David, and all.
I am trying to keep this thread as clean of the meta as I can.
So I will answer your general critique on the other thread.
Suffice it to say here that behaviorism is way in the rear view
mirror at this point and I certainly am not trying to teach it.
Suffice it to say, also, I am sure I have done all the bad things
you point to; I am blundering about here trying to find a way
toward shared understandings of experiences.
*/Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat,
then stand, in a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and
look at Jackson, then at me, then Jackson, then me (sometimes as
many as 4-5 times), then 'staring' at me. Jackson does something
similar, but he will also utter a small bark/yip while staring./*
My command of gmail bring what it is, I cannot find the email
where I prompted this elaboration from you. I am sure there is
one. i just cant find it. Ok, so lets say we are groping toward
a method here, call it critical anecdotalism. Person A tells a
story which, intuitively he feels is an example of some
experience-type. Person B agrees or disagrees with that
attribution. Together we work out what other experiences would
follow if this attribution was correct. Here, we might discover
that we disagree about the boundaries of the experience-type.
But it if we find that we agree on those boundaries, then we
search through our experiences for other anecdotes that fall
within -- or out of --the type. So, as I read your description,
I think, this is an example of "trying to figure out what the
heck I have to do to get a treat, around here?" You might then
do an experiment, which I understand in this context to be a
procedure that provokes an experience that we both would take as
decisive. Let's say you start to feed Jackson ONLY when he yips.
If, after a few days of that, Dusty doesn't begin to yip, I would
be less inclined to my original attribution.
It's kind of you to help me with this, Dave.
It's quite possible I am just sliding into dementia. Always a risk.
Nick
davew
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:27 AM Prof David West
<profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
From the beginning, I believed this thread was, in
substantial part, Nick's attempt to 'teach' us to think as
behavioralists and see how far we could go in achieving some
kind of consensus. I tried very hard to couch all of my
responses in such terms. I did express, early on, that I had
serious doubts about how far we could go without deviating
into other questions—and the answer appears to be not far.
First I copped to blatant anthropomorphism with seem to be
accepted with no concern.
Then Nick introduced metaphysics followed by a quick mea culpa.
Then a flood of additional metaphsysics (inside/outside),
inter-species (human-whale, human-machine) illustrations,
definitional nuances (consciousness, awareness,
intelligence), and my challenge to the 'approach' because it
excluded 'evidence' from meditation or drugs.
Although Nick keeps saying he is 'pleased' with responses, I
am curious as to whether or not we are really making progress
towards consensus of any kind.
But, just in case, responding to Nick's last question to me:
Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat,
then stand, in a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and
look at Jackson, then at me, then Jackson, then me (sometimes
as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring' at me. Jackson does
something similar, but he will also utter a small bark/yip
while staring.
davew
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, at 11:59 AM, steve smith wrote:
> Nick -
>> I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these
testimonials and I
>> am beginning to sense method in my madness.
> I'm glad you were willing able to wade through my gallop of
> observations/reflections/experiences with these two highly
central
> creatures in my household.
>> I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about
Hank.
> Very much so, as I experience with many cats, she does not
reach as far
> into human psyche/nature to meet me as most dogs (Hank in
particular) does.
>> So, in your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self
>> conscious, I am inclined to ask for more details. So the
method goes
>> something like this
>>
>> We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X, Cyd
is conscious.
>
> I think you know from my pan-consciousness self-diagnosis
that all of
> the things I am inclined to report about Cyd also applies
to the
> hummingbirds, the lizards she stalks, and the fish Hank
barks at.
>
> Cyd has a very highly adaptive sensorimotor system which
not only allows
> her to be good at stalking and catching lizards but also at
begging her
> people to let her out to do so, or to give her a helping of
"second
> dinners" like the hobbit she channels. She observes,
considers, acts,
> observes the consequences of her acts (the book falling
from the top of
> the bookcase when she traverses it too rambunctioiusly, the
way Mary
> jumps up and lets her out when she hits the right note of
plaintive
> meow, the way the lizard freezes when it senses her).
This is an
> overwhelming indication of consciousness in my apprehension
of the world.
>
> We were implying that an animal's "Love" or "loving
relationship with" a
> human familiar had something to do with consciousness. I
think that is
> a red-herring, I don't think the lizards love Mary when
she frees them
> from Cyd's jaws, but I do think they are acutely conscious.
>
>> From our prior usage of the term, we know that if Cyd
is conscious,
>> he will do things A, B, C, D, ....N with greater frequency
than
>> otherwise. We check t o see if this is true. Does Sbe?
Ifso, we now
>> add Cyd to the list of conscious beings. Now we check
to see if
>> other conscious beings do X with greater frequency than
non conscious
>> ones. If so, we have added to the list of things that
conscious
>> beings do.
>
> See above... A==sense, B==process, C==respond. I don't
know that A,
> B, C singularly without both of the others even makes sense.
>
> The fish in the pond are almost continuously in some level
of motion,
> they appear to be sensing with their photon and olfactory and
> vibration/pressure-wave sensors. They respond to signals
(shadow of
> human or dog looming over pond, insect landing on the
surface of the
> pond, bit of high-nutrient food sinking in the pond) by
bolting or
> gulping or seeking more input (curiosity). While a lot of their
> processing may be prewired/instinctive, I do believe that
part of their
> processing is in support of "learning". The dragonflies who
like the
> high-ground of the tips of everything they can alight on
seem yet more
> automatic/instinctual yet they appear (because I project?)
to learn...
> they appear to become more and more tolerant of my
approaching them the
> more I do it? They likely recognize that despite the
appeal of the tip
> of my car antennae, the tips of the cat-tails in the pond
seem to be
> more appealing given the likely food-flux they can spy and
grab from
> that vantage (but this is a just-so projection since I'm
not a very
> disciplined naturalist, I really have nothing but anecdotal
observations).
>
> So perhaps D might be "learn"...
>
> Which takes me to the trees and bushes I feel a strong
> affinity/familiarity with. Do they A, B, C (and even
D?). I say yes.
> They don't have lenses over their photo-receptors, but
since their
> primary/singular energy gathering activity is
photonic/light, they
> clearly sense light. They also seem to be able to extend
root growth
> toward water and nutrients, or along same said
nutrients... this
> represents A and C as does growth "reaching" growth out
from under the
> shade to gather more light? What about B? B would seem to
be entirely
> pre-wired processing, not adaptive at the scale of the
individual
> single-lifetime organism? Which spills over to "learning"
(D) which
> maybe isn't happening at the scale of the individual...
does a branch or
> root keep "reaching" even if it gets stymied over and
over? I'm not
> sure. So if B and even D are required for "consciousness"
then perhaps
> it is only a population of such organisms and the germline
phenotypic
> expression which we must acknowledge some level of
"proto-consciousness"
> to?
>
> To go on down the line of lower-and lower complexity
entities or systems
> i'd have to grasp further and seek the existing guidance of
others in
> the pan-consciousness world who have worked through this in
their own ways.
>
> Bottom line, is that the "bottom line" of consciousness
feels very hard
> for me to even begin to want to draw between Hank and Cyd
or where it
> excludes Lizzy or Fishy or DraggyFly or any and all of the
> yet-less-familiar creatures they stalk and eat. Interesting
that all of
> these are predators, no?
>
> Yet another free-associateve gallop?
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-.
--- -.. .
> 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/
--
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
