do animals psychologize?
Locked
1234
1234
 
|
Not at all. One can over-intervene with respect to any ongoing dynamic. For example, some people concerned about their weight will step on a scale every day and, based on what they see, either modify their diet for the day or perhaps simply feel one way or another (good or bad). But such instantaneous measures are largely useless for health and fitness. It's the trends that matter. And any intervention should be done based on the trends and maintained for quite awhile before their effects can be understood.
On 09/14/2018 04:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Out of curiosity, does over-intervention concern apply to government behavior only? One could imagine the same technology trends empower many groups and individuals. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Thanks! I had never run across the idea that da Vinci was vegetarian. But it seems preposterous to associate movement with pain. Movement is the remedy for pain, not the cause. I suppose the promotion from actual movement or actual pain to "capability for" makes some sense. And that re-invokes the ever-present decoupling of meta-layer, abstracted, things like "capability of" or even "thinking about" from actual things like pain and movement. So, perhaps da Vinci's tendency to vegetarianism is evidence of his dualism?
I'm not so sure how remarkable it is, though. It seems like anyone "in tune" with their surroundings will anthropomorphize just a little bit. Maybe it's remarkable for someone steeped in the Western tradition? It seems easy for me to imagine any thoughtful hunter making some attempts to reduce the pain and suffering of their prey. Do animals other than humans try to kill their prey "humanely"? I know my cats don't. It's much more fun for them to torture a squealing mole, scared out of its mind, desperately trying to escape. Perhaps like diabetes II, their psychopathy is a result of abundant food? On 09/15/2018 08:42 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > In my Tuscany vacation this year I've read among other books the biography from Michael White about "Leonardo da Vinci". He writes (on p. 130) that Leonardo was a vegetarian 500 years before such a lifestyle became common, and explains his reason: > > "He believed that anything capable of movement was also capable of pain and came to the conclusion that he would therefore eat only plants because they did not move" > > Remarkable for a man 500 years ago, isn't it? -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I don't think your example is over-intervention, it is under-intervention. If they step on the scale every day, don't like what they see, and walk or run 10 miles every day (whatever speed they can manage) they will almost certainly see a fitness change. Of course, it will be better if they don't use a crude indicator like visible chubbiness but switch to another set of indicators like resting heart rate, blood pressure, or average speed.
Usually the best experiments involve changing one variable at a time in a non-ambiguous way. And there are plenty of `standard practices' that in neglect push things to the edge. There are some parts of the country where there are enough hunting licenses issued to almost wipe-out all of the yearling deer. So, the idea of "let's make a little change and see what happens over time" is kind of silly because there is a huge intervention made every season for completely artificial reasons (political pressure from a hunting lobby). In my example, it could be that there are population-level reasons why some individuals prefer the same sex, and if these individuals were removed, they would rebound for other reasons besides one of genetic predisposition (that was hypothetically selected for). Likewise, if the redneck/hillbilly population were attenuated, that new people would move out to rural areas and drop their urban sensibilities. Perhaps as frequency of diverse interaction is reduced, a tribal pattern resumes, at least within a generation of isolation. Marcus On 9/17/18, 8:00 AM, "Friam on behalf of ∄ uǝʃƃ" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Not at all. One can over-intervene with respect to any ongoing dynamic. For example, some people concerned about their weight will step on a scale every day and, based on what they see, either modify their diet for the day or perhaps simply feel one way or another (good or bad). But such instantaneous measures are largely useless for health and fitness. It's the trends that matter. And any intervention should be done based on the trends and maintained for quite awhile before their effects can be understood. On 09/14/2018 04:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Out of curiosity, does over-intervention concern apply to government behavior only? One could imagine the same technology trends empower many groups and individuals. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Sorry for being vague. In the weight/scale example, the intervention would be something like "I'm not going to eat today because the scale said I'm heavier than yesterday." That type of conflation of instant measures with trends will likely lead to a similar over-intervention in the other direction, "I get to have desert today because the scale said I way 2 lbs less than yesterday." It's also the type of conflation that confuses people into thinking "weather" and "climate" are the same thing.
Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but have some semi-automated approach to getting a license? Proper intervention would require us to figure out the actual relation between licenses issued and population. And such relations need not be linear. In fact, I'd argue that most relations like that are nonlinear. Which means that those experiments (changing one variable at a time) are not only NOT the best experiments, but that they have mislead us completely. Such linear thinking has prevented us from taking into account the "externalities" of any given policy, causes us to mis-headline any given scientific publication, etc. On 09/17/2018 07:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I don't think your example is over-intervention, it is under-intervention. If they step on the scale every day, don't like what they see, and walk or run 10 miles every day (whatever speed they can manage) they will almost certainly see a fitness change. Of course, it will be better if they don't use a crude indicator like visible chubbiness but switch to another set of indicators like resting heart rate, blood pressure, or average speed. > > Usually the best experiments involve changing one variable at a time in a non-ambiguous way. And there are plenty of `standard practices' that in neglect push things to the edge. There are some parts of the country where there are enough hunting licenses issued to almost wipe-out all of the yearling deer. So, the idea of "let's make a little change and see what happens over time" is kind of silly because there is a huge intervention made every season for completely artificial reasons (political pressure from a hunting lobby). > > In my example, it could be that there are population-level reasons why some individuals prefer the same sex, and if these individuals were removed, they would rebound for other reasons besides one of genetic predisposition (that was hypothetically selected for). Likewise, if the redneck/hillbilly population were attenuated, that new people would move out to rural areas and drop their urban sensibilities. Perhaps as frequency of diverse interaction is reduced, a tribal pattern resumes, at least within a generation of isolation. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
|
Glen writes:
"Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but have some semi-automated approach to getting a license?" A population estimation input comes from tagging stations relative to issued licenses by category of deer, so they can & do close-the-loop by way of enforcement. The population estimation techniques require some assumptions, of course. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Yes, Glen and Marcus. Very interesting.
But, "Do animals psychologize?" N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:57 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? Glen writes: "Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but have some semi-automated approach to getting a license?" A population estimation input comes from tagging stations relative to issued licenses by category of deer, so they can & do close-the-loop by way of enforcement. The population estimation techniques require some assumptions, of course. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
|
I would say this relates to the reality (or not) of first-world problems. Humans that thrive in the first world must form (or be educated to acquire) higher-order representations. Psychologizing is one process that leads to higher-order representations. In an artificial deep neural network, the neurons in the higher layers represent more and more abstract interpretations of inputs that have be presented, but it can take hundreds of thousands of neurons and dozens of layers.
One might imagine pets that have fewer neurons and less connectivity amongst neurons could still develop higher-level representations provided that these adaptations did not interfere with other essential information processing functions -- keeping in mind the most important function for a pet is probably anticipating the meaning of human signals. Anyway, we'll make great pets. Marcus On 9/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yes, Glen and Marcus. Very interesting. But, "Do animals psychologize?" N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:57 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? Glen writes: "Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but have some semi-automated approach to getting a license?" A population estimation input comes from tagging stations relative to issued licenses by category of deer, so they can & do close-the-loop by way of enforcement. The population estimation techniques require some assumptions, of course. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
|
Does this animal psychologize https://www.facebook.com/wedontdeserveanimalsDM/videos/565874183831502/ ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 11:53 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: I would say this relates to the reality (or not) of first-world problems. Humans that thrive in the first world must form (or be educated to acquire) higher-order representations. Psychologizing is one process that leads to higher-order representations. In an artificial deep neural network, the neurons in the higher layers represent more and more abstract interpretations of inputs that have be presented, but it can take hundreds of thousands of neurons and dozens of layers. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
|
Even when the mirror is moved, my dog will periodically check the location where the mirror has *once* been to if her dog acquaintance happens to be around. She’ll scratch on the wall to see if anything responds. It’s been months
