Friam

Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Classic

List

Threaded

104 messages Options

123456

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Then we have nothing more to argue about. You understand the hard problem. Maybe this thread can rest in peace, now.

On 5/1/20 4:16 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Absolutely. If strong AI people are in the "quacks like a duck" school, than I am a strong AI person.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Eric Charles-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Glen said "So the problem of qualia and, say, whether or not we could build a machine that *enjoys* playing the piano, you fall in the camp of the strong-AI people. We can definitely build a machine that thinks and feels just like a human. Is that right?"

To paraphrase Nick's answer:

Yes, of course we can build such a machine, so long as you agree to treat "enjoy" and "think" and "feel" in the way that I do, and NOT as Chalmers or the other dualists would. My approach does not contain a Chalmers-esque hard problem.

-----------

Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist

American University - Adjunct Instructor

[hidden email]

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:17 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Absolutely. If strong AI people are in the "quacks like a duck" school, than I am a strong AI person.

Devil’s advocate: So a robot could be made that would feel pain?
Well, you are cheating a bit, because you are asking me to participate in a word game I have already disavowed, the game in which pain is something inside my brain that I use my pain-feelers to palpate (see also Natsoulas, this volume). To me, pain is an emergency organization of my behavior in which I deploy physical and social defenses of various sorts. You show me a robot that is part of a society of robots, becomes frantic when you break some part of it, calls upon its fellow robots to assist, etc., I will be happy to admit that it is “paining.”
Devil’s advocate: On your account, nonsocial animals don’t feel pain?
Well, not the same sort of pain. Any creature that struggles when you do something to it is “paining” in some sense. But animals that have the potential to summon help seem to pain in a different way.
I apologize for constantly citing that paper. But how could I possibly know what I believe if I don’t know what I have written.

By the way, back before Methuselah, there was a lovely psychological literature demystifying hypnosis. The basic set up was you have a bunch of “judges” on one side of a one-way glass window and subjects on the other side. Two conditions: the subjects are hypnotized to do all the things they do OR the subjects are simply asked to do those things. Judges could not distinguish the two kinds of subjects.

Nick

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 3:56 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. So the problem of qualia and, say, whether or not we could build a machine that *enjoys* playing the piano, you fall in the camp of the strong-AI people. We can definitely build a machine that thinks and feels just like a human. Is that right?

(Full disclosure: I'm a strong-AI person. But I'm also pretty practical in my understanding of AI and the achievement of it exists far beyond at least one inflection point. And we'll probably all go extinct before it happens.)

On 5/1/20 2:50 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Perhaps I misspoke. I certainly agree that working out an entity's point of view is a problem. I just don't see why it's a hard problem. In otherwords, when Chalmers asserts that there is a Hard Problem of consciousness, him implies that he is pointing to some problem unique in its hardness. I think I am only denying there is not such uniquely hard problem, not that there is not a problem of working out what is from different points of view or a problem of working out some entity's point of view from what is.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Hm. I can't quite parse this, but don't want to ignore it.

I'm not convinced that Chalmers' naturalistic dualism is at all different from Peirce's real/extant distinction. From that perspective, Chalmers' dualism and Nick's monism are irrelevant to whether or not Nick understands the hard problem. What one thinks is actually the case can be unrelated to one's taxonomy of possible cases. ("There are many like it, but this one is mine.")

I can admit, however, that any one formulation of the hard problem may *seem* very different from another formulation. But the mere rejection of a lexicon (e.g. "Chalmers-esque") is not a rejection of the problem being outlined. If category theory has taught us anything, it's that problems can seem quite different, but really be about the same thing. The very fact that we can have the discussion we're having is an indication that there is a "hard problem" and that it can act as a foil for choosing one's rifle.

On 5/2/20 6:12 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> To paraphrase Nick's answer:
> Yes, of course we /can /build such a machine, so long as you agree to treat "enjoy" and "think" and "feel" in the way that I do, and NOT as Chalmers or the other dualists would. My approach does not contain a Chalmers-esque hard problem.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Mon, May 4, 2020, 11:44 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hm. I can't quite parse this, but don't want to ignore it.

