Sorry, I probably glossed over something. How is the "mental" any different from a computer program or a set of neural net edge weights generalized to different (analog) architectures.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:26 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nick's Categories Excellent! I appreciate your clarification as to why it might be useful to explore. I will do so. I'm still a bit confused as to why you mentioned it in the context of me claiming that "the bot" (e.g. ChatGPT) has a body. Or the context of claiming some forms of panpsychism are monist. Maybe I'll figure out why Deacon's relevant to one or both of those comments as I read through Rączaszek‑Leonardi's essay. Thanks. On 2/21/23 09:13, Steve Smith wrote: > Glen - > > Attempting a balance between succinctness and > completeness/contextualization/relevance I offer the following excerpt from > Rączaszek‑Leonardi's essay about 3 pages into the 7-page work: > > /One important implication of the proposed scenario for the > emergence of autogen is that in the process of transferring a complex > set of constraints from substrate to substrate, the “message”, never > becomes an abstract and immaterial “thing” – or a set of abstract > symbols, which seem to be a staple substance of mind in a dualistic > Cartesian picture. On the contrary: the process can be viewed, in some > sense, as an opposition to what is usually meant by abstraction: it > embodies, in a concrete physi- cal structure, the complex dynamical > and relational constraints that maintain an organism far from > thermodynamic equilibrium. / > > This quotation is my attempt to acknowledge/identify a possible resolution > (or at least explication) of the tension between the duals of the Cartesian > Duality we bandy about here. > > Another correspondent offline offered the correlation between Deacon's > homeo/morpho/teleo-dynamics and Kauffman's reflections on living systems in > his 2000 Investigations: > > - detect gradients > - construct constraints to extract work from gradients > - do work to maintain those constraints > > may be relevant (or interesting or both). > > On 2/21/23 8:23 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> Glen - >> >> FWIW, I'm still chewing on your assertions of 5 months ago which referenced >> Christian List's "Levels" <http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21103/> and the >> points he made (and you reinforced) on Indexicality and first/third person >> descriptions *because* they tie in to my own twisty turny journey of trying >> to understand the paradoxes of mind/body substance/form duality >> (illusions?). >> >> To give a nod to the Ninja's website (or more to the point, your reference >> to it and comparison to teleodynamics.org) I assume your criticism is that >> the website(s) is more rhetorical than informational? >> >> The relevance of Deacon's Teleodynamics in my thinking/noodling has to do >> with the tension between supervenience and entailment. Deacon's style >> *does* depend a bit on saying the same thing over and over again, louder and >> louder which can be convincing for all the wrong reasons. But that alone >> does not make what he's saying wrong, or even wrong-headed. Perhaps I am >> guilty of courting confirmation bias insomuch as Deacon's constructions of >> homeo-morpho-teleo dynamics seem to support the style of dualism which I >> suppose appeals to me for reasons I don't understand yet or can't articulate. >> >> Since I am not normally succinct, I restricted myself to a handful of >> references rather than open ended descriptions of what/why/where/how/when >> every detail of what he said meant to me. I fail at (avoid) clarity with >> too much more often than with too little, no? >> >> I did NOT link Sheldrake's Wikipedia page because I thought you >> (Glen) were unfamiliar with him and his stance/assertions and that you >> needed to read him. The link was more for completeness for *anyone else* >> who might not have ever bothered to get the word from closer to the horse's >> mouth. I myself dismissed him 100% and relied entirely on other's opinions >> and judgements of him until he came here to SFe (2009?) and gave the >> lecture(s) where one of his fans stuck a knife in him (I don't know if >> anyone ever figured out what the point the fan was making?). It just so >> happened that at SFx we were holding a "blender" (presentations with group >> discussion) on the topic of morphometric analysis) that very same night (or >> weekend) so my mind was on the topic of form -> function which had me mildly >> more receptive to (curious about) ideas *like* morphic resonance. After >> that I was more like 95% dismissive of what he goes on about. So... now >> that I wasted another minute of your time on *this* paragraph, I apologize >> for seeming to promote Sheldrake's work in your direction or imply that you >> should waste time reading him. Whether reading Deacon turns out to be a >> waste of time is an open question for me myself. I have invested quite a >> bit of time and still don't have as much traction as I would like. I think >> that is because these are steep and slippery subjects in their own right, >> not because his work is a worthless collection of bits and pixels. >> >> I offered Rączaszek‑Leonardi's essay on Deacon's much larger work on >> Molecule-> Sign as a slightly more accessible intro to Deacon's thinking >> about bits V atoms and supervenience. To the extent that none of this >> tickles any of your own thoughts or interests in what I assume to be >> somewhat parallel (though maybe not convergent?) lines of inquiry, then I >> suppose it would be a waste of your time to follow it to any distance. >> >> The following bit from the introduction to the essay linked *might* >> characterize what it is I *thought* you might find relevant in the paper and >> in the larger body of Deacon's work: _Information v >> information-transmission_ and _aboutism_ each were reminiscent to me of some >> of your arguments about whether communication actually exists and List's >> arguments about indexicality perhaps. >> >> /When Erwin Schrödinger (//1944 >> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR24>//) >> pondered////What is Life?////from a physicist’s point of view he focused on >> two conundrums: how organisms maintain themselves in a far from equilibrium >> thermodynamic state and how they store and pass on the information that >> determines their organization. In his metaphor of an aperiodic crystal as >> the carrier of this information he both foreshadowed Claude Shannon’s >> (//1948 >> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR25>//) >> analysis of information storage and transmission and Watson and Crick’s >> (//1953 >> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR27>//) >> discovery of the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. So by 1958 when >> Francis Crick (//1958 >> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR3>//) >> first articulated what he called the “central dogma” of molecular biology >> (i.e. that >> information in the cell flows from DNA to RNA to protein >> structure and not the reverse) it was taken for granted that that DNA >> and RNA molecules were “carriers” of information. By scientific >> rhetorical fiat it had become legitimate to treat molecules as able >> to provide information “about” other molecules. By the mid 1970s >> Richard Dawkins (//1976 >> <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9#ref-CR5 >> >//) could safely assume this as fact and follow the idea to its >> logical implications for evolutionary theory in his popular >> book////The Selfish Gene//. By describing a sequence of nucleotides >> in a DNA molecule as information and DNA replication as the essential >> defining feature of life, information was reduced to pattern and >> interpretation was reduced to copying. What may have initially been a >> metaphor became difficult to disentangle from the chemistry./ >> >> /In this way the concept of biological information lost its >> aboutness but became safe for use in a materialistic science that had >> no place for what seemed like a nonphysical property./// >> >> Just to keep my flog landing on the hide of the horse that may have expired >> several posts ago in this chain: Deacon's introduction of *teleo* to this >> characterization of complex adaptive systems is the *first* example I have >> found which is even a little bit compelling toward understanding "Life >> Itself" (in the sense of what Schrodinger was going on about in 1944)... >> with enough inspection (or flogging) it may fizzle out and become nothing >> more than wet ash. For the moment it feels like the glimmer of a signal >> where Sheldrake (and his ken) were mostly generating noise (more to the >> point, wishful thinking?) previously... >> >> >> On 2/20/23 11:32 AM, glen wrote: >>> [sigh] But the whole point of knowing other people is so that they >>> can make your own work more efficient or effective. While I >>> appreciate the *citation* of tomes, to some extent, citation isn't >>> really useful for construction of a concept. It's only useful for >>> auditing constructs. So, rather than go read the teleodynamics >>> website (or sieve