<div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">Dear Eric,</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— In your FIS submission I see a series of rhetorical questions introducing your position, I paraphrase:</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> What would a minimal model of an agent's neural network-mind-brain such as human be like? . . . the global architecture? . . . Can a purely linguistic interaction between a human and a computational device capture the mental capacities, the network, the network state and information states of the human agent's brain? <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— This seems to perhaps <span class="gmail_default">subtly </span>confuse humans for GENERA<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">L</span> agents, where myriad agent-types actually exist, with widely varied environs, needs, and behaviors. I am unsure of your intent, but despite humanity’s clear gains no true GENERAL agents exist on Earth (that I know of). Also, using a linguistic-social base imposes a large measure of ambiguity (as you note), that must be resolved. Lastly, I feel you should be clear in your use of neural as figurative, alternatively one must detail a specific<span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> map [of] the agent's neural network to our abstract model <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">which I do not see in this essay. Given neuronal densities in the human brain of some 100,000 neurons per cubic mm, and 10’s of types of neurons, all of which is poorly grasped, we cannot yet claim to understand the human brain.</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— I find your framing of entropy as ambiguity useful for Shannon signal entropy AND thermodynamic entropy; but I do not see a YOUR specific definition of entropy. Both entropies can be viewed ambiguously, but this is also confusing as signal entropy holds a type of order and thermodynamic entropy typifies disorder. That opposition must somehow be addressed. Lastly, alluding to the human mind as an ambiguous (entropic) processing engine is on point, but which must also be detailed.</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— I like that you note functionalism (Wittgenstein) and a minimal architecture (von Neumann) as these both track with my own view. ‘Arcihtecture‘ also echoes an argument of Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science. I take your numerous reference to intentional states to point to functionalism – is that correct?</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> Chomsky theories of syntax were just that with no semantics, no pragmatics, no theory of communication. <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— Well, this is not true is it? Does not syntax hold its own type of meaning, is a Theory of Syntax NOT meaningful? This repeats the mistake Shannon (and many others make), but that Shannon and Weaver highlight as a 'missing theory of meaning’. I cover this issue in the paper I noted in my other post to Krassimir and Yixin. All such claims (despite being common) confuse levels of abstraction. But then I also see:</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> This work [of mine in 1991] unified the logics of information <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">which means you developed a formal theory of meaning, which would be very useful. Can you provide a link to that paper? I could not find one.</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> . . . to include intention-strategic-based communication and cooperation theory. On my view communication involves linguistic intentional states formalized as linguistic strategic states linked to the world via semantics and pragmatic meaning. <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— Okay, so you in fact pose a Theory of Meaning, vis-a-vis<span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> . . . formalization of utility and you get the foundational bedrock of the minimal architecture of mental states of communicating social agents whether they be human, animal or robotic. <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— This also ties to my own work.</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">> . . . R = ( S, I, V ) . . . <</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— I find this part of your discussion interesting, but not especially compelling mostly due to the fact that I do not see that actual mechanism used to resolve prior-noted ambiguity in language use, and ambiguity innately encountered in Nature’s own (open system) role. I think such thing would be covered in a theory of meaning (your 1991 work?) but as I do not have that essay at hand I cannot comment specifically.</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">— Thank you for your submission and for your work!!</font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:17px"><font size="4"><br></font></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-family:Courier;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="4">Marcus</font></p></div>