Your "larding" is irritating. So, I'll respond in bullets, forming what kindasorta looks like a coherent response. But it's just a busyness trick, promulgated by busyness people. I encourage you to formulate your posts as coherent wholes and deny your your hedonic "larding" impulse.
• I have no antipathy for behaviorism. I *am* a behaviorist, at least in principle. You may think I have antipathy for it because I've done a good job steelmanning my opposition. Sorry about that. It happens all the time. It's me, not you. • My usage of "self" relies on scoping. If we can't talk about scope, then we can't talk about self. • sense vs know - No, the word "know" is hopelessly useless. Just stop using it. • the hand that turns itself off - No, that's not a loop because there's only 1 iterate. This is one of the reasons finite state machines are incomplete models without a controller or a clock. I've been trying to find a way to ask such a question about hypergraphs. But my ignorance prevents me. • causal vs regulatory loop - "Causal" is more primitive than "regulatory". If you want to start with "regulatory", then you'll have to define "causal" in terms of "regulation". In my experience, regulation cuts a thing into 2 parts: the system and the regulator. So cause is a prerequisite to regulation. But I'm happy to play some other game if you set up the rules. • uncanniness - Yes, it does tell us something about the circuitry. Uncanniness is a phenomenon, generated by a generator. We can study gen-phen maps both forward and inverse. By comparing the behavior (phenomenal repertoire) of a single machine, under different conditions, we can infer some properties of its gen-phen map, which constrains the properties of the generator. On 11/2/21 8:39 AM, [email protected] wrote: > You may accuse me of trolling in what follows, or being manipulatively > stupid, but honestly I do not understand what you are saying and would LIKE > to understand it. Please see larding, below. Of course I may not > understand my own motives. > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] lurking > > > > Literal self-awareness is possible. The flaw in your argument is that "self" > is ambiguous in the way you're using it. It's not ambiguous > > */[NST===>I guess I need to understand your usage. <===nst] /* > > in the way me or Marcus intend it. > > You can see this nicely if you elide > > */[NST===>i.e., “remove”?<===nst] /* > > "know" from your argument. We know nothing. */[NST===> I can agree, for > some values of the word, that we know nothing, but isn’t that the same world > in which we sense nothing? <===nst] /* > > The machine knows nothing. Just don't use the word "know" or the concept it > references. There need not be a model involved, either, only sensors and > things to be sensed. > > */[NST===>So, your antipathy for behaviorism not withstanding, this feels > like a hyper behaviorist position you are adopting. Way beyond mine. Let’s > talk about that toy which involves a hand that comes out and turns off the > switch that governs it. This is a loop, right? Is there sensing going on > here? <===nst] /* > > > > Self-sensing means there is a feedback loop between the sensor and the thing > it senses. So, the sensor measures the sensed and the sensed measures the > sensor. That is self-awareness. There's no need for any of the psychological > hooha you often object to. There's no need for privileged information > *except* that there has to be a loop. If anything is privileged, it's the > causal loop.*/[NST===>Well, I would start with the regulatory loop. <===nst] > /* > > > > The real trick is composing multiple self-self loops into something > resembling what we call a conscious agent. We can get to the uncanny valley > with regular old self-sensing control theory and robotics. Getting beyond the > valley is difficult: > > */[NST===>Oh, getting into the uncanny territory is no problem. Practically > anything that stands up on its hind legs (or wheels) and looks us in the eye > is uncanny. But uncanniness doesn’t tell us anything about the circuitry we > are looking at, does it? It might tell us something about our circuitry. > <===nst] /* > > https://youtu.be/D8_VmWWRJgE <https://youtu.be/D8_VmWWRJgE> A similar > demonstration is here: https://youtu.be/7ncDPoa_n-8 > <https://youtu.be/7ncDPoa_n-8> > > > > > > > > On 11/1/21 2:08 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In fact, strictly speaking, I think literal self-awareness is impossible. >> Because, whatever a machine knows about itself, it is a MODEL of itself >> based on well situated sensors of its own activities, just like you are and >> I am. There is no privileged access, just bettah or wussah access. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
