Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

[glen]

Interesting. EricS' layout triggered me. I've used the word "registration" a lot, mostly because of BC Smith's re-terming 
from "inscription error" to "pre-emptive registration". But I'd never actually looked at the etymology of 
"register" <https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=register>. From EricS' post, I got the connotation of a musical 
register <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(music)>, which I'd never before linked to the naming process of 
registration.

But SteveS' is right. I reject not only the emergence sense of "levels", but also the leveling in that 
Wikipedia entry. Although Eric's use of "register" reminded me of musical categories, his treatment of it 
seems more closely aligned to *logging* or documentation ... writing, more along the lines of "gest" 
<https://www.etymonline.com/word/gest?ref=etymonline_crossreference> ... more action, less thought.

The split between syntax and semantics has never really worked for me because (I think) they're 
both so cognitive. What would work better would be something like "negotiated" vs 
"imputed", collaborative vs coercive ... or somesuch. The point is that we don't need 
mind/body distinctions if we can *log* our experiences as collaborative vs coercive. Body stuff is 
inherently collaborative, with oneself, with others, with the inanimate environment, etc. Mind 
stuff tends to be coercive. You have some *idea* about the world, then you go about bending the 
world to fit that idea, or abstracting out details that don't fit that idea. (I'm sure I've 
triggered someone... but I'm not writing about others. I'm writing about myself.)

In this sense, "emergence" isn't essentialist *if* every boundary between any 2 categories can 
*move*, be re-negotiated, especially as a function of the *logger*, the register 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cash%20register>. But in order for that to work with 
concepts like emergence, you have to eliminate *level*. "Order" remains useful, though, e.g. 
signs as objects, objects as signs, interpretants as objects, etc. But the ordering need not be total(ly) 
or even partial(ly complete).


On 3/4/23 10:51, Steve Smith wrote:

Also second EricS's appreciation for having someone else(s) maintain a coherent 
conversation for the myriad ideas that it allows me to explore without being 
central to the maintenance of the thread.   I realize this may be almost pure 
tangent to others, so I rarely expect anyone to take my bait unless it is to 
correct any egregious mis-attributions or think-utational fallacies.

Starting with Glen's assertion/suggestion/assumption that there is not mind-stuff and body stuff, just body stuff:  I appeal to the general 
abstraction of Emergence and use Russell Standish's example in his "Theory of Nothing 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1>" that a 
water molecule is not wet... wetness is a property of aggregates of water molecules.   I would jump a dozen layers of emergent-bootstrapping from 
there to assert that "mind stuff", if it ever makes sense, is an emergent property of "body stuff".   But by analogy would not 
want to say that wetness (and other properties of bulk water molecules) is not strictly "molecular dynamics stuff".   And even if one did 
that, the recursion/reduction-ad-absurdum requires that one acknowledge/notice/invoke that the properties of any molecule is "emergent" 
from the elementary particles from which it might be composed.

  I think we all believe in free-electrons, protons, neutrons but also 
recognize that *most* of our observed universe is shaped not by *those 
properties* (much less the properties of quarks and gluons or 10d loops of 
abstract things we call strings) but rather by the properties (once again, not 
of molecular dynamics or even chemical reactions) but biological functions,  
and socio-economic-political functions as well.     I *am* however, sensitive 
to the idea that where and how we draw the line between mind/body stuff can be 
important in any given argument, and that sometimes dropping that line 
altogether may be useful?

The above riff on Mind-Stuff v Body-Stuff is really an intro into thoughts about how syntax and 
semantics might bootstrap sequentially.   It feels to me that the syntax of one level of 
abstraction yields an *emergent semantics* which in turn becomes the *syntax* of the next 
"level".    I do acknowledge that Glen has made some arguments (and references) that are 
against the very abstraction of "levels" and that may well be the hole in everything I'm 
unrolling here, but for the moment, I feel I have a clear picture of a POSET of syntax/semantics, 
if not a full Hierarchy...

This also backs me into the Platonic ideations with all the charms and criticisms already dancing 
as virtual (ideational) particles around that.    I will go back to reading A Theory of Nothing 
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1>...
 and try to keep my offerings here under 10 pages each...

On 3/4/23 4:32 AM, Santafe wrote:

It’s helpful to have a conversation being maintained by somebod(ies) else, to 
which one can be a bystander without the distraction of coming up with 
contributions to it.  Things can suggest themselves that get pushed out of 
awareness when one is carrying the discourse and figuring out what to do next 
within it.