I'm not convinced that Chalmers' naturalistic dualism is at all different from Peirce's real/extant distinction. From that perspective, Chalmers' dualism and Nick's monism are irrelevant to whether or not Nick understands the hard problem. What one thinks is actually the case can be unrelated to one's taxonomy of possible cases. ("There are many like it, but this one is mine.")

I can admit, however, that any one formulation of the hard problem may *seem* very different from another formulation. But the mere rejection of a lexicon (e.g. "Chalmers-esque") is not a rejection of the problem being outlined. If category theory has taught us anything, it's that problems can seem quite different, but really be about the same thing. The very fact that we can have the discussion we're having is an indication that there is a "hard problem" and that it can act as a foil for choosing one's rifle.

On 5/2/20 6:12 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> To paraphrase Nick's answer:
> Yes, of course we /can /build such a machine, so long as you agree to treat "enjoy" and "think" and "feel" in the way that I do, and NOT as Chalmers or the other dualists would. My approach does not contain a Chalmers-esque hard problem.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.

On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

LOL

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:50 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.

On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Eric Charles-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

I'm running out of ideas where to go with this. I believe that I do understand the so-called "hard problem", but I reject it as based on faulty premises. Nick has routinely, over the two decades or so that I have known him, demonstrated a hard-headed inability to hold nimbly and work with premises that he believes to be deeply faulty. On rare occasions I have seen him do it, but it is rare, and never with this particular subject matter. Based on other conversations around similar subject matter, I suspect that Nick ultimately thinks it is immoral to believe in the hard problem, and that is part of his inability to hold it nimbly.

At any rate: Nick and I deeply believes that there are no valid questions about psychology that are not properly understood as empirical questions about behavior. So either Chalmers has asked an invalid question, or he doesn't understand his own question's researchable implications. There is no third option.

William James was the only philosopher on Wittgenstein's book shelf when the latter died. The former anticipated the latter, and both cut this challenge off at the pass: Chalmers is talking about something that we can talk about, or he should be quiet. There is no third option. If it is a thing we can talk about, then we can go about the business of science with regards to it.

Now, you do have an opportunity to use Peirce against us here. When Peirce got around to categorizing types-of-inquiry / types-of-science, he divided up what I would call psychology into several different categories, spread throughout his schema, and I suspect that in doing so he leaves room for a "hard problem." It is annoying, and I believe it is inconsistent with the direction he was headed in his earlier philosophical works. My guess is that he still harbored too strong a loyalty to Kant, and followed Kant in the long-standing philosophical tradition of frantically throwing scientific psychology under the nearest bus in an effort to pretend that certain challenges inherent in all scientific endeavors are solely problems for psychology..... but that is either the heart of the matter or a complete tangent... and as I can't tell which.... I'm going to stop for now.

Does any of that get us anywhere?

Best,

Eric

-----------

Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist

American University - Adjunct Instructor

[hidden email]

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:44 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hm. I can't quite parse this, but don't want to ignore it.

I'm not convinced that Chalmers' naturalistic dualism is at all different from Peirce's real/extant distinction. From that perspective, Chalmers' dualism and Nick's monism are irrelevant to whether or not Nick understands the hard problem. What one thinks is actually the case can be unrelated to one's taxonomy of possible cases. ("There are many like it, but this one is mine.")

I can admit, however, that any one formulation of the hard problem may *seem* very different from another formulation. But the mere rejection of a lexicon (e.g. "Chalmers-esque") is not a rejection of the problem being outlined. If category theory has taught us anything, it's that problems can seem quite different, but really be about the same thing. The very fact that we can have the discussion we're having is an indication that there is a "hard problem" and that it can act as a foil for choosing one's rifle.

On 5/2/20 6:12 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> To paraphrase Nick's answer:
> Yes, of course we /can /build such a machine, so long as you agree to treat "enjoy" and "think" and "feel" in the way that I do, and NOT as Chalmers or the other dualists would. My approach does not contain a Chalmers-esque hard problem.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

I don't think this gets us anywhere. My claim is that whatever motivates Nick's insistence that metaphor is important to thought *is* a member of the class represented by the hard problem. If you *also* insist that metaphor is important to thought, yet you reject the hard problem, then I would need, from you, some explanation of why we need metaphor.

