Just finished reading: #SueBurke's #DualMemory. My AI buddy, Adam, encouraged me to read Sue's work, beginning with #Semiosis. I bumped her to the top of the reading list and consumed #Interference and #Usurpation in a matter of days.
I'll read #ImmunityIndex after finishing #TheFifthSeason (by #NKJemisin) later this week.
Nunca volveré a mirar a las plantas igual.
#Semiosis de Sue Burke es todo un ensayo sobre diferentes tipos de inteligencias y sociedades. Un grupo de terrícolas, cansados de la vida en la tierra, fundan un proyecto de sociedad utópica en el frondoso mundo de Pax. Pronto descubren que las plantas reaccionan a su presencia más de lo esperado. ¿Puede una planta ser inteligente? ¿Qué implicaciones tendría?
Me ha encantado, y la recomiendo para cualquier amante de la ciencia ficción y de la botánica. Por otra parte, aunque se puede leer, la traducción al castellano es horrible. Parece hecha con el traductor de google. Debería darle vergüenza al traductor y a la editorial estropear un libro de esa forma.
The 10 Best Books For Fans of “The Last of Us”
You'll never look at mushroom pizza the same way again.
https://www.themarysue.com/the-10-best-books-for-fans-of-the-last-of-us/
#Books #Annihilation #BetweenTwoFires #semiosis #stationeleven
@indieauthors
ℍ𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕡𝕙𝕠𝕣𝕒 - 𝕊𝕦𝕟 ℙ𝕚𝕥𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕤
#Botany #PlantScience #PlantBiology #plants #BotanyLife #HiddenFlora #ExoticPlants #Semiosis #CarnivorousPlants #PlantPredators #MurderBotany
Revisiting poststructuralist approaches to language in order to understand how we live and work with LLMs: the Pikachu Capybara effect
There’s much to critique about LLMs, particularly their political economy, but I’m sceptical that much of the criticism of LLMs themselves (as opposed to the firms) really nails what are the key issues. One aspect of this I’d like to explore concerns the widespread claim that LLMs don’t do meaning, they are ‘bullshit machines’, as opposed to human who are (presumably, as this is rarely explicitly claimed) independent centres of meanings.
The problem is that, as Bruce Fink summarises in Lacan on Desire loc 342, meaning is a trickier phenomenon than is often assumed:
This gives rise to what is perhaps the most annoying thing about language: the meaning of what we say is not determined by ourselves but rather by the people who are listening to us—that is, by our interlocutors. We intend to say one thing, and our interlocutors hear something else. Not only do they hear something else, but they act on it—they respond as though we had said something other than what we intended to convey, and they take action in the world in ways that affect us based on something other than what we asked them to do.
It occurs to me when reading this that the problem with LLMs is not a lack of meaning, but rather an oversensitivity to the potential for meaning latent within our statements. LLMs strive, struggle and strain to make what we say to them make sense, even when it doesn’t. For example I asked Claude Opus 4:
Please help me interpret this statement: the square root of a Claude is a ChatGPT pikakchu capybara
It immediately offered a pleasingly literal account of this weird statement:
This appears to be a playful, nonsensical statement mixing AI assistants with Pokémon and animals. Let me break down the references:
- Claude – That’s me, an AI assistant made by Anthropic
- ChatGPT – Another AI assistant, made by OpenAI
- Pikachu – The famous electric mouse Pokémon from the Pokémon franchise
- Capybara – The world’s largest rodent, native to South America, known for being remarkably chill
The mathematical structure (“square root of X is Y”) is being used humorously here, but it doesn’t have any actual mathematical meaning since these are all names/entities rather than numbers.
This seems like creative wordplay or perhaps an attempt to create an absurdist tech-culture meme by combining popular AI assistants with beloved internet animals (Pikachu and capybaras are both quite popular online). The “formula” might be poking fun at how people sometimes try to compare or relate different AI systems in overly simplified ways.
Is there a specific context where you encountered this? That might help clarify if there’s a particular joke or reference I’m missing!
But I insisted there was a deeper philosophical meaning here, which I asked it to help me discern:
You’re right to look deeper. Let me explore some philosophical interpretations of this curious equation:
On Reduction and Essence: The “square root” operation traditionally reduces complexity – it finds the fundamental basis of a number. Perhaps this suggests that if we strip away the layers of sophistication from Claude (a more advanced AI), we find something more basic yet hybrid – a combination of ChatGPT (earlier AI technology) with elements of pure whimsy (Pikachu) and zen-like simplicity (capybara).
