[KGVID width="640"
  height="640"]http://icopiedyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TheMasterEquationUsEasyI15lad99nue.mp4[/KGVID]

    The [1]#master [2]#equation = us. [3]#easy.
    [4]https://t.co/5aoDkD4roV

    * Nobody Needs (@InfoNobodyNeeds) [5]February 7, 2016

  I read a book called "The Master Equation".* Ok, I glanced
  through it for the main points and came to this chart within
  which summarizes the whole book in a little graphic. It's really
  a spectacular little graphic and points to a "something" in the
  middle that, if ONLY we could puzzle it out, we'd have it made.
  But here's the thing: -We- are the master equation. Who is
  puzzling it out by which method?* We are. Here's the fields he
  shows: Analogizers [that's me. Metaphors/Analogies] Bayesians
  [probabilities] Evolutionaries [think Dawkins - he makes
  EVERYTHING into Evolution but that makes sense because of his
  field - it colors the lens he sees the world with... and why he
  sounds ridiculous sometimes when he steps out of his field (my
  opinion) Connectionists* [think neural networks... think
  "singularity"] Symbolists [Think first generation AI, Chomsky]
  Now he's correct that they're all leading to a mysterious
  'something' that will tie it all together and that -if- we find
  that formula, we'll have it made. But, we have the formula. It's
  the combination of the systems with the environments working in
  tandem and we're a part of that process because these are HUMAN
  systems created by humans for human consumption. Even if we
  create artificial independent life, which we already do in some
  primitive, skeletal form with any device that operates without
  our intervention, the "master equation" must be uncertainty and
  our willingness to accept such uncertainties. If we are able to
  perceive every part of a process and have an ongoing overview
  knowledge of all parts of a system, we'll not be in the center
  of the equation. We want CERTAINTY.* The author wants CERTAINTY.
  But you don't GET certainty with autonomous beings because now
  they're predictable.* If you can predict it, it's not
  autonomous. If there is an equation - a formula - an algorithm
  that can pull it all together allowing us to make models to be
  able to duplicate exact function, then we have another machine
  whose behaviors can be predicted and not the 'master equation'.
  But a master equation with uncertainty will not be satisfying to
  humans. We're the master equation.* We have to let go of some
  control and ability to predict within our systems but upon doing
  so, we don't have the master equation intended by the author.
  via Twitter https://twitter.com/InfoNobodyNeeds February 07,
  2016 at 03:24PM

References

  Visible links
  1. https://twitter.com/hashtag/master?src=hash
  2. https://twitter.com/hashtag/equation?src=hash
  3. https://twitter.com/hashtag/easy?src=hash
  4. https://t.co/5aoDkD4roV
  5. https://twitter.com/InfoNobodyNeeds/status/696429316008235008

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.