[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 111, Issue 34

[Katherine Peil Kauffman]

Greeting FIS,

Thank you for your patience, my Tao story is coming very soon. I am condensing to honor the conventions of this space and Pedro’s time. I hope having that this general framework in place will relieve us all the feast or famine nature of my posts. But as a newbie, I’m also getting a feel for the many areas of interest and expertise that flow into the study of information. I gather that some of you are AI engineers, which is also an excellent inroad to the emotion science on offer and any resulting cross-fertilization. To that end…..

Hi Karl,

Thank you for that amazing offering. It will take me some time to full grasp it, but much of it resonates, and  I am intrigued by the implications. My Tao story will surely help us find common ground as it concerns the strength of binary computation, the mechanics of parts and wholes, and  the comparisons between expectations and observations. But for now (since its just you, me, and the crickets), a few quick questions and the link between liaison values and information values:


1)        What are the few “relevant tautologies” within the “value bundle”?

2)        In terms of information value, can you expand on how the ideas of distance and “asynchronicity” add to the existing metaphorical  ideas of opportunity, attraction, force, potential, energy? If you can ground this is direct human experience, better still.

3)        I agree with the interplay of chemistry and electromagnetism at various levels of spatiotemporal scale, and your alignment of chemistry/DNA and the feelings thoughts and mixtures with electrical discharges – and I would add in both their quantum and classical manifestations. This is helpful in transcending mind~body dualism.

4)      In terms of building a homunculus (or general intelligence in AI) I think you are on the right track. In terms of a humanlike robot, your 4 computers loosely describe what is going on with my 4-step feedback loop of enactive mind. The difference being that nature’s hardware is enabled by emotional qualia (the fundamental semantic information bit.) These steps are: The comparison (between your two reference data banks, what I call self and not-self - between internal and external environments); the signal (your hypothesis about what is taking place, observation via a sensor), and the corrective response (the behavioral effector, that changes the immediate actions or location of the robot); and finally the learning (the memory trace of the value of that response under those circumstances (which informs enables feed-forward action that decrease the difference in the future). But I would argue that for an AI system with genuine general intelligence, steps two and three might require some highly sensitive dipole that could mimic the bipolar nature of water. Maybe a fifth computer? But it would need a sensor that can do what our emotions do for dynamical systems, read the everchanging external environmental circumstances and evaluate them against all internal needs of the embodiment in any given moment and respond in real time. We are much more than predictions machines, and the goal of reducing surprise (as free energy) omits the fact that surprises can be binary - good surprises or nasty surprises. 

