'Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I can't speak for other languages, but I assume there are many others where that would be true.)
Nick está teniendo una rabieta... In Spanish. Perfectly parallel to the English version. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 9:37 AM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > So.... This is JUST a question of whether we are having a casual > conversation or a technical one, right? Certainly, in a casual, > English-language conversation talk of "having" emotions is well understood, > and just fine, for example "Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I > can't speak for other languages, but I assume there are many others where > that would be true.) > > If we were, for some reason, having a technical conversation about how the* > Science of **Psychology*, should use technical language, then we *might *also > come to all agree that isn't the best way to talk about it. > > In any case, the risk with "have" is that it reifies whatever we are > talking about. To talk about someone *having *sadness, leads > naturally --- linguistically naturally --- in English --- to thinking that > sadness is *a thing* that I could find if I looked hard enough. It is why > people used to think (and many, many, still do) that if we just looked hard > enough at someone's brain, we would find *the sadness* inside there, > somewhere. That is why it is dangerous in a technical > conversation regarding psychology, because that implication is wrong-headed > in a way that repeatedly leads large swaths of the field down deep rabbit > holes that they can't seem to get out of. > > On the one hand, I *have *a large ice mocha waiting for me in the fridge. > On the other hand, this past summer I *had *a two-week long trip to > California. One is a straightforward object, the other was an extended > activity I engaged in. When the robot-designers assert that their robot > "has" emotions, which do they mean? Honestly, I think they don't mean > either one, it is a marketing tool, and not part of a conversation at all. > As such, it does't really fit into the dichotomy above, and is trying to > play one off of the other. They are using the terms "emotions and > instincts" to mean something even less than whatever Tesla means when they > say they have an autodrive that for sure still isn't good enough to > autodrive. > > What the robot-makers mean is simply to indicate that the robot will be a > bit more responsive to certain things that other models on the market, and > *hopefully > *that's what most consumers understand it to mean. But not all will... at > least some of the people being exposed to the marketing will take it to > mean that emotion has been successfully put somewhere inside the robot. > (The latter is a straightforward empirical claim, and if you think I'm > wrong about that, you have way too much faith in how savvy 100% of > people are.) As such, the marketing should be annoying to anti-dualist > psychologists, who see it buttressing *at least some* people's tendency > to jump down that rabbit hole mentioned above. > <echar...@american.edu> > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:48 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Eric, >> >> >> >> Many points well taken. I am particularly proud of being dope-slapped by >> Glen about being overly narrow in my understanding of “inside.” It was, as >> he said, a case of my failure to fulfill my obligation as a thinker to >> steelman any argument before I try to knock it down. >> >> >> >> But let me turn Glen’s steel-man obligation around. Aren’t you made >> uneasy when people claim that to be private that which is plainly present >> in their behavior? And doesn’t the whole problem of “What it’s like to be >> a bat” and “the hard problem” strike you as an effort to make hay where the >> sun don’t shine? >> >> >> >> If you do share those concerns, and you worry that I have (as usual) >> overstated my case, then that’s one kind of discussion; if you don’t share >> them at all, then that’s a very different conversation. >> >> >> >> My position on “the realm of the mental” is laid out in many of my >> publications, perhaps most concisely in the first few pages of Intentionality >> is the Mark of the Mental" >> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312031901_Intentionality_is_the_mark_of_the_vital> >> . >> >> >> >> It’s an old argument, going back to Descartes. Do we see the world >> through our minds, or do we see our minds through the world? >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 7:47 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions >> >> >> >> It’s the right kind of answer, Nick, and I don’t find it compelling. >> >> >> >> Put aside for a moment the use of “have” as an auxiliary verb. I can >> come up with wonderful reasons why that is both informative and primordial, >> but I also believe they are complete nonsense and only illustrate that >> there are no good rules for reliable argument in this domain. >> >> >> >> Also, I don’t adopt the frame of using the past tense as a device to skew >> the argument toward the conclusion you started with. (Now _there_ is a >> category error: to start with a conclusion. Lawyer!) >> >> >> >> I think probably throughout Indo-European derived languages, “have” is >> used to refer to inherent attributes. I have brown eyes. I have eyes at >> all. It takes a surprisingly convoluted construction to assert that >> someone looking at my face will find two brown eyes there, that doesn’t use >> “have” as the verb of attribution. So that’s old, and it is something the >> language has really committed to. I think you have to commit unnatural >> acts to argue that that is a verb of action. >> >> >> >> Possession isn’t even a lot more action-y. I have two turntables and a >> microphone. If nobody is trying to take them from me, it is not clear that >> I am “doing” anything to “have” them. >> >> >> >> (btw, I am not a metaphor monist. I practice polysemy, like the >> Mormons. So it seems completely natural that there can be multiple >> meanings, if there are any meanings at all, and that distinct ones can use >> the same word because they are somehow similar despite not being the >> self-same.) >> >> >> >> It seems to me as if the truest action usage of “have” is one that is not >> nearly as baked into the language. If I have lunch, I eat lunch. If I >> have a fit, I throw a tantrum. Many circumlocutions available to me. That >> also could be quite idiosyncratic to small language branches. I think you >> would never, in normal speech, say you “had” lunch in German. You would >> just say you ate lunch. (Or in Italian or French either, for that matter.) >> These kinds of usages do not seem to me to carry strong cognitive weight. >> >> >> >> So it seems to me that the semantic core of “have” is probably >> attribution. The legal sense of ownership is probably metaphorical. It >> would not _at all_ surprise me if the use both in the auxiliary (widespread >> in IE) and in the deictic (French il y a, there is) are deep metaphors >> describing either the ambient, or the ineluctable structure of time, with >> attributes. >> >> >> >> But, back to whether attribution is natural for emotions (or, as good as >> anything else, and better than most): >> >> >> >> If I “have” a sunny disposition, that seems not far from having brown >> eyes. Italian: Il ha un buon aspetto. >> >> >> >> If I am having a bad day, that is a little different from having brown >> eyes, and perhaps closer to having a black eye. Not an essence that >> defines my nature, but a condition I can be in, or “take on". To say, >> indeed, that I parse that as a pattern I carry around (as an aspect of >> constitution or condition) does not seem category-erroneous to me. >> >> >> >> Sure, there are patterns in my behavior: if I take a hot shower and the >> water lands on my black eye, I will wince. If you say good morning and I >> am having a bad day, I will growl at you. A Skinnerian can say that my >> wincing is all there is to my black eye. But a physician would tell me to >> put ice on it, and would use the color of the bruise to indicate which eye >> I should put the ice on. >> >> >> >> These uses of having seem tied up, more closely than with anything else, >> with uses of being, as SteveS mentioned. So the be/do dichotomy seems to >> determine largely where the verb usages split. >> >> >> >> Of course, living is a process, played out on organized structures. >> Brains probably look different in eeg and electrode arrays in one emotional >> condition than in another, and they probably also have different >> neurotransmitter profiles, and maybe other things. Even You probably don’t >> want to refer to a neurotransmitter concentration as a “doing”; It is a >> variable of state, like a black eye is a state of an eye. You might want >> to refer to the brain action pattern as “doing”, but maybe only in the >> sense that you refer to the existence of non-dead metabolism as “doing” — >> they are both processes. To me, the common language seems to split the be >> and the do on brevity, transience, isolation, or suddenness of an >> activity. I _am_ surly, and I _do_ growl at you. >> >> >> >> If non-black English still preserved the habitual tense, as John >> McWhorter claims black American English still does, we might be able to >> make a different kind of a distinction, between the pattern or habit as a >> state, and the event within it as an act. That might give an even better >> account of the split in the common language. >> >> >> >> I also want to acknowledge Glen’s points about working through many >> frames in a dynamical way. I can’t add anything, but I do agree. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 24, 2021, at 12:30 PM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < >> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Now wait a minute! This is the sort of question I am supposed to ask of >> you? A question to which the answer is so obvious to the recipient that he >> is in danger of not being able to locate it. >> >> >> >> Ok, so, their meanings obviously overlap. If you tell me you “had” a >> steak last night, I wont assume that it’s available for us to eat tonight: >> “had” is serving as a verb of action. The situation is further confused >> by the fact that both words are used as helper words, i.e, words that >> indicate the tense of another verb. To say that I “have” gone and that I >> “done” gone mean the same thing in different dialects >> >> >> >> In general the grammar of the two words is different. If you say I had >> something, I am sent looking for a property, possession or attribute. If >> you say I did something, I am sent looking for an action I performed. So, >> there is a vast inclination to make emotion words as a reference to >> something we carry inside, rather than a pattern in what we do. This seems >> to me like misdirection, a category error in Ryle’s terms. >> >> >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> >> Mumble, mumble, as steve would say. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,JZI_rTsnO4PMxifIK-1Pc4gAtSO08UfA4WqKjx73T4Ek3tY5Xl71BUdt3A807uKgEplYNDHINHuRjmL2qnv7SkO_J10fWv5jebCjhCravg,,&typo=1> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith >> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 4:23 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions >> >> >> >> Nick, what’s the difference between having and doing? >> >> >> >> I once heard Ray Jackendoff give quite a nice talk on word categories. >> Of all of it, the one part I remember the most about is what he said about >> prepositions. Even after you are getting right most of the rest of word >> usage in a new language (or handling it well with a dumb, rule-based >> translator), you are still at sea in the prepositions. Their scopes are >> not completely arbitrary, but arbitrary in such large part that speakers >> essentially learn them nearly as a list of ad hoc applications. >> >> >> >> But when we are in a specialist domain, such as reference to the >> unpacking of the convention-term “emotion”, which we all know is a >> different specialist domain from car ownership or the consumption of lunch, >> we know that verbs are not on any a priori firmer ground than >> prepositions. Or it seems to me, we should expect that to be so. >> >> >> >> I am struck by how widespread it is in languages to use the same particle >> or other construction for possession and attribution. Both in concretes >> and in the abstractions that seemingly derive from them. SteveG will like >> this one from Chinese if I haven’t messed it up or misunderstood it: youde >> you, youde meiyou. Some have it, some don’t. >> >> >> >> Performance of an act, being configured in a state or condition, if we >> use passphrases rather than passwords, we can discriminate many categories. >> >> >> >> So when we use metaphors to expand the scope of reference and discourse >> (to eventually shed their metaphor status and become true polysemes once >> our familiarity in the new domain is such that, as novelists say, it >> “stands up and casts a shadow”), are some of the metaphors more obligatory >> than others? Are the psychologists sure they are right about which ones? >> Are they right? >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 24, 2021, at 3:06 AM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < >> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh! >> >> >> >> How we seal ourselves in caves of nonsense! >> >> >> >> And emotion is not something we “have”; it’s something we do. Or, if you >> prefer a dualist sensory metaphor, it’s a particular mode of feeling the >> world. >> >> >> >> n >> >> >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7HSjAiYZs0TskSYM3z8t3I3vm7JNBV7OyZgHYp-6EjYczSSRW9xIT6typjL4CJpU_atJnKNr9galrl_vRQGGlXHYIX3WqoquVu8Bpe1ntqUc&typo=1> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >> Steenekamp >> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 6:04 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions >> >> >> >> The creators of the Aibo robot dog say it has ‘real emotions and >> instinct’. This is obviously not true, it's just an illusion. >> >> But then, according to Daniel Dennett, human consciousness is just an >> illusion. >> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/illusionism.pdf >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fase.tufts.edu%2fcogstud%2fdennett%2fpapers%2fillusionism.pdf&c=E,1,wZyzI4xcowqEH1XfK9Q39EPbwHxfV11-EVaCCROdnuFD-hDpoJBA6vqVkaGgbd-yOuYwvTupjP_Soz_obIbOZjgWkLMocfZEa2BpUqNsBKBy&typo=1> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 09:18, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: >> >> "In today’s AI universe, all the eternal questions (about intentionality, >> consciousness, free will, mind-body problem...) have become engineering >> problems", argues this Guardian article. >> >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fscience%2f2021%2faug%2f10%2fdogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence&c=E,1,0zM4mCzKmbes0weZLeJCmVy6dAfDvfYxSyHKpvl-aa8-hwd84lMymcY9HHVsp4jXbWOCjmb3kQDLfcwUGjHCouKd8sNTTfFuQtv62vY-RfAsXg,,&typo=1> >> >> >> >> -J. >> >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,USKWJzhBjgjJh7B-0LkOfSd3nemyd1czMDhazLKVBZtafmJNbogUKdBckMq8YDhHys57cq3edfUxouOPaNKkqPHN7BSB2_jSqY2nj0PnsWO4&typo=1> >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQIZirvod42goqmNxnJBxEDkNQZgDx4-Cpp9h61g27SR8pmXJ_MMfIylqQDG-apIDYJ41YBK5dlfDvP0mcsA7tgQfSN_fX8GOBstoJ7bRsPqllS8Hti8YhbPnto,&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,W-ArAxIKQNrM-7j3cHCB7DvRKs598JN3aWrygvNoMFhZMfHBdCpRnINnr__3jjhPqyWLiXzRL9KRjVJqtjeAAqtCaNq5qf7Ix3B4AjcEzvp4LWtuE0_bNYs00g,,&typo=1> >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-pDsdi2AM5J35lPLI_g3-LtyM-BJTNkO0LNOJk2N-zEMrFYJAuMsizuSyrQ7ah2EPXAXyuv9FarhQ-3FZOuytwgV2gtKas1n43TbWDgKajH-&typo=1> >> un/subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,MzWtukTHxTmO0o4T4K75ZC6zy8h-gQojlN_6BSajavsHHOIC9hTMR8rjRvM4bWXKVt05qr4hoH2_sIH0XXVCaG4M61FBfWSeFBC6EOnQSCYDf-SZ&typo=1 >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,t5Vd_UMHRAMj63ikH0-cOAr7pxIW_XRAEXTZXCbAclW2tPEeUJHS7SstrpQmDgjUyzeW0mVLy-LmuIF58gw1_1tcSuaylib5tGj2zgHAqJE7&typo=1 >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,BFllSC-pZ0weFNqjV1iB-w3DR43rvvcmxiYfCh3Inlzi3UOaC9v0gh67rb1SPyCmQIqhrg8ev1C7TSKyRr6rbt_1hS-Cky5ClbwSki3p&typo=1 >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lWRd3h5zEi_Sd3v9P1_NsGjaV_yXFovGQ-t8djjh-BNY8-KmDoPieLQWC8sugjPgglUTHnntK67jLtccS-k24YihXM8lbfVJ0LhKe0F-QUg-&typo=1 >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
