THE CONVERSATION THE WORLD NEEDS 😉 Stephen Wolfram (@stephen_wolfram) is more s

THE CONVERSATION THE WORLD NEEDS 😉

Stephen Wolfram (@stephen_wolfram) is more sophisticated than he knows how to put into words, and the interviewers who try to help him can’t compensate for themselves and the audience. A similar problem is just as obvious during interviews with Joscha Bach (@Plinz).

I’d love to participate with the two of them moderated by either Lex Fridman (@lexfridman) or Curt Jaimungle (@TOEwithCurt). If for no other reason than to demonstrate to an interviewer how to conduct this category of interviews. And educating that interviewer would allow him to reach the audience and produce the resulting public good: understanding.

The other person of value is Jeff Hawkins. But, it’s hard to interview Jeff because he is too aggressively and impulsively trying to add precision to what he and others are saying instead of letting the audience gradually follow the breadcrumbs to bridge the gulf in their understanding.

Why? I work in what you’d consider epistemology of logic, language, economics, and law but what Wolfram and Bach would consider the spectrum of computational grammars.

And computational grammar (Doolittle), like computational linguistics, is the bridge that connects mathematics and computation (Wolfram) with artificial intelligence and philosophy (Bach).

And it’s easier to explain to the public as a hierarchy that’s consistent across every scale of the universe from the background to the ideas of human beings.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @tysonmaly @lexfridman @stephen_wolfram