1) seeking common understanding.
2) sharing anecdotes about cats and dogs, some of which are named.
  2a) anecdotes are themed: X just [some observable act] and that makes me 
believe X "loves" Y.
    2a1) anecdotes are themed: if X loves Y, it makes me be believe X is 
aware/conscious of Y.
  2b) anecdotes are themed: sometimes Y is X and that makes me believe X/Y 
loves itself.
     2b1) anecdotes are themed: if X/Y loves itself, it makes be believe that 
X/Y must be aware/conscious of self.
     2b2) anecdotes are themed: X just [some observable act] and that makes me 
believe X is self-aware/self-conscious
3) sharing anecdotes about humans, all of which are named.
  3a) skip the love
  3b) anecdotes are themed: A just [some observable act] and that makes me 
believe that A is aware/conscious of B.
     3b1) all of the email exchanges are examples of this whether or not the 
email contains an anecdote.
  3c) anecdotes are themed: A just [some observable act] and that makes me 
believe that A is self-aware/self-conscious.
4) some anecdotes have been shared involving entities other than domestic 
mammals, e.g., goldfish, octopi, and dolphins, suggesting that some in the 
conversation are willing to cede awareness/consciousness and 
self-awareness/self-consciousness to other species.

Assuming the above is reasonably accurate:
  - have we reached a common understanding, among the discussants, that 
domestic mammals, human beings, and probably a few other species are loving, 
aware/conscious, and self-aware/self-conscious?
   - If so, has our effort resulted in something more than making an implicit 
common understanding, explicit?
   - If so, is there "value" in that result. (I would say yes; but 'baby value' 
because the conversation was limited to 'baby steps'.)
   - Whence from here?
   - I assume the 'procedure' would continue as sharing anecdotes; but what 
themes?
   - More difficult question, has our effort provided us with any insights as 
to the nature of awareness/consciousness, self or otherwise, or is the 
'obtaining of insights' even a goal?