In reading the below, about the time I got to the lines:

The mind-body problem is the philosophical question of how the mind and body 
are related. One of the main issues is how mental processes such as thoughts, 
emotions, and consciousness are related to physical processes in the brain and 
body.

I was prompted with a term to refer to these mental/physical things.

First, my sense of all this is one of witnessing structures in conversation.  
Maybe I am more primed to that because with ChatGPT as the topic, one fronts 
awareness of conversation as somewhat free-floating from its semantic ground.  
As tokens in conversation, it is perfectly sensible to say that (thoughts, 
emotions, consciousness) are in a category Mental, while (weakness, hunger, 
itching) go into a category Physical.  Not only is it okay to say they fit 
tolerably into “categories” (or “classes”); the reason they do so is that they 
are connected by all sorts of linguistic usage relations.  The relations 
probably in no small part bring about the stability of the categorical sense of 
the terms.

But what word do we then use to refer to such classes in speech?  I would use 
the word “registers”.  The Mental is a register of conversation about events, 
and the Physical is another register.

Jochen’s email below has ChatGPT saying James referred to these as “aspects” of 
various bodily or embodied events.  Sometimes I’m okay with a word like 
“aspects”, but it invites essentialist thinking.  That the event is like a 
computer-language object, which has properties (the aspects) that define its 
interface, and not only are the properties ascribable to the object, but their 
status as defined elements of the interface is also a real-thing, and not 
merely a frame-dependent convenient compression.  But using “aspects” 
thoughtlessly does two things: it makes essentialism a habit, which I think 
will often be invalid, and it neglects the communications role that “register” 
highlights.

I would attach this to Glen’s fairly terse characterization that there is no 
mind-stuff contrasted with body-stuff, but just one kind of stuff, which if we 
have to choose a word for it we can call body-stuff. From a perspective of 
aspects, the terse version could be closer to or further from a more 
fine-grained description, depending on whether the essentialist view is more or 
less appropriate for one or another phemonenon we want to discuss.  But I think 
the idea that speech provides us certain conventional registers to bound 
discussions of phenomena, and that these too may be better- or worse-fit to the 
organization of the phenomena themselves, is another fair fine-graining of the 
terse characterization, running somewhat parallel to the aspects or essences 
fine-graining (though, as always, connected to it through a kind of 
message-passing and filtering for structural agreement).

Eric

On Feb 28, 2023, at 5:23 PM, Jochen Fromm<j...@cas-group.net>  wrote:

I enjoy talking with ChatGPT about famous scientists, thinkers, writers and 
philosophers. Because it is trained on vast amounts of data it knows them all: 
Pascal, Cervantes, Dante, Hugo, Goethe, Leibniz, Newton, Humboldt, 
Shakespeare,... It can summarize almost any book which is remarkable. Today I 
have asked it about William James and Anil Seth

Me: You certainly have heard of William James, one of the fathers of Psychology?

ChatGPT: Yes, I'm familiar with William James. He was an American philosopher and 
psychologist who is often referred to as the "father of American psychology." 
He made significant contributions to the development of psychology as a scientific 
discipline, and his ideas and writings continue to influence psychology and related 
fields to this day.

Some of James' most influential contributions to psychology include his theory of functionalism, 
which emphasized the study of the purpose and function of behavior and mental processes, rather 
than their underlying structures; his work on consciousness, which he famously described as a 
"stream" of continuously changing thoughts and perceptions; and his exploration of the 
relationship between the mind and the body, which he called the "mind-body problem."

James also wrote extensively on a wide range of topics, including religion, philosophy, 
and human nature. His most famous book, "The Principles of Psychology," was 
published in 1890 and is still considered a classic in the field.

Me: Can you summarize his book "The Principles of Psychology"?

ChatGPT: Certainly! "The Principles of Psychology" is a comprehensive and 
influential textbook that William James published in 1890. It aimed to provide a broad 
overview of the field of psychology at the time, covering topics such as perception, 
emotion, thought, consciousness, and the nature of the self.

The book is organized into two main sections. The first section focuses on the 
lower-level processes of sensation and perception, including topics such as 
attention, memory, and learning. The second section focuses on higher-level 
mental processes, such as reasoning, judgment, and emotion.

