from:"Nicholas Thompson"

sorry I should have said "events" instead of "things".

n

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 7:15 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> A law is not a cause;  it is a relation between a class of things caused
> and those things' "causer".
>
> N
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 7:12 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes.  Because the verb require is intenSional and takes a proposition as
>> its object.  Thus, if you graph the sentence, it really goes "Physical Law
>> requires [that momentum be conserved]"   Who is physical law to do that?
>>
>> I would say that in saying it that way you have introduced a category
>> error.  Physical laws don't compel obedience.  they are themselves the
>> overarching sum of such obedience.
>>
>> Why not simply, "Everywhere momentum is conserved and that fact
>> constitutes a law that governs our behavior if we want to successfully
>> manipulate the world."   If we choose to manipulate the world successfully,
>> the facts require us to expect that momentum will in all cases be
>> conserved.   The compulsion is from facts to us, rather than from the law
>> to the facts.
>>
>> Are there important exceptions to my belief that laws have no causal
>> properties?  That we are not in need of such an hypothesis?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> N
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:54 PM Frank Wimberly 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The puck conserves angular momentum as required by the physical law.  Is
>>> that telic language?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>>
>>> 505 670-9918
>>> Santa Fe, NM
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 3:10 PM Nicholas Thompson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Phellow Phriammers,
>>>>
>>>> Ever since the days of Hywel White (GRHS) I have puzzled over the fact
>>>> that telic language so often appears in physics discussions.  I used to
>>>> tease Hywel that Psychology must be the Mother of Physics, because he had
>>>> to use psychological terms to describe the motion of particles. More
>>>> recently, I have the same sort of discussions with Stephen Guerin who wants
>>>> to use telic language concerning the path of photons and least action.  (I
>>>> hope I have this right, Stephen).  You all have been tempted to think I am
>>>> just trolling, but I don't think  I am.  I think there may be  places where
>>>> such descriptions are appropriate.  I do think, for instance, that the
>>>> relation between the first derivative of a function and any point in that
>>>> function is analogous to the relation between the motivation of a behavior
>>>> and the behavior  itself.
>>>>
>>>> i am back to weather again, after a vacation from it for my obsession
>>>> with unsuccessful vegetable gardening.   Here is a quote from an
>>>> Atmospheric Dynamics text which is laying out the Coriolis Force.
>>>>
>>>> *What happens if we consider the hockey puck moving equator-ward
>>>> relative to  the rotation of the Earth. In the absence of applied forces it
>>>> must conserve angular momentum.  Upon being pulled equator-ward in the
>>>> northern hemisphere the radius of rotation of the puck begins to
>>>> increase.Consequently, an anti-rotational relative motion develops in order
>>>> to conserve angular momentum, [Italics by NST]  *
>>>>
>>>> In the view of folks on this list, is this an appropriate use of telic
>>>> language, and why or why not? Stephen has a defensible argument in favor of
>>>> it's appropriateness, the only such argument I have ever heard.  ( I don[t
>>>> buy the premises, but the argument is sound)  I am wondering about the rest
>>>> of you.
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>> to (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/
>>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-

Re: [FRIAM] When are telic attributions appropriate in physical descriptions?

A law is not a cause;  it is a relation between a class of things caused
and those things' "causer".

N

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 7:12 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> Yes.  Because the verb require is intenSional and takes a proposition as
> its object.  Thus, if you graph the sentence, it really goes "Physical Law
> requires [that momentum be conserved]"   Who is physical law to do that?
>
> I would say that in saying it that way you have introduced a category
> error.  Physical laws don't compel obedience.  they are themselves the
> overarching sum of such obedience.
>
> Why not simply, "Everywhere momentum is conserved and that fact
> constitutes a law that governs our behavior if we want to successfully
> manipulate the world."   If we choose to manipulate the world successfully,
> the facts require us to expect that momentum will in all cases be
> conserved.   The compulsion is from facts to us, rather than from the law
> to the facts.
>
> Are there important exceptions to my belief that laws have no causal
> properties?  That we are not in need of such an hypothesis?
>
> Nick
>
> Nick
>
> N
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:54 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>
>> The puck conserves angular momentum as required by the physical law.  Is
>> that telic language?
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 3:10 PM Nicholas Thompson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Phellow Phriammers,
>>>
>>> Ever since the days of Hywel White (GRHS) I have puzzled over the fact
>>> that telic language so often appears in physics discussions.  I used to
>>> tease Hywel that Psychology must be the Mother of Physics, because he had
>>> to use psychological terms to describe the motion of particles. More
>>> recently, I have the same sort of discussions with Stephen Guerin who wants
>>> to use telic language concerning the path of photons and least action.  (I
>>> hope I have this right, Stephen).  You all have been tempted to think I am
>>> just trolling, but I don't think  I am.  I think there may be  places where
>>> such descriptions are appropriate.  I do think, for instance, that the
>>> relation between the first derivative of a function and any point in that
>>> function is analogous to the relation between the motivation of a behavior
>>> and the behavior  itself.
>>>
>>> i am back to weather again, after a vacation from it for my obsession
>>> with unsuccessful vegetable gardening.   Here is a quote from an
>>> Atmospheric Dynamics text which is laying out the Coriolis Force.
>>>
>>> *What happens if we consider the hockey puck moving equator-ward
>>> relative to  the rotation of the Earth. In the absence of applied forces it
>>> must conserve angular momentum.  Upon being pulled equator-ward in the
>>> northern hemisphere the radius of rotation of the puck begins to
>>> increase.Consequently, an anti-rotational relative motion develops in order
>>> to conserve angular momentum, [Italics by NST]  *
>>>
>>> In the view of folks on this list, is this an appropriate use of telic
>>> language, and why or why not? Stephen has a defensible argument in favor of
>>> it's appropriateness, the only such argument I have ever heard.  ( I don[t
>>> buy the premises, but the argument is sound)  I am wondering about the rest
>>> of you.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (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
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (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/
>>
>
>
> --
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> Clark University
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] When are telic attributions appropriate in physical descriptions?

Yes.  Because the verb require is intenSional and takes a proposition as
its object.  Thus, if you graph the sentence, it really goes "Physical Law
requires [that momentum be conserved]"   Who is physical law to do that?

I would say that in saying it that way you have introduced a category
error.  Physical laws don't compel obedience.  they are themselves the
overarching sum of such obedience.

Why not simply, "Everywhere momentum is conserved and that fact constitutes
a law that governs our behavior if we want to successfully manipulate the
world."   If we choose to manipulate the world successfully, the facts
require us to expect that momentum will in all cases be conserved.   The
compulsion is from facts to us, rather than from the law to the facts.

Are there important exceptions to my belief that laws have no causal
properties?  That we are not in need of such an hypothesis?

Nick

Nick

N

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:54 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> The puck conserves angular momentum as required by the physical law.  Is
> that telic language?
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 3:10 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Phellow Phriammers,
>>
>> Ever since the days of Hywel White (GRHS) I have puzzled over the fact
>> that telic language so often appears in physics discussions.  I used to
>> tease Hywel that Psychology must be the Mother of Physics, because he had
>> to use psychological terms to describe the motion of particles. More
>> recently, I have the same sort of discussions with Stephen Guerin who wants
>> to use telic language concerning the path of photons and least action.  (I
>> hope I have this right, Stephen).  You all have been tempted to think I am
>> just trolling, but I don't think  I am.  I think there may be  places where
>> such descriptions are appropriate.  I do think, for instance, that the
>> relation between the first derivative of a function and any point in that
>> function is analogous to the relation between the motivation of a behavior
>> and the behavior  itself.
>>
>> i am back to weather again, after a vacation from it for my obsession
>> with unsuccessful vegetable gardening.   Here is a quote from an
>> Atmospheric Dynamics text which is laying out the Coriolis Force.
>>
>> *What happens if we consider the hockey puck moving equator-ward relative
>> to  the rotation of the Earth. In the absence of applied forces it must
>> conserve angular momentum.  Upon being pulled equator-ward in the northern
>> hemisphere the radius of rotation of the puck begins to
>> increase.Consequently, an anti-rotational relative motion develops in order
>> to conserve angular momentum, [Italics by NST]  *
>>
>> In the view of folks on this list, is this an appropriate use of telic
>> language, and why or why not? Stephen has a defensible argument in favor of
>> it's appropriateness, the only such argument I have ever heard.  ( I don[t
>> buy the premises, but the argument is sound)  I am wondering about the rest
>> of you.
>>
>> Nick
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (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
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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] When are telic attributions appropriate in physical descriptions?

Dear Phellow Phriammers,

Ever since the days of Hywel White (GRHS) I have puzzled over the fact that
telic language so often appears in physics discussions.  I used to tease
Hywel that Psychology must be the Mother of Physics, because he had to use
psychological terms to describe the motion of particles. More recently, I
have the same sort of discussions with Stephen Guerin who wants to use
telic language concerning the path of photons and least action.  (I hope I
have this right, Stephen).  You all have been tempted to think I am just
trolling, but I don't think  I am.  I think there may be  places where such
descriptions are appropriate.  I do think, for instance, that the relation
between the first derivative of a function and any point in that function
is analogous to the relation between the motivation of a behavior and the
behavior  itself.

i am back to weather again, after a vacation from it for my obsession with
unsuccessful vegetable gardening.   Here is a quote from an Atmospheric
Dynamics text which is laying out the Coriolis Force.

*What happens if we consider the hockey puck moving equator-ward relative
to  the rotation of the Earth. In the absence of applied forces it must
conserve angular momentum.  Upon being pulled equator-ward in the northern
hemisphere the radius of rotation of the puck begins to
increase.Consequently, an anti-rotational relative motion develops in order
to conserve angular momentum, [Italics by NST]  *

In the view of folks on this list, is this an appropriate use of telic
language, and why or why not? Stephen has a defensible argument in favor of
it's appropriateness, the only such argument I have ever heard.  ( I don[t
buy the premises, but the argument is sound)  I am wondering about the rest
of you.

Nick
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] I need some guidance about US corruption law and procedures

2024-08-05 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Oh good, Sarbajit, Thank you. I hate when that happens.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University


On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:06 AM Gary Schiltz 
wrote:

> I was thinking more along the lines of Putin's friendly black hats
> making up some dirt to help get Putin's B*tch Donnie re-coronated.
> Call me a liberal conspiracy theorist if you like.
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 8:59 AM Nicholas Thompson
>  wrote:
> >
> > Are we sure Sarbargit has not been hacked? this has a little bit the
> feel of Nigerian Prince appeal? Nick
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > Clark University
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:49 AM glen  wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe?
> >>
> >> https://www.citizensforethics.org/about/contact/
> >>
> >> On 8/5/24 00:39, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
> >> > Dear FRIAMers
> >> >
> >> > I have some documents, official replies and appellate orders under
> India's Freedom of Information from India's Prime Minister's office as well
> as our Foreign Ministry which very strongly suggest that President Joe
> Biden and Dr. Jill Biden have received very valuable gifts from India last
> year which were deliberately misdeclared to seriously under value them and
> may also have been stolen/ illegally obtained. My organization (India
> Against Corruption) reasonably believes these were bribes.
> >> >
> >> > Whereas USA has a Foreign Corruption Prevention Act for bribes by US
> persons to foreigners, I am unable to find the reverse situation in US law
> or know who to report it to for serious / genuine inquiry.
> >> >
> >> > In India it is, apparently, not a crime to bribe foreigners to get
> advantages. 2 attempts to get such legislation passed failed in 2011 and
> again in 2019.
> >> >
> >> > There is a US Code 201, but we're not sure if it applies to a
> President or their spouse
> >> >
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201#:~:text=18%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20201,Law%20%7C%20LII%20%2F%20Legal%20Information%20Institute
> <
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201#:~:text=18%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20201,Law%20%7C%20LII%20%2F%20Legal%20Information%20Institute
> >
> >> >
> >> > Any guidance on how we can proceed would be appreciated, or even if
> we should proceed.
> >> >
> >> > *Disclaimer*: We are not really interested in the USA's domestic
> elections or the parties/candidates/their campaigns.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
> >>
> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> >> to (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
> > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > to (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
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] I need some guidance about US corruption law and procedures

2024-08-05 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Are we sure Sarbargit has not been hacked? this has a little bit the feel
of Nigerian Prince appeal? Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University


On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:49 AM glen  wrote:

> Maybe?
>
> https://www.citizensforethics.org/about/contact/
>
> On 8/5/24 00:39, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
> > Dear FRIAMers
> >
> > I have some documents, official replies and appellate orders under
> India's Freedom of Information from India's Prime Minister's office as well
> as our Foreign Ministry which very strongly suggest that President Joe
> Biden and Dr. Jill Biden have received very valuable gifts from India last
> year which were deliberately misdeclared to seriously under value them and
> may also have been stolen/ illegally obtained. My organization (India
> Against Corruption) reasonably believes these were bribes.
> >
> > Whereas USA has a Foreign Corruption Prevention Act for bribes by US
> persons to foreigners, I am unable to find the reverse situation in US law
> or know who to report it to for serious / genuine inquiry.
> >
> > In India it is, apparently, not a crime to bribe foreigners to get
> advantages. 2 attempts to get such legislation passed failed in 2011 and
> again in 2019.
> >
> > There is a US Code 201, but we're not sure if it applies to a President
> or their spouse
> >
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201#:~:text=18%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20201,Law%20%7C%20LII%20%2F%20Legal%20Information%20Institute
> <
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201#:~:text=18%20U.S.%20Code%20%C2%A7%20201,Law%20%7C%20LII%20%2F%20Legal%20Information%20Institute
> >
> >
> > Any guidance on how we can proceed would be appreciated, or even if we
> should proceed.
> >
> > *Disclaimer*: We are not really interested in the USA's domestic
> elections or the parties/candidates/their campaigns.
>
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

2024-07-26 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Not at all clear to me why we keep returning to BRAINS in a discussion of
EXPERIENCE or BEHAVIOR.  Experience and behavior remain the same and and
their organization needs to be described, no matter how they are
manufactured.   As Professor Joan Collins Famously Said:

*We've looked at brains from both sides now*
*From in- and out- and still, some how,*

*It's brains illusions we recall, *

*We really don't know brains, at all.*

 In brain talk, there is a history of introjecting brain structure or
process from behavioral or experiential regularities,and then coming back
in the next sentence to explain those regularities as physiologically
determined.  Why indulge in careful description of complex processes when a
little circular reasoning is so satisfying.

N



On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:56 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> David's last post so effectively blurs the lines between these two that I
> am going to give up, for the moment, on my attempt to keep them straight.
>
> Intuition tells me that Dave's post falls on one side of the line, and
> Glen's on the other,  but I have to go shopping.   I am still hoping to
> hear examples of particular experiences with animals, computers, spouses,
> etc., that confirm your sense that they are not  only responding to the
> world around them, but also responding to their own responding to the world
> around them.
>
> Back to this later when stocked up
>
> In the meantime, Please, you-all, don't dick with this thread, don't fork
> it and do, if you are responding to a particular comment, speak to that
> person, don't just fling your wisdom out into the ether.
>
> I never thought you guys would turn me into a thread-Nazi.
>
> Nick
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

2024-07-25 Thread Nicholas Thompson

David,

I am having trouble with the fusion metaphor. I can think of two kinds of 
fusions that might be operating here: a bunch of stuff is pushed together at 
very high velocity, and there is a giant bang. Alternatively, a bunch of 
different substances Are heated to a high temperature and form a piece of slag. 
Is either these metaphors appropriate to your understanding? Or are you 
operating with a different one? 
Sent from my Dumb Phone

On Jul 25, 2024, at 11:55 AM, steve smith  wrote:

Glen -

All animalia have closed neural-sensorimotor loops and all life have chem-bio 
sensorimotor loops?

So the "fusion" of which you speak, if we want to reserve "consciousness" for 
humans, human-familiars (pets, other domesticates, human-tolerant wild 
animals), charismatic animals (the ones we are fascinated with, ranging from 
polar bears and whales to elephants and dugongs and penguins, and octupii and 
maybe sharks and jellyfish).

I don't *want* to do this, but I think it is a human bias to see things that 
are familiar to them (warm blooded predators within an order of magnitude of 
their own size?)

The automated catching of objects and DaveW's assertion that there are multiple 
selves/consciousnesses involved was apt IMO... I'd want to grant ganglia, 
plexuses, the whole PNS to have it's own "consciousness" in the strong sense of 
what we see tentacled things to do.  I've watched felines and primates whose 
*tails* very much seem to have a life of their own.   Subservient or 
deferential to the brain-centric self, but nevertheless pretty damn autonomous.

