God

[Jochen Fromm-5]

Russ, your replies are always thought-provoking. I think it is fascinating that the "hard problem of consciousness", the problem of predictability and the "problem of free will" are related. 

Hard problem of consciousness: we think we can not know what it is like to be someone else. But Hollywood has found ways to solve it. It uses time travel. Movies allow us to travel to different times and places. They allow us to acquire intimate knowledge of the other person. Movies are based on stories, which are contained in books. They can show us what it is like to be someone else by providing us intimate historic knowledge.

Problem of predictability: because of the hard problem we can not know in principle how someone will act or why someone would commit a crime. But whodunit movies always give a convincing explanation. Investigators interview the participants to find out what happened. This allow us to acquire intimate knowledge of the delinquent. In hindsight it is possible to say why someone acted in a certain way if we have intimate historic knowledge.

In both cases understanding of adaptive systems boils down to intimate historic knowledge. Guiding future developments is also possible if we can influence the future, which allows us to solve the...

Problem of free will: we think we can control ourself because we have we free will. But modern neurocience says we can not. Our decisions are determined by the wiring in our heads (=our personality), by our emotions (=the hormones in our body) and by the environment. Yet humans have found a way to control themselves.

Self-consciousness allows us to block certain actions by imagining the consequences. And we can control our future self by using the environment. We can pray (=speak to our future self), or we sign up for a course (=force our future self to learn), or write an entry in our diary or calendar (=remind our future self). All these activities influence the future self to act in a certain way.

In all cases language in written or spoken form allows us to break the limitations of the current moment, to escape the tyranny of the present. In the words of Carl Sagan: free will can emerge because language breaks the shackles of time. And I thought in school that language is boring.

-J. 

-------- Original message --------

From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]>

Date: 7/5/20 08:18 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 04:06:01PM +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> I am not sure I agree with the arguments from you Russ. You say "People aren't
> the same, but they are similar - and human society functions because we can
> predict to some extent what other people are likely to do [...]. We have also
> evolved the ability to 'put ourselves in somebody else's skin', taking into
> account the obvious external differences."
>
> But we cannot predict what someone else will do, only if we know the person
> really well - for instance if it is your wife or husband for 30 years. In
> whodunit films it becomes clear in the end why people have acted they way they
> did, but only in hindsight. In hindsight we almost always can say why people
> acted the way they did, but we cannot predict it beforehand. You say hindsight
> is 20/20 for this in English, right?

Leave a $100 bill on a park bench. What do you predict the next person
to sit at that seat will do?

Yes - someone you know well will be more predictable - my wife says so!

I might also predict that if I disturb a magpie's nest, the bird will
attack me.

Also humans have the ability to reason what others predict they might
do (3rd order reasoning), and deliberately do a contrary thing if that
games the interaction. Not many other species have that ability (some
other great apes have been shown to reason that way, IIRC, but that's
about it). But humans are also capable of seeing through that sort of
deceit too, via 4th order reasoning, but that recursive capability
maxes out at 5th order IIUC.

I would say most humans are actually quite predictable most of the
time. But some are distinctly less so, and quite possibly successful
as a result. Donald Trump is probably like this. He comes up with a
lot of crazy stuff, so it's really hard to figure out what he's
thinking.


>
> We also haven't evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's skin".
> It is not impossible, but can be very difficult and requires detailed knowledge
> and imagination. This is the reason why Hollywood has invented cinemas to show
> us how what it is like to be somebody else (the GoPro cameras in modern days
> have the same function).
>

Contrariwise, in a game where an object is hidden in one spot, then
when a person leaves the room, and the object is moved to another
spot. Upon returning to the room, where do you think that person will
start looking for the object. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally–Anne_test

Apparently, children under the age of 4 have difficulty with this
task, but older humans successfully see the situation from someone
else's point of view. So yes, the task is difficult, and undoubtedly
requires detailed knowledge, but adult humans are able to do this with ease.

> Therefore I tend to disagree with both statements.
>
> -J.
>

Maybe we don't disagree, but just misunderstand each other :).


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish                    Phone [phone] (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders     [hidden email]
                      http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[thompnickson2]

Hi, Russ,

 

I read this note during a bout of insomnia several nights back, but didn't have the firepower to answer it, then, and have been stewing on it, ever since.  If anybody else is curious it relates to PP  68-9   of this article.  I have copied in the most relevant passage, way below, but your summary is precise, so I will carry on here.  You wrote, beginning with that summary, as follows:  

 

1) What exactly is privileged about introspection?

