<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Just responding to a part of Pedro’s comment...</div></div></div></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 11 Jan 2023, at 5:33 am, Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com> wrote:</div><div><div><p>We suffer nowadays another strong imbalance between
hyper-developed computer and AI techs (Web, social networks,
robotics, etc.) and some infra-developed, scarcely coherent
scientific fields--missing a parallel information body which could
bring a new understanding and consistency. How could this
imbalance be solved? Ted speaks about different historical
possibilities that could have transcended the limitations, so to
speak, generated from the reductionist cradle. </p></div></div></blockquote><div>The relationship to history is only incidental. It is annoyingly true that when you learn mathematical concepts, you learn them in the order in which they developed, and the objects and theorems are named by the originators. I do consider this an error; most of the explanations I give professionally follow a concept thread rather than a historical one.</div><div><br></div><div>More apt is that there may be three types of concepts: ones that are generated by the limited hardware of our brains; ones that we can have some confidence are hardwired in nature, or closely so. And those in between that are approximations that work well enough for specific purposes.</div><div><br></div><div>My appreciation of Koichiro is that he moves time and tense from the first to at least the second. I suppose any notion we have of object, agent and sequence are from our cognitive machinery and not from nature. Ethnomathematics gives us existence proofs of how slippery and arbitrary are those presumed anchors.</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>He mentions the
"information flow". Indeed, for decades, several people, Ted and
me included, have been influenced by the "vertical information
flow" from Michael Conrad. I am currently thinking that it has been a nice & elegant term, but it badly needed a further step or steps. Otherwise it was acting as a limit for further advancement.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Michael Conrad was a visionary. I’m also inspired by Jon Barwise and Michael Leyton. If I cast them in a phenomenologically intuitionistic framework (which they would resist), then everything is a result of processes including from agents that we don’t understand, and those ghost influences carry through the information flow states.</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>In my opinion, the information flow, in each
dimensional jump, crosses through "transformers" that reorganize
and transform it, leaving it ready for the next jump. A firm
candidate to such transforming capability is "the cycle" --I think
Koichiro may resonate with this. The cycle, either "natural" or
"artificial", becomes an arrangement that may integrate (or
alternative disintegrate) masses of data into a meaningful item.
</p>
</div></div></blockquote>Agree. My work focuses on introspection mechanisms in such a ‘cycle’. </div><div><br></div><br><div><div><font color="#011993">_______________</font></div><div><font color="#011993">Ted Goranson</font></div></div></body></html>