Friam

Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Classic

List

Threaded

104 messages Options

123456

Steve Smith

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

On 5/5/20 9:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

You've never seen an EEG?

Or probed around (carefully) with an oscilliscope/logic-analyzer probe in your phone while it is operating?

(no wonder my phones keep fritzing!)

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
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
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/

thompnickson2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Frank,

Now THAT’s an example of a break through. If the next generation just married Alexa (“Yes, Matthew. I thought you would never ask. When you like to tie the knot?”), that would settle the environmental problem pretty quick.

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: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 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/

Eric Charles-2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Quite a few things suddenly going on here....

1) The "can computers act?" thing is a bit of a red herring, I think. We would be more obviously where we want to be by talking about robots, instead of computers. We could then separately discuss the issue of overt vs covert behavior (which has been phrased many different ways, none of which are ideal). After that, we could muse over which side of that distinction sending packets over the internet or altering pixels on a screen fall upon.

2) The question of metaphors at the heart of thinking might have more legs. There are two separate issues there: One is about the role of metaphors in communication between two people, which might connect to "the hard problem"... maybe... The other is about whether much, or even all, individual "thinking" is in metaphors, which I don't think relates to "the hard problem", but I could be convinced otherwise. Also, in those discussions, Nick would take a formal model as a highly-abstracted metaphor. He wrote extensively about "The Prisoner's Dilemma" as a metaphor, for example, even its formally specified form.

3) We have an explanation of "the hard problem" that places it remarkably close to "the Turing Test". I think there are pros and cons to that way of looking at it. The pro is that it focuses us on that "how would you know?" part of "the hard problem", i.e., "How would you know if someone else experienced blue as you experience blue?" The con is that it focuses us on a "subjective" attempt to answer that, rather than a pragmatist / broad-scientific attempt to answer it. In Turing Test comparison leads us to ask what a computer would have to do for us, as individuals, not to be able to tell if we were dealing with man or machine. the pragmatist approach is to ask, as comprehensively as possible, what the organism is doing when doing mental things, and then to determine if the machine is doing those same things. A pragmatist approach to "How would you know if someone else experienced blue as you experience blue?" should be to place ourselves and the other person in every possible situation in which "blue" is a relevant concept, and see if the resulting behavior matches. If it does match, then we have the same concept, and there is nothing else to talk about. If it doesn't match, then we are different in only and exactly those non-matches, and there is nothing else to talk about. The responses to the various probes are individual, but the individual is not relevant for determining the array of relevant situations. I am worried that the Turing Test comparison might lead us to think that our individual ideas about how to prob the machine matter, when they don't.

4) Also, separately, Nick has accused my of intellectual slander. To clarify my prior statement: I have seen Nick become convinced, more than once, that some particular set of assumptions is so incredibly wrong that he loses the ability to do anything with the ideas those assumptions lead to. At least that's my impression of what happens. I take "the hard problem" to be an example of such. I think Nick's "problem" is related to Wittgenstein's saying about being silent. Once the conversation becomes centered completely around something about-which-we-cannot-speak, Nick can't get himself to keep speaking, beyond trying to point out to everyone that something has gone horribly wrong. (I'm not sure if Nick will be any happier with that diagnosis, but it's as close to a mia culpa as he is likely to get out of me.) If you a priori declare that "How would you know if someone else experienced blue as you experience blue?" as an inherently unanswerable question, and then you ask the question... well... then there is nothing more to do; there is nowhere to go, other than to point out that something has gone wrong.

-----------

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

American University - Adjunct Instructor

[hidden email]

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:56 AM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

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/ 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
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/

thompnickson2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Can one do an EEG of a computer?

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: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 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

thompnickson2

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

I think you have just identified the problem with dualism.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:56 AM
To: [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.

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/ 

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Put an AM radio next to a computer’s processor.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 9:30 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Can one do an EEG of a computer?

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

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

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

On 5/5/20 9:29 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Can one do an EEG of a computer?

--
☣ 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

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

When I was on the faculty of the Robotics Institute at CMU our leader (fearless?),Raj Reddy, said that robots are artifacts that sense, think, and act. Robots are just computers with sensors, including cameras, and actuators. The "thinking" is the hard part.

See

Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly.
      Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System.
      IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 1984.

Frank

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:31 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think you have just identified the problem with dualism.

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:56 AM
To: [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.
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/ 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

It’s finally come full circle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/science/xenobots-robots-frogs-xenopus.html

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 9:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

See

Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly.

      Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System.

      IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 1984.

Frank

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:31 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think you have just identified the problem with dualism.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

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

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:56 AM
To: [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.

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/ 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
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

In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2

Hi, all,

I agree with Eric’s first two points. Yay Pragmatic Maxim!

On Eric’s third point:

Ok, I think this conversation is starting to relate to others we have had on the list. What do we say when we discover that the next words out of our mouths are almost certainly to be nonsense? For Wittgenstein, this is not the end of speech, but the end of Philosophy. I think he is happy that we go on speaking, but only if we recognize that we are no longer doing philosophy. But we can go on eating, drinking, singing, making war, making love, doing meditation etc just fine without philosophy. This is the sort of thinking that led to Harvard’s finest joining the marines or the psychedelic movement in the sixties. And you are correct, it makes me uncomfortable.

Let’s take that first stanza of the Jabberwok as an example. It is classified as nonsense. But is it really?

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe

No, because we can read it. And I also think it is philosophy because it asks us to engage in the grammaratization of experience. This suggests that philosophy is just the project of putting experience into speech. Hard to imagine not doing that while writing to FRIAM. I suppose we could communicate in smiley’s. ☹

As usual, you are forcing me to THINK here, and I have to be grateful for that, much though it annoys me.

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 Eric Charles
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Quite a few things suddenly going on here....

-----------

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

American University - Adjunct Instructor

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:56 AM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

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/ 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
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

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

behavior:

1) the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others

2) the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.

3) the way in which a natural phenomenon or a machine works or functions

Ignoring the first definition, is there a qualitative difference between the behavior attributed to a human being or animal and that attributed to the machine or natural phenomena? I believe there is.

Machine "behavior" is either a metaphor or an error of anthropomorphism. This is true, I believe, whether one speaks of a computer's UI (the computer is but a lump and sans any behavior) or a robot.

Alan Kay and Seymour Papert speak of the "user illusion" — the illusion that the computer is thinking or behaving or acting as if it were intelligent, a turtle dragging its tail to draw a line, etc. The key word is "illusion." Papert, incidentally was a student and protege of Jean Piaget, a psychologist.

This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon which to argue that they do.

davew

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/

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the black box's behavior, right?

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon which to argue that they do.

--
☣ 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

Hi,Glen,

Careful. Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?

N

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: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the black box's behavior, right?

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon which to argue that they do.

--
☣ 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/

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Not at all. Why?

On 5/5/20 12:35 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Careful. Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?

--
☣ 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

Oh. Isn't my 'world' that which surrounds me? Your world, that which surrounds you? Etc. So for me to have an "inner world" I not only have to climb inside me I have to climb inside that world inside me. This is either an EXTREMELY complicated elaboration of the metaphor OR contradictory. No?

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: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:38 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Not at all. Why?

On 5/5/20 12:35 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Careful. Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?

--
☣ 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/

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

More word games. OK. s/world/context/g. Is that better?

On 5/5/20 12:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Oh. Isn't my 'world' that which surrounds me? Your world, that which surrounds you? Etc. So for me to have an "inner world" I not only have to climb inside me I have to climb inside that world inside me. This is either an EXTREMELY complicated elaboration of the metaphor OR contradictory. No?

--
☣ 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

Glen,

Whether you like it or not, you are yourself a master of world play, so I assume you don't mean word "games" pejoratively. But that is a different conversation. You wrote:

. ..If EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its surface

Given your second comment, I now interpret this as follows:

Eric believes that everything that is going on in a black box is evident from outside the box.