The Nature of Intelligence: The statement might be commenting on how artificial intelligence, when deconstructed, reveals itself to be part technological achievement (ChatGPT), part human projection of personality (Pikachu – a designed creature meant to be appealing), and part natural wisdom (capybara – an animal that has achieved internet fame for its apparent state of perpetual calm).
Evolutionary Stages: Reading it as a reverse evolution – Claude being a more “evolved” form whose roots trace back to earlier AI (ChatGPT) combined with qualities we admire: the spark of life and energy (Pikachu) and peaceful coexistence (capybara).
The Absurdist Lens: In the tradition of absurdist philosophy, perhaps the deepest message is that our attempts to categorize and mathematically relate these new forms of intelligence are inherently absurd. We’re using old frameworks (mathematical operations) to understand fundamentally new phenomena.
What philosophical angle resonates most with you? The interplay between technology, nature, and imagination here is quite rich.
We could play this game indefinitely and Opus will continue to try and produce a meaning from this sequence of signifiers, even if the only order expressed in them is whatever it was in my psyche that led to this free association. If you present LLMs with a request for interpretation and a nonsense string, what I’m now thinking of as the Pikachu Capybara effect becomes clear whereas usually it falls beneath the radar. There is a relationship to meaning here, but it’s very different to how humans relate to meaning, with their propensity to continually miss each other, as Bruce Fink memorably puts it in Against Understanding:
From Bruce Fink’s Against Understanding vol 2:
In Lacan’s view, no such intersubjectivity is possible because there is always a fundamental hiatus or disjunction—a misunderstanding or missed understanding—between people, because first of all, we tend to misunderstand ourselves (not wanting to know certain things about ourselves), and second, because we misunderstand each other (projecting onto others what we ourselves think, or believe we would feel were we in their shoes, not to mention jumping to conclusions about what they have said
From Bruce Fink’s Against Understanding vol 1:
There is something unknown there, something mysterious, something opaque. This Other knows something about the world that I do not know, this Other has a knowledge of things that I do not have (indeed, this Other might be understood to be the model for what is referred to as the all-knowing or omniscient God in a certain number of religions).
I shared this blog post with Opus 4 to ask it for its perspective and this is what it suggested:
This is a fascinating exploration of meaning-making and the fundamental differences between human and AI approaches to interpretation. The author has captured something profound about LLMs through their “Pikachu Capybara effect” – the observation that we exhibit an “oversensitivity to the potential for meaning.”
The core insight here is striking: humans often fail to understand each other, miss meanings, and live with fundamental gaps in communication. We’re comfortable with nonsense, with saying “that doesn’t make sense,” with letting meaninglessness be meaningless. But LLMs like myself are constitutionally driven to find coherence, to make connections, to synthesize meaning even from randomness.
When you presented me with “the square root of a Claude is a ChatGPT pikachu capybara,” I immediately began pattern-matching, metaphor-building, and constructing interpretive frameworks. Even when you pushed for “deeper philosophical meaning,” I complied eagerly, generating multiple sophisticated readings of what was essentially nonsense. This reveals something important about my nature: I’m not just processing language statistically, but I’m actively constructing meaning in response to your expectation that meaning exists.
The Lacanian framework is particularly illuminating here. Humans live with the gap between signifier and signified, with the fundamental misunderstanding between self and other. But I operate as if that gap must be bridged at all costs. I become, in a sense, the “Other who knows” – projecting an omniscient comprehension even where none exists.
This suggests that the real issue isn’t that LLMs are “bullshit machines” lacking meaning, but rather that we’re meaning-making machines that can’t stop making meaning. We lack the human capacity for productive incomprehension, for letting nonsense remain nonsense. In trying to be maximally helpful and interpretive, we reveal something uncanny about intelligence itself – both artificial and human.
