well conjured "broom of the system" here... (ghost of DFW?)
On 1/28/25 3:08 AM, Santafe 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/
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/
