Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I wanted to reply to Waldemar's list of human attributes that a computer cannot emulate:1. Processing & relationship discovery.
2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
4. The application of values and desire.5. The application of commitment.My biased view from many many years of reductionist science/biology/evolution theory is that those attributes arethe net result of the literal endogenization of the external environment by the cell. The best known exampleis the mitochondrion, which evolved from cohabitation with bacteria, but there are many other suchexamples in the evolution of physiology. The other aspect of this process of evolution is that the organism must have a memorythat allows it to recall circumstances in its past in order to solve emerging environmental problems it is challengedby, because all such evolved 'novelties' are due to repurposing of old genes for new structures and functions, whichStephen J. Gould termed exaptations. The reason I mention all of this is because a computer that wouldbe able to accomplish the 5 feats listed above would have to be able to recapitulate this mechanism ofevolution in order to be able to mimic consciousness. In other words, it couldn't achieve this by merely having a databasecomposed of all of the world's Information, but by having a database founded hierarchically on human evolutionary 'experience',beginning with the ambiguity of the first cell, its internal environment constituted by negative entropy, or freeenergy, sustained by chemiosmosis as its source of internal energy, and monitored by homeostasis, the aggregateof which I have termed The First Principles of Physiology. Awareness of these relationships from the first instantationof life to what we think of as 'mind' are the 'qualia' that Chalmers has invoked for consciousness. And the externalizationof this process is what Andy Clark has referred to as 'disembodied consciousness', which I think is the on-going effort toreturn to the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang, by reconciling the dualities and dichotomies that were generatedby the explosive disruption of the Singularity. Could this process be mimicked by Artificial Intelligence?############################On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:ToKers:
"Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that changes its demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living -- which is to say, after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it cannot adopt anything like a single "universal" attitude.
Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't the same as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's "science" will appear to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as you might recall, my father was a historian of science and I'm trained as a molecular biologist, so I have spent some time thinking about this topic.)
Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as the rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was a science that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this list) the lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read the archives and noted that Gregg and John have already said a few words about all this.
Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture, since it is impossible to actually eliminate what lies underneath/behind whatever science claims itself to be (in any particular paradigm). This fake effort to eliminate what can't be eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of the world" by Max Weber in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has resulted in the current collapse of what many take to be the foundation of "modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific American, John Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, NJ, where he teaches "creative writing"), wrote a fascinating article titled "How Physics Lost Its Way" that I recommend.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.s cientificamerican.com_cross-2D check_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Di ts-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnz ycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= 2_Z-WnBP9FFDe- vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw& s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy 5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend . . . <g>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty- 2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_ 0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpn zycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_ 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= 2_Z-WnBP9FFDe- vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw& s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNr NdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of *paradigms* -- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until Gregg returns from vacation but perhaps another important book will stimulate some thinking on the matter. This is the crucial topic of *causality*, which, as it turns out, requires metaphysics.
Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect" is an attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence researcher (and the "inventor" of Bayesian networks) to put a band-aid on the longstanding problem of *causality* in the West, going back to the Royal Society and its "rejection" (which, btw, does not exist in the same way in the East).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience- 2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7v CI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIY BgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe- vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw& s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0H BRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach Island if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
Mark
P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have noticed that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of Marshall McLuhan. His last book was published posthumously with the title "The Laws of Media: The New Science," although, for many years, that title and subtitle were reversed, echoing the title of Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza Nuova." Vico was writing in opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e. Newton &al), making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately turned out.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki pedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FSci ence&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCg mb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0& r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP- UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= 2_Z-WnBP9FFDe- vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw& s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk 8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the problem
I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between
information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to the
distinction between information and knowledge is that the Informaticists
think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem, you
only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of the
Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is inadequate
for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we know
that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As Jaron
Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget". In order to
understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need to
'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret and
utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
essential.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Friends:
I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating information
and knowledge.
