<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">I think
it's reasonable. But I also think it leans wrong, depending on
what you mean by "several conversations", "algorithmic", and
"noise".
<br>
</blockquote>
<tangent>I particularly like your use of the idiom "lean's
wrong" which triggers for me <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56824/tell-all-the-truth-but-tell-it-slant-1263">
"Tell all the Truth but Tell it Slant" - Emily Dickenson</a>
</tangent><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">
<br>
Marcus' suggestion that there's an irreducible limit somewhere
below whatever SnR threshold is recognized is only a *bottom*. The
distance between the recognized threshold and the incompressible
kernel of noise is non-zero, almost by definition. </blockquote>
Seems a bit like Absolute Zero Kelvin? Theoretically meaningful
but in some sense never achievable in any observational context?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">And
Frank's suggestion that there are established methods to tease
more signal from that non-zero band, indicates he sees it as well.
Hearken back to my and SteveS' discussion of interstitial spaces
being dual to the entity-objects they house and you could see us
agreeing with you, there, too.</blockquote>
I remember some of those discussions and appreciate that you
reference them here (ER-Graph duals as a rough formalism thereof?)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com"> Jon and
SteveG's discussions of duality tend to be less prosaic, but
nonetheless a bit mystical.</blockquote>
These must be (mostly) convos on vFriam to which I am (willfully)
not privy to? I have elaborate experience with SteveG's daul
(field-mostly) ideas, though I'm always open for more. I'm not
sure I've enjoyed the same from JonZ yet... but look forward to
it. It would not surprise me, esp. in the context for example, of
the game of Go... a sort of particle-field duality... <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">
Contra-pose the back and forth of Nick and EricC's constant
assertion of behaviorism, Frank's objection, yet the subtle
differences and challenges between them, and it should be clear
there's a non-zero band between recognized noise and the
incompressible limit. </blockquote>
Referencing back to the earlier "irreducaeble" I think there is
something fundamental (about "reality" or any given finite
"consciousnesses" abilty to apprehend it) in these questions which I
hope get more (meta) insight on in this and other threads here (or
my own independent pursuits of the topics).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">Jochen
posts more questions than answers. Even EricS' conversations with
Jon about the expressive power of hypergraphs shows an impetus to
circumscribe what's computable and what's not. I mentioned a
Wolpert paper awhile back, wherein he gives some air to
hypercomputation, to which nobody on the list responded. And
you've even defended brute force computation by highlighting the
progress and efficacy of techniques like Monte-Carlo simulation.
<br>
</blockquote>
I remember your reference and waded as deeply into it as I could
before my cerebro-spinal fluid got saturated with lactic acid (or
depleted of ketones?) and remember hoping/trusting that someone with
fresher fluid (or more of it) would pick up the discussion and help
me take a go at it with more parallax or maybe only once-rested.
I'm not clear on how/if you mean that EricS/JonZ's "expressive power
of hypergraphs" relates directly to Wolpert's cogitations on
"hypercomputation"? I *do* connect hypergraph thinking to Simon's
"nearly decomposable" systems and think if there might be a specific
link between the two hypers (graph/computation) it might be in the
definition (and relevance) of "nearly"? This refers back to the
"nearly random" or "nearly noise" or "mostly noise" or "irreduceable
limit" to noise.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">I'm sure
there are other arguments I've missed. </blockquote>
This was a very useful review/summary for me in any case. I hope
this stimulates a "folding" of some of the existing threads
("noodles"... nod ot Nick).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">Perhaps
you're doing a bit of "othering" in thinking your focus on the
noise is unique?</blockquote>
I personally find the foreground/background "dual" of any topic
interesting to "necker" in my mind. I admit that I do often
(myself, though I assume you were addressing DaveW here?) "other"
folks or discussions which don't seem to allow for the
graph-dual/necker-cube-dual/fore-background-dual way of
contemplating a problem/question/conundrum. This may just be an
extremum of my preference/proclivity for breadth-v-depth.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com"> But
perhaps, given that we're 99% male and *old*, there's a tendency
for most of us to pretend to know more than we know? ... to
inflate the epistemic status of our pet hypotheses? </blockquote>
<p>In the spirit of foreground/background, I think I have to
acknowledge without prejudice that in our society (especially the
subculture of sci/tech professionals) male and old do correlate
with high-epistimic-status. But conversely, I have to wonder if
the correlation isn't *through* something more/less than gender
and years-on-earth. Science and Technology have experienced a
privileged position in our larger culture for their *predictive*
and *causative* strengths... "age" of course correlates well
with "experience" though it can also be mitigated by
old-dog/new-trick paradoxes, ossified values/models, and
degenerative cognition.</p>
<p>As an aside (or a precursor) I do remember when being young-male
it was indicated/rewarded/offered-traction to "act as if" or
"pretend ot know more than I knew"... as a youth it was not only
allowed but encouraged to float my own strawmen understandings as
a way to have my friends, colleagues, mentors help me polish those
turds into something more like your "steelman" understandings.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">Humility
is punished in most contexts, despite the lip service we pay to
it.
