Nick wanted to grant sentience and move on from there. That seems to me to be too much to grant without further discussion. What do you mean by sentience? And how does it differ from John's inner subjective life? On Aug 15, 2014 9:53 AM, "John Kennison" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Nick, > > I certainly don't think of what you said as "rude" --in fact I asked you > to tell what errors you might see in what I said. > And in any case, I am very glad to agree that we are old friends and can, > if necessary, forgive what might appear as rudeness. > > I am willing to accept your conclusion that the words "inner subjective > life" are not really very useful and do no contribute much to my idea of > what consciousness is. I don't think I claimed that they are either of > these things. > > I am having difficulty seeing the connection between these words and a > quasi-legal understanding that I and only I get to speak for myself. > I guess I would say that my sense of what my consciousness is all about > will be different from yours because I have access to my thoughts and vague > feelings etc. that differs from the kind of access you have. It's okay with > me if you speak for myself (so to speak) --and I imagine you will, > perhaps over the previous sentence. I invite and will (I think) welcome > your analysis. > > --John > > ________________________________________ > From: Friam [[email protected]] on behalf of Nick Thompson [ > [email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:38 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Cc: James Laird > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] BBC News - Ant colony 'personalities' shaped > by environment > > Hi, John, > > Nothing like a sober, quiet, good question to knock an old warrior off his > high horse. > > Ok. Now that I am standing on the ground ... > > First, let us stipulate, we are talking about self-consciousness, here, ... > something beyond sentience, right? If so, then I think your question is a > wonderful example of a "mystery", like we talked about yesterday. A > mystery > is a state of pleasurable confusion generated by using words outside their > realm of usefulness. So, I would predict that if we sat down and unpacked > "inner", "subjective", and "life" we would discover that these words have > really nothing to contribute beyond the assertion that "I, and only I, get > to speak for me." In other words, under your use of "consciousness", it > is > really a quasi-legal understanding central to human interaction that, in > the > absence of a legal certification of incompetence, our assertions about our > own needs, wants, thoughts, etc., are to be taken as definitive. So, for > instance, what I just said -- that your view of consciousness is not quite > what you think it is -- would be (may be) seen as RUDE, in polite society, > because, on your own understanding of consciousness, you and only you get > to > say what you think it is. Because we have been friends for more than 40 > years, I hoping you will let that rudeness pass. > > On my account, an entity is conscious of something when it acts with > respect > to it, and SELF-conscious, when it acts with reference to itself. On that > account, a simple thermostat is clearly conscious, but not self-conscious. > A more complicated thermostat, which calibrates its own sensitivity (which > most modern thermostats do), would probably have to be admitted as > self-conscious. > > Nick > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Kennison > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:00 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] BBC News - Ant colony 'personalities' shaped by > environment > > Nick, > > I guess my criterion for consciousness would be something like "has an > inner > subjective life". It's not something that I can measure and it has the > problem of circularity --if you ask me what I mean by an "inner subjective > life" I will soon be making a circular definition. I am willing to concede > that I don't have a suitable definition for a scientific study of > consciousness. Still the question of whether a thermostat has consciousness > seems meaningful to me. (I don't have an answer --other than "I doubt it". > ) > Perhaps, I am making some kind of error. If so, could you explain what my > mistake is. > > --John > ________________________________________ > From: Friam [[email protected]] on behalf of Nick Thompson > [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:20 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] BBC News - Ant colony 'personalities' shaped by > environment > > So, I looked up David Chalmers . Yeh, I know: I shouldn't have HAD to > look up David Chalmers. Here from Philosophy Index > > A potential problem with this speculation, which Chalmers acknowledges, is > that it may imply the consciousness of things that we would not normally > consider to have consciousness at all. For instance, Chalmers wonders if > this means that a thermostat may have some experiential properties, even if > they are especially dull. He does not commit to the notion that they do, > but > the possibility remains in the more speculative area of his thought. > > This is one of those "TED" insights, to which the only rational response > is, > "Duh!" Why exactly is that a problem? What exactly would it have meant to > say that "humans are conscious" if it were not possible to discover that > (1) > things other than humans are conscious and/or that humans are not, in fact, > conscious. Either we have a criterion for consciousness or we don't; once > we have a criterion, we either apply it rigorously or . we are dishonest. > It's really quite simple, actually. > > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Smith > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:45 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] BBC News - Ant colony 'personalities' shaped by > environment > > Quick, somebody call David Chalmers! > > > On Aug 15, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > > > Weird that they want to call it "personality" instead of more simply saying > that ant colonies seem to adapt to their local environment. Of course, the > flashiness of the claim is the only reason it is being covered on the BBC, > so I guess it isn't that weird after all. > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Lab Manager > Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning American University, Hurst Hall > Room 203A > 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20016 > phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 > email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Gillian Densmore > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > A few swarm inteligence from the 90s described that. Scott Kelly's "Fast > Cheap and Out of Controll" touched on that. In his case they knew ants > (and > often uncles) could pass around experience- and displayed something > simillar > to hummans sense of experience they didn't have a explination. Then again > his forray into science was from the 90s. > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Tom Johnson > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > So who is going to integrate this into the sugar model? > > http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28658268 > > =================================== > Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. > 505-473-9646<tel:505-473-9646> > =================================== > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
