From examples, either adversarial generative learning or stable diffusion can 
learn the laws of physics.

https://github.com/lucidrains/video-diffusion-pytorch

Also it is common in training these systems to have a "foundation" model that 
is then specialized with domain-specific context.
The weights of the neural net is in a file that one download (e.g. genetics) 
and then it is specialized in a particular environment (e.g. lifetime learning).

Marcus


________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Russ Abbott 
<russ.abb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James

Are the laws of physics "input?" Is the existence of the universe "input?" If 
so, what issues are we arguing about?

-- Russ Abbott
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles


On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:42 PM glen 
<geprope...@gmail.com<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Well, again, it seems like we're equivocating on "input". Are the genes the 
baby inherited from its parents "input"? I'd say, yes.

On 3/6/23 15:36, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Hard to see how you could simulate an infant on the basis of input it's 
> received. It cries; it smiles; it pees; it poops; it pumps blood; it 
> breathes, etc. There are many experiments in which one concludes things about 
> what's going on in an infant's brain by how long it looks at something.
> _
> _
> __-- Russ Abbott
> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:16 PM glen 
> <geprope...@gmail.com<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> 
> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>     I'm confused by the emphasis on "data". While I'm tempted to agree with 
> my simulation of Frank and say that a human's output is not based solely on 
> statistical patterns in the input the human's been trained on, to dissemble 
> on the meaning of "data" or "input" or "statistical patterns" is a bridge too 
> far.
>
>     The compressive encoder, computer, and decoder that is a human brain (& 
> the rest of the body) may not be entirely "statistical". But statistics is a 
> fairly well-accepted form of behavioral modeling. (Yes, we agent-based 
> modelers love to point out how statistical models are not very mechanistic. 
> But to deny that you can very closely approximate, even predict, actual 
> behavior with some of these models would be foolish.) So, yes, it satisfies 
> the letter of the good faith agreement to say that humans output *might* be 
> solely based on statistical patterns of its input, even if it violates the 
> spirit.
>
>     So, if someone insists that a human-mediated map from input to output is 
> necessarily, categorically different from a machine-mediated map, the burden 
> lies on them to delineate how and why it's different. The primary difference 
> might well be related to babies, e.g. some of the "memory" (aka training) of 
> past statistical patterns comes in the form of genes passed from one's 
> parents. It's unclear to me what the analogs are for something like GPT. 
> Presumably there are things like wavelets of method, process, intellectual 
> property, or whatever that GPT3 inherited from GPT2, mediated by the 
> human-machine replication material that is OpenAI. So, the retort to Frank 
> is: "If you live with a baby algorithm, you see it has knowledge that can't 
> be based on 'data'." That algorithm came from somewhere ... the humans who 
> wrote it, the shoulders they stand on, the hours of debug and test cycles the 
> algorithm goes through as its [re]implemented, etc.
>
>     On 3/6/23 14:54, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>      > If you live with a baby you see that they have knowledge that can't be 
> based on "data".
>      >
>      > ---
>      > Frank C. Wimberly
>      > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>      > Santa Fe, NM 87505
>      >
>      > 505 670-9918
>      > Santa Fe, NM
>      >
>      > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 2:50 PM Marcus Daniels 
> <mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> 
> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> 
> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> 
> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     How?____
>      >
>      >     __ __
>      >
>      >     *From:* Friam 
> <friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> 
> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> 
> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> 
> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>>> *On 
> Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>      >     *Sent:* Monday, March 6, 2023 12:50 PM
>      >     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
> <mailto:friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>> 
> <mailto:friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
> <mailto:friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>>
>      >     *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James____
>      >
>      >     __ __
>      >
>      >      >And we humans are different?____
>      >
>      >     __ __
>      >
>      >     In a word, yes.____
>      >
>      >     ---
>      >     Frank C. Wimberly
>      >     140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>      >     Santa Fe, NM 87505
>      >
>      >     505 670-9918
>      >     Santa Fe, NM____
>      >
>      >     __ __
>      >
>      >     On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:14 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> <thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> 
> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:____
>      >
>      >         */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./*____
>      >
>      >         ____
>      >
>      >         And we humans are different? ____
>      >
>      >         ____
>      >
>      >         On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 11:51 AM Steve Smith 
> <sasm...@swcp.com<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> 
> <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> 
> <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> 
> <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>>>> 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
>  
> <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
>  
> <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<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> 
> <mailto:j...@cas-group.net<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>>>  
> <mailto:j...@cas-group.net<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> 
> <mailto:j...@cas-group.net<mailto: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.____
>      >


--
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/

Reply via email to