[FRIAM] naive question

Thu Oct 20 23:39:57 EDT 2022

Yes

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 9:11 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Frank,
>
>
>
> Before I attempt an answer, can we set aside all the AI complexity and
> simply consider this question as equivalent to saying you have the
> combination of your gun safe in your mind and also on a piece of paper in
> your safety deposit box and also in an encrypted file on your computer?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2022 6:19 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] naive question
>
>
>
> Back in the 80s I wrote many Unix shell scripts.  For my purposes they ran
> identically on various workstations whether Sun, SG, or, eventually, Vax
> (running Unix).  The software existed in my mind/brain, in files in the
> various filesystems, or on paper listings.  What's wrong with my thinking?
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 3:52 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't speak for anyone else. I'm a simulationist. Everything I do is in
> terms of analogy [⛧]. But there is no such thing as a fully transparent
> or opaque box. And there is no such thing as "software". All processes are
> executed by some material mechanism. So if by "computational metaphor", you
> mean the tossing out of the differences between any 2 machines executing
> the same code, then I'm right there with you in rejecting it. No 2 machines
> can execute the same (identical) code. But if you define an analogy well,
> then you can replace one machine with another machine, up to some
> similarity criterion. Equivalence is defined by that similarity criterion.
> By your use of the qualifier "merely" in "merely the equivalent", I infer
> you think there's something *other* than equivalence, something other than
> simulation. I reject that. It's all equivalence, just some tighter and some
> looser.
>
> [⛧] Everyone's welcome to replace "analogy" with "metaphor" if they so
> choose. But, to me, "metaphor" tends to wipe away or purposefully ignore
> the pragmatics involved in distinguishing any 2 members of an equivalence
> class. The literary concept of "metaphor" has it right. It's a rhetorical,
> manipulative trick to help us ignore actual difference, whereas "analogy"
> helps us remember and account for differences and similarities. "Metaphor"
> is an evil word, a crucial tool in the toolkit for manipulators and
> gaslighters.
>
>
> On 10/20/22 13:27, Prof David West wrote:
> >
> > Marcus and glen (and others on occasion) have posted frequently on the
> "algorithmic "equivalent" of [some feature] of consciousness, human
> emotion, etc.
> >
> > I am always confronted with the question of of "how equivalent?" I am
> almost certain that they are not saying anything close to absolute
> equivalence - i.e., that the brain/mind is executing the same algorithm
> albeit in, perhaps, a different programming language. But, are their
> assertions meant to be "analogous to," "a metaphor for," or some other
> semi/pseudo equivalence?
> >
> > Perhaps all that is being said is we have two black boxes into which we
> put the same inputs and arrive at the same outputs. Voila! We expose the
> contents of one black box, an algorithm executing on silicon. From that we
> conclude it does not matter what is happening inside the other black
> box—whatever it is, our, now, white box is an 'equivalent'.
> >
> > Put another way: If I have two objects, A and B, each with an
> (ir)regular edge. in this case the irregular edge of A is an inverse match
> to that of B—when put together there are no gaps between the two edges.
> They "fit."
> >
> > Assume that A and B have some means to detect if they "fit" together. I
> can think of algorithms that could determine fit, a simplistic iteration
> across all points to see if there was a gap between it and its neighbor, to
> some kind of collision detection.
> >
> > Is it the case that whatever means used by A and B to detect fit, it is
> _*/merely/*_ the equivalent of such an algorithm?
> >
> > The roots of this question go back to my first two published papers, in
> _AI Magazine_ (then the 'journal of record' for AI research); one critical
> of the computational metaphor, the second a set of alternative metaphors of
> mind. An excerpt relevant to the above example of fit.
> >
> > /Tactilizing Processor
> > /
> > /Conrad draws his inspiration from the ability of an enzyme to combine
> with a substrate on the  basis  of  the  physical  congruency  of  their
> respective shapes (topography). This is a generalized  version  of  the
> lock-and-key  mechanism  as  the  hormone-receptor  matching discussed by
> Bergland. When the topographic shape  of  an  enzyme  (hormone)  matches
> that of  a  substrate  (receptor),  a  simple  recognize- by-touch
> mechanism  (like  two  pieces  of  a puzzle  fitting  together)  allows  a
> simple  decision,  binary  state  change,  or  process  to  take place,
> hence the label “tactilizing processor.”/
> >
> > Hormones and enzymes, probably/possibly, lack the ability to compute
> (execute algorithms), so, at most, the black box equivalence might be used
> here.
> >
> > [BTW, tactilizing processors were built, but were extremely slow (speed
> of chemical reactions) but had some advantages derived from parallelism.
> Similar 'shape matching' computation was explored in DNA computing as well.]
> >
> > My interest in the issue is the (naive) question about how our
> understanding of mind/consciousness is fatally impeded by putting all our
> research eggs into the simplistic 'algorithm box'?
> >
> > It seems to me that we have the CS/AI/ML equivalent of the quantum
> physics world where everyone is told to "shut up and compute" instead of
> actually trying to understand the domain and the theory.
> >
> > davew
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/20221020/b7f91685/attachment.html>