[FRIAM] 6 to 1, 12/2 to the other

[steve smith]

glen wrote:

> Yeah, there is a distinction between structures that obtain from 
> anastomosis (that are now in/near some steady state) and 
> anastomosing/anastomizing, the process by which the structures are 
> formed. Maybe one could say that Jon's observation is about 
> post-anastomizing anastomotic code as opposed to anastomizing "code". 
> But code is data and data is code. Anastomizing code would have to be 
> anastomizing some other structure (e.g. copyleft stuff puncturing 
> intellectual property norms). But what anastomizes code is the code 
> creator/extruder, including prcesses like humans, [semi]automated 
> things like LLMs, genetic programming algorithms, or especially 
> hackers attempting to exploit the weak points.
>
> Unfortunately, the word "anastomotic" can refer to either structure 
> that obtains or the process by which it's obtained. Stupid English.

I once studied Latin, Greek, and Esperanto (alongside the myriad 
goofball CS languages of the time) imagining that somehow one or another 
would be more better for unambiguous speech.  On one hand, it made it 
easier for me to connotize (verbize that noun!) more English words with 
various etymologies. On the other it also made me more sensitive to the 
nuances which have me using compounded/superposed/aggregate words and 
mal-understanding words other have a common use for which I then 
hairsplit into oblivion.

Or maybe my skills are more like those which drove Yogi Berra's 
malapropisms... who knows?

Every day I am more and more aligned ("think I believe that what I 
heard") with "what I think you said" about not believing in 
communication (or somesuch)?

In CS/information theory /marshalling/ and /serializing/ and 
/de-serializing/ are all great "engineering" ideas which have utility 
but perhaps they only create the illusion (maybe also strongly typed 
languages and closure and ... ?) that what we are saying/parsing is what 
is meant and it is unambiguous and all context is carried.   These tools 
might help with more casual verification, but I'm not sure they are the 
magic bullets they are often sold as?

This is one of the "beautiful" takeaways of Michael Levin's work (IMO), 
that no matter how necessary and even elegant shite like DNA might be, 
it is not *even* close to sufficient?

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20241101/cd8feba3/attachment.html>