glen wrote:
Yeah, there is a distinction between structures that obtain from
anastomosis (that are now in/near some steady state) and
anastomosing/anastomizing, the process by which the structures are
formed. Maybe one could say that Jon's observation is about
post-anastomizing anastomotic code as opposed to anastomizing "code".
But code is data and data is code. Anastomizing code would have to be
anastomizing some other structure (e.g. copyleft stuff puncturing
intellectual property norms). But what anastomizes code is the code
creator/extruder, including prcesses like humans, [semi]automated
things like LLMs, genetic programming algorithms, or especially
hackers attempting to exploit the weak points.
Unfortunately, the word "anastomotic" can refer to either structure
that obtains or the process by which it's obtained. Stupid English.
I once studied Latin, Greek, and Esperanto (alongside the myriad
goofball CS languages of the time) imagining that somehow one or another
would be more better for unambiguous speech. On one hand, it made it
easier for me to connotize (verbize that noun!) more English words with
various etymologies. On the other it also made me more sensitive to the
nuances which have me using compounded/superposed/aggregate words and
mal-understanding words other have a common use for which I then
hairsplit into oblivion.
Or maybe my skills are more like those which drove Yogi Berra's
malapropisms... who knows?
Every day I am more and more aligned ("think I believe that what I
heard") with "what I think you said" about not believing in
communication (or somesuch)?
In CS/information theory /marshalling/ and /serializing/ and
/de-serializing/ are all great "engineering" ideas which have utility
but perhaps they only create the illusion (maybe also strongly typed
languages and closure and ... ?) that what we are saying/parsing is what
is meant and it is unambiguous and all context is carried. These tools
might help with more casual verification, but I'm not sure they are the
magic bullets they are often sold as?
This is one of the "beautiful" takeaways of Michael Levin's work (IMO),
that no matter how necessary and even elegant shite like DNA might be,
it is not *even* close to sufficient?
- Steve
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