In the spirit of splitting hairs of distinction into finer hairs, I don't see 
an obvious "threshold of consciousness", only an "horizon" of *recognizeable to 
me* consciousness.   I can project conscious-like presence onto the giant 
volcanic plug nearby known broadly as "Black Mesa" but it is a much bigger 
stretch for me to do this with a random stone or pebble I might pick up off the 
ground...  on the other hand, a particularly interesting one I might set in a 
place of prominence (on a fencepost, a windowsill, a shrine) it becomes more 
and more and more familiar to me as I visit with my sensorium and the "mind" 
behind it... my own consciousness to wit?

Harping on the Deacontionary:  Any partition of the universe which exhibits 
teleodynamics would be conscious under that programme.   Homeodynamics (that 
which keeps a pebble a pebble as it tumbles and erodes) and morphodynamics 
(that which keeps a river channel or a sand dune consistently itselve under the 
changeout of all parts?)

I don't disagree that "conciousness" is in the "fusion" only want to split 
hairs or elaborate on the degrees and/or styles of said "fusion" and that 
perhaps the "style" of fusion that my favorite tree outside my window is 
engaging in constantly as it absorbs nutrients through its roots, breathes 
CO2/O2 in/out of it's leaves, transforms electromagnetic energy (sunlight) into 
chemical energy (hydrocarbon bonds) and ultimately things like cellulose, is 
yet more conscious than the rivercourse of the Rio Grande nearby managing to 
carve a series of channels while remaining roughly "the Rio Grande" for 
millenia.

Mumble,

 - Steve

On 7/25/24 7:29 AM, glen wrote:
> I disagree the theme is "pausing between two possibilities". I view the theme 
> as a *fusion* of sensory input. Sometimes, the sensory fusion appears to be 
> intentionally stanced as a choice/decision. But that's not the case in the 
> itch transfer, hat-catching, or satiety examples. Those are clearly examples 
> of the fusion of high dimensional environmental data.
> 
> Consciousness is that *fusion*. Another example is when someone wakes up from 
> anesthesia, when you "see" that "someone is home". They've become conscious. 
> They're now taking in a bunch of data from the environment and fusing it, 
> making sense of it. I have a story akin to that, too. Before my mom got her 
> pacemaker put in, she'd been in the ICU for a few days and had ICU delirium. 
> She played cards with illusory people, kept telling me there was a man behind 
> me, asking me what the man was doing there, etc. This is a kind of 
> consciousness, but an incomplete kind. When she would "wake up" from that 
> delirium, you could see that she was now fully "home", conscious, competently 
> fusing the incoming data.
> 
> 
> On 7/24/24 18:46, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> a  theme that seems  to run through these examples is that the animal pauses 
>> between two possibilities. we are tempted to understand these behaviors in 
>> terms of  the consideration of alternatives,  ...[snip]... just as you cat 
>&

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

Glen,

These are wonderful!   They help me see in what sorts of experiences your
concept of consciousness is anchored. I take it  that "smell the wood
burning"  is equivalent to my "see the gears turning."a  theme that
seems  to run through these examples is that the animal pauses between two
possibilities.  we are tempted to understand these behaviors in terms of
the consideration of alternatives,  internal mental models and all of
that!  Ethologist have a hydraulic way of thinking about it.  Two ducks,
arriving at an impass in their contest over a female suddenly cease
squabbling and take to frantic grooming.These have been called displacement
activities, the idea being that the arousal initiated by the contest,
deprived of "expression" by;the standoff, is "vented" into grooming, but
the observer's experience is that ducks that should be charging at one
another and battering each other with their wings  are suddenly grooming
like their lives depended  on it, just as you cat instead of doing either
of the two things you might expect,  hovers between the  two, making what
the ethologists would call "intention movements" in either direction as the
pressure leaks out.

But what calls for an explanation in both cases is the violation of the
observer's expectations.

Thanks, again.

Nick

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 3:36 PM glen  wrote:

>
> On 7/24/24 11:55, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Intuitively, I want glen to put those experiences in a broader context
> so I can see why, for him, they indicate self consciousness  -- make them
> more like anecdotes, Glen!
>
> I'll stick to the ones that best target "smell the wood burning".
>
> • Cat grooming himself
>
>When the summer began, my cat came in covered in grass burrs. The first
> thing he always does is meow, rub up against me, and purr a bit. I pet him,
> notice a grass burr and yank it out, along with some of his fur. He then
> begins yanking, with his teeth and tongue, other burrs. This is more
> interesting than regular grooming because the burrs get caught in his gums
> and teeth, causing him to wag his tongue around, open and close his mouth,
> etc. trying to drop (or swallow) the burr in order to go for the next one.
> I help him out because I have hands, fingers, and tools like fine-toothed
> combs. You can "smell the wood burning" as he thinks about which ones he
> should let me get versus which ones to go for himself.
>
> • Cat reflecting on whether he wants to stay in or go out when I crack the
> door
>
> I get up ~5am pretty much every day. The cats are often waiting for me to
> either give them wet food or to freshen their bowl with water and dry
> kibble. The older one (Scooter) only cares about wet food. If it's Mon-Fri,
> I can choose to either freshen the kibble, sending him the signal that he
> can safely go outside without missing out on any wet food. *Or* I can go
> directly to the door and crack it open. At that point, you can smell the
> wood burning in his little brain. He looks outside, looks back at the bowl,
> looks at the younger cat, looks at me, stares out the door for sometimes
> 10s of seconds at a time. Then he'll either back further to the center of
> the kitchen, signalling his need for a clearer signal. Or he'll go outside,
> indicating he's given up on the chance of wet food.
>
> • Itch transfer (you have an itch somewhere, you scratch it, and you
> suddenly itch somewhere else)
>
> I often get itches under the very thick calluses on my feet. If I don't do
> anything about it, my foot and sometimes entire leg will twitch
> uncontrollably. If I take off my shoe/sock and try to scratch it, it either
> stays where it is, unscratched because the callus is too thick, or it moves
> to, for example, my lower back. Here, I can smell the wood burning in
> whatever feedback loops exist in my body's interoception. It's not "me".
> I'm not a part of this game. My foot and the skin of my lower back feel
> like a separate entity, a conscious one.
>
> • Losing one's grip on, say, a glass on the table, dropping it, then
> immediately catching it
>
> Similar to itch transfer, my proprioception can take on a life of its own.
> If, for example, I'm talking with my hands at the pub, and one of them
> slaps a pint glass hard enough to knock it off the table, my body seems to
> act of its own accord and my hand will whip around and try to catch the
> glass. It also often works when other people start the process. At the
> Summer Nights at the Port event, a person's hat flew off their head and
> with no time or window for *rational* processing, I snatched it out of the
> air. My body is "conscious" of the co

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

But you have no experiences yourself that are relevant to this question,
right?

n

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:38 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> Are animals and humans capable of mutual love? I'm not sure. It depends
> how you define love. Romantic love seems to be specific for humans. No
> matter how much your dog or cat may like you, "if you die at home alone,
> there's a decent chance your pet will eat you"
>
>
> https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-will-your-pet-eat-you-after-you-die
>
> But I believe Darwin was right when he wrote "there is no fundamental
> difference between man and animals in their ability to feel pleasure and
> pain, happiness, and misery"
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv223z15mpmo
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Nicholas Thompson 
> Date: 7/24/24 8:17 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics
>
> Jochen,
>
> No bending here.  This IS the thread.
>
> I thought many of us came to agree, be deploying experiences, that an
> animal and a human were capable of mutual love. I was never sure where you
> stood on that.
>
>  I want to get to the point where we can resolve our different view of
> animals and consciousness. My colleagues seemed to agree that these two
> propositions are true.
>
> *Dusty (Dave) **Is **conscious of Dave (Dusty).*
>
> And now we are working on these two:
>
> *Dusty (Dave) is c**onscious of Dusty (Dave).*
>
> I have been working on Dave's last post, which got forked into some
> noman's land for the last two hours, mostly trying to get a clean version
> of it into this thread.  I will post it asap.  Meantime, I am  looking for
> experiences/anecdotes that would lead you to believe that
> animals/computers/humans are (are not) conscious.   People have been
> enormously helpful in making me clarify what I am hoping for.  Whatever
> else I mean by an experience/anecdote, it is a description of something
> that happened to somebody, preferably you, that affirmed (disconfirmed)your
> believe that animals are (are not) [self] conscious; what I don't mean is
> references lectures and tomes.  Frankly, I  would prefer to have a cat
> video.
>
> Nick
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:31 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
>> Nick,
>>
>> Looking for self-awareness in animals before language emerged feels to me
>> like searching for culture in anthropology before civilizations appeared.
>>
>> People in anthropology study human societies, cultures and their
>> development, but sadly mostly in the time before it gets interesting (when
>> religions, writing systems and civilizations emerged in ancient Egypt and
>> ancient Mesopotamia). They examine for instance primitive hunter gatherer
>> groups in Africa or ancient tribes in the Amazon region.
>>
>> Looking for examples of particular experiences with animals that show
>> signs of self-awareness (and not only respond to the world around them, but
>> also respond to their own responding to the world around them) feels
>> similar to me: it is like focusing on a fascinating phenomenon but at a
>> place before it gets interesting.
>>
>>
>> If this comment bends the thread too much then please ignore it :-)
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Nicholas Thompson 
>> Date: 7/23/24 6:57 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group ,
>> Prof David West 
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics
>>
>> David's last post so effectively blurs the lines between these two that I
>> am going to give up, for the moment, on my attempt to keep them straight.
>>
>> Intuition tells me that Dave's post falls on one side of the line, and
>> Glen's on the other,  but I have to go shopping.   I am still hoping to
>> hear examples of particular experiences with animals, computers, spouses,
>> etc., that confirm your sense that they are not  only responding to the
>> world around them, but also responding to their own responding to the world
>> around them.
>>
>> Back to this later when stocked up
>>
>> In the meantime, Please, you-all, don't dick with this thread, don't fork
>> it and do, if you are responding to a particular comment, speak to that
>> person, don't just fling your wisdom out into the ether.
>>
>> I never thought you guys would turn me into a thread-Nazi.
>>
>>

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

Hi, Frank,

I think that anything that can speak intelligibly of a shared world is
conscious.So the dog is conscious, if it can speak, if only to itself.
It's hard for me to imagine that a dog that cannot speak aloud can speak to
itself, but let that go. If you take the bubble serious, the  sentiment is
indeed very layered. But if my dog did that with me, I would take it as,
"so you got me in the car; so now what" or, more simply, " Are we there
yet?"
 Nick

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 3:03 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Did this ever get published here?  I sent it but never saw it.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/XsJSpoMaTQOqr0Ll0ne3WQ.O60UcGgc4kfT_gbXPz5eBV
>
> It's a cartoon but is it funny, relatable, or interesting?  Note that the
> dog is concerned that its owner may be concerned about where they are
> going.  It reassures the owner, in its own mind, that being with him is
> what's important to it.  Imaginary though it is that's a pretty advanced
> consciousness.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 12:16 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> Jochen,
>>
>> No bending here.  This IS the thread.
>>
>> I thought many of us came to agree, be deploying experiences, that an
>> animal and a human were capable of mutual love. I was never sure where you
>> stood on that.
>>
>>  I want to get to the point where we can resolve our different view of
>> animals and consciousness. My colleagues seemed to agree that these two
>> propositions are true.
>>
>> *Dusty (Dave) **Is **conscious of Dave (Dusty).*
>>
>> And now we are working on these two:
>>
>> *Dusty (Dave) is c**onscious of Dusty (Dave).*
>>
>> I have been working on Dave's last post, which got forked into some
>> noman's land for the last two hours, mostly trying to get a clean version
>> of it into this thread.  I will post it asap.  Meantime, I am  looking for
>> experiences/anecdotes that would lead you to believe that
>> animals/computers/humans are (are not) conscious.   People have been
>> enormously helpful in making me clarify what I am hoping for.  Whatever
>> else I mean by an experience/anecdote, it is a description of something
>> that happened to somebody, preferably you, that affirmed (disconfirmed)your
>> believe that animals are (are not) [self] conscious; what I don't mean is
>> references lectures and tomes.  Frankly, I  would prefer to have a cat
>> video.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:31 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>>
>>> Nick,
>>>
>>> Looking for self-awareness in animals before language emerged feels to
>>> me like searching for culture in anthropology before civilizations appeared.
>>>
>>> People in anthropology study human societies, cultures and their
>>> development, but sadly mostly in the time before it gets interesting (when
>>> religions, writing systems and civilizations emerged in ancient Egypt and
>>> ancient Mesopotamia). They examine for instance primitive hunter gatherer
>>> groups in Africa or ancient tribes in the Amazon region.
>>>
>>> Looking for examples of particular experiences with animals that show
>>> signs of self-awareness (and not only respond to the world around them, but
>>> also respond to their own responding to the world around them) feels
>>> similar to me: it is like focusing on a fascinating phenomenon but at a
>>> place before it gets interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> If this comment bends the thread too much then please ignore it :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original message 
>>> From: Nicholas Thompson 
>>> Date: 7/23/24 6:57 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>, Prof David West 
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics
>>>
>>> David's last post so effectively blurs the lines between these two that
>>> I am going to give up, for the moment, on my attempt to keep them straight.
>>>
>>> Intuition tells me that Dave's post falls on one side of the line, and
>>> Glen's on the other,  but I have to go shopping.   I am still hoping to
>>> hear examples of particular experiences with animals, computers, spouses,
>>> etc., that confirm your sense that they are not  only responding

Re: [FRIAM] consciousness - Don't want Nick's ire, so creating new thread

No ire; you rightly predict that physiologizing is not what I am about on
that other thread.  Thank you for your discretion.

n

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 11:33 AM Prof David West 
wrote:

> Consciousness exists because of hallucinogens?
>
> https://www.lillo.org.ar/journals/index.php/lilloa/article/view/1889
>
> The above cites psylocibin and the development of the CYP2D6 gene.
>
> Then there is DMT
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Information-Theory-Psychedelic-Technologies/dp/1527253589/ref=sr_1_1?crid=378XIHX2UZOJU&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.h3VYxicw_rmFVQME6QeF9qwaMDQb_CR_6LKRppY8-CLWCwlbY23DgL0cvTmYiRxt_0o4SkVRF4lhZrXaxManwBg8FD0J8O7pKu-8JcqcnWkAu89cCSwxiBGRmvFkhWwdVEQ0nReJE00O9NP3EbVYzU8MiOk4I1LxXKlIL57dJS-R-LaacYzWHOEZ6DWkCcU4XnIu2yqXgoDn-9i3H86g5eXNtlvBWyR0YaK6VSqhEXc.3wXfhff-i2DFemvzxmS6lBM_LXXMum5xQuFizlk7Q8A&dib_tag=se&keywords=alien+information+theory&qid=1721835109&sprefix=alien+infor%2Caps%2C540&sr=8-1
>
> davew
> \
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

Glen and DaveW and all,

Ok, so I have cc'd in the last correspondence that occurred just before our
discussion about who and what is conscious [ness} got forked up. That
included comments from DaveW,and Glen. Again, thank you, for helping me
along here.

I now see that we need some sort of a working distinction between
experiences and anecdotes. Try this: An experience is something that
happens (to you). An anecdote is the telling of a series of experiences
such that some principle has been established, if only inexplicitly, when
the anecdote is done. So David, in his last post, is telling anecdotes and
Glen is citing experiences, for a first approximation. This is interesting
to me because the line between citing an experience and telling an anecdote
seems so tenuous. Intuitively, I want glen to put those experiences in a
broader context so I can see why, for him, they indicate self
consciousness -- make them more like anecdotes, Glen! Intuitively, I want
Dave to anchor his anecdotes in some experiences. More ethology of
dragons, and less oneness with the Universe! I think this latter intuition
may be based on a distrust of experiences generated the mysteries of
grammar. One can say, but one cannot experience having been married to a
bachelor; one can say, but not experience the sound of one hand clapping;
one can say, but not experience, the experience of not having experiences.
To the extent that meditation involves the pushing away of experiences, I
am suspicious of it.

Please see larding below:

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 9:57 AM Prof David West wrote:

dragon stories:

my very first experience with peyote, I was 12-13 and living on the Hopi
reservation with my aunt and uncle. A group of boys were given the peyote
as a reward for gathering cottonwood buds for use in a Hopi ceremonial
dance. Of the five of us only one other wanted to try the drug, so I
consumed roughly for doses. A massive thunderstorm was in progress. At some
point, a dragon coalesced from the lightning, thunder, filtered sunlight
and began speaking to me.

[important interjection: my brain was "making sense' of an overwhelming
number of sensations, some detected by nerve endings, others generated by
frantic neuron firings. Assumed/assuming this is the same kind of thing
that happens when the brain 'makes sense' of the bombardment of
sensations/neural firings that create the "illusion" of an external world.]

we engaged in an apparently long lasting conversation about my recent
experiences in Hopi-land, the various Hopi stories I had been told that
summer and how to interpret them. At some point the dragon used the phrase,
"alarums and excursions;" an idiom I had first encountered some 8 years
prior (pre-grade school) in a book called David and the Phoenix.

[interjection: till this point my interactions with the dragon were, as far
as I could tell, pretty much identical to the interactions I might have had
with another human being in the 'waking world'. This includes the implicit
assumption that I was interacting with a sentient, conscious, and
self-conscious being.]

*NST>>> I take that your experience was of a normal conversation with a
dragon. As you describe it, is seems just that. Because I agree with you,
uncontravertibly, that a conversation is evidence, I agree with you that
both your and the dragon were both conscious. Whether you both existed is a
whole 'nother matter. <<>> I stipulate that experienced a conversation with BG and that
conversation is evidence of his consciousness. <<>> To be blunt, this just seems like physiobabble. You have no
idea what is going on in your brain nor is it relevant to the experience.
Becareful not to confuse explanations of experience with the experience
itself. <<>>On the contrary, if we collected a thousand such stories from
different people, I bet every one of them would be conscious, as we have
agreed to understand it. <<>>Why on earth
would I make such an argument? how would that alter the fact of the
experience and our understaning of its relation to consciousness. <<>>Here is where I worry that a grammatical quandary is being confused
with anexperience. That we can speak of a non-experience does not make it
an experience of nothingness. <<>> I agree that I fear there is something not-quite-coherent about
the concept of self. Why should I be startled when I catch myself in a
mirror? "That thing?!!"< redfish.com
*

Jul 22, 2024, 12:25 PM (2 days ago)

to friam

Mine run a little more banal.

*NST>>> Glen, could you help me see why one or more of these are illusory
of self-awareness. <<-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comi

Re: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

Jochen,

No bending here.  This IS the thread.

I thought many of us came to agree, be deploying experiences, that an
animal and a human were capable of mutual love. I was never sure where you
stood on that.

 I want to get to the point where we can resolve our different view of
animals and consciousness. My colleagues seemed to agree that these two
propositions are true.

*Dusty (Dave) **Is **conscious of Dave (Dusty).*

And now we are working on these two:

*Dusty (Dave) is c**onscious of Dusty (Dave).*

I have been working on Dave's last post, which got forked into some noman's
land for the last two hours, mostly trying to get a clean version of it
into this thread.  I will post it asap.  Meantime, I am  looking for
experiences/anecdotes that would lead you to believe that
animals/computers/humans are (are not) conscious.   People have been
enormously helpful in making me clarify what I am hoping for.  Whatever
else I mean by an experience/anecdote, it is a description of something
that happened to somebody, preferably you, that affirmed (disconfirmed)your
believe that animals are (are not) [self] conscious; what I don't mean is
references lectures and tomes.  Frankly, I  would prefer to have a cat
video.

Nick


On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 1:31 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> Nick,
>
> Looking for self-awareness in animals before language emerged feels to me
> like searching for culture in anthropology before civilizations appeared.
>
> People in anthropology study human societies, cultures and their
> development, but sadly mostly in the time before it gets interesting (when
> religions, writing systems and civilizations emerged in ancient Egypt and
> ancient Mesopotamia). They examine for instance primitive hunter gatherer
> groups in Africa or ancient tribes in the Amazon region.
>
> Looking for examples of particular experiences with animals that show
> signs of self-awareness (and not only respond to the world around them, but
> also respond to their own responding to the world around them) feels
> similar to me: it is like focusing on a fascinating phenomenon but at a
> place before it gets interesting.
>
>
> If this comment bends the thread too much then please ignore it :-)
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Nicholas Thompson 
> Date: 7/23/24 6:57 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group ,
> Prof David West 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics
>
> David's last post so effectively blurs the lines between these two that I
> am going to give up, for the moment, on my attempt to keep them straight.
>
> Intuition tells me that Dave's post falls on one side of the line, and
> Glen's on the other,  but I have to go shopping.   I am still hoping to
> hear examples of particular experiences with animals, computers, spouses,
> etc., that confirm your sense that they are not  only responding to the
> world around them, but also responding to their own responding to the world
> around them.
>
> Back to this later when stocked up
>
> In the meantime, Please, you-all, don't dick with this thread, don't fork
> it and do, if you are responding to a particular comment, speak to that
> person, don't just fling your wisdom out into the ether.
>
> I never thought you guys would turn me into a thread-Nazi.
>
> Nick
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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] Self-Consciousness, experience and metaphysics

2024-07-23 Thread Nicholas Thompson

David's last post so effectively blurs the lines between these two that I
am going to give up, for the moment, on my attempt to keep them straight.

Intuition tells me that Dave's post falls on one side of the line, and
Glen's on the other,  but I have to go shopping.   I am still hoping to
hear examples of particular experiences with animals, computers, spouses,
etc., that confirm your sense that they are not  only responding to the
world around them, but also responding to their own responding to the world
around them.

Back to this later when stocked up

In the meantime, Please, you-all, don't dick with this thread, don't fork
it and do, if you are responding to a particular comment, speak to that
person, don't just fling your wisdom out into the ether.

I never thought you guys would turn me into a thread-Nazi.

Nick
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] New Mexican's Sunday's story on education proficiency

2024-07-22 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Hi   Jon,

As a Peircean, I neverdoubted it for a minute.  A true ;roposition is one upon 
which we will agree in the very long run.  A real thing is any concept about 
which a true proposition can be uttered.   I think that makes numbers, and 
right triangles real given that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 and  that the squire upon the 
hippopotamus is equal to the son of the squires on the other two hides. So they 
are real even though we will neverever touch one.

Weird.

Nick

From: Friam  on behalf of Jon Zingale 

Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:22 PM
To: friam@redfish.com 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New Mexican's Sunday's story on education proficiency

Numbers are real things. The more one explores them, the more experiences one 
has of them, the more confidently one comes to rely on them.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Man Probes Consciousness: Consciousness Probes Back (was Re: Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV)

2024-07-20 Thread Nicholas Thompson

David, and all,I appreciate the work you have gone to to lay out our program in your two messages. I feel like we have developed some understandings that I can lean on in the future. I’m not so clear concerning what our common understanding of self-consciousness is. Might need some more anecdotes to flesh that out. Not obvious to me that love, entails, self-consciousness, in our sense,  As for dragons, the one thing an experience monist cannot do is disqualify your experience of dragons. We can use your experiences with dragons to flesh out the space of consciousness-experiences, just as confidently as we can use your experience of your dog or of me.Sent from my Dumb PhoneOn Jul 20, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Edward Angel  wrote:The original plan for the IAIA dome was to record stories.Ed
___Ed AngelFounding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico1017 Sierra PinonSanta Fe, NM 87501505-984-0136 (home)		 	an...@cs.unm.edu505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel

On Jul 20, 2024, at 10:56 AM, Stephen Guerin  wrote:I would pay to watch this film! Student production on the dome (digital Kiva) at IAIA, Ben Shedd? Just a rough cut as students then present their own experiences.__On Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 9:57 AM Prof David West  wrote:dragon stories:my very first experience with peyote, I was 12-13 and living on the Hopi reservation with my aunt and uncle. A group of boys were given the peyote as a reward for gathering cottonwood buds for use in a Hopi ceremonial dance. Of the five of us only one other wanted to try the drug, so I consumed roughly for doses. A massive thunderstorm was in progress. At some point, a dragon coalesced from the lightning, thunder, filtered sunlight and began speaking to me.[important interjection: my brain was "making sense' of an overwhelming number of sensations, some detected by nerve endings, others generated by frantic neuron firings. Assumed/assuming this is the same kind of thing that happens when the brain 'makes sense' of the bombardment of sensations/neural firings that create the "illusion" of an external world.]we engaged in an apparently long lasting conversation about my recent experiences in Hopi-land, the various Hopi stories I had been told that summer and how to interpret them. At some point the dragon used the phrase, "alarums and excursions;" an idiom I had first encountered some 8 years prior (pre-grade school) in a book called David and the Phoenix.[interjection: till this point my interactions with the dragon were, as far as I could tell, pretty much identical to the interactions I might have had with another human being in the 'waking world'. This includes the implicit assumption that I was interacting with a sentient, conscious, and self-conscious being.]Second story:I was exploring the use of pain as a means of inducing an altered state of consciousness. Four hours of enduring intense and varied pain administered by a sadistic dominatrix in Salt Lake City, made me very self-aware with a raspy voice. I began the 9 hour drive to Santa Fe to attend FRIAM. Along the way my body went into shock and I dealt with that using meditative techniques. I also was playing a CD of meditative Buddhist chants that I began to hum out loud with my raspy voice. The result was the altered state I had been seeking.Somewhere in Arches National Park, I stopped, stripped naked and walked down a dry wash where I 'encountered' a campfire and sat down. Brigham Young was sitting at the periphery of the campfire and we began a long conversation about Mormon theology and metaphysics, why blacks lost the right to the priesthood (there were blacks in the priesthood in Nauvoo while Joseph Smith was alive and that is one of the reasons the Mormons were persecuted by Missourians), why religions like Christianity, Islam and Mormonism changed from Feminism to misogyny, education, eternal progression, and a host of other topics.  The conversation ended when I realized I would be late for FRIAM unless I stopped and resumed my journey.[interjection: both the dragon and Brigham Young were 'illusions' constructed "by the brain" just as the 'illusion' of ordinary reality. While interacting with them, they were, to me, sentient, aware, and conscious entities. I attributed sentience, intelligence, consciousness to them precisely because of the perceived interactions- the verbal (in my case) and the 'auditorialized' (neuron firings interpreted as sound) voices (of dragon and Brigham).]After the fact self analysis of the incidents conclude that in both cases, the "conversation" was between 'my self' and 'my memories': of the David in the book and his conversations with the Phoenix in the book; all of the writings of Brigham Young I had read years before.These stories do not, technically bear on where or not dragons are conscious, but they most definitely bear on whether or

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Hi  David,

My ears are still ringing with this:
*When we do eventually turn to "self- " I have many anecdotes, but fear
they will be deemed "irrelevant" or "metaphysical" or idiosyncratic (Holy
Self???) and excluded; making consensus of any kind impossible.*

Every experience references a place-from-which.  To that extent, an
experience is necessarily  idiosyncratic.If you have had an experience
with a dragon that you think bears on whether dragons are conscious or
not,  I want to hear it.

Nick

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 5:35 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> Thanks, Dave,
> I tried to set two ground rules, here:  One is simply that  we try to find
> ways to a common understanding.  I recognize that the best way to get
> there might be to go into battle together, or drink a lot whiskey together,
> or drop acid together, but my puritan upbringing forbids those methods. So,
> the second is that we do it by sharing concrete experiences, rather than
> airy references to philosophers or links to voluminous publications, or, in
> my case, vast insertions of my published works. .
>
> So, if you have a better procedure for meeting those rules  lets try them.
>
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:15 PM Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
>> Nick,
>>
>> apologize for immediate last post being on this thread - it is indeed
>> veering into metaphysics (oh boy fun).
>>
>>
>> However, what was said, was indeed anecdotes about my 'experiences'
>> vis-a-vis consciousness. Are such impermissible in this conversation? If
>> Dr. Lilly were to join us share anecdotes about dolphin consciousness or,
>> heaven forbid, about dropping acid with the dolphins, would they be useful
>> for our conversation?
>>
>> I am totally sympathetic with the program here, (and do not see it as a
>> game, zero-sum or otherwise) but often feel as if I am constrained by
>> invisible rules. May I share stories only about cats, Dusty, and Jackson?
>> Perhaps the answer is implicit in your baby-steps dictum: yes, for now,
>> with anecdotes about dragons and unicorns deferred until we have obtained
>> some degree of consensus as to domestic mammals?
>>
>> When we do eventually turn to "self-consciousness" I have many anecdotes,
>> but fear they will be deemed "irrelevant" or "metaphysical" or
>> idiosyncratic (Holy Self???) and excluded; making consensus of any kind
>> impossible.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 11:48 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Hi, everybody.  We are veering into meta again.  Ugh.
>>
>> Where Nick is trying to get is a method for him and David and Jochen to
>> converse productively about consciousness.  A productive conversation, for
>> Nick, is one that produces agreement, at least agreement on the terms of
>> disagreement.  Anecdotes come in because I am beginning to think that
>> anecdotes lie at the core of how we understand ourselves and our worlds.
>> Every anecdote is a fable with a moral, implicit or explicit.   I tell an
>> anecdote which to me means the cat is conscious; if the cat is conscious,
>> than other anecdotes must be relevant.  You chime in with your anecdotes.
>> We are building a consensus for what it means for a cat to be conscious.
>> With that agreement in hand we now turn to "self-conscious".
>>
>> Of course, lurking behind all of this is the question of whether
>> agreement is desirable or whether we all prefer our Holy Individuality.  I
>> hear Dave saying, "I am happy to play your agreement game, but in the end I
>> prefer my Holy Individuality."   But in the end, I don't think there is
>> anyway to play "my" game as a zero-sum game, without any hankering for a
>> common outcome.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM Prof David West 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with glen that inter-individual interactions/observations will
>> not get to where Nick seems to want to go. Because that was the stated
>> starting point of the thread, I went along, to see if i was wrong.
>>
>> Nick: *"For me;  the heartland of self-consciousness would be an
>> awareness on the part of an agent, that  A is one of those  that others
>> are.  I am trying to think what sort of anecdote would elicit such an
>> experience."*
>>
>> I can offer no anecdotes to assist. I do have lots of stories about
>> self-awareness in a variety of contexts. All of them lead to the conclusion
>> that, "I" am NOT *"one of th

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Thanks, Dave,
I tried to set two ground rules, here:  One is simply that  we try to find
ways to a common understanding.  I recognize that the best way to get
there might be to go into battle together, or drink a lot whiskey together,
or drop acid together, but my puritan upbringing forbids those methods. So,
the second is that we do it by sharing concrete experiences, rather than
airy references to philosophers or links to voluminous publications, or, in
my case, vast insertions of my published works. .

So, if you have a better procedure for meeting those rules  lets try them.

Nick

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:15 PM Prof David West 
wrote:

> Nick,
>
> apologize for immediate last post being on this thread - it is indeed
> veering into metaphysics (oh boy fun).
>
>
> However, what was said, was indeed anecdotes about my 'experiences'
> vis-a-vis consciousness. Are such impermissible in this conversation? If
> Dr. Lilly were to join us share anecdotes about dolphin consciousness or,
> heaven forbid, about dropping acid with the dolphins, would they be useful
> for our conversation?
>
> I am totally sympathetic with the program here, (and do not see it as a
> game, zero-sum or otherwise) but often feel as if I am constrained by
> invisible rules. May I share stories only about cats, Dusty, and Jackson?
> Perhaps the answer is implicit in your baby-steps dictum: yes, for now,
> with anecdotes about dragons and unicorns deferred until we have obtained
> some degree of consensus as to domestic mammals?
>
> When we do eventually turn to "self-consciousness" I have many anecdotes,
> but fear they will be deemed "irrelevant" or "metaphysical" or
> idiosyncratic (Holy Self???) and excluded; making consensus of any kind
> impossible.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 11:48 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> Hi, everybody.  We are veering into meta again.  Ugh.
>
> Where Nick is trying to get is a method for him and David and Jochen to
> converse productively about consciousness.  A productive conversation, for
> Nick, is one that produces agreement, at least agreement on the terms of
> disagreement.  Anecdotes come in because I am beginning to think that
> anecdotes lie at the core of how we understand ourselves and our worlds.
> Every anecdote is a fable with a moral, implicit or explicit.   I tell an
> anecdote which to me means the cat is conscious; if the cat is conscious,
> than other anecdotes must be relevant.  You chime in with your anecdotes.
> We are building a consensus for what it means for a cat to be conscious.
> With that agreement in hand we now turn to "self-conscious".
>
> Of course, lurking behind all of this is the question of whether agreement
> is desirable or whether we all prefer our Holy Individuality.  I hear Dave
> saying, "I am happy to play your agreement game, but in the end I prefer my
> Holy Individuality."   But in the end, I don't think there is anyway to
> play "my" game as a zero-sum game, without any hankering for a common
> outcome.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with glen that inter-individual interactions/observations will not
> get to where Nick seems to want to go. Because that was the stated starting
> point of the thread, I went along, to see if i was wrong.
>
> Nick: *"For me;  the heartland of self-consciousness would be an
> awareness on the part of an agent, that  A is one of those  that others
> are.  I am trying to think what sort of anecdote would elicit such an
> experience."*
>
> I can offer no anecdotes to assist. I do have lots of stories about
> self-awareness in a variety of contexts. All of them lead to the conclusion
> that, "I" am NOT *"one of those that others are." (obviously there is
> some marginal overlap)*
>
> Of course this is based entirely on what 'others' are willing/able to
> publicly reveal about them*S*elves.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 10:02 AM, glen wrote:
> > It still seems backwards to me. The anecdotes about inter-individual
> > interactions don't indicate consciousness at all. [1] The move to
> > self-consciousness would be more appropriate. For example, my cat
> > clearly exhibits a (or several) feedback loop(s) when grooming a grass
> > burr out of his fur. (Or a dog walking in circles for a full minute
> > before finally lying down.) This is a marker for a very high order
> > consciousness. An indicator for lower (but still quite high) order
> > consciousness is the lengthy consideration of the water bowl as he
> > decides whether or not it'

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Oh, and ...

I think you guys are quibbling.   There is way to say two objects are
different, without first asserting that they are in some respect the same.

Time to send a deligation to take a way my keyboard?

Nick

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:14 PM steve smith  wrote:

> Dave -
>
> I do have lots of stories about self-awareness in a variety of contexts.
> All of them lead to the conclusion that, "I" am NOT *"one of those that
> others are." (obviously there is some marginal overlap)*
>
> Of course this is based entirely on what 'others' are willing/able to
> publicly reveal about them*S*elves.
>
>
> I was once much more of your experience "I" am NOT *"one of those that
> others are."  *.
>
> The more I observe others (ranging from mountains and rivers through
> mosquito larvae, dragonflies, fish, Cyd and Hank and the myriad people I
> encounter in my life who are significantly *different* from me
> superficially), the more I recognize myself as a pointillist painting of
> those myriad reflections.
>
> Your final statement about *S*elf revealment made me think of the classic
> "I am who you think I think I am" (Ginsberg?)
>
> - Steve
>
> 
>
> Watching the sea of red hats at the Trump Rally (erh... RNC acceptance
> ramble (erh... speech)) last night with all their bright shiny faces
> upturned adoringly glancing around the room for self-reflection
> confirmation/feedback. "LASE"ing as it were?For those here who might
> hate on the Left as well, I think it is this what makes people hateful
> toward "wokeness" or "PC" before it.   At least it isn't the general
> intention or tenor of the ideas they represent but rather the way the
> mechanism seems to generate huge amplification of the Pump source.
>
> We are who you think we think we are?
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Hi, everybody.  We are veering into meta again.  Ugh.

Where Nick is trying to get is a method for him and David and Jochen to
converse productively about consciousness.  A productive conversation, for
Nick, is one that produces agreement, at least agreement on the terms of
disagreement.  Anecdotes come in because I am beginning to think that
anecdotes lie at the core of how we understand ourselves and our worlds.
Every anecdote is a fable with a moral, implicit or explicit.   I tell an
anecdote which to me means the cat is conscious; if the cat is conscious,
than other anecdotes must be relevant.  You chime in with your anecdotes.
We are building a consensus for what it means for a cat to be conscious.
With that agreement in hand we now turn to "self-conscious".

Of course, lurking behind all of this is the question of whether agreement
is desirable or whether we all prefer our Holy Individuality.  I hear Dave
saying, "I am happy to play your agreement game, but in the end I prefer my
Holy Individuality."   But in the end, I don't think there is anyway to
play "my" game as a zero-sum game, without any hankering for a common
outcome.

Nick




On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM Prof David West 
wrote:

> I agree with glen that inter-individual interactions/observations will not
> get to where Nick seems to want to go. Because that was the stated starting
> point of the thread, I went along, to see if i was wrong.
>
> Nick: *"For me;  the heartland of self-consciousness would be an
> awareness on the part of an agent, that  A is one of those  that others
> are.  I am trying to think what sort of anecdote would elicit such an
> experience."*
>
> I can offer no anecdotes to assist. I do have lots of stories about
> self-awareness in a variety of contexts. All of them lead to the conclusion
> that, "I" am NOT *"one of those that others are." (obviously there is
> some marginal overlap)*
>
> Of course this is based entirely on what 'others' are willing/able to
> publicly reveal about them*S*elves.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 10:02 AM, glen wrote:
> > It still seems backwards to me. The anecdotes about inter-individual
> > interactions don't indicate consciousness at all. [1] The move to
> > self-consciousness would be more appropriate. For example, my cat
> > clearly exhibits a (or several) feedback loop(s) when grooming a grass
> > burr out of his fur. (Or a dog walking in circles for a full minute
> > before finally lying down.) This is a marker for a very high order
> > consciousness. An indicator for lower (but still quite high) order
> > consciousness is the lengthy consideration of the water bowl as he
> > decides whether or not it's quality is proper or if he should go drink
> > out of the ditch. [2] Such reflection is a hallmark of consciousness
> > for me. And it's founded in, composed of, lower order feedback loops of
> > interoception.
> >
> > In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that consciousness is only
> > indirectly relevant to inter-individual phenomena at all. We can get a
> > full panoply of complex behavior out of collections of very stupid
> > individuals. To study consciousness, you need a cohesive system capable
> > of exhibiting allostasis. Using 2 such individuals in such studies
> > explodes the variables you need to consider, obscurum per obscurius.
> >
> > [⛧] Witness concepts like "mansplaining" and "cringe", inter-individual
> > interactions denying (some aspect of) the subjects' consciousness, yet
> > confirming the observers' consciousness. Trans-agent phenomena are ripe
> > for abuse and imputation. This is why the Turing test was designed the
> > way it was. It blurs the analogical replacability requirements across
> > simulation, emulation, and authenticity. Were we to be scientific about
> > this, we'd try to control for/against simulation and emulation, which
> > means eliminating inter-individual contexts to the extent we can.
> >
> > [2] These are not anthropomorphic. I have no idea or projection onto
> > what he's thinking when he does these things. However, I do engage in
> > anthropomorphization when I see him trying to decide whether to stay
> > inside or go outside when I open the door. I imagine some heuristic
> > weighting between interactions with the other animals in the house or
> > those outside the house.
> >
> > On 7/18/24 18:10, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I want to move things along here, but  not sure movement would be.
> Our shared anecdotes would seem to suggest that we think that th

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

This would suggest to me either that you don't give a damn about the matter
or that you are a believer in  Holy Individuality.

So which is it?  (};-)]

N

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 9:17 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Resolution is not necessary for me.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 7:11 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I want to move things along here, but  not sure movement would be.   Our
>> shared anecdotes would seem to suggest that we think that these animals we
>> are in interaction with are conscious.
>>
>> Jochen seemed to disagree.  So Jochen, and you all, what should we do
>> about that?   I regard it as a state of tension, and I am led to want to
>> resolve it.Am the only one of us who wants a resolution?
>>
>> Then, I would lke to pass on to self-consciousness.  For me;  the
>> heartland of self-consciousness would be an awareness on the part of an
>> agent, that  A is one of those  that others are.  I am trying to think what
>> sort of anecdote would elicit such an experience.
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:55 PM Nicholas Thompson <
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:53 PM Nicholas Thompson <
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever read The Story of a Grizzly by Ernest Thompson Seton (no
>>>> rel)?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:13 PM steve smith  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nick, et alii behavioristae -
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been using "self-conscious" roughly in place of what I
>>>>> understand to be "self-aware".  I don't think of *many* animals to be
>>>>> self-conscious even though I grant warm-bloodeds for sure and other
>>>>> vertebrates maybe self-awareness.  I've known *domesticates* to 
>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>> self-consciousness... in the sense of "dancing like someone is 
>>>>> watching"...
>>>>> showing off, being shy, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can add a new character to my gallop of characters here.   Yesterday
>>>>> I went to the tiny-fish-slave-market (known as PetCo) and purchased for
>>>>> about $7 20+ goldfish whose breeding was intended for the "feed other 
>>>>> pets"
>>>>> market.   Snakes and ???   not sure what these little guys are normally 
>>>>> fed
>>>>> to.   So now I have a whole cohort of characters called "little
>>>>> fishies"...   one died in the water/air-filled bag on the way home (just 
>>>>> 30
>>>>> mins, but apparently too much shock)...   and once acclimatized and
>>>>> released into a smaller pond above the main pond (where the bigger fish
>>>>> live), all "little fishies" quickly found their comfort zone swimming
>>>>> "upstream" in the circulating current (generated by the pump/recirculation
>>>>> feeding from the main pond).   One got caught near the spillway swimming
>>>>> upstream continuously to avoid going over in the spirit of "swam and swam
>>>>> all over the dam, oh damn!" .
>>>>>
>>>>> A few hours later, a new character enters the tableau:  Garter the
>>>>> Snake... not a big one, maybe 2 feet long and a body not much thicker than
>>>>> a fat pencil.   This little fellow panicked when he saw Hank and I
>>>>> approach... the thrashed around and around the top pond (2' diameter,
>>>>> surrounded by stones) looking for a "way out" that didn't include exposing
>>>>> himself yet-more to me (and Hank).   After he finally raised his need to
>>>>> flee over his fear of direct encounter, I tried counting little fishies,
>>>>> but they were too elusive and too busy to really count... but there were
>>>>> still "plenty" there.   I know snakes to be able to open wide and gulp
>>>>> things half again too big for their jaws when closed...   The range of 
>>>>> size
>>>>> of "little fishies" seemed to be between "too big" and "way too big" for
>>>>> Garter... but probably not. This morning Hank and I went to count 
>>>&

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

All,

I want to move things along here, but  not sure movement would be.   Our
shared anecdotes would seem to suggest that we think that these animals we
are in interaction with are conscious.

Jochen seemed to disagree.  So Jochen, and you all, what should we do about
that?   I regard it as a state of tension, and I am led to want to resolve
it.Am the only one of us who wants a resolution?

Then, I would lke to pass on to self-consciousness.  For me;  the heartland
of self-consciousness would be an awareness on the part of an agent, that
A is one of those  that others are.  I am trying to think what sort of
anecdote would elicit such an experience.

N




On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:55 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:53 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever read The Story of a Grizzly by Ernest Thompson Seton (no
>> rel)?
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:13 PM steve smith  wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, et alii behavioristae -
>>>
>>> We have been using "self-conscious" roughly in place of what I
>>> understand to be "self-aware".  I don't think of *many* animals to be
>>> self-conscious even though I grant warm-bloodeds for sure and other
>>> vertebrates maybe self-awareness.  I've known *domesticates* to demonstrate
>>> self-consciousness... in the sense of "dancing like someone is watching"...
>>> showing off, being shy, etc.
>>>
>>> I can add a new character to my gallop of characters here.   Yesterday I
>>> went to the tiny-fish-slave-market (known as PetCo) and purchased for about
>>> $7 20+ goldfish whose breeding was intended for the "feed other pets"
>>> market.   Snakes and ???   not sure what these little guys are normally fed
>>> to.   So now I have a whole cohort of characters called "little
>>> fishies"...   one died in the water/air-filled bag on the way home (just 30
>>> mins, but apparently too much shock)...   and once acclimatized and
>>> released into a smaller pond above the main pond (where the bigger fish
>>> live), all "little fishies" quickly found their comfort zone swimming
>>> "upstream" in the circulating current (generated by the pump/recirculation
>>> feeding from the main pond).   One got caught near the spillway swimming
>>> upstream continuously to avoid going over in the spirit of "swam and swam
>>> all over the dam, oh damn!" .
>>>
>>> A few hours later, a new character enters the tableau:  Garter the
>>> Snake... not a big one, maybe 2 feet long and a body not much thicker than
>>> a fat pencil.   This little fellow panicked when he saw Hank and I
>>> approach... the thrashed around and around the top pond (2' diameter,
>>> surrounded by stones) looking for a "way out" that didn't include exposing
>>> himself yet-more to me (and Hank).   After he finally raised his need to
>>> flee over his fear of direct encounter, I tried counting little fishies,
>>> but they were too elusive and too busy to really count... but there were
>>> still "plenty" there.   I know snakes to be able to open wide and gulp
>>> things half again too big for their jaws when closed...   The range of size
>>> of "little fishies" seemed to be between "too big" and "way too big" for
>>> Garter... but probably not. This morning Hank and I went to count again
>>> and the small pond had no evident fish in it.   Fortunately the big pond
>>> showed a good number of the little guys, maybe all of them?  I'm guessing
>>> they all gave up one, by one, resisting "going over the waterfall"...  or
>>> maybe Garter ate all the ones who didn't take the plunge?   I've seen both
>>> Garter's bigger brothers and their second cousin RedRacer in the ponds
>>> before which may be a better explanation than "Racoons" for why the numbers
>>> of live fish always dwindle over time without  any evident floaters (or
>>> frozen fish-sticks which do happen in winter if I fail to keep the
>>> circulation going in the coldest periods).
>>>
>>> From what I know of *proper* pond culture, if these little guys (or the
>>> 2-3 times bigger cousins) ever get to be big enough, I will likely name
>>> them individually and begin to project onto them all kinds of
>>> sentience/consciousness/self-awareness that is easy to not-do when they are
>>> still tiny (<1" long)?   Maybe because they are young and still ignorant o

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:53 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> Have you ever read The Story of a Grizzly by Ernest Thompson Seton (no
> rel)?
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:13 PM steve smith  wrote:
>
>> Nick, et alii behavioristae -
>>
>> We have been using "self-conscious" roughly in place of what I understand
>> to be "self-aware".  I don't think of *many* animals to be self-conscious
>> even though I grant warm-bloodeds for sure and other vertebrates maybe
>> self-awareness.  I've known *domesticates* to demonstrate
>> self-consciousness... in the sense of "dancing like someone is watching"...
>> showing off, being shy, etc.
>>
>> I can add a new character to my gallop of characters here.   Yesterday I
>> went to the tiny-fish-slave-market (known as PetCo) and purchased for about
>> $7 20+ goldfish whose breeding was intended for the "feed other pets"
>> market.   Snakes and ???   not sure what these little guys are normally fed
>> to.   So now I have a whole cohort of characters called "little
>> fishies"...   one died in the water/air-filled bag on the way home (just 30
>> mins, but apparently too much shock)...   and once acclimatized and
>> released into a smaller pond above the main pond (where the bigger fish
>> live), all "little fishies" quickly found their comfort zone swimming
>> "upstream" in the circulating current (generated by the pump/recirculation
>> feeding from the main pond).   One got caught near the spillway swimming
>> upstream continuously to avoid going over in the spirit of "swam and swam
>> all over the dam, oh damn!" .
>>
>> A few hours later, a new character enters the tableau:  Garter the
>> Snake... not a big one, maybe 2 feet long and a body not much thicker than
>> a fat pencil.   This little fellow panicked when he saw Hank and I
>> approach... the thrashed around and around the top pond (2' diameter,
>> surrounded by stones) looking for a "way out" that didn't include exposing
>> himself yet-more to me (and Hank).   After he finally raised his need to
>> flee over his fear of direct encounter, I tried counting little fishies,
>> but they were too elusive and too busy to really count... but there were
>> still "plenty" there.   I know snakes to be able to open wide and gulp
>> things half again too big for their jaws when closed...   The range of size
>> of "little fishies" seemed to be between "too big" and "way too big" for
>> Garter... but probably not. This morning Hank and I went to count again
>> and the small pond had no evident fish in it.   Fortunately the big pond
>> showed a good number of the little guys, maybe all of them?  I'm guessing
>> they all gave up one, by one, resisting "going over the waterfall"...  or
>> maybe Garter ate all the ones who didn't take the plunge?   I've seen both
>> Garter's bigger brothers and their second cousin RedRacer in the ponds
>> before which may be a better explanation than "Racoons" for why the numbers
>> of live fish always dwindle over time without  any evident floaters (or
>> frozen fish-sticks which do happen in winter if I fail to keep the
>> circulation going in the coldest periods).
>>
>> From what I know of *proper* pond culture, if these little guys (or the
>> 2-3 times bigger cousins) ever get to be big enough, I will likely name
>> them individually and begin to project onto them all kinds of
>> sentience/consciousness/self-awareness that is easy to not-do when they are
>> still tiny (<1" long)?   Maybe because they are young and still ignorant of
>> everything but their immediate here/now with little experience to expand
>> that.On the other extreme, last time I was  at the Rio Grande after a
>> big flood period, there were a number of huge (2' long?) carp caught in the
>> drift/detritus and they didn't strike me in the least as self-aware (maybe
>> I'd have felt different if I'd met them while they were still alive?).
>>
>> As suggested elsewhere in the thread "the ability to model the world and
>> run that model forwards and backwards in time" and elaborated in Friston's
>> various extrapolations/expansions (Free Energy Principle, Dynamic Causal
>> Modeling, Active Inference
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_J._Friston>).
>>
>> I'm about to launch two other characters into the pond, a leaf-lettuce
>> rootlet and a celery rootlet, both started in a bowl on my wind