That, you rightly perceive, I disagree with. In fact, the whole idea of a black box is that you don’t know and can only surmise what is going on within it. If you could “see” within the box, it wouldn’t be black. If I owned a “golden goose”, I might surmise all sorts of internal arrangements by which the goose took in food and produced gold, but I would never kill the goose for the gold “inside”. That’s to confuse a behavior of an entity with the internal processes that mediate that behavior. And I really DO mean “internal” here.

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: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:46 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

More word games. OK. s/world/context/g. Is that better?

On 5/5/20 12:43 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Oh. Isn't my 'world' that which surrounds me? Your world, that which surrounds you? Etc. So for me to have an "inner world" I not only have to climb inside me I have to climb inside that world inside me. This is either an EXTREMELY complicated elaboration of the metaphor OR contradictory. No?

☣ 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

Your interpretation is not quite what I would have said, but close enough.

You're also right about what I meant by "black box". But the point I was making is that if we take EricC's principle seriously, then anything that goes on inside the box can be accurately and precisely "surmised" from outside the box. Anything else would be lost or random.

Also, my comment was in response to Dave's claim that behavior is not a basis for determining whether the box is thinking or not. I'm suggesting that if there's a large "random" component to the box's behavior, then perhaps it is thinking -- i.e. there's stuff going on inside the box that *cannot* be "surmised" from outside it.

On 5/5/20 1:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Eric believes that everything that is going on in a black box is evident from outside the box.
> [...]
> That, you rightly perceive, I disagree with. In fact, the whole idea of a black box is that you don’t know and can only surmise what is going on within it. If you could “see” within the box, it wouldn’t be black. If I owned a “golden goose”, I might surmise all sorts of internal arrangements by which the goose took in food and produced gold, but I would never kill the goose for the gold “inside”. That’s to confuse a behavior of an entity with the internal processes that mediate that behavior. And I really DO mean “internal” here.

--
☣ 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

Well, if epigenesis, emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that what goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the organism does. What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which "mind" is a model of. Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others that mind is "of" the organism. Eric and I are in that latter school, and I think you are, too, but I shouldn't presume. If you are, then I expect you will join me in believing that the outards and the innards of an organism ate mostly different realms of discourse with some contingent but few necessary connections between them.

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: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:20 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Your interpretation is not quite what I would have said, but close enough.

You're also right about what I meant by "black box". But the point I was making is that if we take EricC's principle seriously, then anything that goes on inside the box can be accurately and precisely "surmised" from outside the box. Anything else would be lost or random.

Also, my comment was in response to Dave's claim that behavior is not a basis for determining whether the box is thinking or not. I'm suggesting that if there's a large "random" component to the box's behavior, then perhaps it is thinking -- i.e. there's stuff going on inside the box that *cannot* be "surmised" from outside it.

On 5/5/20 1:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Eric believes that everything that is going on in a black box is evident from outside the box.
> [...]
> That, you rightly perceive, I disagree with. In fact, the whole idea
> of a black box is that you don’t know and can only surmise what is going on within it. If you could “see” within the box, it wouldn’t be black. If I owned a “golden goose”, I might surmise all sorts of internal arrangements by which the goose took in food and produced gold, but I would never kill the goose for the gold “inside”. That’s to confuse a behavior of an entity with the internal processes that mediate that behavior. And I really DO mean “internal” here.

--
☣ 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/

gepr

Re: Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

I'm not sure what school I'm in. But neither of those positions seems right to me. I tend to believe in (quasi)cycles and flows. E.g. when I'm dreaming, my mind is inside me. When I'm engrossed in some activity, my mind is spread over both inside and outside ... as if the skin between me and the world is gone. Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it would be that we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind" moves around, sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread very thin. And that dynamism would be critical.

To boot, I would suggest that anyone *without* such dynamism would look like a Philosophical Zombie to me.

On 5/5/20 1:40 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Well, if epigenesis, emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that what goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the organism does. What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which "mind" is a model of. Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others that mind is "of" the organism. Eric and I are in that latter school, and I think you are, too, but I shouldn't presume. If you are, then I expect you will join me in believing that the outards and the innards of an organism ate mostly different realms of discourse with some contingent but few necessary connections between them.

--
☣ 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

123456