LinkedIn - its use

TL;DR -- We have pushed posts from this blog to LinkedIn. We have referenced LinkedIn posts from here. That will be regularly done with link both ways. This is about a new idea conjured up by scientists and philosophers. But, it's not so new. 

-- 

We think of this as the adult Facebook (Meta). People use it to find jobs. Let the world know about themselves. 

Several posts from the TGS, Inc. blog have appeared at the sight. This post is from LinkedIn. We made a comment and copy it below.  

Subject: 

A team of scientists and philosophers has suggested a new basic rule of nature that might help explain how many different kinds of evolving systems change over time. They call it the “law of increasing functional information.”

Link:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ratanak-roth-oeurn-kent-627b1974_in-the-news-carbon-under-pressure-forms-share-7477644560811290624-Rvw7/?

Our comment: 

Kant comes to mind (Prolegomena, where he defended his Critique of Reason clarifying his thinking for future researchers). 

Briefly, we only know phenomena and not their noumena (things in themselves). Quantum modes may break down to pieces. But those pieces we do not know in the sense of ripping them open as the biologists of old could dissect a specimen (so too, many a school child tortured a frog). 

Differentiation has been easy; integration? Not so much. 

Some barf at Kant's attempt to explain how we know phenomena where he uses "representation" (wait, model-based computing and lots of mathematics seem to agree, yet differences in viewpoint abound - ah, relativity). 

Kant wins. He proposed that we have noumena, too, and know it. Consider. 

Waiting in the wings: psychether; truth engineering (with the computer fully simpatico with ancient human ability that we can study through careful consideration of the thoughtful words left). 

Jump back to Spinoza and overlook his attempt at Ma Nature as being God. 

Knowing? Emotions are prime. We learn to manage them with reason which is sorely needed, sought, and difficult to attain. It is not the fancy marking in chaulk as we see with advanced science. 

Humans and their noumena? 

Notes: 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

I use the Carus translation of Prolegomena.

https://archive.org/details/kantsprolegomen00carugoog/page/n4/mode/2up

Context - Insights from KBE within the phemenonal world of the 20th Century.

https://thomasgardnerofsalem.blogspot.com/2022/10/time-lines.html

Commentary: 

We have mentioned both Kant and Spinoza several times with respect to AIn't or what we are now identifying as 'tAIn't which ponts to the pending disasters that are on the horizons (we will get to this). 

One general comment. Philosophers are those who think deeply and write. I like Spinoza and Kant for the reason that they were prime examples. Spinoza had a career, optics - generating lenses. Kant taught Logic and wrote a book on the notes of his class. Or, he gave his notes to a student who wrote the book. 

As an aside, intelligence, reasoning and such with respect to AIn't. Well, not. Our strongest argument deals with the work of Spinoza who laid out the rationale for describing Emotions and their power. Our Reason develops in learning how to handle Emotions. 

What says that about buckets'o'bits? We are due to our humanity and long periods of evolution and learning. The machine tries to simulate use. In fact, that concept/notion is quite prevalent with some thinking that a mathematical system might behave so as to be like we humans. Good luck with that. 

Remarks: Modified: 06/30/2026

06/30/2026 --