Throughout the book, James emphasized the importance of studying mental 
processes in their natural context and stressed the need for psychology to be 
closely linked to biology and other natural sciences. He also developed the 
theory of functionalism, which argued that the purpose and function of mental 
processes are more important to understanding them than their underlying 
structures.

Overall, "The Principles of Psychology" was a landmark work that helped 
establish psychology as a distinct scientific discipline and influenced generations of 
psychologists and other scientists.

Me: William James said: "Thoughts themselves are the thinkers". What does he 
mean?

ChatGPT: When William James said "thoughts themselves are the thinkers," he was 
expressing his belief in what is often called the "stream of consciousness" view of the 
mind. James believed that the mind is not a fixed entity or substance, but rather a constantly 
changing stream of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.

According to James, our thoughts are not the products of a separate entity or 
"thinker" within us, but rather they are the result of the ongoing activity of 
the mind itself. In other words, the mind is not a passive receptacle for thoughts that 
are generated elsewhere, but an active process that generates thoughts and experiences as 
it goes along.

This view is closely related to James' broader philosophy of pragmatism, which 
emphasized the importance of understanding things in terms of their practical 
implications and effects. For James, the idea that thoughts themselves are the 
thinkers was not just a theoretical claim about the nature of the mind, but a 
practical way of understanding how we can change and shape our own thoughts and 
experiences. By understanding the workings of our own minds, James believed, we 
can take an active role in shaping our own lives and achieving our goals.

Me: He also coined the term "stream of consciousness" which suggests that 
consciousness flows like a river. What does he want to say by using this metaphor?

ChatGPT: When William James coined the term "stream of consciousness," he was 
using a metaphor to describe his view of the mind as a constantly flowing and changing 
stream of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.

The metaphor of a stream suggests that consciousness is not a static or fixed 
entity, but rather a dynamic and fluid process that is always in motion. The 
stream of consciousness is always moving forward, and we can never step into 
the same stream twice. Similarly, the content of our consciousness is always 
changing, as new thoughts, feelings, and sensations arise and fall away.

By using the metaphor of a stream, James was also highlighting the 
interconnectedness of our thoughts and experiences. Just as a river is made up 
of many different streams and tributaries, our consciousness is made up of many 
different thoughts and experiences that are constantly interacting and 
influencing each other.

Overall, the metaphor of the stream of consciousness captures the dynamic and 
ever-changing nature of our mental lives, and highlights the importance of 
understanding the ongoing flow of thoughts and experiences that make up our 
conscious experience.

Me: A constantly flowing stream of thoughts is similar to what a large language 
model is perceiving and producing, isn't it?

ChatGPT: Yes, the metaphor of the stream of consciousness can be similar to how 
a large language model like me perceives and produces language. Just as 
consciousness is often described as a constantly flowing stream of thoughts and 
experiences, a large language model like me is constantly processing and 
generating language in response to the input it receives.

Like the stream of consciousness, a large language model is always in motion, 
constantly analyzing and generating language based on the patterns and 
structures it has learned from the vast amounts of text it has been trained on. 
And just as consciousness is made up of many different thoughts and experiences 
that are interconnected and constantly interacting, a large language model's 
output is made up of many different words and phrases that are generated in 
response to each other.

However, it's important to note that there are also important differences 
between a large language model and the human mind. While a large language model 
can generate language that may seem to flow like a stream of consciousness, it 
does not have the same kind of subjective experience that humans do. A large 
language model does not have feelings, emotions, or a sense of self, and its 
output is based solely on statistical patterns in the input it has been trained 
on.

Me: What is James' solution to the mind-body problem?

ChatGPT: William James was a philosopher and psychologist who made important 
contributions to the field of psychology and philosophy of mind, including his 
exploration of the mind-body problem.

The mind-body problem is the philosophical question of how the mind and body 
are related. One of the main issues is how mental processes such as thoughts, 
emotions, and consciousness are related to physical processes in the brain and 
body.

James approached the mind-body problem from a pragmatic perspective, emphasizing the 
practical consequences of different ways of thinking about the problem. He proposed what 
is known as a "radical empiricist" approach, which suggested that the mind and 
body are not separate entities, but rather different aspects of a single reality that is 
constantly in flux.

According to James, the mind and body are both part of the same universe, and 
they are both subject to the same laws of nature. Mental events are not caused 
by physical events in the brain, nor are physical events caused by mental 
events. Instead, James argued that the mind and body are two aspects of a 
larger, more complex reality that cannot be fully understood by examining 
either one in isolation.