davew


On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 4:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Thanks, Dave,
> I tried to set two ground rules, here:  One is simply that  we try to find 
> ways to a common understanding.      I recognize that the best way to get 
> there might be to go into battle together, or drink a lot whiskey together, 
> or drop acid together, but my puritan upbringing forbids those methods. So, 
> the second is that we do it by sharing concrete experiences, rather than airy 
> references to philosophers or links to voluminous publications, or, in my 
> case, vast insertions of my published works. .
> 
> So, if you have a better procedure for meeting those rules  lets try them.
> 
> Nick
> 
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:15 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> __
>> Nick,
>> 
>> apologize for immediate last post being on this thread - it is indeed 
>> veering into metaphysics (oh boy fun).
>> 
>> 
>> However, what was said, was indeed anecdotes about my 'experiences' 
>> vis-a-vis consciousness. Are such impermissible in this conversation? If Dr. 
>> Lilly were to join us share anecdotes about dolphin consciousness or, heaven 
>> forbid, about dropping acid with the dolphins, would they be useful for our 
>> conversation?
>> 
>> I am totally sympathetic with the program here, (and do not see it as a 
>> game, zero-sum or otherwise) but often feel as if I am constrained by 
>> invisible rules. May I share stories only about cats, Dusty, and Jackson? 
>> Perhaps the answer is implicit in your baby-steps dictum: yes, for now, with 
>> anecdotes about dragons and unicorns deferred until we have obtained some 
>> degree of consensus as to domestic mammals?
>> 
>> When we do eventually turn to "self-consciousness" I have many anecdotes, 
>> but fear they will be deemed "irrelevant" or "metaphysical" or idiosyncratic 
>> (Holy Self???) and excluded; making consensus of any kind impossible.
>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 11:48 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>> Hi, everybody.  We are veering into meta again.  Ugh. 
>>> 
>>> Where Nick is trying to get is a method for him and David and Jochen to 
>>> converse productively about consciousness.  A productive conversation, for 
>>> Nick, is one that produces agreement, at least agreement on the terms of 
>>> disagreement.  Anecdotes come in because I am beginning to think that 
>>> anecdotes lie at the core of how we understand ourselves and our worlds.    
>>> Every anecdote is a fable with a moral, implicit or explicit.   I tell an 
>>> anecdote which to me means the cat is conscious; if the cat is conscious, 
>>> than other anecdotes must be relevant.  You chime in with your anecdotes.  
>>> We are building a consensus for what it means for a cat to be conscious.  
>>> With that agreement in hand we now turn to "self-conscious". 
>>> 
>>> Of course, lurking behind all of this is the question of whether agreement 
>>> is desirable or whether we all prefer our Holy Individuality.  I hear Dave 
>>> saying, "I am happy to play your agreement game, but in the end I prefer my 
>>> Holy Individuality."   But in the end, I don't think there is anyway to 
>>> play "my" game as a zero-sum game, without any hankering for a common 
>>> outcome.
>>> 
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:32 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> __
>>>> I agree with glen that inter-individual interactions/observations will not 
>>>> get to where Nick seems to want to go. Because that was the stated 
>>>> starting point of the thread, I went along, to see if i was wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> Nick: *"For me;  the heartland of self-consciousness would be an awareness 
>>>> on the part of an agent, that  A is one of those  that others are.  I am 
>>>> trying to think what sort of anecdote would elicit such an experience."*
>>>> 
>>>> I can offer no anecdotes to assist. I do have lots of stories about 
>>>> self-awareness in a variety of contexts. All of them lead to the 
>>>> conclusion that, "I" am NOT *"one of those that others are." (obviously 
>>>> there is some marginal overlap)*
>>>> 
>>>> Of course this is based entirely on what 'others' are willing/able to 
>>>> publicly reveal about them*S*elves.
>>>> 
>>>> davew
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024, at 10:02 AM, glen wrote:
>>>> > It still seems backwards to me. The anecdotes about inter-individual 
>>>> > interactions don't indicate consciousness at all. [1] The move to 
>>>> > self-consciousness would be more appropriate. For example, my cat 
>>>> > clearly exhibits a (or several) feedback loop(s) when grooming a grass 
>>>> > burr out of his fur. (Or a dog walking in circles for a full minute 
>>>> > before finally lying down.) This is a marker for a very high order 
>>>> > consciousness. An indicator for lower (but still quite high) order 
>>>> > consciousness is the lengthy consideration of the water bowl as he 
>>>> > decides whether or not it's quality is proper or if he should go drink 
>>>> > out of the ditch. [2] Such reflection is a hallmark of consciousness 
>>>> > for me. And it's founded in, composed of, lower order feedback loops of 
>>>> > interoception.
>>>> >
>>>> > In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that consciousness is only 
>>>> > indirectly relevant to inter-individual phenomena at all. We can get a 
>>>> > full panoply of complex behavior out of collections of very stupid 
>>>> > individuals. To study consciousness, you need a cohesive system capable 
>>>> > of exhibiting allostasis. Using 2 such individuals in such studies 
>>>> > explodes the variables you need to consider, obscurum per obscurius.
>>>> >
>>>> > [⛧] Witness concepts like "mansplaining" and "cringe", inter-individual 
>>>> > interactions denying (some aspect of) the subjects' consciousness, yet 
>>>> > confirming the observers' consciousness. Trans-agent phenomena are ripe 
>>>> > for abuse and imputation. This is why the Turing test was designed the 
>>>> > way it was. It blurs the analogical replacability requirements across 
>>>> > simulation, emulation, and authenticity. Were we to be scientific about 
>>>> > this, we'd try to control for/against simulation and emulation, which 
>>>> > means eliminating inter-individual contexts to the extent we can.
>>>> >
>>>> > [2] These are not anthropomorphic. I have no idea or projection onto 
>>>> > what he's thinking when he does these things. However, I do engage in 
>>>> > anthropomorphization when I see him trying to decide whether to stay 
>>>> > inside or go outside when I open the door. I imagine some heuristic 
>>>> > weighting between interactions with the other animals in the house or 
>>>> > those outside the house.
>>>> >
>>>> > On 7/18/24 18:10, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>>> >> All,
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I want to move things along here, but  not sure movement would be.   
>>>> >> Our shared anecdotes would seem to suggest that we think that these 
>>>> >> animals we are in interaction with are conscious.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Jochen seemed to disagree.  So Jochen, and you all, what should we do 
>>>> >> about that?   I regard it as a state of tension, and I am led to want 
>>>> >> to resolve it.    Am the only one of us who wants a resolution?
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Then, I would lke to pass on to self-consciousness.  For me;  the 
>>>> >> heartland of self-consciousness would be an awareness on the part of an 
>>>> >> agent, that  A is one of those  that others are.  I am trying to think 
>>>> >> what sort of anecdote would elicit such an experience.
>>>> >
>>>> > -- 
>>>> > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>>>> >
>>>> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>>> > 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/
>>> 
>> 
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> 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/
> 
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/

Reply via email to