I'm working in the IT field since the early 80s and I've never heard connecting Cybernetics or IT or even AI to matter and energy. as far as their essence and nature are concerned. So I can safely say that this is a big misconception . . . — Alkis Piskas
Cybernetics is about purposeful control and self-regulation. But it works by directing Causality (energy) into specific directions (channels) to produce useful behaviors. IT typically follows Shannon's technical definition of "information", which omits Meaning & Purpose from its equations, in favor of abstract numerical values. The result is impersonal robotic technology. But AI is now trying to put purpose & personality back into cybernetic systems.
Cybernetics is a wide-ranging field concerned with regulatory and purposive systems. The core concept of cybernetics is circular causality or feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
Google_robot1.jpg
TPF : Origin of Laws of Physics
Re: TPF : Origin of Laws of Physics
Wow! This is the most "exotic" definition of "information" I could ever expect! And for a word people use everyday! It looks like it is created in a way to fit this also "exotic" theory ...
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all. — Alkis Piskas
The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. The thesis is presented as a new Paradigm to update the old scientific worldviews of Materialism or Physicalism. But, I'm not just making this sh*t up. For example, the Santa Fe Institute does interdisciplinary*1 theoretical research on Complex Adaptive Systems, but "outside traditional boundaries". That candid admission provokes accusations of "pseudoscience", in part because they do not confine themselves to "commonly accepted definitions", and partly because they cross the no-no line from Physics & Chemistry into problems of Life & Mind.
Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview
*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
This compendium, co-authored by 35 Santa Fe scientists, among others, and co-edited by Physicist Paul Davies, is a collaboration of scientists from around the world with at least one thing in common : a primary role for Information in their research on Physics, Microbiology, Mathematics, Computation, Cosmology, Evolution, Information Theory, Neuroscience, Game Theory, etc. . . . So, you can imagine that they come-up with lots of "exotic" ideas, and innovative definitions to describe the alien territory they are exploring.
"If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers". ___the Editors
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fr ... 15739F8E5A
6 days ago
No, this finds me in total disagreement. If one cannot formulate an argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc., using standard and commonly accepted definitions of terms, he just has no argument, position, theory, hypothesis, etc. at all. — Alkis Piskas
The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. The thesis is presented as a new Paradigm to update the old scientific worldviews of Materialism or Physicalism. But, I'm not just making this sh*t up. For example, the Santa Fe Institute does interdisciplinary*1 theoretical research on Complex Adaptive Systems, but "outside traditional boundaries". That candid admission provokes accusations of "pseudoscience", in part because they do not confine themselves to "commonly accepted definitions", and partly because they cross the no-no line from Physics & Chemistry into problems of Life & Mind.
Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview
*1. From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
This compendium, co-authored by 35 Santa Fe scientists, among others, and co-edited by Physicist Paul Davies, is a collaboration of scientists from around the world with at least one thing in common : a primary role for Information in their research on Physics, Microbiology, Mathematics, Computation, Cosmology, Evolution, Information Theory, Neuroscience, Game Theory, etc. . . . So, you can imagine that they come-up with lots of "exotic" ideas, and innovative definitions to describe the alien territory they are exploring.
"If information makes a difference in the physical world, which it surely does, then should we not attribute to it causal powers". ___the Editors
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fr ... 15739F8E5A
6 days ago
Re: TPF : Origin of Laws of Physics
Yet, when someone "hears" such things, he can't take them seriously, can he? — Alkis Piskas
I assume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. Instead, what we know is our own subjective mental constructs (Ideality) representing Reality. Such assertions sound counter-intuitive, because the observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real.
But Quantum Theory forced scientists to address the active role of the observer for interpreting the signals we get from the environment. Donald Hoffman looked at the same question from the perspective of a Cognitive scientist. He came to the same conclusion as Kant's "occult ontology". He says that we perceive Reality in the same way we "interface" with a computer, via symbols (icons). Do you find that hard to believe? Can you take human limitations seriously?
PS___This is the same old Subjective versus Objective (Ideality vs Reality) question, that philosophers & scientists have been grappling with for millennia.
The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes :
Can we trust our senses to tell us the truth? Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... =en&gbpv=0
Occult Ontology :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon. . . . . For our practical needs, such short-cuts are sufficient to get the job done. It’s not necessary for us to be aware of all the intricate details of internal computer processes. From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Illusions or Approximations :
Envisioning two levels of reality, the apparent and the ultimate. IMHO, Kant didn’t mean that the appearances of our senses are deceptive illusions, but merely that they are useful approximations of objects that are otherwise incomprehensible to our senses, which evolved for human scale objects and energies.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
I assume that the "such things" you refer to is Kant's notion that we humans do not (cannot) know Reality directly. Instead, what we know is our own subjective mental constructs (Ideality) representing Reality. Such assertions sound counter-intuitive, because the observer is not aware of how his brain processes incoming sensations into symbolic imagery. So, he assumes (takes for granted) that what he sees is objectively Real.
