[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[∄ uǝʃƃ]

W.r.t. Indra's Net, I can understand Hofstadter's description in Gödel, Escher, Bach only because he asserts Indra's Net can be modeled with "augmented transition networks" (ATNs).  ATNs have some of the properties we've talked about on the list (e.g. in the context of Rosen) like reflectivity - one node "modeling" another node, modeling the original node, etc. - and closures - the network being invoked fully parameterized with all variables bound so that action is always possible.

Having said that, my purpose was to try to repeat back to you what I heard, albeit in fewer words and my own words.  Obviously I didn't do that for (at least) leaving out at least this percolation and bounce-back waviness aspect Hofstadter mentions (and that might map to your rights/responsibilities unification).  So, rather than putting too much weight on my words "networked" and "extensive", I can change the model from an abstract graph to, say, a set of balls with springs between them.  So the movement of any ball could (potentially) make another ball wobble anywhere in the net and you could have waves and deformations of any "lattice-like" complexity.

But even that metaphor fails because, in my rendition I infer from you, the edges/springs are manifold.  So, any notion of locality, a node and it's 1-hop neighbors is no more "real" or a higher priority than, say, a node and another one 1000 hops away.  I imagine a *set* of different graphs with different types of springs connecting different types of nodes and sub-graphs.

And this moves on to Marcus' comment.  Indra's Net is inadequate for a well-formed *model*.  There's something (vague) about it that won't submit to approximation.  Perhaps this is where Rosen can be invoked in his "no largest model" conception of complexity.  But everything we do as unenlightened *individuals* is make models of the world.  As Walt Whitman might inject, we can create many models, some of which contradict others.  Our beaten horse can be quantum mechanics and gravity, both are accurate, yet contradict one another.

So, something *like* Indra's Net, yet more well-formed is required if we're going to handle cases like private information (governments or perfect encryption), the heterarchical gooey colloid of physiochemically driven thinking meat (e.g. humans), etc.

So, how am I doing?  Does this new description *still* seem orthogonal or contradictory to what you're saying?


On 1/12/19 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Some counter examples:
> 
> 1) You do not have the potential to fully informed.  The governments of China or Iran would never give you access to their classified data, for example.   Heck, the US government probably wouldn't either with all your discussion of psychedelics and what not!
> 
> 2) You cannot assert autonomy.   You are a part of a physical, economic, and social fabric that is largely out of your control.
> Further, you are a biological system that follows the laws of physics.   What you are at t+1 comes from what you were at time t and you are entangled in everything, much of which is outside of the membrane that can be called `you'.  
> 
> 3) There does not exist the technology yet to change your own DNA (in predictable and reliable ways) or to direct edit neural constructs, or to extend neural constructs with open-ended compute resources.   Even if you were fully informed you couldn't do anything with much of the information you would have access to, because it is just to complicated to understand or to use for predictions.    Even if this were possible, the agents with the most compute and the best models will win and that too will be a historical accident.
> 
> In summary, your life means nothing and neither does mine.
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Marcus
> 
> On 1/12/19, 2:28 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West" <friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>     "Responsible Action" is one that is fully informed, that takes into account all available input; which in the case of a gem in Indra's Net, means the entire universe. Only possible for those who are enlightened.
>     
>     When I state that I am an individual, I am asserting a degree of autonomy along with an obligation to act responsibly. To act responsibly each action must be conscious, deliberative, and fully informed. As a 'gem' in Indra's Net, I have the potential to be absolutely informed and my humanity is determined by the extent to which I avail myself of that potential.
>     
>     The possibility of and the means of achieving things like group structures, cultures, social compacts, governments, etc. from a presumption of individualism as depicted above it an entirely different realm to explore.
>     
>     All of the above feels at least orthogonal to, if not contradictory, of  your graph explanation. But please explain why  and how I might be wrong.


-- 
∄ uǝʃƃ