Great point! This is a good restatement of my objection to this: Beware explanations from AI in health care https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abg1834
And why I like the argument from (global) mimic modeling ... perhaps obviously, since I'm stuck in the simulation attractor. We need both the opaque, compressed thing and the "exploded diagram"-atic [sim|em]ulation of it in order for our whole enlightenment program to work. Explanations are the kind of thing EricS laments ... akin to an ecstatic Heaven. They're fideistic. A pragmatic approach is to see that both the opaque and the parseable are needed. On 10/8/21 8:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Let’s say one deconstructed a neural net with substitutions from a library of > functions (fit on the basis of input/output mappings), and that after a > series of substitutions and application of rewrite rules, there was no neural > net left. Further suppose the resulting recomposition was as readable as a > program by a good software engineer. If one can do this the dichotomy seems > artificial. However, I claim the neural net representation is not ideal for > reasoning about what the program will do without running it. It will be > obvious when generality arises from (in effect) a big case statement rather > than from a compact functional form in the code representation. > > >> On Oct 8, 2021, at 7:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I *think* I disagree. But I'm not sure. The distinction between: >> >> • in-the-moment, go-with-the-flow, compiled/parallel/chunked >> >> versus >> >> • articulated, delineated, de-compiled, serialized, persnickety, academic, >> rational >> >> processing isn't really a crushing of Zaphod Beeblebrox in light of the >> Total View. It's more like a mode change. It was only crushing to Zaphod >> because he was incapable of thinking of the larger whole of which he was >> only a small part. I don't know much about wu wei or the dao. But it always >> struck me that what I have understood is about that context switching ... >> the *navigation* across the frames, from Copernican to Ptolemaic and back >> ... from making tea simply because you need a kick to making tea as a >> religious experience ... and back. >> >> So there seem to be 2 different traditions. The "progressive" one, which >> only follows the one direction (from banal to enlightened). And the >> "pragmatic" one, which facilitates the navigation of the map, both forward >> and inverse. I think you're lamenting the former, which leads us into >> fantasy land. But the latter is almost a brute fact for anyone who >> experiences "Flow" of some kind, from running to magic mushrooms to getting >> caught up in seemingly endless algebra only to be yelled at by mom to take >> out the garbage. >> >> I often think there's a similarity between True Believers who think their >> model of some thing "makes so much sense". Like when I listen to Chiara >> Marletto talk about constuctor theory. I can't shake the feeling that she's >> similar to many Christians I've argued with. (Not the banal kind on the >> street. But the Jesuits I've met and some of the Protestant "biblical >> scholars" I've met.) It just feels too "progressive" ... pushing only toward >> the one-way, forward map, from banal to ecstasy. >> >> The objective isn't really apotheosis. It's the cycle. To both rise *and* >> fall, if not periodically, then at least sporadically. I feel like I'm >> discussing a philosophy of engineering, where you not only expect your >> constructs to collapse sometimes, you almost *want* it ... It's hard to >> describe how satisfying that smell of a burnt IC chip is, when you've bent >> that circuit beyond its capabilities. >> >> >> >>> On 10/8/21 2:26 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: >>> It’s an interesting assertion, Dave, and I understand that you are both >>> serious and informed in making it. >>> >>> I don’t know, and there is a thing I struggle with in responding to some of >>> this literature that straddles what I might call (making up a term on the >>> spot) the “Copernican threshold”. (Hat tip to Carl Woese’s “Darwinian >>> threshold”, though not meant to connect to it in any detail.) >>> >>> Your characterization of Arjuna’s dilemma in the note on wu wei was >>> probably the most helpful I have seen, in expressing what the writers >>> believed to be the point in a language that uses modern frames (together >>> with words like “factors” that I recognize are references to certain >>> Sanskrit terms of art). >>> >>> As I read it, though, language like “a perfect knowledge of all factors >>> affecting an action” rings to me as the kind of hyperbolic framing that >>> characterizes the era of epic literature. >>> >>> There seems to be a human habit of yearning for god that I would >>> characterize — and _every one_ of its adherents will say I am totally wrong >>> in this — as saying “no, you are not just one person in one body in one >>> lifetime with limits to what you can be and can