But Quantum Theory forced scientists to address the active role of the observer for interpreting the signals we get from the environment. Donald Hoffman looked at the same question from the perspective of a Cognitive scientist. He came to the same conclusion as Kant's "occult ontology". He says that we perceive Reality in the same way we "interface" with a computer, via symbols (icons). Do you find that hard to believe? Can you take human limitations seriously?
PS___This is the same old Subjective versus Objective (Ideality vs Reality) question, that philosophers & scientists have been grappling with for millennia.
The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes :
Can we trust our senses to tell us the truth? Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... =en&gbpv=0
Occult Ontology :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon. . . . . For our practical needs, such short-cuts are sufficient to get the job done. It’s not necessary for us to be aware of all the intricate details of internal computer processes. From his studies, he has concluded that our sensory perceptions have “almost surely evolved to hide reality. They just report fitness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Illusions or Approximations :
Envisioning two levels of reality, the apparent and the ultimate. IMHO, Kant didn’t mean that the appearances of our senses are deceptive illusions, but merely that they are useful approximations of objects that are otherwise incomprehensible to our senses, which evolved for human scale objects and energies.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Re: TPF : Origin of Laws of Physics
Yes, I know this description in Wiki. And I agree with it.
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. — Alkis Piskas
Of course, Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations, but without the self-imposed restrictions of the Scientific Method. So, you don't think that pragmatic AI researchers should (or could) try to instill "crap" like Purpose & Meaning into their artificial humans?
Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. Don't you suspect that some AI programmers (privately) envision a day when sci-fi robots interact with humans as civil persons and moral agents, instead of as slaves & expendable gadgets? Do you think, as employees of the Military-Industrial Complex, AI designers shouldn't explore those impractical possibilities?
Artificial Purpose :
In summary, the goal of AI is to provide software that can reason on input and explain on output. AI will provide human-like interactions with software and offer decision support for specific tasks, but it's not a replacement for humans – and won't be anytime soon.
https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/anal ... gence.html
Artificial general intelligence is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. ___Wikipedia
But please, don't bring up examples/images from sci-fi movies, like the one from "Ex Machina", which, movies, are quite entertaining, but far from the actual nature and possibilities of AI. — Alkis Piskas
Of course, Science Fiction explores the philosophical implications of scientific innovations, but without the self-imposed restrictions of the Scientific Method. So, you don't think that pragmatic AI researchers should (or could) try to instill "crap" like Purpose & Meaning into their artificial humans?
Currently, robots get their Purpose from their programmers & controllers. But, they won't really be intelligent until they can operate independently. Don't you suspect that some AI programmers (privately) envision a day when sci-fi robots interact with humans as civil persons and moral agents, instead of as slaves & expendable gadgets? Do you think, as employees of the Military-Industrial Complex, AI designers shouldn't explore those impractical possibilities?
Artificial Purpose :
In summary, the goal of AI is to provide software that can reason on input and explain on output. AI will provide human-like interactions with software and offer decision support for specific tasks, but it's not a replacement for humans – and won't be anytime soon.
https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/anal ... gence.html
Artificial general intelligence is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. ___Wikipedia
Re: TPF : Origin of Laws of Physics
Well, once more, although I find all this quite interesting, and as much as you try to sell me the idea , it's out of my range of knowledge and interests. — Alkis Piskas
That's OK. Apparently, you prefer the self-imposed restrictions of pragmatic Science to the free-exploration of idealistic Philosophy. I don't have to "sell" the idea of Ubiquitous Information to scientists, because some are already there (e.g. Santa Fe Institute). On this forum though, I find it's a "hard sell" to philosophers under the influence of doctrinaire Scientism.
That's OK. Apparently, you prefer the self-imposed restrictions of pragmatic Science to the free-exploration of idealistic Philosophy. I don't have to "sell" the idea of Ubiquitous Information to scientists, because some are already there (e.g. Santa Fe Institute). On this forum though, I find it's a "hard sell" to philosophers under the influence of doctrinaire Scientism.
Re: TPF : Origin of Laws of Physics
A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof
These are good challenges to enformationism. Does 'materialism' pass A & B? or physicalism? — Bylaw
I have repeatedly responded to 180's demands for empirical evidence to support the Enformationism thesis by pointing out the obvious : it's not a scientific thesis, and I am not a scientist. In 180's own words : it is not "an attempt to solve scientific problems". It's also not a vetted academic thesis. Enformationism is instead a personal philosophical thesis. Others are free to take it for what it's worth to them.