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

ter, growing their leaves into the sunlight/air), albeit slower?
> Conscious?  Self-aware?  Not really, or if so barely, or perhaps just
> "foreignly and slowly"?   I don't imagine they are much if at all aware of
> me, much less my intentions of pulling them apart limb from limb to eat
> them (like I did their clone-parent?).  Mary, on the other hand sings to
> her houseplants, and they do seem to thrive compared to when I am in charge
> of their water-offerings.   I look forward to little fishies nibbling on
> their roots while offering them nitrogen-rich nutrients in the way all
> animals do.
>
> The little (and middle) fishies dance like someone (predators?) are
> watching... the celery and lettuce-lets, not so much?   BTW, for all the
> birds visiting the pond, none of them appear to prey on fish... though some
> are big on insects...
>
> (typing like nobody is reading)
>
>  - Steve
>
>
> On 7/18/24 10:33 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> Thanks, Dave.   Sorry if I don]t hold up my end. I am falling behind in
> everything except my capacity to be stirred up by  ideas.  Bad
> combination.   Maybe it's time for Caleb to come and take away my
> keyboard.
>
> So,  I now see a new problem in our anecdotal method here:  How to
> continue without spinning off into vague agreement.  Along with a desire to
> achieve agreement comes a desire to delimit it.  We agree that all the
> characters in the story are conscious; I am trying to see how we could
> explore the degree of our agreement on the proposition that we are all
> self-conscious.
>
> That's what I am thinking about now, but I am late to THUAM so I am going
> there now.
>
> N
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:41 PM Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
>> Dusty is conscious of Dusty. One reason: I give Jackson (my other dog) a
>>> treat and observe body language and facial expressions exhibited by Dusty
>>> that I interpret as, "where's mine?" This indicates to me some kind of
>>> Dusty self-awareness/consciousness of self.
>>>
>>
>> *Could you say more about the body language and  facial expressions.
>> Imagine that I am going to take  care of your two dogs for a weekend;  what
>> would you tell me to look for?*
>>
>> the above is the quote from me email to the list the bold-italic is your
>> request. around the 15th of July.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dusty and Jackson have their own idiosyncratic (notice the attribution of
>> a self-aware consciousness in that word) way of asking for / obtaining what
>> they want.
>>
>> Dusty's way is silent, Jackson's almost always involves a
>> gentle-bark/yip. E.g., Dusty wants a head rub so she comes over and places
>> her chin on my knee and looks soulful. Jackson sits close to my knee,
>> establishes eye contact and vocalizes his request.
>>
>> Both come to my bed at the earliest sign of sunrise (around 5:30 these
>> days) and stare at me. Jackson will eventually vocalize and I get up. Dusty
>> has observed this, daily, for the past N-months but has never been tempted
>> to vocalize herself.
>>
>> if she ever does vocalize, even by accident, I will immediately rise and
>> see if she learns the stimulus-response pattern.
>>
>> I may be seeing nothing more than early training. Dusty's previous owners
>> demanded that she be seen and not heard, and to wait, indefinitely, for
>> explicit invitations. I have no idea about Jackson's early training.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024, at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>
>> David, and all.
>>
>> I am trying to keep this thread as clean of the meta as I can.  So I will
>> answer your general critique on the other thread.  Suffice it to say here
>> that  behaviorism is way in the rear view mirror at this point and I
>> certainly am not trying to teach it.  Suffice it to say, also, I am sure I
>> have done all the bad things you point to;  I am blundering about here
>> trying to find a way toward shared understandings of experiences.
>>
>> *Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat, then stand,
>> in a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and look at Jackson, then at
>> me, then Jackson, then me (sometimes as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring'
>> at me.  Jackson does something similar, but he will also utter a small
>> bark/yip while staring.*
>>
>> My command of gmail bring what it is, I cannot find the email where I
>> prompted this elaboration from you.  I am sure there is one

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Thanks, Dave.   Sorry if I don]t hold up my end. I am falling behind in
everything except my capacity to be stirred up by  ideas.  Bad
combination.   Maybe it's time for Caleb to come and take away my
keyboard.

So,  I now see a new problem in our anecdotal method here:  How to continue
without spinning off into vague agreement.  Along with a desire to achieve
agreement comes a desire to delimit it.  We agree that all the characters
in the story are conscious; I am trying to see how we could explore the
degree of our agreement on the proposition that we are all self-conscious.

That's what I am thinking about now, but I am late to THUAM so I am going
there now.

N



On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:41 PM Prof David West 
wrote:

> Dusty is conscious of Dusty. One reason: I give Jackson (my other dog) a
>> treat and observe body language and facial expressions exhibited by Dusty
>> that I interpret as, "where's mine?" This indicates to me some kind of
>> Dusty self-awareness/consciousness of self.
>>
>
> *Could you say more about the body language and  facial expressions.
> Imagine that I am going to take  care of your two dogs for a weekend;  what
> would you tell me to look for?*
>
> the above is the quote from me email to the list the bold-italic is your
> request. around the 15th of July.
>
>
>
>
> Dusty and Jackson have their own idiosyncratic (notice the attribution of
> a self-aware consciousness in that word) way of asking for / obtaining what
> they want.
>
> Dusty's way is silent, Jackson's almost always involves a gentle-bark/yip.
> E.g., Dusty wants a head rub so she comes over and places her chin on my
> knee and looks soulful. Jackson sits close to my knee, establishes eye
> contact and vocalizes his request.
>
> Both come to my bed at the earliest sign of sunrise (around 5:30 these
> days) and stare at me. Jackson will eventually vocalize and I get up. Dusty
> has observed this, daily, for the past N-months but has never been tempted
> to vocalize herself.
>
> if she ever does vocalize, even by accident, I will immediately rise and
> see if she learns the stimulus-response pattern.
>
> I may be seeing nothing more than early training. Dusty's previous owners
> demanded that she be seen and not heard, and to wait, indefinitely, for
> explicit invitations. I have no idea about Jackson's early training.
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024, at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> David, and all.
>
> I am trying to keep this thread as clean of the meta as I can.  So I will
> answer your general critique on the other thread.  Suffice it to say here
> that  behaviorism is way in the rear view mirror at this point and I
> certainly am not trying to teach it.  Suffice it to say, also, I am sure I
> have done all the bad things you point to;  I am blundering about here
> trying to find a way toward shared understandings of experiences.
>
> *Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat, then stand,
> in a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and look at Jackson, then at
> me, then Jackson, then me (sometimes as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring'
> at me.  Jackson does something similar, but he will also utter a small
> bark/yip while staring.*
>
> My command of gmail bring what it is, I cannot find the email where I
> prompted this elaboration from you.  I am sure there is one.  i just cant
> find it.  Ok, so lets say we are groping toward a method here, call it
> critical anecdotalism.  Person A tells a story which, intuitively he feels
> is an example of some experience-type. Person B agrees or disagrees with
> that attribution.  Together we work out what other experiences would follow
> if this attribution was correct.  Here, we might discover that we disagree
> about  the boundaries of the experience-type.  But it if we find that we
> agree on those boundaries, then we search through our experiences for other
> anecdotes that fall within -- or out of --the type.  So, as I read your
> description, I think, this is an example of "trying to figure out what the
> heck I have to do to get a treat, around here?"  You might then do an
> experiment, which I understand in this context to be a procedure that
> provokes an experience that we both would take as decisive.  Let's say you
> start to feed Jackson ONLY when he yips. If, after a few days of that,
> Dusty doesn't begin to yip, I would be less inclined to my original
> attribution.
>
> It's kind of you to help  me with this, Dave.
>
> It's quite possible I am just sliding into dementia.  Always a risk.
>
> Nick
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 202

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

2024-07-17 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Stephen,

Thank you for prompting me to respond to Dan’s scaling questionaire.  I
tried to when I first received it, but quit because I could not recognize
my own thinking in most of the alternatives.

But you have asked me to be a good sport, so here I am.

If you offer me, as in Q1 a choice between materialism and dualism I am
stumped.  I am an avowed  monist who believes that all monisms are more or
less equivalent – materialism, idealism, or  neutral), and I believe that
dualism is one of the great mind-fucks of all time,  But I don’t  think the
brain has a damned thing to do with the definition of consciousness and
that it is disrespectful to brain research to consider it in that way.  So
give me a 0.7 on Q1.

So, on Q2, my response is stronger than the question allows.  Consciousness
is not shaped by relations to the environment, it IS one of them.  So put
me down for a 1.2 on that one.

I think Q3 is just berserk.  I think the attribution, "X is conscious [of
Y]" is a third-person attribution.  I can see that X is responding to some
portion of our shared experience.  So, when attribute to myself, I am
making a first-person attribution while adopting the perspective of a
third-person.  If we start with the belief that first-person attributions
must be, in principle, different from ordinary third-person ones, then we
are left with a “mystery"   But, I don’t think that;  I think my concept of
self is just my attempt to model me from the outside  So,  put me down for
a zero on this one.

On Q4, I think my response is probably “meh” or  “nu”.  On the one hand I
agree that we need evidence at the level of a relation to identify it,
still we locate it at the individual.  This is called metonomy and is
frerquent in speach.   For instance, we locate motivation in individuals at
a momennt,but we know motivations from broad patterns in time and space.  I
am usually  against that sort of thing, because it misdirects the
attribution from the evidence for it.  However, unlike”communication”  which
requires at least two conscious beings, consciousness can be at a sentient
being and directed toward a non-sentient one.  I can be conscious of a rock.
So, put me down as 0.5, I guess.

As to the last question, I think there is a grammatical  sleight of hand
built into “What is it like to be a …..?”   Put the question in its natural
grammatical form and the answer becomes obvious  “what is being  Stephen
Guerin like?” " It’s like running on a treadmill with jammed on-off switch."
Notice that  presented in its undistorted form, the answer will be a
reference to some experience that I would have.   The grammatical
impersonal creates the mystery by throwing one off the track.  So, put me
down as a zero.

So, Stephen, I cannot bring myself to fill in the entries myself, but feel
free to fill them in for me and report the results to whomever you see fit.
I share your admiration Professor Gupta and will be eager to see what  he
makes of it.

 You said you would look in on THUAM tomorrow around  what a minute
 when?   I may be mixing up my time zones.

Nick

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to school,
> from Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all kinds of
> languages, and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will be the
> same for AI: first we spend millions and millions to train them all
> available knowledge, and then we wonder how they can develop understanding
> of language and consciousness...
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
>
> -J.
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>

-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

2024-07-17 Thread Nicholas Thompson

David, and all.

I am trying to keep this thread as clean of the meta as I can.  So I will
answer your general critique on the other thread.  Suffice it to say here
that  behaviorism is way in the rear view mirror at this point and I
certainly am not trying to teach it.  Suffice it to say, also, I am sure I
have done all the bad things you point to;  I am blundering about here
trying to find a way toward shared understandings of experiences.

*Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat, then stand, in
a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and look at Jackson, then at me,
then Jackson, then me (sometimes as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring' at
me.  Jackson does something similar, but he will also utter a small
bark/yip while staring.*

My command of gmail bring what it is, I cannot find the email where I
prompted this elaboration from you.  I am sure there is one.  i just cant
find it.  Ok, so lets say we are groping toward a method here, call it
critical anecdotalism.  Person A tells a story which, intuitively he feels
is an example of some experience-type. Person B agrees or disagrees with
that attribution.  Together we work out what other experiences would follow
if this attribution was correct.  Here, we might discover that we disagree
about  the boundaries of the experience-type.  But it if we find that we
agree on those boundaries, then we search through our experiences for other
anecdotes that fall within -- or out of --the type.  So, as I read your
description, I think, this is an example of "trying to figure out what the
heck I have to do to get a treat, around here?"  You might then do an
experiment, which I understand in this context to be a procedure that
provokes an experience that we both would take as decisive.  Let's say you
start to feed Jackson ONLY when he yips. If, after a few days of that,
Dusty doesn't begin to yip, I would be less inclined to my original
attribution.

It's kind of you to help  me with this, Dave.

It's quite possible I am just sliding into dementia.  Always a risk.

Nick

davew

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:27 AM Prof David West 
wrote:

> From the beginning, I believed this thread was, in substantial part,
> Nick's attempt to 'teach' us to think as behavioralists and see how far we
> could go in achieving some kind of consensus. I tried very hard to couch
> all of my responses in such terms. I did express, early on, that I had
> serious doubts about how far we could go without deviating into other
> questions—and the answer appears to be not far.
>
> First I copped to blatant anthropomorphism with seem to be accepted with
> no concern.
> Then Nick introduced metaphysics followed by a quick mea culpa.
> Then a flood of additional metaphsysics (inside/outside), inter-species
> (human-whale, human-machine) illustrations, definitional nuances
> (consciousness, awareness, intelligence), and my challenge to the
> 'approach' because it excluded 'evidence' from meditation or drugs.
>
> Although Nick keeps saying he is 'pleased' with responses, I am curious as
> to whether or not we are really making progress towards consensus of any
> kind.
>
> But, just in case, responding to Nick's last question to me:
> Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat, then stand, in
> a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and look at Jackson, then at me,
> then Jackson, then me (sometimes as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring' at
> me.  Jackson does something similar, but he will also utter a small
> bark/yip while staring.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, at 11:59 AM, steve smith wrote:
> > Nick -
> >> I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these testimonials and I
> >> am beginning to sense method in my madness.
> > I'm glad you were willing able to wade through my gallop of
> > observations/reflections/experiences with these two highly central
> > creatures in my household.
> >> I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about Hank.
> > Very much so, as I experience with many cats, she does not reach as far
> > into human psyche/nature to meet me as most dogs (Hank in particular)
> does.
> >>So, in your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self
> >> conscious, I am inclined to ask for more details.   So the method goes
> >> something like this
> >>
> >> We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X,  Cyd is conscious.
> >
> > I think you know from my pan-consciousness self-diagnosis that all of
> > the things I am inclined to report about Cyd also applies to the
> > hummingbirds, the lizards she stalks, and the fish Hank barks at.
> >
> > Cyd has a very highly adaptive sensorimotor system which not only allows
> > her to be good at stalking and catching lizards but also at begging her
> > people to let her out to do so, or to give her a helping of "second
> > dinners" like the hobbit she channels.   She observes, considers, acts,
> > observes the consequences of her acts (the book falling from the top of
> > t

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

2024-07-17 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Steve,

Thank you.  The details with the lizard are to me suggestive of
consciousness.   Experiments would be essential to nail all these things
down,l but these anecdotes are sufficient to explicate what we mean by it
It's ok if the lizard is conscious yet incapable of love, just so long as
you agree that a loving lizard would have to be conscious to fulfill the
terms of "loving".