have; actually you are the >>> whole universe, with unlimited power and knowledge and time and extent, and >>> your desires or wants are not really limited.” In short form: no, baby, >>> you didn’t have to grow up and realize that life has disappointments; you >>> can still be a creature of pure will and desire. (That last way of putting >>> it is trollish, and I understand that it totally leaves out the >>> considerable elaboration behind these literatures in terms of a dev-psych >>> gloss, so I don’t mean the trolling to be too categorical.) >>> >>> I imagine that the age of epic literature comes out of the indulgence of >>> this yearning. Everything is, quite literally, “bigger than life”. It >>> tries to have significance by exaggeration. So whether it is Mahabharata >>> and Ramayana, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Eddas, the Three Kingdoms romance >>> and Journey to the West, there are these big, bold-colored characters, >>> supernaturals, of the kind that we retain in comic books (and which I am >>> sure were inspired by epic literature). >>> >>> But somewhere, I think in Jane Smiley’s introduction to her volume of the >>> Icelandic Sagas, a thing is written that has had a very strong formative >>> effect on my understanding of things. It is: that the innovation we >>> associate with the Modern Novel was a letting-go of the heroic stance in >>> favor of the scope and scale of the literal-human experience. Smiley makes >>> this point because she says that the Sagas deserve to be recognized as >>> among the earliest precursors to the Modern Novel, well in advance of the >>> landmark works that are usually credited with stages in its establishment: >>> Quixote or some works by Kafka. >>> >>> That to me brings a ton of things into focus. It says that even cultures, >>> in their literary tastes, eventually get tired of the superlatives. They >>> realize that these bold-colored figures, which try for significance by >>> pushing boundaries of extremity, are ultimately somewhat boring, and that >>> there is much more interest to be found in literature that looks closely at >>> ordinary things. Like I once read that young people get all enamored of >>> the romantic composers, but they realize that those don’t hold up well to >>> repeated listening, and then they come back to Bach which seems to be >>> almost inexhaustible, even though and in part because it is such a >>> composition of measure and balance. >>> >>> Because I am the way I am, I then imprint it on all sorts of other things: >>> the transition from the epic to the modern novel seems to me the literary >>> peer to what happened in science in the various Copernican revolutions, >>> both the original one for planetary orbits, but also relativity with >>> respect to observational frames and the abandonment of the aether, and in >>> quantum mechanics with respect to the assumption that states are a kind of >>> thing fixed by observables. These have in common that each removes an >>> unconditioned privileged frame and replaces it with a situated one. And of >>> course Darwin for biology (with his various companions and antecedents). >>> We could talk about Nietzche’s concern that without god, people would sink >>> into nihilism, which I believe got picked up by the existentialists later. >>> >>> And of course, we could take the entire anthology of the agriculture people >>> like Aldo Leopold, Wendell Berry, and Wes Jackson, arguing that a >>> large-scale agriculture is a blunt instrument because it generates >>> homogeneous responses to heterogeneous problems. A part of that literature >>> argues that agriculture and culture are windows on the same phenomenon, >>> which rightly has a complexity not appreciated from the outside, because it >>> needs to adapt and solve problems in many dimensions that are particular to >>> each region. >>> >>> >>> So, sorry for that long preamble, which is not directly to your point, but >>> is a declaration of context on my side: >>> >>> I read the assertions about how humans should not learn that limits are a a >>> part of what is real and therefore something to be more clearly seen, but >>> rather see that limits are an illusion which can be transcended by various >>> occult (sense of hidden in shadow) revelations to awareness, and my whole >>> impulse is to read them as just an indulgence of the heroic frame from the >>> epic era, and a kind of rejection of Copernican transitions, or indeed of a >>> Copernican threshold. Attentiveness to Copernican transitions seems to me >>> like one of the resources achieved in the transition to modernity, because >>> it could be worked into a philosophy and culture of restraint that we badly >>> need. The very occultness of the heroic transitions, which is always their >>> first line of presentation (The Dao that can be told is not the Dao), >>> strikes me as placing the evaluation of whether they are just the >>> indulgence of the epic frame beyond any criteria for serious questioning. >>> If you are a devotee, you >>> will Know it is True, and if you aren’t, your criteria of knowledge don’t >>> matter anyway because they are all lost in illusion. It just all feels >>> like the religious frame for domination that I recoil from. >>> >>> It would be good to bring these questions into some kind of normal frame >>> for evaluation, because of course to be less bored, to have more options, >>> or just to see something really new, would be great. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On Oct 8, 2021, at 2:48 AM, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm >>>>> <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote: >>>> >>>> David Eric Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> /"I cannot juggle hundreds of variables, and produce a result that would >>>> fail _any_ test for randomness. I can conceive that maybe there are >>>> people smart enough to do that, but cannot imagine any-wise what it would >>>> feel like to be one of them."/ >>>> >>>> But . . . . every human being does exactly that, all the time, more or >>>> less effortlessly — certainly below the threshold of "conscious" >>>> awareness. Billions of variables, including certain cell receptors >>>> "detecting" and responding to quantum effects (like changes in spin >>>> induced by magnetic fields). >>>> >>>> Some Asian philosophies (Jnana Yoga, Tibetan Tantra) and most of the >>>> Alchemical literature can be read as efforts to "decompile" this ability, >>>> make it conscious, and apply it in "ordinary reality." >>>> >>>> davew >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, at 9:28 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: >>>>> Gilding the lily, since I don’t disagree with anything that has >>>>> specifically been said. >>>>> >>>>> I have felt like, somewhere between the deliberate distortion of Emerson >>>>> that reads “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds” >>>>> (Fun ref see >>>>> https://www.lawfareblog.com/foolish-consistency-hobgoblin-little-minds-metadata-stay >>>>> >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.lawfareblog.com%2ffoolish-consistency-hobgoblin-little-minds-metadata-stay&c=E,1,eDi2-qPUJiCHaxBuHu6hEtsX5zACULC0rSwdyjZWlqtz3g9dMx-Srjv0GOmSBli_E0wTCeTWHgyMkctCMC8qnJcRvftKmEVeHpB2eVddlwJ2NA,,&typo=1> >>>>> ) >>>>> and what Scott Aaronson might call “the blankfaces of consistency”, >>>>> there should be a sort of Herb Simon Watchmaker’s consistency. The >>>>> ability to check a form for consistency — even if I am alert that the >>>>> system within which I am checking might be subject to overruling or >>>>> revision — allows me to get past one thing and go to the next. To clip >>>>> together a sub-component of the watch and set it on the shelf, while >>>>> assembling other sub-components, or to take the sub-components and >>>>> assemble them relative to each other without having to constantly >>>>> actively maintain the innards of each. >>>>> >>>>> To somebody with my innate limitations, that seems among the most >>>>> valuable things in the world. >>>>> >>>>> DaveW wrote this fabulous paean to never calling anything done, some >>>>> months ago. I can’t resurrect the text, and on my best living day could >>>>> not compose its equal, but the gist was that sciences in which one >>>>> arrives at conclusions are the pastimes of trivial minds. Real Men do >>>>> anthropology, where nothing is ever closed. In a lovely rant on what a >>>>> day in the life of a Real Man is like, a sentence contained a clause I am >>>>> pretty sure I do have verbatim: “ . . . , juggling hundreds of variables, >>>>> . . . “. >>>>> >>>>> I cannot juggle hundreds of variables, and produce a result that would >>>>> fail _any_ test for randomness. I can conceive that maybe there are >>>>> people smart enough to do that, but cannot imagine any-wise what it would >>>>> feel like to be one of them. >>>>> >>>>> It seems it must be possible in this sense to cling to consistency like a >>>>> life-raft, yet not elevate it to aa religious icon. After all, life >>>>> rafts only keep you alive, and in the big sweep of things, that isn’t >>>>> _all_ that important. >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:56 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, I'm perfectly aligned with the freak among freaks sentiment, >>>>>> though I'd argue we *do* live in that world, we just deny it with our >>>>>> false beliefs. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it >>>>>> exists." >>>>>> >>>>>> But the more important part of the argument surrounds whether >>>>>> consistency, itself, is a matter of degree or kind. The analog world is >>>>>> full of graded [in]consistency. You see it a lot with artifacts >>>>>> resulting from welding, baking, brewing, etc. ... I even saw it often >>>>>> with the level 3 drafting at lockheed. Any inconsistencies resulting >>>>>> from our designs, the effete knowledge engineers, were *easily* overcome >>>>>> by the gritty on-the-ground engineers ... like smoothing out burrs or >>>>>> gluing together pieces that don't quite fit. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the special case of refined, crisply expressed propositions of >>>>>> digital computation, inconsistency finding becomes a (perhaps the) >>>>>> powerful tool. Debugging a serial program relies on it fundamentally. >>>>>> But it's softened a bit in parallel algorithms. Inconsistency is broken >>>>>> up into multiple, yet still crisp, types (race conditions, deadlocks, >>>>>> etc.). As approach "the real world" and move away from digital >>>>>> computation, it seems, to my ignorant eye, that [in]consistency softens >>>>>> more and more. Whether that softening takes the form of a countable set >>>>>> of types or something denser, I don't know. But it definitely takes on a >>>>>> different form. >>>>>> >>>>>> Discussions like Frank and EricS are having about the stability of a >>>>>> limit point (never mind the ontological status of that point) get at >>>>>> this nicely. If you change the frame entirely (e.g. move to >>>>>> position-momentum) and the "inconsistency" of the singularities *moves* >>>>>> (or disappears entirely), then a focus on consistency is not as powerful >>>>>> of a tool. The focus becomes one of which frame expresses the target >>>>>> domain "less inconsistently" ... aka with fewer exceptions to the rule. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I know I've completely abused the word and its normal meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/4/21 12:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>>> I agree with some of that. I mentioned the dependently typed >>>>>>> programming language as one technology to know when I am being >>>>>>> inconsistent. It doesn't mean I stop everything to resolve the >>>>>>> inconsistency, but I might point the headlights in some other direction >>>>>>> to avoid the inconsistency (breadth first search instead of depth >>>>>>> first). Inconsistency finding is a tool, and preferably a >>>>>>> semi-automated one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd rather have the option of being a depth first searcher and not >>>>>>> worry about shelter and food and health care. I'm not talented enough >>>>>>> to be among the small number of people that can survive (adequately) >>>>>>> doing that sort of thing. I think I wouldn't even like it in general, >>>>>>> even if I were. I don't like being the person that says something is >>>>>>> irrelevant because everything is irrelevant. I'd like to be a freak >>>>>>> among billions of freaks that all admire the accomplishments of other >>>>>>> freaks. This is not the world we live in, though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com >>>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:16 AM >>>>>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Newborn Heart Rate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. But academia is in serious trouble, not least exhibited by the rise >>>>>>> of populism and anti-intellectual distrust of those who might be >>>>>>> attracted to depth-first search. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another story: At the last salon, an entomologist asked me "Why do you >>>>>>> know so much philosophy?" My guess is he was actually trying to >>>>>>> politely criticize my incessant concept-dropping, referring to oblique >>>>>>> discussions that only occur amongst such depth-first people. The answer >>>>>>> is I don't know any philosophy. I'm the worst kind of tourist, >>>>>>> trampling endangered species while snapping selfies on my iPhone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the deeper answer is that we don't need the academy anymore. What >>>>>>> we need are social safety nets that facilitate the diverse exploration >>>>>>> of the information field splayed out before us. If an unemployed >>>>>>> snowboarder wants to do the work to propose a new theory of everything, >>>>>>> so be it. I'm willing to sacrifice some of my income to help that >>>>>>> happen, even if, or perhaps because it may eventually be found >>>>>>> contradictory to some other ToE somewhere. But a consistency hobgoblin >>>>>>> would nip that nonsense in the bud at the first hint of contradiction >>>>>>> ... like a blankface academic advisor in some Physics department at >>>>>>> some elitist institution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A focus on consistency is nothing more than subculture gatekeeping >>>>>>> <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gatekeeping >>>>>>> <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gatekeeping>>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/4/21 10:01 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>>>> In some depth first search one might find a sub-problem that was >>>>>>>> uncrackable. If it is one of 100 problems to solve, it is dumb to >>>>>>>> get hung-up on it, especially if it is of no practical significance. >>>>>>>> But it is a problem that will attract a certain kind of (autistic) >>>>>>>> academic attention as well. >>>>>>> -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