With gratitude all around,


Kate Kauffman


> On Apr 23, 2024, at 4:37 AM, fis-request at listas.unizar.es wrote:
> 
> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
> 	fis at listas.unizar.es
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	fis-request at listas.unizar.es
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Emotional Sentience (Karl Javorszky)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:37:16 +0200
> From: Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
> To: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: [Fis] Emotional Sentience
> Message-ID:
> 	<CA+nf4CV4KsqYSW8LzFGUA_MhMLzz1Fj1Nm9tbrDM4w62SCyhHA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Dichotomy, Liaisons, Homunculus 2024 04 22
> 
> 
> 
>   1. *Dichotomy*
> 
> The dichotomy sequential ? commutative is partly in our brain only. Let me
> demonstrate the idea of dissolving of contrasts on an example.
> 
> Dichotomy of sexes *f/m *first as a social convention, then as a biologic
> marker. Our generation has experienced a massive social weakening of the
> opposites of what is a sex and what is a marriage. The dichotomy *f/m *is
> as good as dead in legal life, in Europe.
> 
> Evolutionarily later organisms use gametes and chromosomes for
> reproduction. These are dichotomized variants that cooperate, of the same
> message. Yet, there are variants that can reproduce (e.g.Komodo varans)
> asexually, self-cooperative.
> 
> We look at that predecessor of humans that has not quite yet finished
> transforming its reproduction into a technique using two different sexes.
> Its genetic material is not yet dichotomized into *xx *and* xy *strands. At
> that stage, the genetic material includes all those properties which will
> differentiate into the female and the male version.
> 
> At the stage, where it is not yet clear, whether a dichotomy had evolved,
> do the logical primitives come in. Their maneuverings while undergoing
> periodic changes produce patterns that make sense if read *successively*
> and such that make sense as well if read *across* (like an inventory, or
> the substance analysis of a fluid).
> 
> There exists a category of symbols that are both commutative and
> sequential, independently of the decisions of the human spectator.
> 
> As the learned friends have by now each sorted their 12 books and see the
> lists of the cycles, which book was in which cycle, there remans only one
> small exercise to do. Take as many colors as the reorder of your 12 books
> have resulted in, paint the books that belong to the same cycle with the
> same color. Then, use a fat marker and mark each member of a cycle with ?*q
> < > r? *if that book in that cycle was replaced by *q *and replaces *r*.
> Then we see a symbol that is commutative (shared by all members of the same
> cycle) and that is sequential, because it says at which sequential position
> (rank) the element is within the cycle.
> 
> The unit we work with is comparable to a Lego stone. Its color is an entry
> on the *nominal *scale (differentiating only), the rank within the sequence
> of the members of the cycle, is an entry on an *ordinal *scale (allows
> sequences).
> 
> The *proto-symbol* designating commutative and sequential properties of an
> object (name-of-cycle *cum *sequential-rank-within-cycle), *has no name
> yet.* Fis is welcome to give it a name.
> 
>   2. *Liaisons*
> 
> *2a: Rhetorical challenges:*
> 
> In the Sumerian system, units are uniform and have no distinguishing
> properties. The units can number up to infinite.
> 
> In contrast to this, the Akkadians have evolved a system that works on a
> limited size assembly, where the units are each an individual, and each
> individual possesses properties; ranks can be built on the properties of
> the individuals. For numeric reasons, we deal here that variant of the
> Akkadian family of algorithms, which evolves if there are *16 *possible
> variants of *a, b*. We discuss the world in *136 *units each catch/gulp and
> look at the patterns of coincidences that are implicit in the artefact of
> the elements being different to each other, within the catch/gulp.
> 
> The facts of Akkadian algorithms are as fundamental truths as the truths
> presented in a multiplication table of the Sumerian type. This means that
> the grammar needs to be made more flexible. The concepts of types of units,
> relations among units, value of each relation among units and the economy
> based on the values of relations among units ? all these concepts need to
> be admitted into the collection of agreed on truths. Presently, the
> Akkadian value of bonds that connect members of a cycle may sound
> agrammatical. If the elements are not supposed to have any properties at
> all, it is complicated to discuss the web of relations among the elements,
> based on the properties of the elements.
> 
> *2b: Being a part of*
> 
> In the Sumerian tradition, there are no immanent tendencies among the units
> to form groups. The units are born not in an assembly but are the one
> perfect abstraction of properties of many. Since their birth they are
> thought to remain unrelated to any other units.
> 
> In Accadia, units appear only as members of a cohort. A cohort are
> those *d(d+1)/2
> *members that realize all variants of *d *as applied to *a, b; a **? b.*
> 
> During reorders, elements team up into task groups. In the example with the
> 12 books, the task was to be reordered from [author, title] into [title,
> author]. A different task would be a reorder [pages_no, year_publ] ?
> [year_publ, pages_no]. The same book is once a member of a cycle *w *in
> reorder [at-ta], once a member of cycle *q *in reorder [yp -py]. The unit
> is a member of several groups, which are here named cycles, in honor of
> their genesis.
> 
> *2c: Costs and benefits of being a member of a group*
> 
> We use a reading of *a+b=c *that is conceptually *2(a+b)*, by
> redistributing the value of *c *among the *a, b* in proportion of the
