Hi Nick,
I read (once over lightly) the piece by Levin and Dennett called "Cognition All the Way Down". It intrigues me but I also find myself saying "Yeah sure". Can we really say anything about the goals of microorganisms just by allowing ourselves the luxury of
using language that would normally be reserved for objects that we believe are 'conscious' in some sense. This is the language that evolved as a convenient way of describing motives etc of the humans we encounter. Is that necessarily the best analytic language
for examining what motive is? Or is it a language that is inherently based on dualism and therefore totally inappropriate for discussing the type of advances that the "Cognition All the Way Down" piece envisions?
If we find that having any kind of discussion of motive will inevitably get tangled up in inherently dualistic language, we need a different approach.
Here is a concrete proposal: Can we build a machine that functions effectively but can have a nervous breakdown? Maybe you, I and Jon could work on this.
--John
Bah Dennett. One of these days he is going to FINALLY read Peirce and realize that his entire career has been a footnote. What a bounder!
Yeah. I’m envious.
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
Roger Critchlow
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 2:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] cognition all the way down
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comarchives:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
Locked