since the mirror has been moved and she still tries from time to time. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> Does this animal psychologize https://www.facebook.com/wedontdeserveanimalsDM/videos/565874183831502/ ----------------------------------- On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 11:53 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Weighing yourself everyday is actually an excellent way to promote weight loss. So too frequent, even hourly, measures of heart rate, glucose level, etc. Not because you do something in reaction to the measure, simply because it causes a kind of Hawthorne Effect, that forces you to intentionally take, or refrain from taking, some kind of action - like eating that sixth doughnut. I am watching plants move outside of my window. I doubt the plants are feeling pain, nor are they reacting to/ avoiding pain. True, most people don't eat pines, cedars, and manzanitas, and food plants, e.g. a potato, don't move much. But still, movement, even as an indicator or potential for feeling pain, seems less than useful. Besides, pain is good: 1) "no pain, no gain;" 2) self-flagellation to bring oneself closer to God; or 3) "Pain is instructive." Baron von Masoch davew On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 8:00 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote: > Not at all. One can over-intervene with respect to any ongoing dynamic. > For example, some people concerned about their weight will step on a > scale every day and, based on what they see, either modify their diet > for the day or perhaps simply feel one way or another (good or bad). > But such instantaneous measures are largely useless for health and > fitness. It's the trends that matter. And any intervention should be > done based on the trends and maintained for quite awhile before their > effects can be understood. > > On 09/14/2018 04:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Out of curiosity, does over-intervention concern apply to government behavior only? One could imagine the same technology trends empower many groups and individuals. > > > -- > ∄ uǝʃƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
|
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html
On 9/17/18, 12:27 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Weighing yourself everyday is actually an excellent way to promote weight loss. So too frequent, even hourly, measures of heart rate, glucose level, etc. Not because you do something in reaction to the measure, simply because it causes a kind of Hawthorne Effect, that forces you to intentionally take, or refrain from taking, some kind of action - like eating that sixth doughnut. I am watching plants move outside of my window. I doubt the plants are feeling pain, nor are they reacting to/ avoiding pain. True, most people don't eat pines, cedars, and manzanitas, and food plants, e.g. a potato, don't move much. But still, movement, even as an indicator or potential for feeling pain, seems less than useful. Besides, pain is good: 1) "no pain, no gain;" 2) self-flagellation to bring oneself closer to God; or 3) "Pain is instructive." Baron von Masoch davew On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 8:00 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote: > Not at all. One can over-intervene with respect to any ongoing dynamic. > For example, some people concerned about their weight will step on a > scale every day and, based on what they see, either modify their diet > for the day or perhaps simply feel one way or another (good or bad). > But such instantaneous measures are largely useless for health and > fitness. It's the trends that matter. And any intervention should be > done based on the trends and maintained for quite awhile before their > effects can be understood. > > On 09/14/2018 04:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Out of curiosity, does over-intervention concern apply to government behavior only? One could imagine the same technology trends empower many groups and individuals. > > > -- > ∄ uǝʃƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
I agree that taking data is good. My argument was against intervening too much or too often. One of the suggestions I give to people who ... uh ... take offense ... when you talk about how much they drink, is to simply *count* their drinks. That data, like weighing yourself, shouldn't make you feel good or bad about yourself. But it can help you understand how many calories you take in. Of course, it's dirty data. Your typical dive bar will pour you a 9 oz glass of wine ... for $5, whereas your fancy-pants wine bar will pour you 5 oz and charge you $11. 8^)
On 09/17/2018 11:27 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Weighing yourself everyday is actually an excellent way to promote weight loss. So too frequent, even hourly, measures of heart rate, glucose level, etc. Not because you do something in reaction to the measure, simply because it causes a kind of Hawthorne Effect, that forces you to intentionally take, or refrain from taking, some kind of action - like eating that sixth doughnut. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus,
