[Fis] Fwd: An Unbeatable Tradition?

[Marcus Abundis]

From: Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] An Unbeatable Tradition?
To: Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>


Stuart — again, thanks for this provocative analysis.

I understand Bayesian statistics as a crude path of 'serial inquiry’ but I
prefer BASE functional analysis (more direct/precise), over statistics
applied to massive data sets. Allow me to offer an alternative that may
appeal to you, on `The Journey of a Coconut Cruncher’.

1. ALL vertebrates arise as a `system of constrained Levers’ (Object 1,
skeletal system) — but with *no meaning* if inhabiting `a void’, unmet by
`Object 2 constraints’. Object 1 alone thus offers a type of
base-constrained `order for free’ (as with unmet atoms, 94 elements, etc.),
or raw affordance, but which for now is inconsequential (meaningless).

2. ONLY when Levers (Object 1) encounter a LITERALLY ADJACENT `constrained
terrain’ (Object 2) does INTERACTIVE Object1/Object 2 WORK reveal `a
meaning’. ALL vertebrates/agents exhibit Object1/Object 2 WORK (traversing
an evolutionary landscape), or they expire. ONLY SURVIVORS reach a next
stage of blended (Object1/Object 2, and beyond) learning/work — *meaningful*
empiric reduction = further `order(s) for free' or new `logic'.
3. Of a Human HAND `system of levers’, we find more Object 1/Object X
blended learning, in *grasping* various Object Xs (boulder, rock, water,
branch, dirt, coconut, etc.) — a suite of literal NEXT adjacent
possibilities arises. Here, some Object Xs are moveable and others seem
fixed, where Object 1/Object X WORK = lessons in differential mass (more
inter-relational/dialectic logic). In this way we (and all agents) begin to
*further* explore an `evolutionary landscape’. Agents unable to do this, or
working in an ineffective and/or inefficient manner, also expire =
affording further `order(s) for free' or more innate `survival logic'.

4. At this point we now see many forms of `order for free’, extant in
Nature’s mixed environs, where some forms/environs appeal to us more than
others — each with many literal adjacent possibilities. As Nature is
ALREADY creative (diverse environs), creativity is IMPOSED on all agents,
via myriad forms of material adjacent possibilities/`order for free' as
available niches.

5. To the extent agents blindly stay in one niche, or seek (or are driven)
to expand to further/new niches, via genomic or behavioral means, is
another matter. But here, the foregoing ALREADY impose a type of creative
work, purely due to Nature's creative character. My 9 Jan post referring to
a `scientific workshop' on obsidian hand axe construction, 1.2 MYA, simply
marks continual exploration of the above creativity, from immediate
material-onto-psychological aspects — all as `common [survival] sense' (or
general intelligence)!

6. So it remains — what would a *surviving* primitive mind select to use to
crunch and munch a coconut: an engine block or a simple hand axe, which
path is Nature most likely to reward?
Beyond a Bayesian view, this simplistic reductive functional study, I
believe is: bottom-up (few ensuing logical gaps), simple-to-complex,
innately creative, blind to `underlying forces' (no unified or other field
theory needed), with myriad adjacent possibilities and `order(s) for free'
Logic. This 'deduced[?] Natural creativity' all occurs with NO cognitive
notion of Class X Levers, XYZ Logic, or the like.

I am unsure if we are in raging agreement or disagreement – but I easily
agree Bayesian vistas are rather unhelpful. At best, they lead us to
perhaps 'back into' a Natural Pattern, without really grasping 'what
happened?' – hence a black box/catastrophic forgetting AI problem. For this
reason I STRONGLY prefer direct functional analysis.

< But with all that, I have no “logical or algorithmic” way whatsoever to
get to, “Hot damn! I can use this engine block and its rigid corners to
crack open coconuts.! >
— I think THIS STATEMENT is where we may disagree. I say the above analysis
DOES in fact detail a type of logic, full of adjacent possibilities . . .
that CAN gets us to engines, 747 jumbo jets, and beyond. But is all this
PURELY deducible?! I would say probably not, and rather requires a type of
BLENDED logic/learning (as above?) . . . which is even grasped in childhood
education.

< Why do we continue to think that everything that becomes complex is some
computation >
– I think this depends on how one defines computation . . . which must
continually be re-invented, as with 'science', no? Indeed, surely <The
evolving world is not trapped in its algorithms. > but do you and Andrea
object to us trying some alternatives — which I think was Pedro's point.

< Marcus, I do think we may find statistical laws of the process. >
— Uhhh, okay, maybe, but excuse me, GAAH! I hope the above shows I have
little interest in statistical `solutions'. I am on a very different path.
Nature does not assess things statistically, as far as I can tell.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240125/5e018c69/attachment.html>