[Fis] An Unbeatable Tradition?

[Stuart Kauffman]

Hi Marcus, my apologies. I got a major article submitted!  I’ll respond today, and liked your earlier email.

Stu

> On Jan 28, 2024, at 1:29 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:55mrcs at gmail.com>> wrote:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240128/f4ce292a/attachment.html>