Again you didn't answer the question. "Feel" has multiple meanings, only one of which has to do with palpating.
Furthermore "feel" as referring to a subjective state is no more a metaphor than any other language.If, when you get stuck for a reply you retreat to calling language a metaphor, you will never deal with the issue. All referential language is metaphor: "an expression used to refer to something that it does not literally denote." where "denote" means "to be a sign or indication of." All referential language is intentional. It is never the thing to which it refers. Some language, such as exclamations, e.g., of joy, pain, etc. are often an aspect of the thing itself. But this is a tangent. I want you to deal with the issue of experience. In your message you completely ignored my other questions. Please go back to my previous message and reply to the questions in it as they are intended. Or here's a list that will do. - Do robots feel irritation and frustration? - Do robots feel nauseous in the commonly understood sense of the terms "feel" and "nauseous"? Most people have no trouble understanding what "feeling nauseous" means. I have never heard anyone say that using the term "feeling nauseous" is grammatically strange. Let's just use the common sense meaning of the term. Or are you denying that the common sense meaning of the term has any content, e.g., like Santa Clause if taken literally. - Do you grant robots human rights? - Is waterboarding a robot torture? - Whether waterboarding a robot is torture or not would it be effective? If so, why and how. If not. how does that distinguish between robots and humans--for which waterboarding generally is effective. - And your own question: do robots dream? Or are you denying that you dream? I didn't understand your comment in that regard. Or were you acknowledging that the line of thought you are taking leads nowhere? -- Russ On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Russ and Steve, > > Seeing Drs in Boston today, so out of this wonderful loop for a day. > > About "feeling nauseous". If a robot can DO nauseous, it can feel > nauseous, would be my first response. But notice what a strain on grammar > is put by the notion of "feeling nauseous". "feeling" is a metaphor, akin > to touching with the fingertips. How do I palpate "nauseous"? Something > VERY STRANGE GOING ON HERE. > > Look, I stipulate that privileging a third person view (as opposed to the > more traditional practice of privileging a first person view) is not going > to rescue me (or us) from talking silly. But it will change the kind of > silly talk we do. > > The tough one is dreaming. Do robots dream? Does Nick dream? One can > either launch into reams of inter psychic babble or one can "just say no"! > It's a different kind of silliness. > > Anyway, this has been written in great haste and is probably of lower > quality than usual. > > Do good, today. > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] *Cc: *[email protected] > *Sent:* 6/16/2009 1:08:25 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] (Subjective) experience > > P.P.S. Do you think you could get a robot to provide information it "didn't > want" to provide (whatever you think that means) by waterboarding it? > > -- Russ > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> P.S. Nick, Do you believe that robots are capable of feeling frustrated >> and irritated? >> >> -- Russ >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> See below. >>> >>> -- Russ Abbott >>> _____________________________________________ >>> Professor, Computer Science >>> California State University, Los Angeles >>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >>> o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> See comments in Navy Blue below. >>>> >>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>>> Clark University ([email protected]) >>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >>>> *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>>> Coffee Group <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* 6/15/2009 8:49:41 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] (Subjective) experience >>>> >>>> When "experience" is used as a verb, we don't add the word "subjective." >>>> We add it when "experience" is used as a noun to refer to first person >>>> experience. The broader word "experience" isn't that precise. >>>> >>>> *How could an experience not be the experience from the point of view >>>> of an agent? I dont see what is being specified by the addition of >>>> "subjective". * >>>> >>>> Didn't I already respond to that? No point in doing it again. >>> >>>> * >>>> * >>>> But more to the point I'm still confused what you mean bv "I don't >>>> deny that I, or the cat, or even the robot, experience (when all three >>>> obey >>>> the rules of "experiencing"). What rules are you talking about? >>>> >>>> *The implicit rules anybody applies before they use a sentence like, >>>> "the cat was aware of the mouse." What would we have to see before we >>>> would. Sadly, there hasnt been much incentive to formalize those rules >>>> since we talk of experiene as an event somwhere rather than as a >>>> relationship between an agent and an event. * >>>> >>>> I don't believe I operate according to rules. So again, I don't know >>> what rules you are talking about. But more importantly, I'm more interested >>> in a sentence like "I was aware of the mouse." You keep changing the subject >>> to an observation of something else. The issue is what does it mean to say >>> that I am having an experience, e.g., "I feel nauseous." Does it mean >>> anything to you? I still don't know. Also, I still don't know whether you >>> would understand a robot that said "I feel nauseous" to mean the same sort >>> of thing that you mean by that sentence. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Furthermore, I don't agree that robots have the same sort of first >>>> person experience that we and cats do. Is that really your position, that >>>> robots "experience" the world the same way you do? If so, doesn't it follow >>>> that we should be kind to robots in the same way we should be kind to >>>> people >>>> and cats, that robots deserve humane treatment, etc.? >>>> >>>> *I was interested to see where you would draw the line. Some would >>>> draw it between the cat and the human. What I can't understand is what >>>> committment -- other than a metaphysical one -- would lead one to draw it >>>> anywhere in the absense of some empirical standard for what constitutes the >>>> act of experiencing. * >>>> >>>> >>> You are not answering the question. If a robot feeling nauseous means to >>> you the same thing as a human feeling nauseous, do you grant it the same >>> sorts of "rights" that we grant each other. I'd like to know your answer. >>> For example, would it be torture to waterboard a robot? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- Russ Abbott >>>> >>>> *Thanks for hanging in, here, Russ. This is interesting. * >>>> >>>> I'm beginning to feel irritated. It seems to me you aren't engaging in >>> an honest dialog since you aren't responding to the questions I asked. I >>> took some time to construct questions that would help me understand your >>> position. But if you won't answer them I'm wasting my time, which I find >>> frustrating, not interesting. >>> >>>> ** >>>> ** >>>> >>>> *Nick * >>>> >>>> _____________________________________________ >>>> Professor, Computer Science >>>> California State University, Los Angeles >>>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >>>> o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Russ, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think I am bickering or splitting hairs; but then, people who >>>>> are, never do. >>>>> >>>>> To put yourself in my frame of mind on these issues, start by saying >>>>> what you can say about what others "see". I see that my cat sees the >>>>> mouse >>>>> in the corner of the room. >>>>> >>>>> Anything I can say of the cat, I can say of myself.; anything I cannot >>>>> say of the cat, I cannot say of myself.... well, except for the fur part. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If all experience is subjective, then we probably don't need the extra >>>>> word, do we? I don't deny that I, or the cat, or even the robot, >>>>> experience >>>>> (when all three obey the rules of "experiencing"). I just don't see what >>>>> is gained by adding the word "subjective" except a very confusing and >>>>> inconsistent metaphysics. >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>>>> Clark University ([email protected]) >>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >>>>> *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>>>> Coffee Group <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* 6/15/2009 7:38:20 PM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The ghost in the machine (was 'quick question') >>>>> >>>>> Nick, >>>>> >>>>> In one of the previous messages, you said, "I don't know about you, >>>>> but I experience a world." Experiencing a world is a mark of >>>>> subjective experience. Robots don't experience; they have sensors that >>>>> measure things and report those measures, from which the robot may draw >>>>> conclusions. There is a difference. I don't understand how you can deny >>>>> that difference. >>>>> >>>>> After all, what do you mean by "experience the world" other than >>>>> subjective experience? Is this just a matter of terminological bickering? >>>>> If >>>>> you are willing to say that you experience the world, then by my >>>>> understanding of "experience" you have subjective experience. >>>>> >>>>> -- Russ Abbott >>>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>> Professor, Computer Science >>>>> California State University, Los Angeles >>>>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >>>>> o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
