Episode 30: Relevance Realization Meets Dynamical Systems Theory
So last time we were taking a look at trying to progress in an attempt to give at least a plausible suggestion of a scientific theory of how we could explain relevance realization. One of the things we examined was the distinction between a theory of relevance and a theory of relevance realization. I made the argument that we cannot have a scientific theory of relevance precisely because of a lack of systematic import, but can have a theory of relevance realization. Then I gave you the analogy of that (which I'm building towards something stronger than an analogy of) Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and that which Darwin proposed a virtual engine that regulates the reproductive cycle so that the system constantly evolves the biological fitness of organisms to a constantly changing environment and then the analogy is: there is a virtual engine in the embodied, embedded brain (and why it's embodied will become clear in this lecture).
There is a virtual engine that regulates the sensory-motor loop so that my cognitive interactional fittedness is constantly being shaped, it's constantly evolving to deal with a constantly changing environment and what I in fact need is a system of constraints because I'm trying to balance between selective and enabling constraints to limit and zero in on relevant information. Then I was trying to argue that the way in which that operates, we saw what needs to be related to an autopoetic system and then the way the self-organization I suggested operates in terms of a design that you see many scales and we need a member of multi-scaleular theory in terms of your biological and cognitive organization. That's in terms of opponent processing.
We took a look at the opponent processing within the autonomous nervous system that is constantly (by the strong analogy) evolving your level of arousal to the environment: opposing goals but interrelated function.
Then I proposed to you that we could look for the kinds of properties that we're going to be talking about, the level at which we're going to be pitching a theory of relevance realization, which is the theory of bioeconomic properties that are operating not according to normativity of truth or validity, not logical normativity but logistical normativity. The two most important logistical norms I would propose to you are efficiency and resiliency, and then I made an argument that they would be susceptible to opponent processing precisely because they are in a trade-off relationship with each other and the if we could get a cognitive virtual engine that regulates the senosorimotor loop by systematically playing off selective logistical economic constraints on efficiency and enabling economic constraints on resiliency then we could give an explanation / a theory deeply analogous to Darwin's theory of evolution where cross individuals of biological fittedness we could give an account of the cognitive evolution within individuals cognition of their cognitive interactional fittedness, the way they are shaping the problem space so as to adaptively be well-fitted to achieving their interactional goals with the environment.
The overall picture makes somewhat sense but I have much trouble with the phrasings of the constraint details.
How do you know before hand whether a object of study is homogenous or not. Okay it seems plausible that "white objects" doesn't have much. But I think scientific study of swans should definetely be "in". Now does the existence of black swans means the homogenuity of the study object is ruined and study should be suspended? Gold might seem homogenous but this can be problematised. Somebody might think that "fools gold" is variety of gold. And even ... (read more)
John Vervaeke has a lecture series on YouTube called Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. I thought it was great, so I'm arranging a lecture club to discuss it here on Less Wrong. The format is simple: each weekday I post a comment that's a link to the next lecture and the summary (which I plan on stealing from the recap at the beginning of the next lecture), and then sometimes comment beneath it with my own thoughts. If you're coming late (even years late!) feel free to join in, and go at whatever pace works for you.
(Who is John Vervaeke? He's a lecturer in cognitive science at the University of Toronto. I hadn't heard of him before the series, which came highly recommended to me.)
I split the lecture series into three parts: the philosophical, religious, and cultural history of humankind (25 episodes) related to meaning, the cognitive science of wisdom and meaning (20 episodes), and more recent philosophy related to the meaning crisis specifically (5 episodes). Each episode is about an hour at regular speed (but I think they're understandable at 2x speed). I am not yet aware of a good text version of the lectures; I also have some suspicion that some important content is not in the text itself, and so even if I transcribed them (or paid someone to) it'd still be worth watching or listening to it.
I think the subject matter is 1) very convergent with the sort of rationality people are interested in on LW, and 2) relevant to AI alignment, especially thinking about embedded agency.
Discussion: