your second paragraph is a nice channeling of Rupert Sheldrake — minus the morphogenesis.
davew On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 12:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick > refuses to do that. I don't know why. > > If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small > loops "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you > experience in the deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in > part, by experiences outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing > wave, persistent cycles) while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed > instrument, properties of your body/brain facilitate some tones over > others. If your body is grown over generations to "hold" some tones, > then that could be the source of the Jungian archetypes that continue > ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, those tones will ring longer > and louder than more transient ones learned before going into the tank, > that your body/brain aren't as effective/efficient at maintaining. > > Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream > journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or > regular contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended > mind might extend out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have > your smartphone and can use Google at any given time, or *expecting* > that a city you're arriving to for the first time will have things like > overpasses and coffee shops, not only because your prior experiences > have programmed that in, but because you know other humans, with > similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. > > Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose > "other" not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport > will expose "other" not-self. > > A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. > > On 11/8/21 10:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ >> >> Key word is _inputs_ which implies an external origin, input from somewhere >> other than the "self." >> >> Consider the experience of LSD while in a sensory deprivation tank — a real >> one, not the relaxation type offered at spas. >> >> There are no 'inputs' via any sensory channel — at least none above the >> conscious awareness threshold. >> >> Yet the mind is filled with images, sounds, emotions ... From whence they >> come? Harder challenge, what is the origin of perceived "sacred symbols"and >> Jungian archetypes that are perceived in this situation? Species memory or >> the "collective unconscious" perhaps? >> >> davew >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 11:23 AM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Steve, >>> >>> >>> >>> So, the question which dominates self-perception theory is, What inputs do >>> we use to infer facts about our selves? Often they are precisely NOT those >>> inputs that a privileged access theory would predict. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:17 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick - >>> >>> I was contemplating this very question this morning in an entirely >>> different context, though I am sure my lurking on these threads has >>> informed my thinking as well. >>> >>> It seems to me that the question of "self" is central as suggested/asserted >>> by Glen (constantly?) and my current apprehension of a more better notion >>> of self involves the superposition of what most of us would consider an >>> extended self. Extended in many dimensions, and with no bound other than a >>> practical one of how expansive our apprehension can be. We are not just >>> the "self" that we have become over a lifetime of experiences, but the >>> "self" that exists as standing wave in our geospatial embedding (a flux of >>> molecules flowing through us, becoming us, being shed from us, etc), our >>> entire filial relations with other organisms (our pets, domesticates, >>> food-sources, scavengers of our food, etc, as well as our microbiome, up to >>> perhaps macroscopic parasites such as worms and lice we may harbor). We >>> are also the sum of our social relations and affiliations with other humans >>> and their constructs (Democrat party, Proud Boys, Professional Poker League >>> of America, etc). We >>> are in relation to objects and creatures and other sentients which we are >>> not at all (or only barely aware of)... we are products of growing up in, >>> or living in currently a landscape, a cityscape, etc.) >>> >>> I know this is somewhat oblique/tangential/orthogonal to the point you are >>> making, but I nevertheless felt compelled to make it here as it schmears >>> the question of self-knowledge in a (I believe) significant way. >>> >>> - Steve >>> >>> On 11/7/21 10:33 PM, [email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> <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 >>> <https://youtu.be/D8_VmWWRJgE> A similar demonstration is here: >>> https://youtu.be/7ncDPoa_n-8 <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 Danielsvia >>> <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? >>> > > -- > "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/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
