[FRIAM] At the limits of thought

Mon Apr 27 12:34:07 EDT 2020

To take every possible utterance of the know and it's conjugations as
evidence for what it means seems weak to me.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, 9:49 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> At the risk of doing a very shallow dive into your deep pool, here:
>
> I tried to do some careful thinking some months back about the concept of
> "knowledge" and came to the conclusion that it's traditional philosophical
> definition -- justified true belief -- is absurd.  Now, I just think of
> knowledge is just "strong belief."  "I could have sworn that I left my
> wallet on the dining room table."  I KNEW where it was.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:21 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] At the limits of thought
>
> Glen,
>
> I waited a long time in hopes that others would comment and pursue the
> issues being raised here. The subject matter is near and dear to my heart
> as well as current explorations.
>
> The first article prompted the following:
>
> We speak of "knowing" in different ways:
> 1- I know that 2+2=4.
> 2-I know that the sun will rise later this morning. (It is still quite
> dark outside as I write this.) 3-I know what kind of clothing I should wear
> on "Casual Friday."
> 4-I know how to move to intercept and catch a high fly ball.
> 5-I know that there is a God.
>
> Are there multiple modes of "knowledge acquisition" behind these
> statements? I believe that there are. Among them: the formalist/algorithmic
> mode that underlies most of science (following the lead of the first paper
> you cited); another the "story absorption" mode by which you acquired all
> your knowledge of the culture(s) within which you operate and how to
> conform your behavior to cultural norms; and the kind of "direct
> perception" of the mystic.
>
> My reaction to the understanding versus algorithm paper tended to ignore
> the binary choice presented by the authors, but to interpret the issue
> raised in the paper in terms of — there are multiple modes of knowledge
> acquisition but, since the Age of Reason, we have neglected our
> understanding of all but the "scientific" mode and, as we reach the limits
> of that mode, we are left adrift in a sea of incomprehension because we
> have neglected the modes of though that might have led to comprehension and
> understanding.
>
> The Master and His Emissary, by Iain McGilchrist argues, I believe, a
> parallel point.
>
> The second article argues, "context matters." This supports long held
> beliefs; beliefs that underpin my criticism of software engineering (the
> context of the domain is irrelevant as long as you have  set of complete,
> unambiguous, and consistent requirements) and AI (one kind of context is
> embodiment and an AI lacks such context). I do not mean embodiment in a
> human body, but embodiment in the world.
>
> I hope that others will take up this discussion.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, at 3:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > I suppose it's delusional synergy that I saw Krakauer's essay the same
> > (sleepless) morning I saw this:
> >
> >   Experience Grounds Language
> >   https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10151
> >
> > And since all the news all the time is about the parasite, I can't
> > help but think Krakauer's wrong in the main thread that understanding
> > and prediction are distinct. In Bisk et al above, the current machine
> > learning algorithms are parasitic. Their predictions are akin to state
> > space reconstruction algorithms that posit some deep structure that's
> > expressive enough to mimic our linguistic output, but that's very
> > different from our (internal) state machines. (And to be clear, our
> > internal state machines are just as opaque as those of the machines.
> > That we think our state machines are "understanding" whereas the
> > machines' state machines are opaque, however predictive, is illusory
> > ... or perhaps anthropocentric.) And although I'd claim the machines,
> > like SARS-CoV-2, *understand*, it's *what* they understand that
> > differs, not *that* they don't understand.
> >
> > The machines' algorithms are parasitic because they depend deeply on
> > our state machines' output (WS1 and WS2 in the Bisk paper). But as the
> > machines' scopes grow (from disembodied binaries pushed by hardware
> > clocks to fully parallel, sensorimotor manifolds in real or virtual
> > space and time), the machines' understanding will be less opaque
> > because it will be less parasitic and more autonomous ... in the same
> > way we go "Awwww" when one of Karl Sims' virtual creatures walks
> > across the virtual landscape.  They'll still be as opaque as, say,
> > Nick's mind is to mine ... which is pretty damned opaque. But it'll be
> > much easier for us to "see where they're coming from" because they,
> > like us, will have grown up poking around in the world.
> >
> > On 4/22/20 8:01 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > >
> > > https://aeon.co/essays/will-brains-or-algorithms-rule-the-kingdom-of
> > > -science
> > >
> >
> > --
> > ☣ uǝlƃ
> >
> > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
> > ... .... . ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn
> > GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> >
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200427/9fbb5c82/attachment.html>