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:00 PM steve smith  wrote:

> Nick -
> > I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these testimonials and I
> > am beginning to sense method in my madness.
> I'm glad you were willing able to wade through my gallop of
> observations/reflections/experiences with these two highly central
> creatures in my household.
> > I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about Hank.
> Very much so, as I experience with many cats, she does not reach as far
> into human psyche/nature to meet me as most dogs (Hank in particular) does.
> >So, in your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self
> > conscious, I am inclined to ask for more details.   So the method goes
> > something like this
> >
> > We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X,  Cyd is conscious.
>
> I think you know from my pan-consciousness self-diagnosis that all of
> the things I am inclined to report about Cyd also applies to the
> hummingbirds, the lizards she stalks, and the fish Hank barks at.
>
> Cyd has a very highly adaptive sensorimotor system which not only allows
> her to be good at stalking and catching lizards but also at begging her
> people to let her out to do so, or to give her a helping of "second
> dinners" like the hobbit she channels.   She observes, considers, acts,
> observes the consequences of her acts (the book falling from the top of
> the bookcase when she traverses it too rambunctioiusly, the way Mary
> jumps up and lets her out when she hits the right note of plaintive
> meow, the way the lizard freezes when it senses her).   This is an
> overwhelming indication of consciousness in my apprehension of the world.
>
> We were implying that an animal's "Love" or "loving relationship with" a
> human familiar had something to do with consciousness.   I think that is
> a red-herring,   I don't think the lizards love Mary when she frees them
> from Cyd's jaws, but I do think they are acutely conscious.
>
> >   From our prior  usage of the term, we know that if Cyd is conscious,
> > he will do things A, B, C, D, N with greater frequency than
> > otherwise. We check t o  see if this is true. Does Sbe?  Ifso, we now
> > add Cyd to the list  of conscious beings.   Now we check to see if
> > other conscious beings do X with greater frequency than non conscious
> > ones.  If so, we have added to the list of things that conscious
> > beings do.
>
> See above...  A==sense, B==process, C==respond.I don't know that A,
> B, C singularly without both of the others even makes sense.
>
> The fish in the pond are almost continuously in some level of motion,
> they appear to be sensing with their photon and olfactory and
> vibration/pressure-wave sensors.   They respond to signals (shadow of
> human or dog looming over pond, insect landing on the surface of the
> pond, bit of high-nutrient food sinking in the pond) by bolting or
> gulping or seeking more input (curiosity). While a lot of their
> processing may be prewired/instinctive, I do believe that part of their
> processing is in support of "learning".The dragonflies who like the
> high-ground of the tips of everything they can alight on seem yet more
> automatic/instinctual yet they appear (because I project?) to learn...
> they appear to become more and more tolerant of my approaching them the
> more I do it?  They likely recognize that despite the appeal of the tip
> of my car antennae, the tips of the cat-tails in the pond seem to be
> more appealing given the likely food-flux they can spy and grab from
> that vantage (but this is a just-so projection since I'm not a very
> disciplined naturalist, I really have nothing but anecdotal observations).
>
> So perhaps D might be "learn"...
>
> Which takes me to the trees and bushes I feel a strong
> affinity/familiarity with.   Do they A, B, C (and even D?).  I say yes.
> They don't have lenses over their photo-receptors, but since their
> primary/singular energy gathering activity is photonic/light, they
> clearly sense light.   They also seem to be able to extend root growth
> toward water and nutrients, or along same said nutrients...  this
> represents A and C as does growth "reaching" growth out from under the
> shade to gather more light? What about B?   B would seem to be entirely
> pre-wired processing, not adaptive at the scale of the individual
> single-lifetime organism?   Which spills over to "learning" (D) which
> maybe isn't happening at the scale of the individual... does a branch or
> root keep "reaching" even if it gets stymied over and over?  I'm not
> sure.  So if B and even D are req

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

So, wanting the ball is a behavioral structure that we both could see and
discuss.   It occurs over time and is not occasion specific.

It's important to distinguish between anthropomorphism and anecdotalism.
I guess what I am arguing for is a kind of critical anecdotalism in which
we line up our understandings with respect to experiences we share, rather
than with citations of authorities.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 3:28 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> There’s a large black male dog at the dog park with a very large red chew
> ball that it brings every day.   It won’t share the ball with any dog.
> Abby is infuriated by this and would mercilessly attack him using her
> cattle dog speed and smarts until he yielded (if she were allowed).
> Wanting a thing is highly context dependent. It was one of the first
> dogs she met in the area, and she has given indicators of hatred since
> then.   I dread seeing that dog.   “I’m a gonna beat on Jimmy’s head today…”
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 12:19 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> These are fascinating.  Particularly, the attempt to displace you from the
> couch.  Each of you chooses alternative means to convey your experience of
> the other. In the end, you seem to compromise without actually
> understanding one another. If you would like to go over it frame by frame,
> I am your mind.  I think if you look at the first few frames, he gives a
> way his intention to settle down in your spot.
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:32 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> So sad!
>
>
> https://www.tiktok.com/@itsgatsbytime/video/7271730952144014635?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:21 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Another fabulous example.   Sad to say, I have never held hands with a
> dog.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:13 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> It shows that one can have a prior, and modify it based on other
> evidence.   I do not have another explanation for why she would offer her
> paw to be held when driving.
>
> “Offer” means she repeatedly taps me with it until I hold it, then she
> licks me once on the cheek.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:08 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Great example.   The difference between affection is resolved by other
> experiences that precede, go with,  and follow on the scratching.
>
>
>
> in that connection, can I  be an asshole and quibble with you use of the
> term "express".   As a metaphor, it implies that the affection lurks
> somewhere under the skin of the dog and that the scratching is an effusion
> of some inner pressure.  Its use, blinds us to the evident facts
> surrounding the scratching. If it were affectionate  scratching  your
> getting up and leaving the sofa would not be followed by the dog taking
> your warm spot and sighing gratefully.  It would be followed by the dog
> following you into the next room, etc.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:51 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> Ok, here’s another example.   My dog paws at me when I’m sitting on the
> couch.   At first it appeared to be an expression of affection.   Then I
> realized what she really wanted:  Move and give her the space.She did
> the same thing with her male sibling (a dog), and he would get rattled and
> walk away.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:43 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> Some;body  on this thread suggested that I read the recent article on
> whale communication research in Hah-Vud Mag.  It was interesting, but it
> left me screaming and beating the magazine with my fists in many places.
>
>
>
> If anybody would like to chat about it, I am here for that.  Two comments
> to poke the fire a bit:
>
&

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Dear Jochen,

I don't think our disagreement has anything to do with your command of
English  which is probably more elegant than my own.  I think it has to do
with how far we follow Descartes.   For me, all voices are either inside or
outside.  There is no inside/outside distinction to be made.  I am quite
prepared to agree that you hear voices that I do now  (and vice versa),
but the fact that each of us does not hear voices the other hears does not
make them inner in any useful sense.   Yes Glen, I hear you.   I hereby
present my ear to be dopeslapped.

Nick



On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 2:22 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> Since I am not a native speaker my understanding of consciousness is
> probably a bit different and less finely nuanced :-( For me the meaning 2)
> "Subjective consciousness" and 3) "Self-consciousness" mentioned in this
> article are the most interesting ones
>
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/theory-of-knowledge/202407/unpacking-the-consciousness-suitcase
>
> I have not thought of consciousness as the result of a bilateral
> interaction before, as an experience of an other responding to me.
> Fascinating. I thought it was the other way round: I am responding to an
> "other" and experience it as myself. You mean if my buddy (for instance my
> dog) is conscious of me and I am conscious of him we are as a pair somehow
> self-conscious? Interesting.
>
> It reminds me of Julian Jaynes who argued in "The Origin of Consciousness
> in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" that consciousness emerged after
> people in ancient civilizations stopped to believe in divine hallucinations
> and started to recognize the inner voice as the own self.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Nicholas Thompson 
> Date: 7/16/24 6:59 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
> My goal, which I admit is developing on the fly, is to seek commonalty in
> our thinking about consciousness by exploring and perhaps adjusting our
> usage of terms with respect to common day to day experiences with
> potentially conscious others.
>
> For instance:  I think you said early on that you did not think your
> "buddies" were conscious. I would be really startled if they were not.  To
> come to some sort of common view, including possibly a common view of our
> different views,  we would explore the experiences that come to our minds
> when we think about buddies and conscious things.  For instance,  I think
> of consciousness of me as being marked by experience of an other
> responding to me.  I think of a buddy, as an other who is particularly
> responsive to me in some particular area.  A golf buddy is somebody who is
> responsive to my desire to play golf  (shudder) but not so responsive, say,
> to my desire to do philosophy of science. We don't discuss politics.
> Since both consciousness and buddy hood imply experiences of
> responsiveness, it is difficult for me to square your use of "buddy" with
> your use of "non-conscious".  I am hoping that further examples will help
> us see where the discordance arises.
>
> Nick
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:40 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
>> I am not sure what your goal is here. If we speak to our pets like
>> chickens, cats, dogs, or horses and expect them to understand us then we
>> are ascribe human attributes to them. They can feel our mood and recognize
>> certain words but they do not understand language. Giving animal names is
>> already a first step of an anthropomorphization, isn't it?
>>
>> Would we eat a schnitzel if there is a sign in the supermarket which says
>> this meat is from Paul the happy pig from Idaho with a picture next to it?
>> Probably not. We suppress the idea that the meat we eat comes from a living
>> being which is aware of its environment and feels pleasure and pain as we
>> do.
>>
>> The meat we eat comes from unknown and unnamed animals, whereas we know
>> our pets well and give them names, because they are our buddies and
>> companions. In principle we should all be vegetarians, but I must admit
>> occasionally I like to eat a schnitzel as well.
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Nicholas Thompson 
>> Date: 7/16/24 12:30 AM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

These are fascinating.  Particularly, the attempt to displace you from the
couch.  Each of you chooses alternative means to convey your experience of
the other. In the end, you seem to compromise without actually
understanding one another. If you would like to go over it frame by frame,
I am your mind.  I think if you look at the first few frames, he gives a
way his intention to settle down in your spot.

N

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:32 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> So sad!
>
>
> https://www.tiktok.com/@itsgatsbytime/video/7271730952144014635?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:21 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Another fabulous example.   Sad to say, I have never held hands with a
> dog.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:13 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> It shows that one can have a prior, and modify it based on other
> evidence.   I do not have another explanation for why she would offer her
> paw to be held when driving.
>
> “Offer” means she repeatedly taps me with it until I hold it, then she
> licks me once on the cheek.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:08 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Great example.   The difference between affection is resolved by other
> experiences that precede, go with,  and follow on the scratching.
>
>
>
> in that connection, can I  be an asshole and quibble with you use of the
> term "express".   As a metaphor, it implies that the affection lurks
> somewhere under the skin of the dog and that the scratching is an effusion
> of some inner pressure.  Its use, blinds us to the evident facts
> surrounding the scratching. If it were affectionate  scratching  your
> getting up and leaving the sofa would not be followed by the dog taking
> your warm spot and sighing gratefully.  It would be followed by the dog
> following you into the next room, etc.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:51 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> Ok, here’s another example.   My dog paws at me when I’m sitting on the
> couch.   At first it appeared to be an expression of affection.   Then I
> realized what she really wanted:  Move and give her the space.She did
> the same thing with her male sibling (a dog), and he would get rattled and
> walk away.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:43 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> Some;body  on this thread suggested that I read the recent article on
> whale communication research in Hah-Vud Mag.  It was interesting, but it
> left me screaming and beating the magazine with my fists in many places.
>
>
>
> If anybody would like to chat about it, I am here for that.  Two comments
> to poke the fire a bit:
>
>
>
> If this is to be the first time we communicate with another species, what
> on earth have i been doing with my dog, all these years?
>
>
>
> If you want to understand an alien intelligence, you sure as hell  don't
> start with human based categories.  You start with a broader perspective
> and place both the human and the alien within it.  Ethology got started
> because its predecessor, comparative psychology, was obsessed with imposing
> human categories on animals.  Finding out what birdsong is actually doing
> has been slowed up for generations by the twin metaphors of music and
> language.
>
>
>
> Beware lure of charismatic science. Just remember, charisma is a
> transaction between an individual and an audience in which the individual
> engages unspoken needs of the audience and the audience rewards him/her
> with notoriety   Most humans are desperate to have their preconceptions
> confirmed.
>
>
>
> ARGH!
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
> I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to school,
> from Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all kinds of
> languages, and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will be the
> same for AI: first

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Another fabulous example.   Sad to say, I have never held hands with a
dog.

Nick

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:13 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> It shows that one can have a prior, and modify it based on other
> evidence.   I do not have another explanation for why she would offer her
> paw to be held when driving.
>
> “Offer” means she repeatedly taps me with it until I hold it, then she
> licks me once on the cheek.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:08 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Great example.   The difference between affection is resolved by other
> experiences that precede, go with,  and follow on the scratching.
>
>
>
> in that connection, can I  be an asshole and quibble with you use of the
> term "express".   As a metaphor, it implies that the affection lurks
> somewhere under the skin of the dog and that the scratching is an effusion
> of some inner pressure.  Its use, blinds us to the evident facts
> surrounding the scratching. If it were affectionate  scratching  your
> getting up and leaving the sofa would not be followed by the dog taking
> your warm spot and sighing gratefully.  It would be followed by the dog
> following you into the next room, etc.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:51 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> Ok, here’s another example.   My dog paws at me when I’m sitting on the
> couch.   At first it appeared to be an expression of affection.   Then I
> realized what she really wanted:  Move and give her the space.    She did
> the same thing with her male sibling (a dog), and he would get rattled and
> walk away.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:43 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> Some;body  on this thread suggested that I read the recent article on
> whale communication research in Hah-Vud Mag.  It was interesting, but it
> left me screaming and beating the magazine with my fists in many places.
>
>
>
> If anybody would like to chat about it, I am here for that.  Two comments
> to poke the fire a bit:
>
>
>
> If this is to be the first time we communicate with another species, what
> on earth have i been doing with my dog, all these years?
>
>
>
> If you want to understand an alien intelligence, you sure as hell  don't
> start with human based categories.  You start with a broader perspective
> and place both the human and the alien within it.  Ethology got started
> because its predecessor, comparative psychology, was obsessed with imposing
> human categories on animals.  Finding out what birdsong is actually doing
> has been slowed up for generations by the twin metaphors of music and
> language.
>
>
>
> Beware lure of charismatic science. Just remember, charisma is a
> transaction between an individual and an audience in which the individual
> engages unspoken needs of the audience and the audience rewards him/her
> with notoriety   Most humans are desperate to have their preconceptions
> confirmed.
>
>
>
> ARGH!
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
> I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to school,
> from Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all kinds of
> languages, and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will be the
> same for AI: first we spend millions and millions to train them all
> available knowledge, and then we wonder how they can develop understanding
> of language and consciousness...
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
>
> Clark University
>
&g

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Great example.   The difference between affection is resolved by other
experiences that precede, go with,  and follow on the scratching.

in that connection, can I  be an asshole and quibble with you use of the
term "express".   As a metaphor, it implies that the affection lurks
somewhere under the skin of the dog and that the scratching is an effusion
of some inner pressure.  Its use, blinds us to the evident facts
surrounding the scratching. If it were affectionate  scratching  your
getting up and leaving the sofa would not be followed by the dog taking
your warm spot and sighing gratefully.  It would be followed by the dog
following you into the next room, etc.

Nick

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:51 PM Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> Ok, here’s another example.   My dog paws at me when I’m sitting on the
> couch.   At first it appeared to be an expression of affection.   Then I
> realized what she really wanted:  Move and give her the space.She did
> the same thing with her male sibling (a dog), and he would get rattled and
> walk away.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:43 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
>
>
> Hi, All,
>
>
>
> Some;body  on this thread suggested that I read the recent article on
> whale communication research in Hah-Vud Mag.  It was interesting, but it
> left me screaming and beating the magazine with my fists in many places.
>
>
>
> If anybody would like to chat about it, I am here for that.  Two comments
> to poke the fire a bit:
>
>
>
> If this is to be the first time we communicate with another species, what
> on earth have i been doing with my dog, all these years?
>
>
>
> If you want to understand an alien intelligence, you sure as hell  don't
> start with human based categories.  You start with a broader perspective
> and place both the human and the alien within it.  Ethology got started
> because its predecessor, comparative psychology, was obsessed with imposing
> human categories on animals.  Finding out what birdsong is actually doing
> has been slowed up for generations by the twin metaphors of music and
> language.
>
>
>
> Beware lure of charismatic science. Just remember, charisma is a
> transaction between an individual and an audience in which the individual
> engages unspoken needs of the audience and the audience rewards him/her
> with notoriety   Most humans are desperate to have their preconceptions
> confirmed.
>
>
>
> ARGH!
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
> I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to school,
> from Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all kinds of
> languages, and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will be the
> same for AI: first we spend millions and millions to train them all
> available knowledge, and then we wonder how they can develop understanding
> of language and consciousness...
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
>
> Clark University
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

My goal, which I admit is developing on the fly, is to seek commonalty in
our thinking about consciousness by exploring and perhaps adjusting our
usage of terms with respect to common day to day experiences with
potentially conscious others.

For instance:  I think you said early on that you did not think your
"buddies" were conscious. I would be really startled if they were not.  To
come to some sort of common view, including possibly a common view of our
different views,  we would explore the experiences that come to our minds
when we think about buddies and conscious things.  For instance,  I think
of consciousness of me as being marked by experience of an other
responding to me.  I think of a buddy, as an other who is particularly
responsive to me in some particular area.  A golf buddy is somebody who is
responsive to my desire to play golf  (shudder) but not so responsive, say,
to my desire to do philosophy of science. We don't discuss politics.
Since both consciousness and buddy hood imply experiences of
responsiveness, it is difficult for me to square your use of "buddy" with
your use of "non-conscious".  I am hoping that further examples will help
us see where the discordance arises.

