Very nice! Had you prefaced the link to the paper with that, I would have better understand *why* it might be a good idea to read it. I also failed to infer the challenge to ... non-materialist? ... interpretations of phenomena generated by CAs. Your text was too obtuse for me. I can defend at least one non-materialist interpretation of emergence for that context. But I suspect my defense would simply lead you to another objection that hasn't yet been delineated clearly enough, because it relies on the immaterial nature of what we've come to call "digital" computing. This has professional as well as personal consequences. I've recently had to grapple with using the word "virtual" as a descriptor for the simulations I build. When we talk about "virtual reality", are we being materialist? I honestly don't know.
A better example to work with than CAs implemented on a general purpose [†] computer would be something implemented by an analog computer. (Hillis' tinkertoy computer, maybe? ... or Turing's patterns on a seashell? ... I don't know.) Maybe your alphabet soup is such a thing? Although I (obviously?) agree on the value of this list and the people who post to it, I do find myself unsatisfied with how often we let things fade away without developing them further [‡], something similar to what you've expressed in your posts about other formats, assembling chains of posts, etc. Thanks for explaining why you direct the posts at particular people. I think it has unforeseen (negative) consequences that outweigh your intended consequences. But at least I can understand the motivation, now. [†] Both the general purpose and the digital qualifiers are important, here. Jon's comments re: "Magic The Gathering" and "Mine Craft" and sensing the world are relevant. [‡] I openly blame my own laziness, of course. I still intend to read both the Bokov paper Eric posted, the Bernian paper Marcus posted, and the Rives paper Roger posted. Now I suppose I have to read yours as well. I should just quit my job and read full time. Renee' makes enough money to support us, I think. 8^) On 5/1/19 11:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I direct my posts at who ever made me think about something. I think I am > following up on a question you asked, roughly, why are we talking about > consciousness when basic facts of biology pose all the interesting problems > and we know a lot more about them? My basic New Thought (new to me, I mean) > was, why talk about biology when we can talk about computer programming, > given the wonders that simple algorithms (eg, cellular automata) can > generate. I wondered how any computer programmer could have doubts about > materialism: i.e., doubts about how emergent properties (such as > consciousness) could be generated from higher and higher levels of material > relations. The Alphabet Soup Letter I sent you shows how the complexities of > the genome could readily arise from material relations. > > You basic point is however correct. I think many of us who write here are > trying to work out some ideas and we use the posts of others as the occasions > for those developments. Threading might not be as ... um ... tight as should > be. But I find that looseness actually exciting -- people here are trying > to figure stuff out. FRIAM has been a tremendous help to me in that regard. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