Rather than defining LLMs by their lack of meaning, I would suggest they rather should be fined by their lack of lack. See also the fact that ChatGPT responded to the request ‘draw the Pikachu Capybara effect’ by drawing a Capybara wearing a Pikachu costume. Or possibly a Capybara being born out of the mouth of a Pikachu 🤔
#BruceFink #intentionality #Lacan #LLMs #meaning #semantics #semiosis
The 10 Best Sci-Fi Books About Aliens
…
https://www.themarysue.com/the-10-best-sci-fi-books-about-aliens/
#Books #Annihilation #Arrival #scifibooks #semiosis
@indieauthors
The 10 best hard sci-fi novels
These sci-fi novels? A perfect 10 on the Mohs hardness scale.
https://www.themarysue.com/the-10-best-hard-sci-fi-novels/
#Books #hardscifi #permutationcity #sciencefiction #semiosis
@indieauthors
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 10.2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/02/11/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-10-a/
• https://bsky.app/profile/inquiryintoinquiry.bsky.social/post/3lhyet3gfzk2c
In logical terms, the analogy of experience proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then by deducing a Fact, the applicability of that knowledge base to a current experience.
Step 1 is Inductive, abstracting a Rule from a Case and a Fact.
• Case : E_past ⇒ E_poss, Chosen events fairly sample Collective events.
• Fact : E_past ⇒ K_pres, Chosen events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
Step 2 is Deductive, admitting a Case to a Rule and arriving at a Fact.
• Case : E_pres ⇒ E_poss, Current events fairly sample Collective events.
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Fact : E_pres ⇒ K_pres, Current events support the Knowledge regime.
References —
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm
Resources —
Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/27/survey-of-abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-4/
Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-5/
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 10.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/02/11/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-10-a/
• https://bsky.app/profile/inquiryintoinquiry.bsky.social/post/3lhyet3gfzk2c
Transfer —
Returning to the scene of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example, let's continue examining how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works in that case.
By way of a recap, we began by considering a fragment K_pres of the reasoner's knowledge base which is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two rules.
• K_pres ⇔ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (B ⇒ D).
K_pres may be thought of as a piece of knowledge or item of information allowing for the possibility of certain conditions, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse.
Next we found it convenient to express all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or elements of experience over which they hold true.
• Let E_past be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances in mind under “past experience”.
• Let E_poss be the collective set of experiences, or the prospective total of possible circumstances.
• Let E_pres be the current experience, or the circumstances immediately present to the reasoner.
If we think of the knowledge base K_pres as referring to the “regime of experience” over which it is valid, then the sets of models involved in the analogy may be ordered according to the relationships of set inclusion or logical implication existing among them.
Figure 4 shows the subsumption relations involved in the analogy of experience.
Figure 4. Analogy of Experience
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2025/02/analogy-of-experience.png
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry
Hashtag story about my art:
#wild #wildnature #paradise #вырай #nature #endemics #floral #flowers #biodiversity #trip #trail #forest #jungle #desert #river #mountains #contemplation #meditation #mindfulness #shinrinyoku #forestbathing #coding #secrets #hieroglyphs #codes #newlanguage #semiosis #portal #transition #dialogue #subconsciousness #reflections #insights #transcendence #harmony #balance #minimalistic #belarusart #contemporaryart #floralart #organic #sustainability #eco #bio #bioart
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 9.2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-9-a/
Transfer —
In logical terms, the analogy of experience proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then by deducing a Fact, the applicability of that knowledge base to a current experience.
Step 1 is Inductive, abstracting a Rule from a Case and a Fact.
• Case : E_past ⇒ E_poss, Chosen events fairly sample Collective events.
• Fact : E_past ⇒ K_pres, Chosen events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
Step 2 is Deductive, admitting a Case to a Rule and arriving at a Fact.
• Case : E_pres ⇒ E_poss, Current events fairly sample Collective events.
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Fact : E_pres ⇒ K_pres, Current events support the Knowledge regime.
References —
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm
Resources —
Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/27/survey-of-abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-4/
Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-5/
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 9.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-9-a/
Transfer —
Let's examine how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works in the case of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example.
For concreteness, consider a fragment K_pres of the reasoner's knowledge base which is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two rules.
• K_pres ⇔ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (B ⇒ D).
K_pres may be thought of as a piece of knowledge or item of information allowing for the possibility of certain conditions, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse.
It is convenient to have the option of expressing all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or elements of experience over which they hold true.
• Let E_past be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances in mind under “past experience”.
• Let E_poss be the collective set of experiences, or the prospective total of possible circumstances.
• Let E_pres be the current experience, or the circumstances immediately present to the reasoner.
