[FRIAM] "I hope I'm wrong. But that text reads like it was generated by an LLM"

[steve smith]

well conjured "broom of the system" here... (ghost of DFW?)

On 1/28/25 3:08 AM, Santafe wrote:
> Yes, sorry...
>
>> On Jan 27, 2025, at 7:14 PM, Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 1:08 PM Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu> wrote:
>> But to suppose they _already_ contain everything there is to be understood is not a position I would take w.r.t. anything else we have anywhere in science.  They contain or represent whatever they do.  I don’t know how much that is, and what more it leaves to be found.  I would be amazed if it were “everything”, since nothing else in science ever has been before.
>>
>> I'm trying to follow the thread.  Was there a previous post you are addressing with "But to suppose they _already_ contain everything there is to be understood"
> Thread has got kind of broomy.  I was storing information holographically and responding to a few things among many.
>
> Main trigger was Nick’s post You guys freak me out… and somewhere later saying that the AI interlocutor “already is” human (or something to that effect; and why don’t you guys recognize it), to which Frank said Typical behaviorist and Nick said No Frank monist.
>
> I attached to that string with Searle’s argument against the position that the computational formalism “contains” whatever-all the common-language referents want attached to “consciousness”.
>
> Marcus replied that something about the way I said it could also be said of QM.
>
> And I replied to that, that this is a question of what one wants from the idea of a scientific law (of whatever kind).
>
> To which Marcus, playing tennis simultaneously on a couple of courts I think, only one of which was the one I was on, tried to ward off Cartesian dualism, to which my “_already_ contain…” reply was a protestation not from a dualist position but from a fallibilist one, and an argument against circular containment relations (that this is a case where I don’t bet it will work out that the big universe, containing as a tiny subset of it the small formalism, will find itself contained within the formalism as a faithful mapping).
>
>
> There was an interference of the above thread with Nick’s two threads on having GPT teach him thermodynamics (which would be a truly heroic accomplishment on Nick’s part, given the number of things it says that are either not-interpretable-as-sense, or that accommodate semantically ill-formed sentence constructions without calling them out and correcting them), and of the to-be-guessed writer F reducing everything to metaphor, seemingly choosing to not understand that the metaphor is a finger pointing at the moon.  That was the old argument against this particular monism.
>
> Roughly,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/
>