I have never understood how it comes to be that people answer a psychological question with a physiological answer. I, of course, share your belief that all psychological functions are physiologically (or electronically) mediated. Still, for instance, it would seem odd to me, if I asked a person if an animal can calculate the square root of three, for that person to answer, "That animal does not have the sort of brain that can calculate the square root of three". The natural course of argument would seem for me for the person to answer the question about the calculation activities of the animal and THEN go on, perhaps, to explain that answer in terms of the physiological limitations of the animal's brain. We once had a famously smart cat. One day we were watching TV and a cat came on. Our cat roused itself from dosing on the rug, went over and looked behind the tv, came back to the rug, looked at the TV, looked at us disgustedly, and lay down on the rug with its back to the TV. It never roused to a cat on the TV again. No cat would be dumb enough to be fooled by pornography. I don't know what that proves about the question at hand, but I love cat stories. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 1:53 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? I would say this relates to the reality (or not) of first-world problems. Humans that thrive in the first world must form (or be educated to acquire) higher-order representations. Psychologizing is one process that leads to higher-order representations. In an artificial deep neural network, the neurons in the higher layers represent more and more abstract interpretations of inputs that have be presented, but it can take hundreds of thousands of neurons and dozens of layers. One might imagine pets that have fewer neurons and less connectivity amongst neurons could still develop higher-level representations provided that these adaptations did not interfere with other essential information processing functions -- keeping in mind the most important function for a pet is probably anticipating the meaning of human signals. Anyway, we'll make great pets. Marcus On 9/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yes, Glen and Marcus. Very interesting. But, "Do animals psychologize?" N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:57 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? Glen writes: "Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but have some semi-automated approach to getting a license?" A population estimation input comes from tagging stations relative to issued licenses by category of deer, so they can & do close-the-loop by way of enforcement. The population estimation techniques require some assumptions, of course. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Nick, what was the cat dosing with, LSD? (just being a smart-a__)
Perhaps people provide a psychological question with a physiological answer for the same reason you reply to a consciousness question with a behavioral answer? Unshared ontologies? davew On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 1:08 PM, David West wrote: > Nick, what was the cat dosing with, LSD? (just being a smart-a__) > > Perhaps people provide a psychological question with a physiological > answer for the same reason you replay to a consciousness question with a > behavioral answer? > > davew > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Marcus, > > > > I have never understood how it comes to be that people answer a > > psychological question with a physiological answer. I, of course, share > > your belief that all psychological functions are physiologically (or > > electronically) mediated. Still, for instance, it would seem odd to > > me, if I asked a person if an animal can calculate the square root of > > three, for that person to answer, "That animal does not have the sort of > > brain that can calculate the square root of three". The natural course > > of argument would seem for me for the person to answer the question > > about the calculation activities of the animal and THEN go on, perhaps, > > to explain that answer in terms of the physiological limitations of the > > animal's brain. > > > > We once had a famously smart cat. One day we were watching TV and a cat > > came on. Our cat roused itself from dosing on the rug, went over and > > looked behind the tv, came back to the rug, looked at the TV, looked at > > us disgustedly, and lay down on the rug with its back to the TV. It > > never roused to a cat on the TV again. No cat would be dumb enough to > > be fooled by pornography. I don't know what that proves about the > > question at hand, but I love cat stories. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 1:53 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? > > > > I would say this relates to the reality (or not) of first-world > > problems. Humans that thrive in the first world must form (or be > > educated to acquire) higher-order representations. Psychologizing is > > one process that leads to higher-order representations. In an > > artificial deep neural network, the neurons in the higher layers > > represent more and more abstract interpretations of inputs that have be > > presented, but it can take hundreds of thousands of neurons and dozens > > of layers. > > > > One might imagine pets that have fewer neurons and less connectivity > > amongst neurons could still develop higher-level representations > > provided that these adaptations did not interfere with other essential > > information processing functions -- keeping in mind the most important > > function for a pet is probably anticipating the meaning of human > > signals. > > > > Anyway, we'll make great pets. > > > > Marcus > > > > On 9/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <friam- > > [hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Yes, Glen and Marcus. Very interesting. > > > > But, "Do animals psychologize?" > > > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:57 AM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? > > > > Glen writes: > > > > "Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses > > doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be > > over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting > > the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but > > have some semi-automated approach to getting a license?" > > > > A population estimation input comes from tagging stations relative to issued > > licenses by category of deer, so they can & do close-the-loop by way of > > enforcement. > > The population estimation techniques require some assumptions, of course. > > > > Marcus > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: do animals psychologize?