 

2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, which is strictly false. The example being given of a dog scratching at a door to get in.

 

In response, I would say there is plenty of privilege in introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely privileged - that information is simply not available to external observers.

 

Well, it all depends on what one takes a “privilege” to be.  I stipulate that you have information about you that I do not have, just as I ask you to stipulate that I have information about you that you do not have.  Can we agree on that?  And I stipulate that sometimes information that you have about you has more predictive power than the information that I have about you, just as I ask you to stipulate that sometimes the information I have about you (or your dog  has, since I have never met you) has more predictive power than the information that you have about you.  Can we also agree upon that?  I have also to stipulate that yours is a fair use of the word ‘privilege”.   But it is not the use to which I am putting the word.  To be privileged, a predictive power would have to be of a kind that is IN PRINCIPLE superior.  To make the claim, as I do, that there is no privileged self-knowledge, I need to show that the processes by which you arrive at self-knowledge are the same sort of cognitive processes by which you seek other-knowledge.  Briefly, abductive inference. 

 

I agree with you that proprioception is a good domain to explore for thinking this issue through. First of all, since the vast majority of proprioception is carried out in the Medulla and Cerebellum, without any contribution from “you”, I think it’s fair to say that your knowledge of the zillions of instantaneous adjustments that you made to keep from toppling over is highly circumscribed.  Furthermore,  if I were a martial arts expert and were teaching you to wield a sword, I bet that I would have access to knowledge about your balance and grounding that you, yourself, would not have.  If this example doesn’t convince you, let’s remember the phantom limb phenomenon in which you, the amputee, could be entirely sure that your right ankle was crossed over your left, when I, your surgeon, could plainly see that you had no right ankle with which to cross.  Now, if you are like my friend, Frank Wimberley, you will protest at this point that, while what I say may be true of the position (or possession) of your right ankle, it is NOT true of the feeling that you have an ankle that is crossed.  To that, you have privileged access.  But I would use the same reductive argument on that assertion, to wit, that it is either empty or false.  At which point Glen will accuse me of a failure of steel-manning, which is probably fair.   

 

Thanks, Russ, for reading the paper and getting its point.  There is no greater kindness one colleague can grant another.   I feel I ought to send YOU $5.  It’s absurd to think that you should pay me for access to your mind.   If we want to make money out of publishing, we should offer ourselves up to the world as readers, rather than as writers.  Supply and demand, man, supply and demand!. 

 

Here below is the relevant passage: For some reason, on my screen it wants to be in two columns, and start on the bottom of the left.  Can’t fix it. Sorry.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 2:11 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

 

Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:

 

1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?

 

2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at a door to get in.

 

In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged - that information is simply now available to external observers.

 

In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most important application of this skill is prediction of what other human beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human society functions because we can predict to some extent what other people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do, given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely behaviour then. That, then is analogical.

 

So, I'm not exactly convinced :).

 

Cheers

 

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, [hidden email] wrote:

> Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink:

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_

> ejecti

> ve_anthropomorphism

>

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University

> [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish

> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM

> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

>

> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Russ,

> >

> > 

> >

> > Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this

> > crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is

> > actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our

> experience with others.

> >

>

> What paper? What argument?

>

>

> --

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Dr Russell Standish                    Phone [phone] (mobile)

> Principal, High Performance Coders     [hidden email]

>                       http://www.hpcoders.com.au

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ...

> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe

> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

>

>

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

--

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Russell Standish                    Phone [phone] (mobile)

Principal, High Performance Coders     [hidden email]

                      http://www.hpcoders.com.au

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 2:11 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

 

Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:

 

1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?

 

2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at a door to get in.

 

In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged - that information is simply now available to external observers.

 

In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most important application of this skill is prediction of what other human beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human society functions because we can predict to some extent what other people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do, given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely behaviour then. That, then is analogical.

 

So, I'm not exactly convinced :).

 

Cheers

 

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, [hidden email] wrote:

> Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink:

>

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_

> ejecti

> ve_anthropomorphism

>

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University

> [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish

> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM

> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

>

> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Hi Russ,

> >

> > 

> >

> > Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this

> > crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is

> > actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our

> experience with others.

> >

>

> What paper? What argument?

>

>

> --

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Dr Russell Standish                    Phone [phone] (mobile)

> Principal, High Performance Coders     [hidden email]

>                       http://www.hpcoders.com.au

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ...

> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe

> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

>

>

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

--

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Russell Standish                    Phone [phone] (mobile)

Principal, High Performance Coders     [hidden email]

                      http://www.hpcoders.com.au

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/