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.____
> > >