Sheldrake's spooky action at a distance stuff), >>> I'll ask you to explain *why* teleodynamics is interesting from a >>> panpsychist stance? (Or to drive my point home about how useless >>> citations are, how is it related to Biology's First Law >>> <https://bookshop.org/p/books/biology-s-first-law-the-tendency-for-d >>> iversity-and-complexity-to-increase-in-evolutionary-systems-daniel-w >>> -mcshea/8308564?ean=9780226562261>?) >>> >>> Or, barring that, I'll add it to my (practically) infinite queue of stuff I >>> should read but probably won't until I have a hook into it. And even if I >>> do read it, I probably won't understand it. >>> >>> With the Toribio article, I'm motivated to read it because BC Smith >>> hooked me a long time ago. But Sheldrake? No way in hell am I going >>> to invest time in that. Teleodynamics? Well, it's a website. And the >>> website for ninjas is more interesting: >>> http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm >> >> /On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 6:29 AM, glen∉ℂ wrote: // >> //My question of how well we can describe graph-based ... what? ... >> // >> //"statements"? "theorems"? Whatever. It's treated fairly well in >> List's // >> //paper: // >> / / >> //Levels of Description and Levels of Reality: A General Framework >> by // >> //Christian List //http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21103///// >> / / >> //in section "6.3 Indexical versus non-indexical and first-personal >> // >> //versus third-personal descriptions". We tend to think of the 3rd // >> //person graph of possible worlds/states as if it's more universal >> ... a // >> //complete representation of the world. But there's something >> captured // >> //by the index/control-pointer //*walking*//some graph, with or >> without a // >> //scoping on how many hops away the index/subjective-locus can >> "see". // >> / / >> //I liken this to Dave's (and Frank's to some extent) consistent // >> //insistence that one's inner life is a valid thing in the world, >> Dave // >> //w.r.t. psychedelics and meditation and Frank's defense of things >> like // >> //psychodynamics. Wolpert seems to be suggesting a "deserialization" >> of // >> //the graph when he focuses on "finite sequences of elements from a >> // >> //finite set of symbols". I.e. walking the graph with the index at a >> // >> //given node. With the 3rd person ... whole graph of graphs, the // >> //serialization of that bushy thing can only produce an infinitely >> long // >> //sequence of elements from a (perhaps) infinte set. Is the >> bushiness // >> //*dense*//(greater than countable, as Wolpert asks)? Or sparse? // >> / / >> //I'm sure I'm not wording all this well. But that's why I'm glad >> y'all // >> //are participating, to help clarify these things. / >> >>> >>> On 2/20/23 10:10, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> As the discussion evolves: >>>>> But the bot *does* have a body. It just doesn't take the same form as a >>>>> human body. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree re: panpsychism revolving around "interest" or "intention" ... >>>>> or even "acting". It's more about accumulation and the tendency of >>>>> cumulative objects to accumulate (and differentiate). Perhaps negentropy >>>>> is a closer concept than "interest" or "intention". And, although I >>>>> disagree that experience monism is more primitive than panpsychism, I >>>>> agree that these forms of panpsychism require mechanisms for composition >>>>> (against which James is famous) and other structure. >>>> >>>> I re-introduce/offer Terrence Deacon's Teleodynamics >>>> <https://teleodynamics.org/> which I do not take to be (quite?) as >>>> difficult to integrate/think-about asSheldrake's Morphic Resonance >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake> >>>> >>>> As with Torebeo's essay on BCS' OOO, Joanna Rączaszek‑Leonardi >>>> <https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861>reviews >>>> >>>> <https://c1dcs711.caspio.com/dp/6e93a00069a6c46c407e42c6b540/files/3503861> >>>> Deacon's How Molecules Became Signs >>>> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.pdf?pdf=button> >>>> giving me a hint of a bridge between the "dualistic" worlds (form V. >>>> substance or body V. mind) we banter about here a lot? >>>> >>>> I found EricS's recent response very thought provoking, but every attempt >>>> I had to respond directly felt like more "stirring" so am holding off >>>> until/when/if I might actually be able to add coherent signal to the one I >>>> get hints of forming here... -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