In other words, James rejected the traditional mind-body dualism that posits a 
sharp distinction between mind and matter, and instead proposed a more holistic 
view that recognizes the deep interdependence of the mind and body. While 
James' solution to the mind-body problem remains controversial, his ideas 
continue to influence contemporary debates in philosophy and psycholoy.

Me: Let us return to the idea of thoughts themselves as the thinkers. This 
implies that one thought triggers another and is replaced by it, just like 
water in a stream is replaced by other water, which in turn is replaced too, 
and so on and so forth. No thought can remain permanently, only return like a 
wave to the shore. Is this what James means by a stream of consciousness?

ChatGPT: Yes, you are correct. James' idea that "thoughts themselves are the thinkers" is 
closely related to his concept of the "stream of consciousness." According to James, the 
mind is not a fixed entity or substance, but rather a constantly changing stream of thoughts, 
feelings, and sensations. This stream of consciousness is always flowing and evolving, with one 
thought leading to another and so on.

Just as water in a stream is replaced by other water, which is in turn replaced 
by more water, the content of our consciousness is also constantly changing, 
with one thought or experience giving rise to the next. And just as no water in 
a stream can remain in one place permanently, no thought can remain permanently 
in the stream of consciousness. Thoughts and experiences may return or be 
remembered, but they are always changing in relation to the ongoing flow of the 
stream of consciousness.

Overall, James' metaphor of the stream of consciousness captures the dynamic 
and ever-changing nature of our mental lives, highlighting the ongoing flow of 
thoughts and experiences that make up our conscious experience.

Me: Does this idea of William James feel familiar to you as a large language 
model?

ChatGPT: As a large language model, I do not have the same kind of subjective 
experience as humans do, so I don't experience a stream of consciousness in the 
same way that humans do. However, the concept of a stream of consciousness does 
have some relevance to how I operate.

Like the stream of consciousness, the input and output of a large language 
model are constantly changing and evolving, with one word or phrase leading to 
another. When generating text, a large language model takes into account the 
context of the input it has received, along with the patterns and structures it 
has learned from the massive amounts of text it has been trained on. This can 
lead to output that has a flowing, interconnected quality, similar to the way 
thoughts and experiences flow in a stream of consciousness.

However, it's important to remember that there are also important differences 
between a large language model and human consciousness. While a large language 
model can generate text that may seem to flow like a stream of consciousness, 
it does not have the same kind of subjective experience that humans do, and its 
output is based solely on statistical patterns in the input it has been trained 
on.

Me: That's true. It is still fascinating.

ChatGPT: Yes, it is certainly fascinating how the concept of a stream of 
consciousness can be applied to different domains and systems, including the 
functioning of large language models. The idea of a constantly flowing and 
evolving stream of thoughts and experiences is a rich metaphor that has many 
different applications and implications. It has inspired a great deal of 
philosophical and psychological inquiry over the years, and continues to be an 
important area of investigation in contemporary research.

-J.

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p 
Zoomhttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,8BDW87YFiB3QNAjcIaO6BGlsbpQidygnymSv3LCZ9P7pwZGyd4U3KmqMqp2RHu0KBeFpflf-wmR9fYFSD3_qVmiN-3Oak3Rqzm1CgWtukM2r-mw,&typo=1
to 
(un)subscribehttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,gQVpgiX_VNtXFysWPCfmMZ8YAlmBuLdFFVB8KiYVzpXRLZ88Tn7adkUdAIiWGyOLS_hF-tLm1Ha9g3qHNgA-buGK2QskVo9NfrOk-T5FVA,,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIChttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,b8ksbdPxaq64zxsqYThJH7EXFiPMe5gvFNDnCWFeIA6YFyjEoE2b8yTbp2QmsFXfZNTgvtUiHDEWHG_CQQDWxnRLm--xBhfscDLMpa44vmQ0DPIyuvnm60Lyb4dh&typo=1
archives:  5/2017 thru 
presenthttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,pz7eKdQ54oOzQL5LsB_uVKtud4rf2wLGQjSHUcZdSAJx2RfZ4Uk8SCpHZbwR7M6nGIqd4ahar7hC1fRlZ1y1pk24iQLOS0ASegLZUOlWeBK8L87R6k4,&typo=1
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p 
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
   1/2003 thru 6/2021http://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/

--
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/