Nick

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:40 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> I am not sure what your goal is here. If we speak to our pets like
> chickens, cats, dogs, or horses and expect them to understand us then we
> are ascribe human attributes to them. They can feel our mood and recognize
> certain words but they do not understand language. Giving animal names is
> already a first step of an anthropomorphization, isn't it?
>
> Would we eat a schnitzel if there is a sign in the supermarket which says
> this meat is from Paul the happy pig from Idaho with a picture next to it?
> Probably not. We suppress the idea that the meat we eat comes from a living
> being which is aware of its environment and feels pleasure and pain as we
> do.
>
> The meat we eat comes from unknown and unnamed animals, whereas we know
> our pets well and give them names, because they are our buddies and
> companions. In principle we should all be vegetarians, but I must admit
> occasionally I like to eat a schnitzel as well.
>
> -J.
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Nicholas Thompson 
> Date: 7/16/24 12:30 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
> Oh, so, for instance,
>
> Would you speak to your dog?
> Would you expect your dog to under stand you when you speak, some of the
> time?
> Would you see your  dog's behavior as going in a direction?
> Would you believe that some things give your dog pleasure and others
> pain..
> Would you see your dog as having behaviors designed to convey pleasure and
> pain.
>
> etc, etc.
>
> NIck
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:26 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Jochen,
>>
>> I haven't read the paper, so grain of salt, here.  Anybody who has dealt
>> with a  bittersweet vine knows that plants can do plenty.   The question
>> about plants seems to me to be more one of whether each plant is a unit.
>> We tend not to attribute consciousness to things we eat, so, to that
>> extent, I am suspicious of the assertion that all plants are not at all
>> conscious.  (H.  I wonder if the Chinese think that dogs are conscious.}
>>
>> But I am not so much interested at the moment in the boundaries of
>> attrribution as I am in its heartland.  What are we getting at when we make
>> these attributions in ordinary day to day talk.
>>
>> Imagine both you and I  had dogs.   I imagine that we would behave toward
>> our dogs in very similar ways.  Yet, on your earlier comments, you would
>> see them as non-conscious and I would seem them as conscious.  What
>> difference does this attribution make in our behavor, do you suppose.  If
>> there is no difference, then the Pragmatist would accuse us of arguing
>> over  metaphysics.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>>
>>> Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and no muscles
>>> and do not move they have no "patterns of doings" and therefore no
>>> consciousness. There is a paper from Taiz et al. which argues plants
>>> neither possess nor require consciousness.
>>>
>>> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
>>>
>>> I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing Cockatoos and the

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Hi, All,

Some;body  on this thread suggested that I read the recent article on whale
communication research in Hah-Vud Mag.  It was interesting, but it left me
screaming and beating the magazine with my fists in many places.

If anybody would like to chat about it, I am here for that.  Two comments
to poke the fire a bit:

If this is to be the first time we communicate with another species, what
on earth have i been doing with my dog, all these years?

If you want to understand an alien intelligence, you sure as hell  don't
start with human based categories.  You start with a broader perspective
and place both the human and the alien within it.  Ethology got started
because its predecessor, comparative psychology, was obsessed with imposing
human categories on animals.  Finding out what birdsong is actually doing
has been slowed up for generations by the twin metaphors of music and
language.

Beware lure of charismatic science. Just remember, charisma is a
transaction between an individual and an audience in which the individual
engages unspoken needs of the audience and the audience rewards him/her
with notoriety   Most humans are desperate to have their preconceptions
confirmed.

ARGH!

n

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to school,
> from Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all kinds of
> languages, and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will be the
> same for AI: first we spend millions and millions to train them all
> available knowledge, and then we wonder how they can develop understanding
> of language and consciousness...
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
>
> -J.
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>

-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these testimonials and I am
beginning to sense method in my madness.

I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about Hank.   So, in
your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self conscious, I am inclined
to ask for more details.   So the method goes something like this

We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X,  Cyd is conscious.
>From our prior  usage of the term, we know that if Cyd is conscious, he
will do things A, B, C, D, N with greater frequency than otherwise. We
check t o  see if this is true.  Does Sbe?  Ifso, we now add Cyd to the
list  of conscious beings.   Now we check to see if other conscious beings
do X  with greater frequency than non conscious ones.  If so, we have added
to the list of things that conscious beings do.

N

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 7:22 PM steve smith  wrote:

> Hank my dog (with whom I have a loving relationship but who loves and is
> loved my Mary) barks at the TV when a barking sound emanates from it.  If
> he sees a dog-figure cavorting on the screen he barks more vigorously even
> if the barking sounds ceases.  If he sees *any* animal like figure on the
> TV he *may* bark at it, depending on what else is going on in the room (or
> inside his head)  He even sometimes barks at little kid figures...   but
> not as much.
>
>   Next to the TV is what I call "bird TV" something of a picture
> window where we have both hummingbird and conventional bird feeders.   He
> watches the birds but does not bark at them.  When they might fly into the
> window or toward it, veering off, he sometimes alerts and charges but does
> not bark.  The other day he was barking out the window at the ground
> vigorously... there was a 6' long red-racer snake staring back at him/us
> which casually turned around and slithered off.   He only quit barking when
> it was no longer evident.   He barks directly into the window-pane at
> neighbors and vehicles at the end of our drive and at the sound of sirens
> and 18 wheelers engine-braking on the highway.  The sound of his bark has
> to be reflecting right back into his little ears but that doesnt' slow him
> down.  For a while he would hear his own bark resonating in our steel
> spiral staircase which was a high pitched near-echo?  He would bark then
> turn around to see who was "barking?" behind him, then satisfied turn
> around and bark at the window again, rinse, repeat he did this off and
> on for months but now seems entirely bored with it.   If we make any noises
> mistakeable for a bark (like a chair or table leg drug abruptly) he barks
> in the general direction of the bark.We have a lifesize photograph of
> his head with ears flying as he pops up over our entry gate...  we have
> shown it to him on the canvas as well as displayed on the television.  He
> is totally uninterested.   If we hold him up to the TV to see what he is
> barking at more closely, he paws at the screen but ceases barking when his
> sniffing self determines that the thing he is barking at has no smell and
> cant be reached through the glass.
>
> I still think he is acutely conscious and has a self-awareness, but it
> probably isn't registered on the things we want to project onto him...
> sight and sound matter for attention I think, but i suspect smell is key to
> recognition?
>
>  Our cat (Cyd, with whom we both have a loving relationship but who
> ignores most everything but food, especially her name) does not have the
> slightest interest in anything on TV in a picture with or without sound, or
> even through the window mostly (hummingbirds 5 feet from her perch).  Cats
> on TV are equally uninteresting to her as anything else.  I think she is as
> conscious as Hank and fully self-aware, but in an even more foreign sense
> to us than Hank.   The Red Racer and the Fish in the pond?  Absolutely...
> but again, yet more foreign.
>
> Hank (sleeping nearby as I type) presents his dreams a lot more
> explicitely than Cyd...  I think he is conscious and self-aware in his
> dreams in a similar but completely different way as I am...he seems to
> wake up alternatively excited or scared as appropriate?
> On 7/15/24 4:20 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> In the case of self-recognition, she now does not bark or paw at the
> mirror.  For months, as a youngster, she would walk by the mirror and be
> startled by the movement.  Now she ignores it.   If she sees me do
> something in the mirror, like put down an iPad, she tips her back to look
> at me to look at me – as if to see if anything is changing.I can’t
> defend the other perception.   It is clear she has immediate visual
> discrimination of dogs and humans at the dog park, though.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam   *On

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Oh, so, for instance,

Would you speak to your dog?
Would you expect your dog to under stand you when you speak, some of the
time?
Would you see your  dog's behavior as going in a direction?
Would you believe that some things give your dog pleasure and others
pain..
Would you see your dog as having behaviors designed to convey pleasure and
pain.

etc, etc.

NIck

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:26 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> Hi, Jochen,
>
> I haven't read the paper, so grain of salt, here.  Anybody who has dealt
> with a  bittersweet vine knows that plants can do plenty.   The question
> about plants seems to me to be more one of whether each plant is a unit.
> We tend not to attribute consciousness to things we eat, so, to that
> extent, I am suspicious of the assertion that all plants are not at all
> conscious.  (H.  I wonder if the Chinese think that dogs are conscious.}
>
> But I am not so much interested at the moment in the boundaries of
> attrribution as I am in its heartland.  What are we getting at when we make
> these attributions in ordinary day to day talk.
>
> Imagine both you and I  had dogs.   I imagine that we would behave toward
> our dogs in very similar ways.  Yet, on your earlier comments, you would
> see them as non-conscious and I would seem them as conscious.  What
> difference does this attribution make in our behavor, do you suppose.  If
> there is no difference, then the Pragmatist would accuse us of arguing
> over  metaphysics.
>
> Nick
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
>> Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and no muscles and
>> do not move they have no "patterns of doings" and therefore no
>> consciousness. There is a paper from Taiz et al. which argues plants
>> neither possess nor require consciousness.
>>
>> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
>>
>> I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing Cockatoos and the
>> Dead Man Test: How Behavior Evolves and Why It Matters" from Marlene Zuk
>> https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Nicholas Thompson 
>> Date: 7/13/24 3:34 AM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
>> Thought
>>
>> I  have no trouble stipulating that consciousness is a degree-thing so
>> long as we understand it with reference to patterns of doings rather than
>> in terms of the equipment organisms carry around.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>>
>>> The dictionary defines intelligence as the ability to learn or
>>> understand or to deal with new or trying situations. H.G. Wells says in his
>>> book "The Time Machine" that "There is no intelligence where there is no
>>> change and no need of change. Only those animals partake of intelligence
>>> that have to meet a huge variety of needs and dangers." LLMs are the result
>>> of endless training cycles and they show amazing levels of intelligence.
>>> Apparently there is a relation between learning and intelligence.
>>>
>>> I think languages and codes are more essential to understand
>>> self-awareness and consciousness because consciousness and self-awareness
>>> are a side effect of language acquisition which allows to bypass the blind
>>> spot of the inability to perceive the own self.
>>>
>>> Maybe Steve and Dave are correct that there is a spectrum of
>>> consciousness: plants have 1 bit of consciousness because they are aware of
>>> sunshine and water levels in the environment. Animals have 2 bits of
>>> consciousness because they are additionally aware of predators and food
>>> sources in the environment. Primates have 3 bits of consciousness because
>>> they are aware of injustice and inequalities (e.g. by being jealous).
>>> Humans have the most bits of consciousness because of language and
>>> self-awareness. Wheeler's it from bit comes to mind.
>>>
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original message 
>>> From: Pieter Steenekamp 
>>> Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Co

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Hi, Jochen,

I haven't read the paper, so grain of salt, here.  Anybody who has dealt
with a  bittersweet vine knows that plants can do plenty.   The question
about plants seems to me to be more one of whether each plant is a unit.
We tend not to attribute consciousness to things we eat, so, to that
extent, I am suspicious of the assertion that all plants are not at all
conscious.  (H.  I wonder if the Chinese think that dogs are conscious.}

But I am not so much interested at the moment in the boundaries of
attrribution as I am in its heartland.  What are we getting at when we make
these attributions in ordinary day to day talk.

Imagine both you and I  had dogs.   I imagine that we would behave toward
our dogs in very similar ways.  Yet, on your earlier comments, you would
see them as non-conscious and I would seem them as conscious.  What
difference does this attribution make in our behavor, do you suppose.  If
there is no difference, then the Pragmatist would accuse us of arguing
over  metaphysics.

Nick

On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and no muscles and
> do not move they have no "patterns of doings" and therefore no
> consciousness. There is a paper from Taiz et al. which argues plants
> neither possess nor require consciousness.
>
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
>
> I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing Cockatoos and the
> Dead Man Test: How Behavior Evolves and Why It Matters" from Marlene Zuk
> https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test
>
> -J.
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Nicholas Thompson 
> Date: 7/13/24 3:34 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
> I  have no trouble stipulating that consciousness is a degree-thing so
> long as we understand it with reference to patterns of doings rather than
> in terms of the equipment organisms carry around.
>
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>
>> The dictionary defines intelligence as the ability to learn or understand
>> or to deal with new or trying situations. H.G. Wells says in his book "The
>> Time Machine" that "There is no intelligence where there is no change and
>> no need of change. Only those animals partake of intelligence that have to
>> meet a huge variety of needs and dangers." LLMs are the result of endless
>> training cycles and they show amazing levels of intelligence. Apparently
>> there is a relation between learning and intelligence.
>>
>> I think languages and codes are more essential to understand
>> self-awareness and consciousness because consciousness and self-awareness
>> are a side effect of language acquisition which allows to bypass the blind
>> spot of the inability to perceive the own self.
>>
>> Maybe Steve and Dave are correct that there is a spectrum of
>> consciousness: plants have 1 bit of consciousness because they are aware of
>> sunshine and water levels in the environment. Animals have 2 bits of
>> consciousness because they are additionally aware of predators and food
>> sources in the environment. Primates have 3 bits of consciousness because
>> they are aware of injustice and inequalities (e.g. by being jealous).
>> Humans have the most bits of consciousness because of language and
>> self-awareness. Wheeler's it from bit comes to mind.
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Pieter Steenekamp 
>> Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
>> Thought
>>
>> Jochen,
>>
>> Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging post! It's never too late for
>> a good discussion, even if we sometimes get distracted by the call of daily
>> life (or perhaps the allure of a particularly captivating cat video).
>>
>> Your points on the necessity of language for meta-awareness and the
>> intriguing idea of the "blind spot" of self-perception are fascinating.
>> However, I’d like to suggest a slight pivot in our focus. Rather than
>> concentrating on consciousness per se, why not delve into the realm of
>> intelligence?
>>
>> Why, you might ask? Well, what we're really curious about is what’s going
>> on in our heads when we're c

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Great.  Can you describe,in what ever detail seems right, what that seeming
consists of?

nick

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> Mirror recognition (or usage) took a while for my dog to learn.  She seems
> perplexed by the fact humans and dogs look different.   While I don’t know
> she is looking at herself, she seems to understand the difference between
> me in a mirror and me right in front of her.   She no longer thinks it is
> another dog.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
> *Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2024 1:17 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:54 AM Nicholas Thompson <
> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is an example  If you play a dog's bark back to him, does he respond
> as if it's the bark of an intruder?
>
> If not, that suggest some sort of self recognition mechanism,  given that
> the bark I give sounds a heluva lot different  from the bark I would hear
> if if I were the hearer of my own bark.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> Dog recognizing its own bark may be close to the  self-recognition in
> mirror test which dogs and cats fail (and some humans). Dogs do recognize
> their own odor in many tests.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
>
> +-+---+
> | Species | Mirror Self-Recognition|
> +-+---+
> | Infants | Yes (18-24 months) |
> | Monkeys | No |
> | Chimps  | Yes (2-3 years)|
> | Dolphins| Yes (2-3 years)|
> | Democrats   | Yes (18-24 months) |
> | Elephants   | Yes (2-3 years)|
> | Magpies | Yes|
> | Republicans | Mixed  |
> | Gorillas| Mixed  |
> | Orangutans  | Yes|
> | Pigeons | Mixed  |
> | Octopi  | No |
> | Dogs| No |
> | Cats| No |
> +-+---+
>
>
>
> Amsterdam, B. (1972). Mirror self-image reactions before age two.
> Developmental Psychobiology, 5(4), 297–305.
> https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.420050403.
> https://redfish.com/papers/Amsterdam-1972-Mirrorself-imagereactionsbeforeagetwo.pdf
> EGallup, G. G. (1970). "Chimpanzees: Self-recognition." *Science*,
> 167(3914), 86-87. https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.167.3914.8
> <https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.167.3914.86>
>
> Reiss, D., & Marino, L. (2001). "Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose
> dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence." *Proceedings of the National
> Academy of Sciences*, 98(10), 5937-5942.
> https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.101086398
> <https://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/593>
>
> Plotnik, J. M., de Waal, F. B., & Reiss, D. (2006). "Self-recognition in
> an Asian elephant." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*,
> 103(45), 17053-17057. https://www.pnas.org/content/103/45/17053
>
>
>
> FWIW,  I don't consider self-awareness necessary for consciousness -
> though it is an interesting topic to me like theory-of-mind.
>
>
>
> -Stephen
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Oh, and, the project is to describe experiences that would lead to one
conclusion or anotherj.

Here is an example  If you play a dog's bark back to him, does he respond
as if it's the bark of an intruder?
If not, that suggest some sort of self recognition mechanism,  given that
the bark I give sounds a heluva lot different  from the bark I would hear
if if I were the hearer of my own bark.

Buts let's secure agreement on the first two propositions first:

 There would seem to be two kinds of experiences necessary to support the
idea that A is conscious of B.
Stories that suggest that A  moves in relation to and in anticipation of
B;s movements.
And, Stories that suggest that A's movements in relation to B are nnot
movements deployed to every othe member of the class A without
discrimination.

i,e, that A is conscious B distinctly.

