Dave, Thanks for joining my inquiry in the spirit in which it was offered. You present just the sort of rich and evocative material I was hoping to work with. Because this thread has gone into the usual Explosion in a Concept Factory mode (fascinating but not my cup of tea at the moment), I have moved our conversation over to yet another new thread, Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV? I am hoping that that thread name is so ugly that nobody will be tempted to bend it.
Hope to see you over there. Nick On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:52 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Two separate responses: > > first to Steve—Personally, I do believe in the spectrum of "consciousness" > you suggest with, perhaps a nuance. One contributor tot he spectrum is > simply quantity; a quanta has 1 'bit' of consciousness, an octopus has > Domegegemegrottebyte > (real thing according to Wikipedia) 'bits'. A more significant contributor > is "organization." Molecules with differing numbers of atoms of the same > elements, organized differently, have very different properties and > behaviors. A human and an octopus might have the same number of bits of > consciousness, but the organization of those bits (in an N-dimensional > space) is radically different. > > This means it may be possible to say that some threshold quantity and > and organization results in entities being included in the set of > generically conscious things, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say > that Consciousness-Human is identical to or even similar to > Consciousness-octopus. > > BTW: much of my antipathy to AI claims arises from this perspective. A > machine very well might have the requisite number of 'bits' of > consciousness from the material of which the embodying machine is composed > (and the fact that every 1/0 bit of the executing code has a 'bit' of > consciousness) and those bits will be 'organized' sufficiently to join the > generic set; but machine consciousness will never equate to human > consciousness. My objections to machine "intelligence" comes from the fact > that machines do not have the N-dimensional organization of humans or > octopi. > > to Nick— > > Beware blatant anthropomorphism (applied to both Dave and Dusty) > > Dave is sleepy and calm. > Dusty is anxious and afraid. > Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security. > Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed. > Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her back > and lets her stay as she is. > Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep. > > Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series > of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between > the two and absent that state the interactions and 'feelings; as presented > would not have occurred. But, perhaps Dave is just an (occasionally) good > Buddhist showing Dusty the same respect he would express to any living > being? > > davew > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, at 7:02 PM, steve smith wrote: > > > Nick - > > (of course) I've larded up my usual style of response below (maybe only > for my own need to "express" the buildup of mental-pus that comes with > everything I hear here and elsewhere) but to save you (and anyone else who > cares) the burden of parsing a few dozen lines of back-and-forth, I offer > the punchline. If you are curious about how I came to said (vaguely) > concise punchline you can read the rest after the <horizontal line> element > below: > > A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you > would acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a > (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or > a brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what are the > implications of this? or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into > "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or > appealing? > > Steve > > If FriAM typical discourse is the Thunderstorm, is this a (weak) cuddle? > > ------------------------------ > > Steve, > > The scale of your response alone suggests that it cannot be baby steps. > > Thus recognizing it was more of a baby (naive) pentathalon (long, arduous > and multi-modal) hellride of a traverse through the implied space. > > > I guess I am proposing a method here, one inn we work outward from an > evocative experience to explore our understandings of contraversial > concepts, and that we do it in relatively short bursts. > > yes, let us extrude short strands of noodle and see how they criss-cross. > > > *Dusty comes to cuddle with David when she hears thunder.* > *Does Dusty love David?