Thank you. I appreciate the amount of effort to distill and summarize!
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 3:08 AM Santafe <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > 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/ > ____________________________________________ CEO Founder, Simtable.com stephen.gue...@simtable.com Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab stephengue...@fas.harvard.edu mobile: (505)577-5828
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