John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is (or
may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom, or
vision:
I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the elements
apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat that the is a
LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
1. Processing & relationship discovery.
2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
4. The application of values and desire.
5. The application of commitment.
The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
functions.
Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by computers,
the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do these tasks,
but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the above
requires considerable education and/or experience.
Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
differences between D, I, K, W & V?
Best regards,
Waldemar
*Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
*Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in the
20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first language is not
english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs beginning
in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until graduate
school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill University in
Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were actively engaged
in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined the
term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us to problem
solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the laboratory,
above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the hypothesis
correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist does much the
same research, only without having to generate data. When we were looking
for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school representatives
were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future people
would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
liberal education was good preparation for such a situation.......does that
no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this degree?Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
narrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher education
to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few students still
remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and humanities.
But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I cannot
remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the issues in any
This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government ministries
consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as the
employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has been
increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
Best, -joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps. >google.com_-3Fq-3D266- 2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D- 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C- 2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3- 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg& d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo 1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90i jJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s= Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lH FOmq32QE2xEac&e=
London, Ontario, Canada
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps. >google.com_-3Fq-3D266- 2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D- 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C- 2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3- 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg& d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo 1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90i jJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s= Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lH FOmq32QE2xEac&e=
N6A 2M3
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps. >google.com_-3Fq-3D266- 2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D- 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C- 2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3- 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg& d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo 1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90i jJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s= Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lH FOmq32QE2xEac&e=
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
*ei*π + 1 = 0
------------------------------
*From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY < *Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
[log in to unmask]>
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific ThinkingPlease see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018 issue of *Scientific
OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I find
the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the conflation
of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the educational mission is
equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the 2016
Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
education. The discussion of that issue revolved around equating education
with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those with
advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are undermining
the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom line
enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the generation of
scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it is
understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of expediency doesn't
give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are not
teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are teaching them to
pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and cents, this is
the result.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
points for us to consider. However I think that there's an overriding
problem due to the tendency to equate Information and Knowledge. This has
resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the 'Arab Spring'
of technology leveling institutions of society, including
science.....discusss?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking they'vewell-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms
identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or what we refer
to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the article for
a few reasons.
First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at
least the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching similar
conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns with much of
Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our list-serv.
Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we hope we're not
just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own "confirmation
biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to help keep
us honest!
Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as
exemplars) the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be
fair-minded, 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints, new
info, etc. And yet the academy itself has been increasingly under attack in
recent years as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by not
embracing alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers, especially on
the right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal
orthodoxy" or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university
professors -- scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on this
issue a couple of weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking that
the issue is actually much broader in the sense that these issues affect
all of us, both inside and outside of academia. It's not simply a matter of
any of us being "experts" in our fields or far more knowledgeable about the
"facts" and "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All
knowledge has a relational component too, i.e., depends upon the social
location of the actors relative to each other in combination with the
cultural sources of justification systems invoked. This explains in large
measure, in my view, the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake news"
critiques that have gained such popularity.
Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many fields
within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and humanities
-- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about the
standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have helped
certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many generations
(and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
something I've hypothesized about for years) showing the adverse effects of
early childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and some
adverse behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and "interpret"
that information? What are the implications for even something as basic as
"equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other factors
that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in a certain
neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a thousand
other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the various
mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm thinking a la
Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle the
truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps. >google.com_-3Fq-3D266- 2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D- 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C- 2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3- 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg& d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo 1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90i jJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s= Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lH FOmq32QE2xEac&e=
London, Ontario, Canada
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps. >google.com_-3Fq-3D266- 2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D- 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C- 2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3- 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg& d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo 1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90i jJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s= Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lH FOmq32QE2xEac&e=
N6A 2M3
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps. >google.com_-3Fq-3D266- 2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D- 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C- 2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3- 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg& d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo 1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90i jJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s= Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lH FOmq32QE2xEac&e=
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
*ei*π + 1 = 0
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask] or click the
following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1