There's a difference between predicting another's behavior perfectly and having some idea of what the other might do.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 8:40 AM Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> wrote: > The two questions are related. We cannot predict how someone else will act > and we don't know what it is like to be someone else because we don't know > the history of the other person. To use Nick's words we don't know the > personal slice of the world for this person, how it has experienced the > world so far. > > If we could predict how someone else will act there would be no free will. > If we could experience what it is like to be someone else directly there > would be no hard problem of consciousness. > > I think intimate knowledge of someone allows you to predict how the person > will act to a certain degree. You could say two minds have merged into one. > The two persons still have free will, but they are "similar wills" so to > speak. > > In the same way intimate knowledge of the history of person allows you to > experience the world as the person does, for example by seeing a movie > about the life of a person. Watching this movie you experience the same > events that the person has experienced. > > In this sense being married for 25 or more years is like watching the same > movie, the movie of your life :-) > > -J. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> > Date: 6/28/20 16:07 (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God > > I am not sure I agree with the arguments from you Russ. You say "People > aren't the same, but they are similar - and human society functions because > we can predict to some extent what other people are likely to do [...]. We > have also evolved the ability to 'put ourselves in somebody else's skin', > taking into account the obvious external differences." > > But we cannot predict what someone else will do, only if we know the > person really well - for instance if it is your wife or husband for 30 > years. In whodunit films it becomes clear in the end why people have acted > they way they did, but only in hindsight. In hindsight we almost always can > say why people acted the way they did, but we cannot predict it beforehand. > You say hindsight is 20/20 for this in English, right? > > We also haven't evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's > skin". It is not impossible, but can be very difficult and requires > detailed knowledge and imagination. This is the reason why Hollywood has > invented cinemas to show us how what it is like to be somebody else (the > GoPro cameras in modern days have the same function). > > Therefore I tend to disagree with both statements. > > -J. > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> > Date: 6/28/20 15:07 (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God > > Russ, > > Your views on these matters are very similar to my own. > > Frank > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 2:11 AM Russell Standish <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth >> detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective >> anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs: >> >> 1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection? >> >> 2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an >> identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, >> which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at >> a door to get in. >> >> In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in >> introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged - >> that information is simply now available to external observers. >> >> In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't >> need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most >> important application of this skill is prediction of what other human >> beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human >> society functions because we can predict to some extent what other >> people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved >> in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which >> are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put >> ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious >> external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to >> get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and >> turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do, >> given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely >> behaviour then. That, then is analogical. >> >> So, I'm not exactly convinced :). >> >> Cheers >> >> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, [email protected] wrote: >> > Sorry Russ. It was in a hyperlink: >> > >> > >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti >> > ve_anthropomorphism >> > >> > Nicholas Thompson >> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> > Clark University >> > [email protected] >> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish >> > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM >> > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < >> [email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God >> > >> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, [email protected] >> wrote: >> > > Hi Russ, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Hawking my wares again. I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this >> > > crap. The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is >> > > actually in the other direction. We model our view of ourselves on >> our >> > experience with others. >> > > >> > >> > What paper? What argument? >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> > Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] >> > http://www.hpcoders.com.au >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. >> . ... >> > ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe >> > 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 >> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> -- >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] >> http://www.hpcoders.com.au >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe 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 > un/subscribe 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 un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
