I always see an image of the church but the point is you don't see it. It's private.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, > you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the > church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the > church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit > yourself to one or the other. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. > > > > We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. > > > > > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > Nick, > > > > I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. > What church is it? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about > themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have > self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is > the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable > knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the > world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology > without Magic.) > > > > That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about > themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of > knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other > times it causes big problems. > > > > Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? > > > > Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad > sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that > guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, > but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of > electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right > nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic > program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. > Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due > to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the > diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as > problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer > blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is > that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at > tennis" after one bad experience and never tries it again? > > > > Why are we talking about this? > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:33 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eric inter alia, > > > > The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge > is of the form of inferences made from evidence. To the extent that some > sources of knowledge may lead to better inferences-- may better prepare the > organism for what follows-- some may be more privileged than others, but > that privilege needs to be demonstrated. Being in the same body as the > knowing system does not grant the knowing system any *a priori* > privilege. If you have followed me so far, then a self-knowing system is > using sensors to infer (fallibly) the state of itself. So if Glen and > Marcus concede that this is the only knowledge we ever get about anything, > than I will eagerly concede that this is “self-knowledge”. It’s only if > you claim that self-knowing is of a different character than other-knowing, > that we need to bicker further. I stipulate that my point is trivial, but > not that it’s false. > > > > I have cc’d bits of the thread in below in case you all have forgotten. I > could not find any contribution from Eric in this subject within the > thread, although he did have something to say about poker, hence I am > rethreading. > > > > Nick . > > > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > 18 > > uǝlƃ ☤>$ via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> > redfish.com > > Nov 1, 2021, 4:20 PM (6 days ago) > > > > to friam > > 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 in the > way me or Marcus intend it. You can see this nicely if you elide "know" > from your argument. We know nothing. 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. > > 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. > > 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: https://youtu.be/D8_VmWWRJgE A similar > demonstration is here: https://youtu.be/7ncDPoa_n-8 > > Attachments area > > Preview YouTube video Realistic and Interactive Robot Gaze > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0> > > > > Preview YouTube video Mark Tilden explaining Walkman (VBug1.5) at the 1995 > BEAM Robot Games <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0> > > > > > > Marcus Daniels via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> > redfish.com > > Nov 2, 2021, 8:37 AM (5 days ago) > > > > to The > > My point was that the cost to probe some memory address is low. And all > there is, is I/O and memory. > > It does become difficult to track thousands of addresses at once: Think > of a debugger that has millions of watchpoints. However, one could have > diagnostics compiled in to the code to check invariants from time to time. > I don't know why Nick says there is no privilege. There can be complete > privilege. Extracting meaning from that access is rarely easy, of > course. Just as debugging any given problem can be hard. > > uǝlƃ ☤>$ via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> > redfish.com > > Nov 2, 2021, 9:06 AM (5 days ago) > > > > > > to friam > > Well, I could be wrong. But both Nick and EricC seem to argue there's no > privilege "in the limit" ... i.e. with infeasibly extensible resources, > perfect observability, etc. It's just a reactionary position against those > who believe in souls or a cartesian cut. Ignore it. >8^D > > But I don't think there can be *complete* privilege. Every time we think > we come up with a way to keep the black hats out, they either find a way in > ... or find a way to infer what's happening like with power or audio > profiles. > > I don't think anyone's arguing that peeks are expensive. The argument > centers around the impact of that peek, how it's used. Your idea of > compiling in diagnostics would submit to Nick's allegation of a *model*. I > would argue we need even lower level self-organization. I vacillate between > thinking digital computers could [not] be conscious because of this > argument; the feedback loops may have to be very close to the metal, like > fpga close. Maybe consciousness has to be analog in order to realize > meta-programming at all scales? > > > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > 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/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > 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/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > 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/ > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
