Nick: "It’s not that I think that self-conscious (etc.) doesn’t exist; it’s that I think of it as a material relation."
What do you mean by a material relation? Nick: "anywhere, anytime, etc., that material relation can be generated, there consciousness exists." Is there something to that statement other than its tautological interpretation: whenever something can be brought into existence, it exists? -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:02 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Russ, > > > > Thanks for stating the issues so precisely. > > > > You perhaps my side of the argument a tad too strongly. It’s not that I > think that self-conscious (etc.) doesn’t exist; it’s that I think of it as > a material relation. So anywhere, anytime, etc., that material relation > can be generated, there consciousness exists. It’s sort of like what > Christ said: “wherever any number shall come together in my name, there > shall I be.” Sorry, I am probably being silly there, but I just love that > quote.) > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ > Abbott > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2019 10:44 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow > > > > Good to talk to you again also, Nick. > > > > You characterized me as saying, *"yours is an in principle argument > against any claim that machines and humans are ever doing the same thing, > right?" * > > I wouldn't go that far. One might argue that as physical beings, we are > machines of a sort, so there's not such a clear line between machines and > humans. One of our current scientific challenges is to figure out how to > characterize it and how to push entities across it. > > > > But moving to shallower water, consider this example. Presumably, no one > would say that a standard washing machine knows how to clean clothes. A > washing machine is built to control the flow of water in and out of its > tank, to rotate its agitator for given periods of time, etc. We then > informally say that the washing machine is cleaning the clothes. But it's > not. It just performing mechanical actions that result in what we think of > as clean clothes. > > > > Suppose we made the washing machine smarter. Suppose it had sensors that > could sense the chemicals that we consider "dirt," and selected actions > from its repertoire of actions that reduced the level of those chemicals > below some minimal threshold. Would one say that it then knows how to clean > clothes? I would say that it doesn't--except in an informal way of talking. > The washing machine is built of physical components, sensors, etc. along > with algorithms that (again) produce what *we *think of as clean clothes. > But the washing machine doesn't think of them as clean clothes. It doesn't > think of anything. It just does what it does. > > > > Is there anything one might add to our washing machine so that we would > want to say that it knows how to clean clothes. I can't think of any > incremental steps. For me to attribute the washing machine with knowing how > to clean clothes I would insist that it have consciousness and subjective > experience. I know that's a big jump; it's the line between machines and > humans that I would draw. I'm now recalling, Nick, that you don't believe > in consciousness and subjective experience. Right? So we are probably at an > impasse since we no longer have a common vocabulary. But even if the > position I'm assuming you hold on consciousness and subjective experience > were not a problem, I'd still be stuck. I have no idea how to build > consciousness and subjective experience into a washing machine. This is > probably where we got stuck the last time we talked about this. I guess we > drifted back out to the deeper water anyway. Oh, well. Perhaps it was worth > reviewing the issue. Perhaps not. > > > > -- Russ > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:55 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Larding below. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2019 8:19 PM > *To:* russ.abb...@gmail.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > Group <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow > > > > On the way to Friam I said to Nick. Turing Machines don't know anything. > They may store representations of knowledge. *[NST==>Frank: This is how I > understand you. The relation between a Turing Machine and knowledge is > like the relation between Mathematics and the events or processes it > models. All the knowledge is in the interpretation translate “life” into > something that the Math or Machine can compute and in the interpretation > that translate the results of the computation back into life. Let’s see. > What am I accusing you of here. OH. I have it. I am accusing you of a > mathematicians understanding of computation. Is that understanding of that > relation canonical? <==nst] * I further said that a photograph also > represents knowledge. For example, the number of floors of a given > building. Most people would be puzzled by the question, "What does a photo > know?"*[NST==>I think the metaphor is unfair. Nobody has ever accused a > photograph of being able to play chess, or to engage in other tasks which > are broadly seen (at least by defrocked English majors) as cognitive. > <==nst] * > > > > There were multiple parallel conversations after we arrived. I don't > recall additional discussions about what Turing Machines know. > > *[NST==>Except at the very end, after 3 hours of discussing other things. > By that time I was exhausted, and I don’t remember what we said. We spent > a lot of time exploring our attractions to unorthodox scientific opinion in > such matters as MSG and headaches, auras, pigeon navigation, an even, by > implication, the tin-hat stuff. It’s a question I would love to poll the > FRIAM list on: How many of you engage in unproven health practices of > various sorts, even though “science” tells you they are worthless? Why, > exactly? How is that consistent with your criticisms of climate science > deniers? <==nst] * > > *Gotta go, * > > *Thanks everybody, * > > > > *N* > > ----------------------------------- > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019, 8:06 PM Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nick, I can't believe you are asking such a question -- unless by "know" > you mean something very different from the common understanding. No > computer *knows* anything, although it may have lots of stored > information. (*Information *is meant in the Shannon sense.) > > > > For example, Oxford defines > <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge> knowledge as "Facts, > information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the > theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." This is distinct > from, for example, having access to an encyclopedia--or > even having memorized the contents of one. Turing machines, and computers > in general, do not have an *understanding *of anything--even though they > may have lots of Shannon-style information (which *we *understand as) > related to some subject. > > > > (Like Glen, though, I am interested in the results, if any, of this > morning's meeting.) > > > > -- Russ Abbott > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:38 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What was the result of this morning's conversation? > > On 4/25/19 10:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > What does a Turing Machine know? > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