<br>
</blockquote>
Yeh, like that, and Hubris rewarded. Again, the brashness of youth
(and male gender?) enhances that... and perhaps
(segue/tangent/aside) this is what has 30+% of our population
continuing to forgive (nay encourage) the likes of DJT and the new
"Repubicans" (RITOIs - Republicans In Trump's Own Image?) whose only
"positive" features are narccisism and hubris to the extreme?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">
What I see is a persistent inability to play the games set up by
others ... an insistence that others always play our own game.
When others don't play the game proposed by someone, that someone
takes their marbles and leaves.</blockquote>
I've spent my life trying to play other's games and while I *have*
taken my marbles (the ones I still had intact) and left for other
playgrounds (not so much "home" as such)... I don't know that there
is *any other game* than the Infinite Game (ala James Carse) of the
meta-game, negotiating what damn game we are playing at? I think
this is the point of Your and Marcus discussion (of late) about
auto-generation of journal publications, etc. it feels to some of
us that the introduction of a new player in the meta-game (what is a
legitimate journal/paper/author?) muddies the playing field until
baseball becomes survival in the tarpits?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com"> The
voyeuristic lurkers may enjoy watching different games, but won't
play. Some may be frustrated that some games have no clear rules
by which to "win" (i.e. come to a Peircian convergence, a belief
in Modernist true Truth). Etc.
<br>
</blockquote>
As a lurker myself (despite my prolific typing here) I will admit to
both of those sketches... I sometimes simply "won't play" because
I'm over my head, I don't feel like (despite my low-threshold for
blathering on here) I have anything to add/offer... that any
comment/observation/retort I might offer would be below some
signal/noise threshold. Other times, I'm witholding
statements/observations/thoughts (i.e. Wolpert) hoping that someone
more erudite or engaged in the topic than I will elaborate (EricS
and RogerC are two examples of folks I 'bate my breath waiting for
their engagements on various topics, thinking I they will provide
useful floculance to the discussion).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">
<br>
IDK. Here's a paper coming up quick in my queue that may help
demonstrate you're not alone:
<br>
<br>
The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A
Review
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thothermes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Cardena.pdf">https://thothermes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Cardena.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
And I mentioned a long while back Broderick and Goertzel's similar
effort:
<br>
<br>
Evidence for Psi: Thirteen Empirical Research Reports
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bookshop.org/books/evidence-for-psi-thirteen-empirical-research-reports/9780786478286">https://bookshop.org/books/evidence-for-psi-thirteen-empirical-research-reports/9780786478286</a>
<br>
<br>
which, again, got no response on the list. </blockquote>
Which seem parallel to the myriad cryptozoological and UFO "serious
science".... I am *mostly* exposed to the marginal/pseudoscientific
bits, and sometimes note (to myself) that the best way to cover
*real* conspiracies is to gen up a lot of flak unserious bits to
displace the serious.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">No
response or hostile response doesn't mean you're unique in your
perception or perspective. It can mean many things. The only thing
we *might* control is our own attitude. We can choose to see
ourselves in those around us. Or we can other those around us and
think we're alone. I try to choose the former.
<br>
</blockquote>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545908/world-as-lover-world-as-self-30th-anniversary-edition-by-joanna-macy/">World
as Lover, World as Self </a>(World as Battleground, World as
Trap) - Joanna Macy<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:63021f90-fd06-e026-cfce-9d71792f4924@gmail.com">
<br>
<br>
On 9/8/22 16:12, Prof David West wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It seems, to me, that several
conversations here—AI, hallucinogens, consciousness, participant
observation, and epistemology—have a common aspect: a body of
"data" and disagreement over which subset should be attended to
(Signal) and that which is irrelevant (Noise).
<br>
<br>
Arguments for sorting/categorization would include: lack of a
Peircian convergence/consensus; inability to propose proper
experiments; anecdotal versus systematic collection; an absolute
conviction that everything is algorithmic and, even if the
algorithm has yet to be discerned, it, ultimately, must be;
etc..
<br>
<br>
I often feel as if my positions on these various topics reduces,
in some sense, to a conviction that there is overlooked Signal
in everyone else's Noise; even to the point of believing the
Noise IS the Signal.
<br>
<br>
Is this in any way a "fair' or "reasonable" analysis?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>