Oh, and, the project is to describe experiences that would lead to one conclusion or anotherj.
Here is an example If you play a dog's bark back to him, does he respond as if it's the bark of an intruder? If not, that suggest some sort of self recognition mechanism, given that the bark I give sounds a heluva lot different from the bark I would hear if if I were the hearer of my own bark. Buts let's secure agreement on the first two propositions first: There would seem to be two kinds of experiences necessary to support the idea that A is conscious of B. Stories that suggest that A moves in relation to and in anticipation of B;s movements. And, Stories that suggest that A's movements in relation to B are nnot movements deployed to every othe member of the class A without discrimination. i,e, that A is conscious B distinctly. Nick On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:43 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Prof Dave n all, > > I would like us to come back to this point: > > *Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dave (Dusty).* > *Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dusty (Dave).* > Using our progress around the word Love, I feel like we ought to be able > to agree on the first two propositions. We agree that the two particiants > are consciouus of one another. > > So, if I am correct about that, could we move on to dis cuss the second > pair, whether each of the two is conscious of themself. > > This is really truicky and, to be honest, I have no idea where it comes > out. > > Nick > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nicholas Thompson < > thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or >> other closely related down-to-earth experiences. >> >> Dave, you offer as data: >> >> >> *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.* >> >> You then offer the following guide to interpretation: >> >> >> *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 * >> >> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an >> arrangement of other behavioral states. So I will leave that alone. >> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the >> data you set forth, that a meta-state of lovingness exists between you. >> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG, >> I will adopt your lingo.] To call your joint behavior loving is to perform >> an abduction. The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that >> flow from it: >> >> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my >> understanding, the following would be true: >> >> *You would protect one another against harm.* >> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or >> depressed.* >> *You would become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long >> time.* >> >> Are these things true? >> >> 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/
