Marco Palombi
@ocrampal.bsky.social
Developing formal tools to express autonomy and creativity, inspired by http://geneosophy.com - a theoretical framework aimed at comprehending the concepts of life and intelligence.
About me: https://ocrampal.com/about-me/
About me: https://ocrampal.com/about-me/
Adding to the metaphor, "most" AI people are modern day Sophist and Alchemists: www.ocrampal.com/from-sophist...
From Sophists to Alchemists to AI Coders: The Technique Without Understanding
Dr. Marcus Doubtful, former quantum physicist turned philosopher of science.
Dr. Andrew Sofist, a computational physicist and AI researcher who has just delivered a triumphant presentation on large la...
www.ocrampal.com
November 28, 2025 at 9:08 AM
Adding to the metaphor, "most" AI people are modern day Sophist and Alchemists: www.ocrampal.com/from-sophist...
But one could start from a different world view, one that accommodates for the simulation but that is also interested in the process of constructing concepts and objects.
November 26, 2025 at 10:21 PM
But one could start from a different world view, one that accommodates for the simulation but that is also interested in the process of constructing concepts and objects.
"Approximation of the phenomena". The way one interprets what I wrote about simulations, depends on one's world view. I guess you are a materialist, am I right? It is natural to consider the scientific method and by extension AI in the business of an never ending approximation of an objective world
November 26, 2025 at 10:18 PM
"Approximation of the phenomena". The way one interprets what I wrote about simulations, depends on one's world view. I guess you are a materialist, am I right? It is natural to consider the scientific method and by extension AI in the business of an never ending approximation of an objective world
Neural Networks can approximate any function given enough compute and data. The key here is approximate, as in simulation. Yes NN can simulate any behavior that we consider intelligence, but that's approximation.
November 26, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Neural Networks can approximate any function given enough compute and data. The key here is approximate, as in simulation. Yes NN can simulate any behavior that we consider intelligence, but that's approximation.
Got it. Agree! Geneosophy is inherently multi-point-of-view. Has to be if you want to comprehend (in the sense of container) instead of only understanding (in the sense of cutting a specific point of view)
November 25, 2025 at 2:10 PM
Got it. Agree! Geneosophy is inherently multi-point-of-view. Has to be if you want to comprehend (in the sense of container) instead of only understanding (in the sense of cutting a specific point of view)
I am not familiar with "self-similarity (mono-x)", but certainly interested in exchanging ideas.
The problem today is that we have a hammer (computation) and everything becomes a nail. That does not work for the concepts of intelligence and life. Works perfectly to build bridges.
The problem today is that we have a hammer (computation) and everything becomes a nail. That does not work for the concepts of intelligence and life. Works perfectly to build bridges.
November 25, 2025 at 1:32 PM
I am not familiar with "self-similarity (mono-x)", but certainly interested in exchanging ideas.
The problem today is that we have a hammer (computation) and everything becomes a nail. That does not work for the concepts of intelligence and life. Works perfectly to build bridges.
The problem today is that we have a hammer (computation) and everything becomes a nail. That does not work for the concepts of intelligence and life. Works perfectly to build bridges.
Agreed. The problem today is that the traditional computational paradigm favors monopoly, because it works on statistical methods. And statistical methods favor data aggregation that can be achieved by few. And also has the drawback of hallucinations. That is why I am developing www.geneosophy.com
November 25, 2025 at 12:47 PM
Agreed. The problem today is that the traditional computational paradigm favors monopoly, because it works on statistical methods. And statistical methods favor data aggregation that can be achieved by few. And also has the drawback of hallucinations. That is why I am developing www.geneosophy.com
I feel your frustration!
November 24, 2025 at 4:36 PM
I feel your frustration!
I'm actually working on a new conceptual framework that is not based on computation. Because computation leads to statistical organization of knowledge. www.geneosophy.com
November 23, 2025 at 7:27 PM
I'm actually working on a new conceptual framework that is not based on computation. Because computation leads to statistical organization of knowledge. www.geneosophy.com
I guess your colleague would think twice trusting your work next time. But I guess this will happen more and more ...
November 23, 2025 at 6:20 PM
I guess your colleague would think twice trusting your work next time. But I guess this will happen more and more ...
If I understand your point, you argue for banning LLM because they produce slop (which they do by design and cannot be fixed, I agree). I was pointing to the fact that people should be educated to the dangers/limitations of these tools. When outside your field of expertise, learn not to trust it.
November 23, 2025 at 4:25 PM
If I understand your point, you argue for banning LLM because they produce slop (which they do by design and cannot be fixed, I agree). I was pointing to the fact that people should be educated to the dangers/limitations of these tools. When outside your field of expertise, learn not to trust it.
Maybe it does: www.ocrampal.com/i-am-cold-vs...
I Am Cold vs. I Have Cold: A Philosophy in Two Words
There's a curious linguistic asymmetry that might explain one of the deepest divides in Western philosophy. It hides in plain sight, in something as simple as how we talk about feeling cold.
The Col...
www.ocrampal.com
November 23, 2025 at 4:19 PM
Maybe it does: www.ocrampal.com/i-am-cold-vs...
I think that is the minority. The majority has no intellectual tools to discern truth from slop, unfortunately.
November 23, 2025 at 4:17 PM
I think that is the minority. The majority has no intellectual tools to discern truth from slop, unfortunately.
2/2 additionally I can think of the system being one, existing as one. But that does not change the fact that I designed the parts and the only one thinking is me.
November 23, 2025 at 3:23 PM
2/2 additionally I can think of the system being one, existing as one. But that does not change the fact that I designed the parts and the only one thinking is me.
Existence, as in "exist" should be defined. Personally I like to think that I designed the system cased on the understanding of a part that interacts with the environment and another that "evaluates" the interactor. That is one way of thinking about the existence of two parts. 1/2
November 23, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Existence, as in "exist" should be defined. Personally I like to think that I designed the system cased on the understanding of a part that interacts with the environment and another that "evaluates" the interactor. That is one way of thinking about the existence of two parts. 1/2
I agree that there is self-reflection (circularity). But to get out of circularity one has to either go up or down the explanation. Who explains the explainer and so on ...
PS: I like this thread, civil exchange of ideas ...
PS: I like this thread, civil exchange of ideas ...
November 23, 2025 at 12:55 PM
I agree that there is self-reflection (circularity). But to get out of circularity one has to either go up or down the explanation. Who explains the explainer and so on ...
PS: I like this thread, civil exchange of ideas ...
PS: I like this thread, civil exchange of ideas ...
The devil is in the detail. Who is judging the information that arises internally? You could say the program. But who wrote the program? A dynamic system "seems" to be able to self-reflect, but one is just assigning that meaning to an artifact defined by the programmer
November 23, 2025 at 12:53 PM
The devil is in the detail. Who is judging the information that arises internally? You could say the program. But who wrote the program? A dynamic system "seems" to be able to self-reflect, but one is just assigning that meaning to an artifact defined by the programmer
The "I" that experiences wants to explain the the "I" as an object of experience. The "I" wants to explain itself
November 23, 2025 at 12:13 PM
The "I" that experiences wants to explain the the "I" as an object of experience. The "I" wants to explain itself