Let's say we are in two dodgem's cars on an empty dodgem's thingy. Let's
say I am tryiing to collide with you. To manage a collision I have to make all sorts of calculations that involve facts about me as well as facts about you. For instance, if I do not not know the ratio of turning of the steering wheel to turning of my car (or the ratio of my movement of my arms to the turning of of the steering wheel), then I cannot manage the collision, can I? That is all information about ME. I guess I have stipulated that I think that being self conscious is the same as processing information about ME. Thanks for the oportunity to try and clarify. Nick Nicholas Thompson nickthompson at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > Date: 6/26/2006 12:55:42 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] RE Self consciousness and Passive Darwinism. > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 12:19:13AM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > I have never understood the idea that animals are not self conscious in > > some useful sense. Heck, self consciousness is a necessary part of any > > feed forward system, isnt it? > > > > Why do you say this? > > -- > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) > Mathematics 0425 253119 (") > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au > Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
So you would say that a thermostat (which process information about
itself, ie its set temperature) is self-aware. (The term self-aware is more usual, and I take it to be what you mean by self-concsious). This is an unusual definition, to say the least. Self awareness is usually applied to a situation where an agent uses itself as a model for what other similar agents might do. The really clever trick is to establish what you would do in a particular situation _without_ actually doing it and so giving the game away. There is some evidence that a few of the higher species of animals have this ability - apes, dolphins, maybe macaques - have this ability, but that is about it. It is an extremely rare ability in the animal world. On a neurology front, the phenomenon seems to be linked dwith the notion of "mirror neurons", giving a somewhat objective way of establishing its existence. Cheers On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 05:08:40PM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Let's say we are in two dodgem's cars on an empty dodgem's thingy. Let's > say I am tryiing to collide with you. To manage a collision I have to make > all sorts of calculations that involve facts about me as well as facts > about you. For instance, if I do not not know the ratio of turning of the > steering wheel to turning of my car (or the ratio of my movement of my arms > to the turning of of the steering wheel), then I cannot manage the > collision, can I? That is all information about ME. > > I guess I have stipulated that I think that being self conscious is the > same as processing information about ME. > > Thanks for the oportunity to try and clarify. > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > nickthompson at earthlink.net > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 6/26/2006 12:55:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] RE Self consciousness and Passive Darwinism. > > > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 12:19:13AM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > I have never understood the idea that animals are not self conscious in > > > some useful sense. Heck, self consciousness is a necessary part of any > > > feed forward system, isnt it? > > > > > > > Why do you say this? > > > > -- > > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which > > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this > > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) > > Mathematics 0425 253119 (") > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au > > Australia > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060625/dd6fb127/attachment.bin |
>
> So you would say that a thermostat (which process information > about itself, ie its set temperature) is self-aware. (The > term self-aware is more usual, and I take it to be what you > mean by self-concsious). for me, no, not at all. Consciousness in some primitive sense might not be 'self-consciousness'. Is an ant self conscious? Doubtful. Does it have an awareness of some kind, and act as a whole as it's awareness responds to events? Maybe not for every definition of the terms but then that would leave you without terms for what kind of unity of behavior an ant has. > There is some evidence that a few of the higher species of > animals have this ability - apes, dolphins, maybe macaques - > have this ability, but that is about it. It is an extremely > rare ability in the animal world. Dogs too. Some are emotional ditzes, and some real crafty. You can see a whole range of their awarenesses and levels of intention on any street corner, well maybe if you let what they do be a little suggestive. How else are you supposed to know what's going on inside other things that obviously are not controlled from the outside? Some pull the dodge that there's really nothing with an inside since we can't make rules about anything except information and we have none. QED? (but maybe it's ambiguous which way) Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
Dogs are perhaps an ambiguous case. They do not pass the mirror test
for self-awareness, although there may be other reasons for this. But they do have pack politics, which according to the Machiavellian theory of intelligence, is a strong indicator of self-awareness. Cheers On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 11:35:42PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote: > Dogs too. Some are emotional ditzes, and some real crafty. You can > see a whole range of their awarenesses and levels of intention on any > street corner, well maybe if you let what they do be a little > suggestive. How else are you supposed to know what's going on inside > other things that obviously are not controlled from the outside? Some > pull the dodge that there's really nothing with an inside since we can't > make rules about anything except information and we have none. QED? > (but maybe it's ambiguous which way) > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick,
> Let's say we are in two dodgem's cars on an empty dodgem's > thingy. Let's say I am tryiing to collide with you. To > manage a collision I have to make all sorts of calculations > that involve facts about me as well as facts about you. For > instance, if I do not not know the ratio of turning of the > steering wheel to turning of my car (or the ratio of my > movement of my arms to the turning of of the steering wheel), > then I cannot manage the collision, can I? That is all > information about ME. I couldn't figure out what this was about at first, something about setting a collision course with toy race cars... Then I thought of the response to discovering real danger and how a whole landscape of possibilities explodes in your mind, regarding a suddenly very important collision course. I'd sure rate it as a defining experience of self-consciousness. Say you're on a winter hike through a beautiful snowy woods, and you kind of loose track of time trying to get back to the trail, and with an unexpected shudder you find you're actually rather cold and don't really know which way it is or how far to the car. All your powers of physical analysis rush in as the dozen scenarios and many choices within each survival strategy suddenly take over your thoughts. One might say only minds using world models with self-images playing roles are self-conscious. I think there's more to what consciousness itself is though. Maybe the most primitive state of consciousness is simply having an identity, a presence as an individual, whether you have a brain for making 'pictures' or any other part of the multiplex theater that consciousness is for people. In-between is the kind of consciousness when you just behave coherently with a completely blank mind, perhaps the most normal kind of consciousness. We're completely unaware of most of our smooth executions of very complicated interactions with our world, and there's lots of amazing 'collision course calculus' involved too. Just a kiss is an amazingly complex orchestration of physical systems we don't need to pay any attention to. Are we conscious *of* something happening at the time, sure, but I think the consciousness experienced and displayed goes a lot deeper than what might dart through our minds. > I guess I have stipulated that I think that being self > conscious is the same as processing information about ME. > > Thanks for the oportunity to try and clarify. > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > nickthompson at earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 6/26/2006 12:55:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] RE Self consciousness and Passive Darwinism. > > > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 12:19:13AM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > I have never understood the idea that animals are not self > > > conscious in some useful sense. Heck, self consciousness is a > > > necessary part of any feed forward system, isnt it? > > > > > > > Why do you say this? > > > > -- > > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my > email, which > > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a > > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to > verify this > > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you > > may safely ignore this attachment. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) > > Mathematics 0425 253119 (") > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au > > > Australia > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |