One can presume subsets of inputs within a single scope.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Just how does this question, > > > > > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > not address the issue of scope? > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > 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/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
