I'm not sure dusty Dusty was expressing 'love'—she seemed to be finding some sense of security and protection from the thunder and lightning. She was 'taking' something from me of value to her, not 'giving' something to me.
BTW, I do not believe that humans are egoistically, individually, and idiosyncratically 'conscious'. I do believe in **Consciousness***, *but that is an entirely different topic. davew On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 5:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Frank > > What you laid out is an abduction,,isn't it?; I don[t think I am doing that > in either of my syllogisms. But I am no logician; > > An induction is a valid inference, although a probabilistic one, at least on > Peirce's account. > > David, > > If humans are conscious, I am pretty sure that animals are conscious, . > > I am just not sure that humans are conscious. > > I am not sure why the fact that your dog loves you, implies its > consciousness. George agrees with you that things like love are signs of > consciousness, but he could never explain why. > > Eric, > > Yes, I am pretty sure I am a worthless piece of Baconian Behaviorist Crap. > Stipulated. Still, I like your questions. So, do you see any way of > proceeding to develop those question in a such a way that we are roughly on > the same page as we go? If you do, I would love your help, here. > > All, > > Sorry, it is hot, here, and I am cranky. I resent you all sitting in your > air-conditioned offices being paid huge sums of money to be cool. I just > thought it might be nice to have a conversation about consciousness in which > everybody is not sitting in front of their own hut shouting. Happy to abide > by any method that isn-t like an explosion in a concept shop. > > Nick > > Nick > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 5:00 PM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Nick, That is not a valid syllogism. >> >> All X have Y >> x has Y >> Therefore x is an X >> >> Is that a correct formalization of what you said? >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 1:54 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> While I find all the ancillary considerations raised on the original >>> thread extremely interesting, I would like to reopen the discussion of >>> Conscious as a Mystery and ask that those that join it stay close to the >>> question of what consciousness is and how we know it when we see it. Baby >>> Steps. >>> >>> Where were we? I think I was asking Jochen, and perhaps Peitr and anybody >>> else who thought that animals were not conscious (i.e., not aware of their >>> own awareness) what basis they had in experience for thinking that.. One >>> offering for such an experience is the absence of language in animals. >>> Because my cat cannot describe his experience in words, he cannot be >>> conscious. This requires the following syllogism: >>> >>> Nothing that does not employ a language (or two?) is conscious. >>> Animals (with ;the possible exception of signing apes) do not employ >>> languages. >>> Ergo, Animals are not conscious. >>> >>> But I was trying to find out the basis for the first premise. How do we >>> know that there are no non-linguistic beings that are not conscious. I >>> hope we could rule out the answer,"because they are non-linguistic", both >>> in its strictly tautological or merely circular form. >>> >>> There is a closely related syllogism which we also need to explore: >>> >>> All language using beings are conscious. >>> George Peter Tremblay IV is a language-using being. >>> George Peter Tremblay IV is conscious. >>> >>> Both are valid syllogisms. But where do the premises come from. >>> >>> Nick >>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> 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/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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/