But I'm also happy to let the thread rest in peace, as Nick and I have come to some agreement. We can formulate something very much like the hard problem using parallax. And the problem comes down to one of how hard is it, actually ... and that's a great question.

On 5/4/20 5:20 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> At any rate: Nick and I deeply believes that there are no valid questions about psychology that are not properly understood as empirical questions about behavior. So either Chalmers has asked an invalid question, or he doesn't understand his own question's researchable implications. There is no third option.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by gepr

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

thompnickson2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Prof David West

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Prof David West

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Came across this yesterday afternoon:

"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific mind is usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and tends to ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It gravitates to fields in which order is easily found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more complex fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a science of psychodynamics for many years to come."

From a Robert A. Heinlein book, Sixth Column, I read when I was an impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy to some science comes from.

davew

On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

--

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

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

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively. A soft female voice answers his questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc. The other day he asked, understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?" She said, "I've decided to wait until Mars is colonized before making that commitment." Good thinking.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Came across this yesterday afternoon:

"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific mind is usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and tends to ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It gravitates to fields in which order is easily found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more complex fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a science of psychodynamics for many years to come."

From a Robert A. Heinlein book, Sixth Column, I read when I was an impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy to some science comes from.

davew

On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

--

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

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

Steve Smith

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Frank-

Given your anecdote, I strongly recommend watching the Spike Jonze's movie HER which has all the earmarks of a dystopian near-future but not to be a spoiler, it actually resolves very sweetly. I believe the voice of "Her" is Scarlett Johannson. Alan Watts makes an interesting Cameo.

- Steve

My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively. A soft female voice answers his questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc. The other day he asked, understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?" She said, "I've decided to wait until Mars is colonized before making that commitment." Good thinking.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Came across this yesterday afternoon:

"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific mind is usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and tends to ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It gravitates to fields in which order is easily found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more complex fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a science of psychodynamics for many years to come."

From a Robert A. Heinlein book, Sixth Column, I read when I was an impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy to some science comes from.

davew

On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

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

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like

I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of

an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.

>

> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

--

Frank Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

unsubscribe 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

unsubscribe 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
unsubscribe 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
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Thanks, Steve. I saw that and enjoyed it very much.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 8:08 AM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank-

Given your anecdote, I strongly recommend watching the Spike Jonze's movie HER which has all the earmarks of a dystopian near-future but not to be a spoiler, it actually resolves very sweetly. I believe the voice of "Her" is Scarlett Johannson. Alan Watts makes an interesting Cameo.

- Steve
My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively. A soft female voice answers his questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc. The other day he asked, understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?" She said, "I've decided to wait until Mars is colonized before making that commitment." Good thinking.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Came across this yesterday afternoon:

"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific mind is usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and tends to ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It gravitates to fields in which order is easily found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more complex fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a science of psychodynamics for many years to come."

From a Robert A. Heinlein book, Sixth Column, I read when I was an impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy to some science comes from.

davew

On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

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

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like

I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of

an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.

>

> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

--

Frank Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

unsubscribe 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

unsubscribe 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
unsubscribe 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
unsubscribe 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
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Prof David West

This is analogous to starving one's dog, then pointing at the corpse and asking: What is this behavior y'all are ascribing to dogs?

On 5/5/20 4:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.
>
> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi, Dave,

So the same may be said of brains, right? Brain’s don’t behave.

Where are you going with this?

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

You've never seen an EEG?

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Dave,

So the same may be said of brains, right? Brain’s don’t behave.

Where are you going with this?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

davew

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
Yup. That’s what he would say. What persuades you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe 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
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Steve Smith

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the hard problem is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

I think I think, therefore I think I am? A real-world exercise in terminating tail recursion? Waddya think?

Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

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

--

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

123456