Eric Your second paragraph seems exactly right to me.
By the way, I confirmed rather than wrote those last two words, thanks to Android or the Gmail client or something. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:12 PM David Eric Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > No one but me knows the content of this message until i click "send" and > they read it. > > > I think you can argue that even this has two layers. There is a narrative > “you” that knows the content of the message _after_ it has been typed out > but before it has been sent. By then it is an artifact in the world, with > which the narrative you interacts as it does with other artifacts. If you > are on an irritating neo-microsoft Mac that constantly tries to replace the > words you type, you could say that the Mac knows about the message in a > similar way to the narrative you. > > But there is also the event stream of converting an intended idea > (whatever _that_ palr of words should mean!) into the composition of the > particular message sequence. My experience of that is that the composition > keeps unfolding into the view of the narrative you, from someplace that the > narrative you doesn’t see, like a spring of which I see the surface pool > but which is fed by a subterranean source. Presumably that > language-production phenomenon is also associated with a concept of “you”, > and I would not presume at all that it is coextensive with, or even of the > same kind as, the narrative you that can proofread the sentence. Even the > process of proofreading, to see whether the extant string really renders > the intended idea or needs to have parts replaced by newly-conceived > strings of words, almost seems like a collaborative exchange between two > quasi-autonomous faculties. > > Artists I talk to, and particularly writers for whom the unfolding of > narrative is a high concern, very often emphasize this sense that there are > two actors at work. Whether those two seem like one person, or like two in > a dialogue, is a necker cube. > > Eric > > > > > Frank > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Eric Charles < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Frank, >> So far as I can tell, no one is denying thought. I'm certainly not. There >> are phenomenon at play, and one of the things that happens when you science >> a phenomenon is that you end up with descriptions of the phenomenon (and >> explanations for the phenomenon) that don't match mundane intuitions about >> things,. We should expect that the science of psychology defines its >> subject matter different from mundane intuitions in the same way that the >> science of physics and the science of biology did for their respective >> subject matters: Sometimes those definitions end up pretty close to the >> mundane intuitions of a given era, other times you end up with definitions >> that are radically different. >> >> In these contexts, I like to remind people how mindbogglingly unintuitive >> Newtonian momentum is. When was the last time you moved an object and it >> didn't come to rest? Aristotle's system is much more intuitive. >> >> ----------- >> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. >> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist >> American University - Adjunct Instructor >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As I said to Nick approximately a dozen years ago, people who deny >>> thought must not have it. I don't mean that as an insult. It's that for >>> me thought is the one thing I can't deny because it's the first *experience* >>> At that point Nick dismisses me as a Cartesian. >>> >>> --- >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> 505 670-9918 >>> Santa Fe, NM >>> >>> On Sun, May 10, 2020, 8:34 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ha! Well, by ignoring the poignant example, you've ignored my entire >>>> point. And it's that point by which I can't agree with the unmoored >>>> distinction you're making. The celery example isn't about being alive. >>>> Sorry for injecting that into it. The celery example is about *scale*. >>>> Celery's movement *is* movement. An antenna's behavior *is* its movement. I >>>> introduced antennas' behavior in order to help demonstrate that behavior is >>>> orthogonal to life. >>>> >>>> Now, the distinction you're making by saying that behavior is a proper >>>> subset of movement, would be fine *if* you identify some movement that is >>>> *not* behavior. I didn't see that in the Old Dead Guy text you quoted ... >>>> maybe I missed it? Anyway, that's the important category and celery and >>>> antennas fit right in. >>>> >>>> But the behavior/movement discussion (including observer-ascribed >>>> intention) is a bit of a distraction. What we're actually talking about is >>>> *hidden* states (a.k.a. "thinking", maybe extrapolated to "consciousness"). >>>> So, the examples of light-following or higher order objective targeting is >>>> like trying to run before you can walk. Why do that? Why not talk about, >>>> say, the hidden states of an antenna? If we could characterize purely >>>> *passive* behavior/movement, we might be able to characterize *reactive* >>>> movement. And if we do that, then we can talk about the complicatedness (or >>>> complexity) of more general *transformations* from input to output. And >>>> then we might be able to talk about I⇔O maps whose internal state can (or >>>> can't) be estimated solely from their I&O. >>>> >>>> We don't need all this philosophical rigmarole to talk about the >>>> complexity of I⇔O maps. >>>> >>>> On 5/9/20 6:17 PM, Eric Charles wrote: >>>> > Ok, so it sounds like we agree there is a distinction can be made >>>> between behavior and "mere movement". So what is that difference? I would >>>> argue, following E. B. Holt, that it is the presence of intentionality. >>>> Note crucially that the directedness of the behavior described below is >>>> descriptive, /not /explanatory. The intention is not a force behind the >>>> behavior, it is a property of the behavior-to-circumstance mapping that can >>>> be demonstrated by varying conditions appropriately. >>>> > [...] >>>> > P.S. I'm going to try to ignore the celery challenge, because while >>>> we recognize plants as living, we do not typically talk about them as >>>> behaving. And I think the broad issue of living vs. not-living is a >>>> different issue. We probably should talk about plants behaving a bit more >>>> than we normally do, but I think it is worth getting a handle on what we >>>> mean in the more normal seeming cases before we try to look for >>>> implications like those. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ☣ uǝlƃ >>>> >>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >>>> ... .... . ... >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> >>>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >>> ... .... . ... >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... >> .... . ... >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > > > -- > Frank Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > 505 670-9918 > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
