Yes, sorry... > On Jan 27, 2025, at 7:14 PM, Stephen Guerin <stephen.gue...@simtable.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 1:08 PM Santafe <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > But to suppose they _already_ contain everything there is to be understood is > not a position I would take w.r.t. anything else we have anywhere in science. > They contain or represent whatever they do. I don’t know how much that is, > and what more it leaves to be found. I would be amazed if it were > “everything”, since nothing else in science ever has been before. > > I'm trying to follow the thread. Was there a previous post you are > addressing with "But to suppose they _already_ contain everything there is to > be understood"
Thread has got kind of broomy. I was storing information holographically and responding to a few things among many. Main trigger was Nick’s post You guys freak me out… and somewhere later saying that the AI interlocutor “already is” human (or something to that effect; and why don’t you guys recognize it), to which Frank said Typical behaviorist and Nick said No Frank monist. I attached to that string with Searle’s argument against the position that the computational formalism “contains” whatever-all the common-language referents want attached to “consciousness”. Marcus replied that something about the way I said it could also be said of QM. And I replied to that, that this is a question of what one wants from the idea of a scientific law (of whatever kind). To which Marcus, playing tennis simultaneously on a couple of courts I think, only one of which was the one I was on, tried to ward off Cartesian dualism, to which my “_already_ contain…” reply was a protestation not from a dualist position but from a fallibilist one, and an argument against circular containment relations (that this is a case where I don’t bet it will work out that the big universe, containing as a tiny subset of it the small formalism, will find itself contained within the formalism as a faithful mapping). There was an interference of the above thread with Nick’s two threads on having GPT teach him thermodynamics (which would be a truly heroic accomplishment on Nick’s part, given the number of things it says that are either not-interpretable-as-sense, or that accommodate semantically ill-formed sentence constructions without calling them out and correcting them), and of the to-be-guessed writer F reducing everything to metaphor, seemingly choosing to not understand that the metaphor is a finger pointing at the moon. That was the old argument against this particular monism. Roughly, Eric .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
