[Fis] An Unbeatable Tradition?

[Marcus Abundis]

Hey Stuart — My last post was three days ago, so it seems I must again
proceed without benefit of your reply. I hoped for your reaction to the
crude Theory of Meaning (ToM) I last framed using *your* earlier concepts,
but likely ab-used from your original meaning (?).

As such, counter to your:
< But with all that, I have no “logical or algorithmic” way whatsoever . .
. >
my idea was we may find shared ToM ground, and head off into deeper
analysis of ‘types of logic’, beyond deductive, etc. But absent your reply,
I share a few more thoughts on what I call blended learning/logic. As a
practical matter, I don’t think *one* system of logic (deductive, etc.)
serves to advance a *full* ToM. If we think of how most people *truly*
discover PERSONAL meaning, this is most often by trial-and-error. Here, the
logic used seems mixed, quickly jumping from one trial onto another until a
satisfactory result is reached (or one is spent). Such trial-and-error
seems akin to how Nature, science, and art ALL operate — except science
holds no `formal creative narrative’ for hypothesis formation, adjacent
possibilities, and the like (agree?).

Still, to proceed further, it is fine to say Object 1/Object 2 *joining*
creates foundational meaning (as I state), but ‘joining’ is THE ACT that
*truly creates* meaning. Otherwise, Object1/Object 2 merely `frame meaning’
as an intellectual abstract. Still, interestingly, Signal Entropy’s X^n
logarithmic base ALSO frames `joining logic’ in a Natural simple-to-complex
way. Regardless, THE ACT of joining is what is most essential to *realized*
(not just logical) adjacent possibilities, order for free, etc. So do we
simplistically see `thermodynamics’ as the Prime Mover here, or do we look
further afield to other Force-and-Energy realms? Also, none of this touches
on Nature’s effective-and-efficient functional Selection. Lastly, can THAT
joining ACT and Selection somehow be systematized into a `computation
model’? That said, I believe ‘We can do much better than we have done so
far!’ — to find a central enabler of computational AGI (my current
project).

But in next looking at AGI, just as we had (still have) to face down
`statistical hysteria’ around Signal Entropy’s supposed objectivity
(twisting communication theory into information theory) . . . we NOW face
statistical hysteria around chatbots!?, that are supposedly
`intelligent’?!?! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It seems
unsurprising Weizenbaum’s1966 ELIZA chatbot would *finally* advance to a
large degree, after 57 years of work . . . while humanity’s lack of firm
critical thinking seems oddly un-phased. C’est la vie!

After claiming to have mastered a ToM in FIS/IS4SI realms. . . I must now
face down similar statistical hysteria in AI?! Some one wish me luck
(please!)

Marcus


On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 5:20 AM Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> thanks Marcus I will try to respond tomorrow. Stu
>
> On Jan 25, 2024, at 4:01 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240128/3dc4ee44/attachment.html>