> cycles that constitute a reorder. All cycles together have moved *?a,
> *?*b *during
> a reorder. These are cohort constants. (In the etalon collection, *?a + **?b
> = 816 + 1496 =2312.) *The total of logistics delivered is partitioned into
> summands delineated by the cycles. The cycles can be treated as a
> separately existing logical category.
> 
> The cycles in their turn credit the individual members with a proportion of
> the whole of the cycle. These are the lateral liens that bind each member
> of one cycle to that one cycle.
> 
> The concept of liaisons is closely intertwined with the concept of
> information. The lien connecting members of one cycle is not only a
> material extent (*?a, *?*b), *but also data relating to the spatial
> characteristics of the cycle. Cycles that weigh the same can be differently
> dense.
> 
> *2d: Economy, bargaining and the bazaar*
> 
> The logical primitives change places during periodic changes. While being
> in transit, there appear many alternatives to change track; here: cycle.
> The liaison values (individual vector of liens) of each element are subject
> to economic pressures. (Eg element X comes from a dense cycle, can match
> with an element which needs more density.)
> 
> The idea of bargaining needs a *basic disagreement* to exist, about which
> there is controversy. *This idea is alien to Sumerian thinking.* Numeric
> facts show that there does exist a small inner discongruence within the
> numbering system (A242615).
> 
> Once it is conceivable that it makes a difference whether an element
> belongs or belongs not to a group, and that this difference has a numeric
> value, the liaison values are easy to tabulate.
> 
> The following numeric example is *fictive and simplified*, in which there
> are 10 elements which we enumerate 1..10. The total amount moved (*?(a+b)*)
> during a reorder of this fictive assembly is *55 (1+2+3+?+10). *
> 
> Reorder A generates cycles A1 (1,4,7), A2 (2,3,8,9), A3 (5,6,10);
> 
> Reorder B generates cycles B1 (1,5), B2 (2,4), B3 (3,6,10), B4 (7,8,9).
> 
> The liaison between and among the elements has two levels:
> 
> Level cycles:        Cycles A1 ? A3 receive 55/(1+4+7), 55/(2+3+8+9),
> 55/(5+6+10);
> 
>                              Cycles B1 ? B4 receive 55/(1+5), 55/(2+4),
> 55/(3+6+10), 55/(7+8+9).
> 
> Cycles summary:
> 
> 
> 
> Reorder A
> 
> Reorder B
> 
> No of cycles
> 
> 3
> 
> 4
> 
> Carry per cycle
> 
> 12, 22, 21
> 
> 6, 6, 19, 24
> 
> 
> 
> Level units:
> 
> Name and value of unit
> 
> Credits for liens A
> 
> Credits for liens B
> 
> 1
> 
> 12/3
> 
> 6/2
> 
> 2
> 
> 22/4
> 
> 6/2
> 
> 3
> 
> 22/4
> 
> 19/3
> 
> 4
> 
> 12/3
> 
> 6/2
> 
> 5
> 
> 22/3
> 
> 6/2
> 
> 6
> 
> 21/3
> 
> 19/3
> 
> 7
> 
> 12/3
> 
> 24/3
> 
> 8
> 
> 22/4
> 
> 24/3
> 
> 9
> 
> 22/4
> 
> 24/3
> 
> 10
> 
> 21/3
> 
> 19/3
> 
> Nota bene that the whole of material (55) is moved in both reorders? cycles:
> 
> *3*12/3 + 4*22/4 + 3*21/3 = 12+22+21 = 55,*
> 
> *2*6/2 + 2*6/2 + 3*19/3 + 3*24/3 = 12+19+24 = 55.*
> 
> These are *static values*, which are properties of units in the etalon
> collection. The apportionment follows rules that are implications of the
> two natural numbers that make up each logical primitive. The data, which
> value each lien, are included in the database, while the database is not
> processing, in an idle state.
> 
> *2e. Enter periodic changes*
> 
> The situation changes as we commence reordering the assembly, in our quest
> to simulate periodic changes which are axiomatic in Nature and therefore
> one of the fundamental design principles of the Akkadian algorithms,
> specifically of the liaison algorithms.
> 
> Again rhetoric: If we say: ?I know? then we refer to a state of the world,
> which has the legalese description: ?circumstances and facts that the
> subject should and could have known?. The human observer, if working
> correctly, can and will know nothing else but the facts and their
> implications. Whatever else the human thinks, imagines and phantasies,
> she/he will not be able to communicate that deducted content to others
> understandably, because others can also only know facts and their
> implications, and everything else is private. We shall come to deal with
> poems, phlogistons and insinuations, in a later phase. Here, it is
> important that the category of the observer, narrator, decider, etc. {human
> ? machine} is not a dichotomy but rather a non-differentiable identity. A
> human in the Wittgenstein sense of being a communication partner is so much
> (in such an extreme extent) rational as to be indistinguishable from a
> finite automaton.
> 
> Now, why is this long prelude necessary? Because the slogan: *?Knowledge is
> power?* is shown to be factually true. It makes a material difference
> whether I know or not that X is the case. This happens by means of the
> liaison values that connect elements as parts to cycles as wholes, and
> parallel to this, cycles as parts to reorders as wholes.
> 
> *2f. Liaison values in dynamic processes*
> 
> If I know that Reorder A is the case, then I calculate with 3 vacant places
> and 3 values of estimated extent in transit. If I know that reorder B is
> the case, then I calculate with 4 vacant places and 4 values of estimated
> extent in transit. Each cycle has one place vacant and one unit in transit.
> 
> If Reorder A is the case, then the assembly consists of 7 places filled, 3
> vacant. In transit are on average 12/3 + 22/4 + 21/3 = 16.5. In any moment,
> its stationary picture shows 38.5 amount (mass) on 7 places.
> 
> If Reorder B is the case, then the assembly consists of 6 places filled, 4
> vacant. In transit are on average 6/2 + 6/2 + 19/3 + 24/4 = 18.3. In any
> moment, its stationary picture shows 36.6 amount (mass) on 6 places.
> 
> The local certainty that X is the case contributes to the global hypothesis
> that periodic changes A, B, C are taking place, in falling order of
> probability. We have *3 *variants of expected distributions of elements,