* > > Dave (or does he self-identify as David?) loves Dusty and finds Dusty's > cuddling sufficiently similar/familiar to his own cuddling to attribute it > to love if he is in the mood to do so. > > If yes, what else would you expect Dusty to do with respect to David. > given you have made that attribution. > If no, what more would have Dusty have to do, before you would make such > an attribution. > > Qualified yes... Dusty could cower under the bed, leaving Dave to > choose to coax Dusty out and cuddle Dusty, giving Dusty the "love" or at > least comfort which Dave would offer as the closest cross-species > expression of love he knows how to offer in this moment. Dave loves Dusty, > Dusty dog-loves Dave. They are reciprocal but asymmetric in quality, even > if either would give their lives for the other? > > I would like to respond to an inference that there is something > patronizing about my insisting on a method, as if I think you need > thought-therapy and I am the guy to give it. > > If in fact you were to have intended (consciously or not) as patronizing, > I take it as an gesture of love, of filial empathy, of generous guidance > from someone who has been around at least as many trees as I have... I > definitely need or seek thought/spiritual therapy/guaidance from every > quarter, including this one. > > In reply, I only would say that if somebody were willing to ask me short, > to-the-point questions about my thinking on any matter and explore > carefully my answers, I would eternally grateful. I might even cuddle > with them in a thunderstorm. > > I would choose to give you this level of fine-grain attention around your > fascination with vortices in the context of meteorology (and other domains) > more than this domain, but if this is the one you prefer (for the moment), > let me ask a short, three-part but to-the-point question (and leave it to > you to ignore the fecundly laden pregnant assumptions hidden by the implied > simplicity of the construction): > > *A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you > would acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a > (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or > a brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what are the > implications of this? or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into > "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or > appealing?* > > Steve > > Steve > > > NIck > > Nick > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:05 PM steve smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > Nick - > > I'm glad you acknowledged (in another branch of this thread?) the > "grumpiness" aspect of your initiation/participation in this thread. Your > analogy around thought/feeling "expression" and that of pimple popping is > in fact very apt if a bit graphic. I do think many of us want this > apparently deeply thorny/paradoxical problem to be easier than it is? And > the plethora of complexly subtle dis/mis-agreements on language around > consciousness, intelligence, cognition, (self) awareness, qualia > complicates that yet more. > > I don't know if my own baby-steps are helpful, given that my > background/perspective might align more with DaveW than most others here > (I'm very sympathetic with a pan-consciousness perspective)? maybe it > parses as baby-babble more than baby-steps... > > I missed most of this (and related) threads but am surprised at where this > seems to be going. I always associated consciousness with subjective > experience and not necessarily with self awareness. The "hard problem of > consciousness" is qualia, not self-awareness. No? An AI agent cannot > understand language on anything other than a superficial basis because it > has no idea what, for example "wet," means. Nevertheless, it will be quite > good at stringing words together that say coherent things about wetness. An > AI agent has no *idea *about anything. At the same time, an AI agent will > be quite good at creating coherent statements about very many things. Just > because an AI agent is able to create coherent statements does not mean > that those statements reflect the agent's ideas--since it has no ideas. > > Russ's point here is a good pivot point for me in this conversation if it > is possible to make the pivot. It may not be. > > Knowing and Knowing-About: > > I use the former to be the quality of qualia... not easily formalizeable > nor quantifiable nor with obvious models which are not intrinsically > subjective. "Knowing-About" is for me reserved for the formalized models > of "facts about the world and relations between ideas" and when I say > "formalized" I don't preclude storytelling or the highly vilified "just so > stories". > > Formalized mathematical, statistical, logical models with digital computer > simulations (or analog electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic > "circuits" or "systems") are "knowing about"... a steam train for example > embodies "knowing about" converting carbon-fuel into linear motion across > long distances, carrying heavy loads by way of many repeatable > mechanisms... the implementation and operation of such a device/system is > a "proof" in some sense of the design. > > On top of that design/system are other design/systems (say the logic of > Railroad Robber Baronages) upon which yet other systems (say > Industrial-revolution era proto-hyper-capitalism) on top of which rides > trans-global corporatism and nationalism in their own "gyre and gimbal" > with a in intra-stellar and eventually inter-stellar variation in the sense > of Asimov's Foundation and Empire or perhaps for the youth culture here > (under 60?) George Lucas' Star Wars Empire or Roddenberry's Star Trek > Federation vs ??? > > Consciousness: > > A the lowest level consciousness or perhaps proto-consciousness registers > for me as "having a model of the world useful for guiding behaviour toward > surviving/thriving/reproducing/collectivizing". This permeates all of > life from somewhere down at the single-celled > bacteria/archaea/fungi/phyto-thingies/ up to and through > vertebrates/mammals/hominids/sapiens > > On the reflection of whether my cat or dog, or the hummingbirds outside my > window or the mice trying to sneak back into my house have "consciousness", > or even more pointedly the mosquito I slapped into a blood (my blood by the > way) spot on my forearm last night, have "consciousness"... while each of > these appear to have a "consciousness" I know it to be variously more or > less familiar to my own. My elaborate (unfettered?) imagination allows me > to make up (just so?) stories about how cetaceans, cephalapods, jellyfish > all variously have aspects of their "consciousness' that I could (do?) > recognize (empathize with?). So I would want a multivalued function with > at least two simple scalars: Familiarity-to-Me(Conscioiusness) and > Potency-of(Consciousness), pick your scale... my identical twin or maybe > conjoined twin might max out on the first scale while a nematode or a > bacterium might trail off toward nil on the first AND second scale. And > beyond the scale of organic life into artificial life and beyond, the > "familiarity" of a glider or oscillator in the GameO'Life or the braided > rings of Saturn, even less significant but not zero? The Potency-scale > seems to be something like *agency* which feels absolute for most of us > except Robert Sapolsky while the *agency* of an electron or neutrino seems > registered at *absolute zero*, though the Quantum Consciousness folks maybe > put it at max and our own more an illusive projection of that? > > The idea of "collective individuation" (e.g. mashup of Eleanor Ostrom's > collectives and Jung's individuation) suggests that perception, cognition, > intelligence, even consciousness may well be a collective phenomena. Our > organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, CHON++ molecules, > atoms, baryons/fermions, quarks, strings, branes are on a loose hierarchy > of diminishing Familiarity-Consciousness and Potency-Consciousness. I'm > more interested (these days) in the emergent collective consciousness of > the noosphere and perhaps the symbiotic culture of humanity and > life-at-all-scales (SCHLAAS?) it feels wild and science-fictiony to > assert that earth's biosphere has already (in the last 150 years) conjured > a nervous system, a global-brain (ala Francis Heylighen: Global Brain > Institute) > > https://globalbraininstitute.org/ with "our own" Bollen, Joslyn, > Rodriguez still on the Board of Technical Advisors. I scoffed at this > somewhat 25 years ago (mostly because of the hubris of "Global" and "Brain") > . > > OK Nick, so not "baby steps" more like a hyper-baby's mad dash through an > obstacle course or maybe a pentathalon? I tried shunting all this to > George Tremblay IVo but he referred me to Gussie Tumbleroot who cheered me > on on my careening ideational orbits. > > Gurgle, > > - Steve > > > > -- Russ Abbott > Professor Emeritus, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Glen, > > This is a test to illustrate somethiing about Gmail to Nick. > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 4:37 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085 > > > On July 9, 2024 2:04:29 PM PDT, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > > Maybe I should not be replying, as I do believe my dogs (and your cat if > you have one) are conscious. > > I have not experienced a Vulcan Mind-Meld with either of my dogs, so I > cannot say with certainty they are conscious—I must infer it from > observations: > 1- interactions with other dogs would seem to indicate they "remember" > past interactions and do not require the same butt-sniffing protocol with > dogs they have met at the park frequently. Also they seem to remember who > plays with who and who doesn't. "That ball is not mine, this one is." > 2-they modify their behavior depending on the tenor, sharpness, and volume > of barks, ear positions, tail wagging differences, by the other dogs; e.g., > "that's enough." > 3-They do not communicate to me in English, but seem to accept > communication from me in that language—not trained responses to commands, > but "listening to conversations" between myself and Mary and reacting to > words (e.g., dog park) that are exchanged in those conversations. Mary and > I are totally sedentary and speaking in conversational tone, so pretty sure > there we are not sending 'signals' akin to training words, training tone of > voice. > 4-they seem to remember trauma, (one of our dogs spent three days with > dead owner before anyone knew the owner was deceased and will bite if > anyone tries to forcefully remove him from my (current bonded owner) > presence. > 5-seek "psychological comfort" by crawling into my bed and sleeping on my > shoulder when the thunderstorm comes. > > *All of these are grounded in anthropomorphism—long considered a deadly > error by ethologists.* (Some contemporary ethologists are exploring > accepting and leveraging this "error" to extend our understanding of animal > behavior.) > > davew > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson 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/ > > > > -- > Frank Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > 505 670-9918 > > Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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/ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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/
