Nice to discover Judea Pearl ask a fundamental question. What's an 'inductive bias'?

The Nature versus Nurture is a debate about scientific doctrine. It is a debate about the correct way of explanation for cognition.

The Representation versus Non-Representation shares the same debate. It is also about the correct way of explanation for cognition.

It is also the difference between thinking in nouns versus thinking in verbs. Nature and Representation have deep roots in Western thinking. It is a functionalist and reductionist way of thinking that meets its limits when analyzing complex adaptive systems.

It is perhaps due to this Western bias that concepts from the study of complex systems have had little traction in modern society. It is of course, more than a Western bias, but a human bias to seek out simple causal explanations of this world.

But the world is complex and messy. Spiral dynamics which is an evolutionary model of individuals and society explains how models of the world shape ourselves and our civilization.

I suspect that Emergentism and Enactivism have very little appeal in a world dominated by Reductionists.

To get funding one must present a reductionist idea. A perfect example of this is the European Blue Brain project.

I also suspect that pitches that show how one can get a competitive advantage over the rest of humanity has a much greater appeal than pitches that show how one can that has a unified view of humanity.

My book 'The Deep Learning Playbook' out sold my other book 'Artificial Intuition' by a metric mile. I am however more proud of the latter book.

That's because the word 'playbook' conveys a thing that once possessed gives one new power. In contrast, the word 'intuition' does not feel like a think but more of a process (a thought process). Processes don't appear like things that can be owned.

Star Wars has a simple dichotomy between good and evil. But as the stories have evolved, the nuances between these distinct poles also has acquired a richness that is hard to dismiss.

In the latest trilogy, we discover a dysfunctional civilization even after the defeat of the empire. The argument that the remnants of the empire make is that the galaxy stills seeks a need for order. Order and chaos are at seperate poles where evil is aligned with order.

We know however from D&D alignment charts that good and evil, order and chaos can exist in many combinations:

It is also interesting that the Sith (the Evil sorcerers) only come in pairs as opposed to the Jedi that can be entire communities. Apparently, to sustain evil one has to restrict agency and individuality to just a few. A community of evil-doers very quickly turns on itself.

So at one extreme we have evil, order, individuality and at the other we have good, chaos, collective. Which brings up the question, what is the definition of evil and good? Something that we took for granted ever since the first Star Wars movie.

I woke up realizing that there is something very wrong with thinking in categories and classifications. Many people accept the idea that this kind of thinking is at the core of abstract thought.

Douglas Hofstadter argues otherwise in a very thick (not dumb in the Brit sense) book of his ('Surface and Essences') where he argues that analogy is at the core of thinking. You'll have to read his book, specifically the last chapter to understand what he means.

The problem with categories is that they create artificial boundaries that are too crisp. But we know that when we master any subject that there is a distinct fluidity between concepts. The master seems wrong from a by-the-book novice because he keeps on breaking definitions.

Analogy making employs the tacit knowledge gained through experience to adroitly navigate between similar and competing concepts. A master has an intuitive feel of the vocabulary he employs to create expressions that have previously never been heard.

Biological brains feel their way through their realities. Something feels like red because our interactions with that thing feels the same as if it was red. We do not see the color red, we feel the color red. There is no red in this picture:

In physics, energy is that which is causally invariant or symmetric with respect to time. Said differently, energy is never created or destroyed, it is conserved in the universe.

Now there is a question about information. Is information causally invariant? Does information remain the same with respect to time? To understand this, let's first understand what energy is, then attempt to understand what information is.

The strange thing about energy is that it is this universal currency that seems to be interchangeable between the different forces in nature (i.e. electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravity). It is that thing that makes change possible.

Now let's assume that the universe is computational in nature. That is, anything we see in nature is a consequence of computation. That is, there is computation underneath the physics that is driving the universe to change.

What does it mean then that information is conserved in this computational universe? Also, how is energy conservation related to information conservation?

8 rules the top play by that those at the bottom should adopt.

— Thread
(requested by followers)

1. Leverage

Most poor people don't leverage. Trying to get everything done yourself will limit you to only how much you can do.

Get more hands working for you, and find a way to pay or show them what's in it for them.

2. Trust

When doing business, poor people would require collateral from strangers, but excuse those close to them because they *trust* them.

That's how you get scammed.

The unspoken rule is to know your safety net whenever you're not taking collateral.

Never need to trust.

3. Morality

Never seen a very successful businessman say "This is not a good thing, it's evil."

It's either good for business or bad for business. Its either effective or ineffective.

Morality will only limit you.

4. Reciprocity

Expecting someone to help you because you helped them in the past is ludicrous.

If you're no longer useful to them, people have no reason to help you.

"Whenever you see water flowing upstream it means someone it repaying a kindness."

— 48 Laws Of Power

X : Do you think cloud will decentralise?
Me : Already has - started with regions and AZs and is now rapidly expanding into outpost, greengrass, EKS anwhere.
X : No, I mean many providers.
Me : There are two forms of decentralisation - provision and control (i.e. authorities) ...

... what is happening is decentralisation of provision (i.e. cloud everywhere, at the edge) but under centralised authorities (Amazon, Alibaba, MSFT, Google etc).
X : What about decentralisation of control?
Me : Many companies working to a common standard ...

... that was the dream of OpenStack but they blew that on day one creating a collective prisoner dilemma. They are trying to recorrect this with K8s but the cloud has moved on, higher up the stack ...

... so, the idea of a marketplace of many different companies each having authority is ... wishful thinking by past vendors and clients they've hoodwinked. Maybe in 15-20 years we will get another go ... open source is a long game ...

... more likely is many points of provision i.e. companies offering EKS anywhere on a utility basis but under centralised authority e.g. AWS.

So, yes, the cloud is going to edge, has been for sometime but it'll be AWS / Alibaba / MSFT cloud that is everywhere.

3 December 2020 #MAGAanalysis #RedoTheElection

When You Catch A Thief

The sleeping giant of America sleeps no more. We have awakened. We're nothing more than the same Common Sense Americans we were in 1776. We're feisty. Independent and self-sufficient. Hard working.

As a scholar who has researched and written quite a bit about the Anabaptists, can we set a few things straight?

1. Baptists are not Anabaptists. Their history is theirs; ours is ours. We have similarities, but we are not them. We honor them by not using them for our purposes.

2. Not all Anabaptists were in Münster, and many if not most Anabaptists at the time were just as appalled as we are by the Münsterites. So please drop the tropes equating all Anabaptists with Münster. Informed and honest scholars are known by their right retelling of history.

3. The same truth applies to the other types of Reformation Radicals. There is a great difference between those who have become known as Evangelical Anabaptists on the one hand and Spiritualists, Rationalists, etc. on the other hand. Respect them as you also wish to be respected.

4. Yes, there were Anabaptists who toyed with various heresies, including Arianism, Socinianism, and Celestial Flesh Christology. But there were also many Anabaptists who affirmed, commented upon, and used the traditional Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.

And if you want to do the honest research, you can also find a few heretical Roman Catholic Popes and more than a few heretical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans. and whomever else you want to talk about. Good historical theology doesn’t play favorites; it speaks the truth.