“self modifying” is functionally the same as creating a variant and running it while destroying the old version. Gene regulation, say.
> On Mar 7, 2023, at 7:18 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why does the "agent" have to be the same across the transition from gametes > to zygote? Historical transitions exist. Genes are input to humans in the > same way, for example, a traumatic injury at age 10 is input to the human at > age 20. Theseus' ship, anyone? > > I wrote and deleted a long post about deep reinforcement learning in the > online tuning of hyperparameters, and the distinction of hyper- from ... oh, > IDK, regular old parameters. No self-modifying software required, only > [hyper]parameter modifying ... unless we kick the can down the road yet again > and argue about the meaning of "software". What does "mean" even mean, as > long as we're at it? >8^D > > But that discussion doesn't target the incredulity fallacy responses like > Frank's make. If there is some definition of "input" that clearly > demonstrates humans are different from bots, then it's the burden of those > who make the claim to provide the definition. I don't see it. I don't have > such a definition. I wish someone would provide it. > > >> On 3/6/23 22:03, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Lisp or Haskell macros.. >> Sent from my iPhone >>>> On Mar 6, 2023, at 8:22 PM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Let's consider the word "input" again. The implication is that there is an >>> "agent" of some sort that is separated/distinguishable from some >>> "environment" from which it gets "input." The question (or at least one >>> question) concerns our specification of what that "agent" is. If, as Glen >>> suggested, genes are "input" to a human, what is the agent that is >>> separated from its genes and for which the genes provide "input?" Another >>> way of putting it--although I don't want to push the analogy too far--is >>> that if genes are "input" to a human, is software "input" to the software >>> system it defines? Since a software system is essentially nothing without >>> the software that defines it, what would it even mean to say that the >>> software is "input" to itself? This isn't an invitation to talk about >>> self-modifying software. Let's deal with the easier case first. Assuming we >>> are talking about non-self-modifying (and non-self-interpreting) software, >>> what does it mean to say that software is "input" to itself? >>> _ >>> _ >>> __-- Russ Abbott >>> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science >>> California State University, Los Angeles >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:52 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Well put. When Frank emphasized "data", he doubled-down on the >>> ambiguity. The fact is, those who claim a human is categorically different >>> from a machine have no legs on which to stand. Every single boundary >>> between them is broken, year after year. >>> >>>> On 3/6/23 15:47, Russ Abbott wrote: >>> > 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> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>>> >>> <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 <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>>> <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 >>> <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>>> >>> <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 <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>>> >>> <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 <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>>> <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 >>> <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> >>> >>> <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>> >>> >>> <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> >>> >>> <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> >>> >>> <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>> >>> >>> <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> >>> >>> <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>>>> >>> <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 <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/