> World according to {A, B, C}.
> 
> The Akkadians have defined information as the extent of deviation between
> expected and observed values. The fact (of the knowledge) of Reorder A
> being the case creates a web of expected liaison values that are different
> to those which would prevail if Reorder B or C would be the case. Naming
> the descendants of variants B, C as observed values, we have matrix of
> deviations (of spatial and material nature) between expected and observed
> values: that is, information. The fact of (a knowledge of) X being the case
> has spatial and material implications, by changing the background, with
> respect to the number of places vacant and amounts in transit, relative to
> which the present state is in deviation. Feed-backs and self-reinforcing
> processes appear to be at work, with thresholds, limits, and tipping points.
> 
> The Akkadians have assumed a natural and unavoidable process of
> self-organization, in which order develops naturally from the properties of
> parts of wholes. The hypothesis is that a random arrangement of logical
> primitives creates parts of reorders. (Our neurology causes us to perceive
> patterns, even if there are no patterns. The active search for patterns
> would not be an evolutionary advantage if here were no patterns to detect.
> Therefore, there are patterns in Nature, the recognition of which is an
> advantage.) The order as a concept comes from the fact of the units being
> different. Some of the possible orders are more frequent in random
> assemblies of logical primitives. These became the proto-being-the-case.
> 
> *2g. Summary of liaisons*
> 
> The relations of units to and among their peers was not in the focus of the
> Sumerians. There is no tradition of speaking about logical ? algorithmic
> implications of parts of a whole (e.g. a cohort, a cycle, a reorder) being
> involved in a construction of many small wholes that consist of other small
> parts, etc, within a whole.
> 
> Liaison values work in cooperation with information values. The term
> information has been introduced and numerically defined in ijita29-01-p02.pdf
> (foibg.com) <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol29/ijita29-01-p02.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XLQLJ3k_Jww9q-PJwvYXhM9I439QV4N_K_OJKTxYKlpVulvjmkPAqYuBQoRl5ROpFkSbP6AYIlufYUa9fUI6VDk0sas$ > p. 85ff.
> We use two cycles of the reorder [ab ? ba] to serve as unit of deviation
> between expected and observed. Information is in this sense analogous to
> ideas of opportunity, attraction, force, potential, energy, but includes
> also distance, asynchronicity.
> 
> The liaison values are no simple scalars, neither. There are *k *dimensions
> to the value bundle. (It may be of comfort, that no more than *15*
> different dimensions can be used, and only a few of them are actually
> relevant in simple tautologies.)
> 
> The places and amounts that are vacant and in transit, are outside of the
> geometry applicable to the stationary snapshot. These could well be
> understood to greet us in the form of fields and forces that are active
> outside the concrete body of the object. Due to the Basic Incongruence (see
> oeis.org/A242615) there are two versions of describing the same state of
> the world: once in the reference of interval scales (using ?=? as
> background), once in the reference frame of ordinal scales (using ??? = ?<
> | >?).
> 
> *3. Homunculus*
> 
> The group consensus in Fis appears to tend towards stating that a living
> organism is impossible to build using only binary statements. In a
> historical analogy, the learned friends tend to be deciding that a
> homunculus cannot be built only of computers, but needs also some
> bioreactors with physiological processes in fluid media.
> 
> There is hope that our version of homunculus will need no wet things but
> can live on electricity alone. The problem with the wet part of biology is
> not that it is wet but that what appears to us as wet is relatively too
> similar among each other relative to how much it is. The interplay between
> sequenced and commutative is best understood by contrasting the DNA with
> the organism and feelings with thoughts, physiological mixtures with
> electric discharges.
> 
> The interplay is not a dichotomy. The knowledge the Akkadians had, have the
> Sumerians not carried over for us, namely that the relations within an
> assembly of individuals have tautologies, axioms, rules, and implications.
> Wittgenstein implies that for each distinct state of the world there is *one
> *correct logical sentence to identify it. Using a dual way of counting, we
> have *at least two *correct logical sentences to identify one and the same
> state of the world. There is no need for wet extensions to the computers,
> because two computers can cooperate with each other, of which one can
> specialize on sentences in which the words mean assemblies that share a
> symbol, and the other on sequences that watch the predecessor ? successor
> relations. These two are source for a third computer, which integrates the
> low-level two and generates hypotheses about what periodic change is
> currently taking place. The hypotheses are translated by a fourth computer,
> that re-aligns the set of values into a web of target values for the
> basis-level two. We have such a web of values *observed ? expected *which
> is what was called: information. There are lots of decision situations, up
> to such that require intelligence, memory, and the ability to learn.
> 
> There is no need for fluids for our version of homunculus. It can be
> balanced, spontaneous, creative and curious, and if attached with storage
> media, learning, all by remaining in the discrete, binary world and
> language.
> 
> Karl
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240423/a53c2cf8/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 111, Issue 34
> ************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240424/0ae4e0dc/attachment-0001.html>