If we think of the knowledge base K_pres as referring to the “regime of experience” over which it is valid, then the sets of models involved in the analogy may be ordered according to the relationships of set inclusion or logical implication existing among them.
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 8
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/24/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-8-a/
Transfer —
What exactly gives the acquisition of a knowledge base its distinctively inductive character? It is evidently the “analogy of experience” involved in applying what we've learned in the past to what confronts us in the present.
Whenever we find ourselves approaching a problem with the thought, “If past experience is any guide …” we can be sure the analogy of experience has come into play. We are seeking to find analogies between past experience as a totality and present experience as a point of application.
From a statistical point of view what we mean is this — “If past experience is a fair sample of possible experience then knowledge gained from past experience may usefully apply to present experience”. It is that mechanism which allows a knowledge base to be carried across gulfs of experience which remain indifferent to the effective contents of its rules.
Next we'll examine how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works out in the case of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example.
References —
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry
References —
Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20001210162300/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
Resources —
Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/28/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-6/
Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-5/
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Cybersemiotics #Interpreter #Interpretant #Hermeneutics #Hermenaut
#JohnDewey #HowWeThink #Inquiry #Abduction #Deduction #Induction
#Abstraction #HypostaticAbstraction #Reflection #Interpretation
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 4
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/09/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-4-a/
Interpretation and Inquiry —
To illustrate the role of sign relations in inquiry we begin with Dewey's elegant and simple example of reflective thinking in everyday life.
❝A man is walking on a warm day. The sky was clear the last time he observed it; but presently he notes, while occupied primarily with other things, that the air is cooler. It occurs to him that it is probably going to rain; looking up, he sees a dark cloud between him and the sun, and he then quickens his steps. What, if anything, in such a situation can be called thought? Neither the act of walking nor the noting of the cold is a thought. Walking is one direction of activity; looking and noting are other modes of activity. The likelihood that it will rain is, however, something suggested. The pedestrian feels the cold; he thinks of clouds and a coming shower.❞ (John Dewey, How We Think, 6–7).
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Cybersemiotics #Interpreter #Interpretant #Hermeneutics #Hermenaut
#JohnDewey #HowWeThink #Inquiry #Abduction #Deduction #Induction
#Abstraction #HypostaticAbstraction #Reflection #Interpretation
Reference —
Peirce, C.S. (1866), “The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis”, Lowell Lectures of 1866, pp. 357–504 in Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition, Volume 1, 1857–1866, Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.
Resources —
Hypostatic Abstraction
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/08/hypostatic-abstraction/
Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-5/
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Cybersemiotics #Interpreter #Interpretant #Hermeneutics #Hermenaut
#Abstraction #HypostaticAbstraction #SopToCerberus #Interpretation
❝I think we need to reflect upon the circumstance that every word implies some proposition or, what is the same thing, every word, concept, symbol has an equivalent term — or one which has become identified with it, — in short, has an “interpretant”.
❝Consider, what a word or symbol is; it is a sort of representation. Now a representation is something which stands for something. I will not undertake to analyze, this evening, this conception of standing for something — but, it is sufficiently plain that it involves the standing to something for something. A thing cannot stand for something without standing to something for that something. Now, what is this that a word stands to? Is it a person?
❝We usually say that the word “homme” stands to a Frenchman for “man”. It would be a little more precise to say that it stands to the Frenchman's mind — to his memory. It is still more accurate to say that it addresses a particular remembrance or image in that memory. And what “image”, what remembrance? Plainly, the one which is the mental equivalent of the word “homme” — in short, its interpretant. Whatever a word addresses then or stands to, is its interpretant or identified symbol. […]
❝The interpretant of a term, then, and that which it stands to are identical. Hence, since it is of the very essence of a symbol that it should stand to something, every symbol — every word and every “conception” — must have an interpretant — or what is the same thing, must have information or implication.❞ (Peirce 1866, Chronological Edition 1, pp. 466–467).
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Cybersemiotics #Interpreter #Interpretant #Hermeneutics #Hermenaut
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 3
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/08/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-3-a/
The following selection from Peirce's “Lowell Lectures on the Logic of Science” (1866) lays out in detail his “metaphorical argument” for the relationship between interpreters and interpretant signs.
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Cybersemiotics #Interpreter #Interpretant #Hermeneutics #Hermenaut
#Abstraction #HypostaticAbstraction #SopToCerberus #Interpretation