Nick

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:43 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> Hi, Prof Dave n all,
>
> I would like us to come back to this point:
>
> *Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dave (Dusty).*
> *Is  Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dusty (Dave).*
> Using our progress around the word Love, I feel like we ought to be able
> to agree on the first two propositions.  We agree that the two particiants
> are consciouus of one another.
>
> So, if I am correct about that, could we move on to dis cuss the second
> pair, whether each of the two is conscious of themself.
>
> This is really truicky and, to be honest, I have no idea where it comes
> out.
>
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nicholas Thompson <
> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
>> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>>
>> Dave, you offer as data:
>>
>>
>> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>>
>> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>>
>> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>>
>> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>>
>> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
>> back and lets her stay as she is.*
>> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>>
>> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>>
>>
>> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a
>> series of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness
>> between the two *
>>
>> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
>> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
>> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
>> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
>> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
>> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
>> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
>> flow from it:
>>
>> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
>> understanding, the following would be true:
>>
>> *You would protect one another against harm.*
>> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
>> depressed.*
>> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
>> time.*
>>
>> Are these things true?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Hi, Prof Dave n all,

I would like us to come back to this point:

*Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dave (Dusty).*
*Is  Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dusty (Dave).*
Using our progress around the word Love, I feel like we ought to be able to
agree on the first two propositions.  We agree that the two particiants are
consciouus of one another.

So, if I am correct about that, could we move on to dis cuss the second
pair, whether each of the two is conscious of themself.

This is really truicky and, to be honest, I have no idea where it comes
out.

Nick

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>
> Dave, you offer as data:
>
>
> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>
> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>
> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>
> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>
> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
> back and lets her stay as she is.*
> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>
> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>
>
> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series
> of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between
> the two *
>
> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
> flow from it:
>
> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
> understanding, the following would be true:
>
> *You would protect one another against harm.*
> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
> depressed.*
> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
> time.*
>
> Are these things true?
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

2024-07-13 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Oh, Barry.  I forgot to ask you the threshold question.  Do you agree that
attempting to extend the zone of honest agreement is a worthy goal.

On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 3:00 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> Without going backward in my conversation, you and I could add this new
> data to the data-pack on go on.
>
> Let's go contrarian for a few strokes.  can you think of things that your
> Dusty has done that are inconsistent with love.
>
> Nick
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:23 PM Barry MacKichan <
> barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote:
>
>> I feel permitted to barge in on this discussion, since my dog (well, our
>> dog) is also named Dusty.
>>
>> Frequently, I look up from what I’m doing or reading, and he is in his
>> chair looking at me, and we can spend several minutes with our eyes locked.
>> I call it love; he doesn’t want to talk about it. I’ve read that this is
>> common behavior, and that it results in an oxytocin kick to both
>> participants. I think that chemical evidence is a good addition to the
>> other data in this discussion. My starting assumption is that if a peptide
>> is shared between species, the effects of that peptide probably share
>> similar mechanisms. I.e., the simplest explanation is that if it affects me
>> through emotions, the effect in my dog is probably through something very
>> much like an emotion. I’ve never seen any evidence that this is *not*
>> true.
>>
>> Concerning the list of consequences of a loving relationship at the end
>> of your message, I would say all three are absolutely true. My wife had
>> covid for the first time several months ago, and whenever she was in bed,
>> both our dogs were there. When they see we are upset — a frequent
>> occurrence in this election year — they will keep their eyes on us and
>> stick with us until they are reassured that we are (sorta) OK. They sense
>> emotions better than many humans I have known.
>>
>> When Dusty was a puppy, and I was out of town, my wife took him on a
>> walk, off leash, in the arroyo and slipped and fell on the icy path. When
>> she opened her eyes a few seconds later, Dusty had his nose right up
>> against her face.
>>
>> --
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2024, at 12:59, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>
>> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
>> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>>
>> Dave, you offer as data:
>>
>>
>> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>>
>> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>>
>> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>>
>> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>>
>> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
>> back and lets her stay as she is.*
>> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>>
>> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>>
>>
>> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a
>> series of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness
>> between the two*
>>
>> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
>> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
>> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
>> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
>> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
>> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
>> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
>> flow from it:
>>
>> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
>> understanding, the following would be true:
>>
>> *You would protect one another against harm.*
>> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
>> depressed.*
>> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
>> time.*
>>
>> Are these things true?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (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

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

2024-07-13 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Hi, Marcus

Could you say a bit more about "going gangster", describe it in its detail
and variation?

N

On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 9:22 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

>
>1. The dog sitter I used in Santa Fe had a video feed.  I could see
>how Abby reacted to other people picking up their dogs using their video
>feed.  She did not.  When I picked-up Abby, she would throw her body at the
>plexiglass wall over and over.  She did this every day.
>2. Now when I pick up Abby, other dogs are enthusiastic to see an
>arrival for a pick-up.  However, this dog sitter has no plexiglass.  Not
>until the last second do the dogs see who has arrived.  When she sees their
>enthusiasm, she will sometime go gangster on those dogs.  This is of course
>anti-social, but also strangely satisfying.
>3. Yes, the contented staring.
>
>
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Barry MacKichan <
> barry.mackic...@mackichan.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 10:24 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.
>
> I feel permitted to barge in on this discussion, since my dog (well, our
> dog) is also named Dusty.
>
> Frequently, I look up from what I’m doing or reading, and he is in his
> chair looking at me, and we can spend several minutes with our eyes locked.
> I call it love; he doesn’t want to talk about it. I’ve read that this is
> common behavior, and that it results in an oxytocin kick to both
> participants. I think that chemical evidence is a good addition to the
> other data in this discussion. My starting assumption is that if a peptide
> is shared between species, the effects of that peptide probably share
> similar mechanisms. I.e., the simplest explanation is that if it affects me
> through emotions, the effect in my dog is probably through something very
> much like an emotion. I’ve never seen any evidence that this is *not*
> true.
>
> Concerning the list of consequences of a loving relationship at the end of
> your message, I would say all three are absolutely true. My wife had covid
> for the first time several months ago, and whenever she was in bed, both
> our dogs were there. When they see we are upset — a frequent occurrence in
> this election year — they will keep their eyes on us and stick with us
> until they are reassured that we are (sorta) OK. They sense emotions better
> than many humans I have known.
>
> When Dusty was a puppy, and I was out of town, my wife took him on a walk,
> off leash, in the arroyo and slipped and fell on the icy path. When she
> opened her eyes a few seconds later, Dusty had his nose right up against
> her face.
>
> --
>
> On 12 Jul 2024, at 12:59, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>
>
>
> Dave, you offer as data:
>
>
>
> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>
> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>
> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>
> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>
> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
> back and lets her stay as she is.*
>
> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>
>
>
> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>
>
>
> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series
> of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between
> the two*
>
>
>
> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
> flow from it:
>
>
>
> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
> understanding, the following would be true:
>
>
>
> *You would protect one another against harm.*
>
> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
> depressed.*
>
> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
> time.*
>
>
>
> Are these things true?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-..

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

2024-07-13 Thread Nicholas Thompson

Without going backward in my conversation, you and I could add this new
data to the data-pack on go on.

Let's go contrarian for a few strokes.  can you think of things that your
Dusty has done that are inconsistent with love.

Nick

On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:23 PM Barry MacKichan <
barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote:

> I feel permitted to barge in on this discussion, since my dog (well, our
> dog) is also named Dusty.
>
> Frequently, I look up from what I’m doing or reading, and he is in his
> chair looking at me, and we can spend several minutes with our eyes locked.
> I call it love; he doesn’t want to talk about it. I’ve read that this is
> common behavior, and that it results in an oxytocin kick to both
> participants. I think that chemical evidence is a good addition to the
> other data in this discussion. My starting assumption is that if a peptide
> is shared between species, the effects of that peptide probably share
> similar mechanisms. I.e., the simplest explanation is that if it affects me
> through emotions, the effect in my dog is probably through something very
> much like an emotion. I’ve never seen any evidence that this is *not*
> true.
>
> Concerning the list of consequences of a loving relationship at the end of
> your message, I would say all three are absolutely true. My wife had covid
> for the first time several months ago, and whenever she was in bed, both
> our dogs were there. When they see we are upset — a frequent occurrence in
> this election year — they will keep their eyes on us and stick with us
> until they are reassured that we are (sorta) OK. They sense emotions better
> than many humans I have known.
>
> When Dusty was a puppy, and I was out of town, my wife took him on a walk,
> off leash, in the arroyo and slipped and fell on the icy path. When she
> opened her eyes a few seconds later, Dusty had his nose right up against
> her face.
>
> --
>
> On 12 Jul 2024, at 12:59, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>
> Dave, you offer as data:
>
>
> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>
> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>
> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>
> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>
> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
> back and lets her stay as she is.*
> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>
> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>
>
> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series
> of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between
> the two*
>
> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
> flow from it:
>
> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
> understanding, the following would be true:
>
> *You would protect one another against harm.*
> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
> depressed.*
> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
> time.*
>
> Are these things true?
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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 l

Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

ll perceptions that can
>> not be perceived itself. As observers we are always attached to our own
>> bodies. The own person is the blind spot which a person is unable to see
>> or hear clearly.
>>
>> A second language is necessary to get access to the world of language and
>> to move around in it. It is not necessary for salmons who come back to the
>> stream where they were born (they use smell to do this) or for ants who
>> follow pheromones to find the shortest path to tasty food sources. But it
>> is necessary for us to become aware of ourself because it allows us to
>> remove the limitations of the blind spot. To consider ourself as an object
>> of reflection requires the ability to perceive ourself in the first place.
>>
>>
>> Paradoxically it is the blind spot of the inability to perceive the own
>> self that makes the "I" special. As Gilbert Ryle writes in his book "the
>> concept of mind" on page 198
>>
>> "‘I’, in my use of it, always indicates me and only indicates me. ‘You’,
>> ‘she’ and ‘they’ indicate different people at different times. ‘I’ is like
>> my ownshadow; I can never get away from it, as I can get away from your
>> shadow. There is no mystery about this constancy, but I mention it because
>> it seems to endow ‘I’ with a mystifying uniqueness and adhesiveness."
>>
>>
>> Is this a baby step in the right direction? I am not sure.
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Nicholas Thompson 
>> Date: 7/8/24 11:20 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
>> Thought
>>
>> i am moved by the romance and beauty of your account, but ultimately left
>> hungry for experiences I can put my foot on.
>> You and I are clearly inclined to disagree, and I was raised to
>> experience disagreement as a discomfort..  So how then are we to precede.
>> I think, not withstandijng Goethe and Cervantes, that baby steps is the
>> only way. Of course, you might be citing Goethe and Cervantes as
>> authorities on the matter, in which case I can only reply, perhaps blushing
>> slightly at my own callousness, that they are not so for me.
>>
>> So, what facts of the matter convince you that one or more languages are
>> essential for meta awareess.  Or is it elf-evident
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:49 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO it is not one language which is necessary, but more than one.
>>> Languages can be used to create worlds, to move around it them, and to
>>> share these wolds with others. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling have created whole
>>> universes. The interesting things happen if worlds collide, if they merge
>>> and melt, or if they drift apart.
>>>
>>> Cervantes in Spain, Goethe in Germany and Dante in Italy helped to
>>> create new languages - Spanish, German and Italian, respectively. They also
>>> examined in their most famous books what happens if worlds collide.
>>>
>>> Cervantes describes in "Don Quixote"
>>>
>>> what happens when imaginary and real worlds collide and are so out of
>>> sync that the actors are getting lost.
>>>
>>> Goethe decribes in his "Faust" what happens when collective and
>>> individual worlds collide, i.e. when egoistic individuals exploit the world
>>> selfishly for their own benefit (in his first book "The sorrows of young
>>> Werther" Goethe focused like Fontane and Freud on the opposite).
>>>
>>> Dante describes in his "Divine Comedy"
>>>
>>> what happens when worlds diverge and people are excluded and expelled
>>> from the world.
>>>
>>> Language is necessary for self awareness because it provides the
>>> building blocks for a new world which is connected but also independent
>>> from the old one. This allows new dimensions of interactions. The
>>> connections between worlds matter. A label is a simple connection between a
>>> word in one world and an class of objects in another. A metaphor is a more
>>> complex connection between an abstract idea and a composition of objects,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original message 
>>> From: Nicholas Thompson 
>>> Date: 7/7/24 5:13 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam

Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

Oh, and. do you now agree that the relation is loving, or, what additional
coditions would you care to add to make that attribution a comfortable one
for you.

N

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nicholas Thompson 
wrote:

> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>
> Dave, you offer as data:
>
>
> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>
> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>
> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>
> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>
> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
> back and lets her stay as she is.*
> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>
> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>
>
> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series
> of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between
> the two *
>
> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
> flow from it:
>
> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
> understanding, the following would be true:
>
> *You would protect one another against harm.*
> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
> depressed.*
> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
> time.*
>
> Are these things true?
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be "mystery...deeper".T

N++ molecules,
> atoms, baryons/fermions, quarks, strings, branes  are on a loose hierarchy
> of diminishing Familiarity-Consciousness and Potency-Consciousness.   I'm
> more interested (these days) in the emergent collective consciousness of
> the noosphere and perhaps the symbiotic culture of humanity and
> life-at-all-scales (SCHLAAS?)   it feels wild and science-fictiony to
> assert that earth's biosphere has already (in the last 150 years) conjured
> a nervous system, a global-brain (ala Francis Heylighen: Global Brain
> Institute)
>
> https://globalbraininstitute.org/ with "our own" Bollen, Joslyn,
> Rodriguez still on the Board of Technical Advisors.   I scoffed at this
> somewhat 25 years ago (mostly because of the hubris of "Global" and
> "Brain").
>
> OK Nick, so not "baby steps" more like a hyper-baby's mad dash through an
> obstacle course or maybe a pentathalon?   I tried shunting all this to
> George Tremblay IVo but he referred me to Gussie Tumbleroot who cheered me
> on on my careening ideational orbits.
>
> Gurgle,
>
>  - Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ Abbott
>
> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
>
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Frank Wimberly 
> wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
>
>
> This is a test to illustrate somethiing about Gmail to Nick.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 4:37 PM glen  wrote:
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085
>
>
>
>
>
> On July 9, 2024 2:04:29 PM PDT, Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
> Maybe I should not be replying, as I do believe my dogs (and your cat if
> you have one) are conscious.
>
>
>
> I have not experienced a Vulcan Mind-Meld with either of my dogs, so I
> cannot say with certainty they are conscious—I must infer it from
> observations:
>
> 1- interactions with other dogs would seem to indicate they "remember"
> past interactions and do not require the same butt-sniffing protocol with
> dogs they have met at the park frequently. Also they seem to remember who
> plays with who and who doesn't. "That ball is not mine, this one is."
>
> 2-they modify their behavior depending on the tenor, sharpness, and volume
> of barks, ear positions, tail wagging differences, by the other dogs; e.g.,
> "that's enough."
>
> 3-They do not communicate to me in English, but seem to accept
> communication from me in that language—not trained responses to commands,
> but "listening to conversations" between myself and Mary and reacting to
> words (e.g., dog park) that are exchanged in those conversations. Mary and
> I are totally sedentary and speaking in conversational tone, so pretty sure
> there we are not sending 'signals' akin to training words, training tone of
> voice.
>
> 4-they seem to remember trauma, (one of our dogs spent three days with
> dead owner before anyone knew the owner was deceased and will bite if
> anyone tries to forcefully remove him from my (current bonded owner)
> presence.
>
> 5-seek "psychological comfort" by crawling into my bed and sleeping on my
> shoulder when the thunderstorm comes.
>
>
>
> *All of these are grounded in anthropomorphism—long considered a deadly
> error by ethologists.* (Some contemporary ethologists are exploring
> accepting and leveraging this "error" to extend our understanding of animal
> behavior.)
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> While I find all the  ancillary considerations raised on the original
> thread extremely interesting,  I would like to reopen the discussion of
> Conscious as a Mystery and ask that those that join it stay close to the
> question of what consciousness is and how we know it when we see it.  Baby
> Steps.
>
>
>
> Where were we?   I think I was asking Jochen, and perhaps Peitr and
> anybody else who thought that animals were not conscious (i.e., not aware
> of their own awareness)  what basis they had in experience for thinking
> that..  One offering for such an experience is the absence of language in
> animals.  Because my cat cannot  describe his experience in words, he
> cannot be  conscious.  This requires the following syllogism:
>
>
>
> Nothing that does not employ a language (or two?) is conscious.
>
> Animals (with ;the possible exception of signing apes) do not employ
> languages.
>
> Ergo, Animals are not conscious.
>
>
>
> But I was trying to find out the basis for the first premise.  How do we
> know t

Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be "mystery...deeper".T