Marco Palombi

Too Narrow to Be Wise: The Tunnel Vision Trap of Modern Expertise We live in a Kafkaesque paradox: the very people we turn to for wisdom about life’s biggest questions—meaning, society, the future of humanity—are systematically selected for their inability to think ...

Society has lost its direction. We are now driving blind, and the reason is reductionism. We’ve become so obsessed with breaking the world into tiny parts that we’ve forgotten how the whole thing actually hangs together.

www.ocrampal.com/too-narrow-t...

#SystemsThinking #Reductionism #Holism

Chasing Our Own Tail: Self-Reference and the Limits of any Academic Discipline Marcus Doubtful, a physicist turned philosopher. Richard Trad, a mathematician turned philosopher. Both have spent decades thinking about the foundations of knowledge, but they've reached very differ...

In the rush to scale neural networks, we have fallen into a category error: believing that a perfect simulation of an intelligent behavior is the same thing as the existence of intelligence itself.

www.ocrampal.com/chasing-our-...

#ArtificialIntelligence #PhilosophyOfAI #CognitiveScience

We moved to the 'bottom-up' statistical approach, only to find ourselves frantically retrofitting those same rules onto a black box to stop it from hallucinating.

LLMs hallucinate? Groundbreaking discovery: a statistical model works statistically. 😉 It’s the ultimate tech irony.

We abandoned GOFAI because manual rules couldn't handle the messiness of reality.

Spot on!

The programmer-turned-architect still needs to understand programming.

You can't make architectural decisions without comprehending the constraints and trade-offs of implementation. The executive assistant still needs to understand business communication. The accountant still needs to understand accounting principles.

This doesn't eliminate the programmer, it transforms them into architects. But here's the crucial point: they still need to know how to program.

You can't architect systems you don't understand. You can't debug code you can't read.

The tools eliminated tedious manual tasks, but the roles themselves weren't eliminated. They were elevated.

The same pattern applies to programmers. LLMs can handle boilerplate, generate first drafts, automate simple tasks.

Word and Excel vs LLMs.

Secretaries became executive assistants, their role evolved to higher-level coordination, communication, and decision support. Accountants gained the ability to do far more analysis, strategic planning, and advisory work.

From Sophists to Alchemists to AI Coders: The Technique Without Understanding We believe we are at the cutting edge of history, but we may just be repeating its oldest mistakes. From the Sophists’ empty rhetoric to the Alchemists’ blind experimentation, humanity has a long hist...

AGI is Our Generation's Alchemy, And We're Too Arrogant to Admit It

The AI industry has a dirty secret: we're building toward Artificial General Intelligence without the faintest consensus on what intelligence actually is.

ocrampal.com/from-sophist...

Spot on!

Yes. Retrieval is not understanding. I use them and they help. But one should not consider them intelligent.

The Understood-Understanding Gap: Why LLMs Hit a Wall Large Language Models have become ubiquitous in knowledge work, yet a curious pattern has emerged. Talk to consultants at McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and you'll hear the same refrain: "I don't really know ho...

LLMs are masters of the "Understood"—the vast library of human output. But they lack "Understanding"—the creative spark that generates those concepts in the first place.

www.ocrampal.com/the-understo...

#philosophy #science #psychology #AI #intelligence #cogsci #philpsy #neurosky

The Shared Delusion: Both doomers and dreamers assume current technology leads to AGI. They’re both wrong Excel didn’t kill accountants; it gave them better tools. Yet, with AI, we’ve abandoned this logic in favor of a collective fantasy. We’re treating a sophisticated calculator as a human replacement ra...

Excel didn’t kill accountants; it gave them better tools. Yet, with AI, we’ve abandoned this logic in favor of a collective fantasy. We’re treating a sophisticated calculator as a human replacement rather than a human multiplier.

www.ocrampal.com/the-shared-d...

#philosophy #AI #intelligence

If you’re happy to discard creativity, infinite regress and circularity as problems and instead embrace them as the 'geometry' of existence, then we’ve reached the bedrock of our disagreement. At that point, there isn’t much more I can add, except, perhaps, to wonder who (or what) wrote the code ;-)

Furthermore, he failed to develop a formal framework to express that transcendental intuition. That is precisely what applied Geneosophy provides.

I’ve already linked a blog post where I discuss Kant, Bergson, and Husserl. In a nutshell, Kant had a 'Geneosophic' intuition regarding the transcendental, but he assumed a priori categories and the 'thing-in-itself', both of which are unnecessary.

It is a new paradigm. We have begun publishing an introduction to the theory; however, we aren't yet sure when we will release materials on 'applied Geneosophy' due to IP considerations and related factors.

The alternative is comprehending the conditions for you to think in terms of mathematics and much more.

In very simple terms: while thinking in terms of computation allows you to express the relations between Concept X and Concept Y, Geneosophy allows you to comprehend the conditions for thinking about Concepts X and Y in the first place.

The End of the Machine Metaphor: A New Framework for Intelligence and Living Organisms A Journey Through the Paradoxes of Reductionism and the Promise of Geneosophy The Pattern Behind the Paradoxes Modern knowledge has achieved extraordinary success. We’ve mapped the genome, simulate...

What does 'exist' even mean? In any case, if you’re interested, that is precisely what Geneosophy explores: www.ocrampal.com/the-end-of-t...

Who or what frames the computation? Is it another computation, or is computation a free-floating, all-encompassing entity? Perhaps it is an entity that is able to evaluate itself? And, finally, are you a part of this computation?

Computationalism leads to infinite regress and circularity; it cannot account for autonomous creativity. I am not suggesting the paradigm is inherently flawed, it functions exceptionally well for engineering and the scientific method—but one must acknowledge its fundamental limitations.

Chasing Our Own Tail: Self-Reference and the Limits of any Academic Discipline Marcus Doubtful, a physicist turned philosopher. Richard Trad, a mathematician turned philosopher. Both have spent decades thinking about the foundations of knowledge, but they've reached very differ...

Since the starting point itself cannot be proven, its validity must be evaluated solely by its consequences.

ocrampal.com/chasing-our-...

One must assume a starting point and judge it by its fruits. If you begin by assuming computation is the territory, you are led inevitably into the traps of self-reference and infinite regress.

Computation is not the Right Framework to Comprehend the Concepts of Intelligence and Life We live in a computational age. When we want to formalize our thoughts—to express ideas precisely, to build models of intelligence, to create systems that reason—we almost instinctively reach for comp...

By treating qualia as a mere 'product' of computation, the hierarchy is flipped completely upside down."

www.ocrampal.com/computation-...

With all due respect to Dennett, he has it backward. When you think strictly in terms of computation, everything becomes a hammer, and you become blind to the very foundations that make computation possible.

;-)

Spot on!