But 180 rejects & repudiates the thesis, apparently because it clashes with his own personal worldview. I'm not sure what to call his anti-idealism ideology, but it seems to be opposed to Metaphysics-in-general (non-physical aspects of reality), and to the metaphysical-New-Age-mindset (spiritual aspects of the world) in particular. In contrast to his Idealistic/Spiritualistic interpretation, the Enformationism thesis was based on the novel-but-pragmatic 20th century sciences of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. It was not in any way inspired by Eastern religions or New Age doctrines. Any similarity to NA though, may be due to the emphasis on Holistic philosophical methods instead of Reductive scientific methods.
Ironically, the introduction to Enformationism proposes a new paradigm to update the ancient belief-systems of both scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism. This new/old way of looking at the world has no inherent religious implications, but it can be interpreted to support a variety of Mind-over-Matter notions, although empirical evidence is lacking. As a scientific paradigm though, it has already found a key role in Quantum Theory, Complexity, and Cybernetics, among other disciplines. So, you are correct to note that Materialism/Physicalism are philosophies of Metaphysical Naturalism, that ironically exclude the generalizing (holistic) methods of Metaphysics.
Vulgar materialism is the kind represented by the British writer Samuel Johnson (1709–84) kicking a stone to prove its existence. Some forms emphasize the physical and biological basis of human social being. Materialism rejects Cartesian dualism and disembodied existence.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 0111930156
Spiritualism :
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
___Oxford dictionary
Enformationism :
A new post-post-modern philosophical paradigm, proposed to supersede the obsolete modernist worldview of Materialism / Determinism. It proposes that matter and energy are essentially special forms of Generic Information.
Enformationism Glossary
David Bohm developed a quantum theory in which mind and matter are brought together. He writes: “A similar mind-like quality of matter reveals itself strongly at the quantum level, . . . . ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914914/
Active information can be viewed as the underlying reality, both physical and mental, from which both mind and matter emerge.
http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/davi ... formation/
Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/
Holism :
Ancient Greek philosophers, for example, had a tendency to have a holistic perspective. We can find it both in Plato and Aristotle.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism
↪180 Proof
B. In philosophy, what non-trivial, coherent question does "Enformationism" raise without begging any (or translate into a more probative question or questions)? — 180 Proof
These are good challenges to enformationism. Does 'materialism' pass A & B? or physicalism? — Bylaw
I have repeatedly responded to 180's demands for empirical evidence to support the Enformationism thesis by pointing out the obvious : it's not a scientific thesis, and I am not a scientist. In 180's own words : it is not "an attempt to solve scientific problems". It's also not a vetted academic thesis. Enformationism is instead a personal philosophical thesis. Others are free to take it for what it's worth to them.
But 180 rejects & repudiates the thesis, apparently because it clashes with his own personal worldview. I'm not sure what to call his anti-idealism ideology, but it seems to be opposed to Metaphysics-in-general (non-physical aspects of reality), and to the metaphysical-New-Age-mindset (spiritual aspects of the world) in particular. In contrast to his Idealistic/Spiritualistic interpretation, the Enformationism thesis was based on the novel-but-pragmatic 20th century sciences of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. It was not in any way inspired by Eastern religions or New Age doctrines. Any similarity to NA though, may be due to the emphasis on Holistic philosophical methods instead of Reductive scientific methods.
Ironically, the introduction to Enformationism proposes a new paradigm to update the ancient belief-systems of both scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism. This new/old way of looking at the world has no inherent religious implications, but it can be interpreted to support a variety of Mind-over-Matter notions, although empirical evidence is lacking. As a scientific paradigm though, it has already found a key role in Quantum Theory, Complexity, and Cybernetics, among other disciplines. So, you are correct to note that Materialism/Physicalism are philosophies of Metaphysical Naturalism, that ironically exclude the generalizing (holistic) methods of Metaphysics.
Vulgar materialism is the kind represented by the British writer Samuel Johnson (1709–84) kicking a stone to prove its existence. Some forms emphasize the physical and biological basis of human social being. Materialism rejects Cartesian dualism and disembodied existence.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 0111930156
Spiritualism :
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
___Oxford dictionary
Enformationism :
A new post-post-modern philosophical paradigm, proposed to supersede the obsolete modernist worldview of Materialism / Determinism. It proposes that matter and energy are essentially special forms of Generic Information.
Enformationism Glossary
David Bohm developed a quantum theory in which mind and matter are brought together. He writes: “A similar mind-like quality of matter reveals itself strongly at the quantum level, . . . . ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3914914/
Active information can be viewed as the underlying reality, both physical and mental, from which both mind and matter emerge.
http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/davi ... formation/
Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/
Holism :
Ancient Greek philosophers, for example, had a tendency to have a holistic perspective. We can find it both in Plato and Aristotle.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism
↪180 Proof
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests