<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;">Hi Marcus, my apologies. I got a major article submitted! I’ll respond today, and liked your earlier email.<div><br></div><div>Stu<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 28, 2024, at 1:29 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs@gmail.com> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br>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 (?). <br><br>As such, counter to your:<br>< But with all that, I have no “logical or algorithmic” way whatsoever . . . > <br>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?).<br><br>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). <br><br>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!<br><br>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!)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Marcus<br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-size:14px;font-family:proxima-nova-1,proxima-nova-2,Tahoma,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;border-spacing:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:18px"><tbody style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"><tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"><td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-size:0px;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto;height:30px"></td></tr><tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"><td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto"></td></tr><tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"></tr></tbody></table></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 5:20 AM Stuart Kauffman <<a href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com">stukauffman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div>thanks Marcus I will try to respond tomorrow. Stu<br id="m_7475617215347503991lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 25, 2024, at 4:01 AM, Marcus Abundis <<a href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" target="_blank">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>