Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting. But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.
To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why* they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever, Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red, then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made their decision, then my judgment is negative. Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic. Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more understandable. I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively, I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse* to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to "what I thought at the time". To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished. The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life. It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^) On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what" and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument. My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument: The utility of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of one or more fixed domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?) relationship formulized by GmM/r^2. This "utility landscape" IS the fitness landscape for evolution. Obviously there must be "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g. eclipses). I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes how I live my everyday life for the most part. I am *literally* trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly?
============================================================ 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