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I wasn't making a hypothesis about type, I was making one about degree -- that unless a computing system has some number of functional units and a certain degree of connection between those functional units, some representations and calculations on those representations won't be practical. A predator may (in effect) have very high-speed square root operations as it relates to predatory pursuit motor skills, but no abstract representation of what a number is. The particular behaviors of individual functional units seem to be what you are calling physiology. I'm speculating that if one has a reasonable model of the functional units, then one can build artificial neural systems from that component model, and from those, estimate what different species could calculate. Can a certain neural net of some size learn an arbitrary distribution of some dimensionality?
On 9/17/18, 1:01 PM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Marcus, I have never understood how it comes to be that people answer a psychological question with a physiological answer. I, of course, share your belief that all psychological functions are physiologically (or electronically) mediated. Still, for instance, it would seem odd to me, if I asked a person if an animal can calculate the square root of three, for that person to answer, "That animal does not have the sort of brain that can calculate the square root of three". The natural course of argument would seem for me for the person to answer the question about the calculation activities of the animal and THEN go on, perhaps, to explain that answer in terms of the physiological limitations of the animal's brain. We once had a famously smart cat. One day we were watching TV and a cat came on. Our cat roused itself from dosing on the rug, went over and looked behind the tv, came back to the rug, looked at the TV, looked at us disgustedly, and lay down on the rug with its back to the TV. It never roused to a cat on the TV again. No cat would be dumb enough to be fooled by pornography. I don't know what that proves about the question at hand, but I love cat stories. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 1:53 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? I would say this relates to the reality (or not) of first-world problems. Humans that thrive in the first world must form (or be educated to acquire) higher-order representations. Psychologizing is one process that leads to higher-order representations. In an artificial deep neural network, the neurons in the higher layers represent more and more abstract interpretations of inputs that have be presented, but it can take hundreds of thousands of neurons and dozens of layers. One might imagine pets that have fewer neurons and less connectivity amongst neurons could still develop higher-level representations provided that these adaptations did not interfere with other essential information processing functions -- keeping in mind the most important function for a pet is probably anticipating the meaning of human signals. Anyway, we'll make great pets. Marcus On 9/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yes, Glen and Marcus. Very interesting. But, "Do animals psychologize?" N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 10:57 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? Glen writes: "Even in your example, we might notice that even though there are N licenses doled out, the deer population continues to rise. It would be over-intervention to simply issue more licenses. Perhaps the people getting the licenses are mostly an aging population who don't hunt much anymore but have some semi-automated approach to getting a license?" A population estimation input comes from tagging stations relative to issued licenses by category of deer, so they can & do close-the-loop by way of enforcement. The population estimation techniques require some assumptions, of course. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Redundancy in a neural network can allow for something like abstraction, which I suppose is "psychological". E.g. let's say you have two sub-networks of input edges, where only 1 of the sub-networks must be activated in order to trigger a given pattern in the next layer. If the 2 sub-networks trigger the *same* pattern in the next layer, then that next-layer pattern has an ambiguous grounding (perhaps giving rise to something *like* a "representation of what a number is" ... or at least the concept of an ambiguous "variable" of some kind. The more sub-networks that generate the same "next layer pattern", the more abstract that pattern is.
If your imagination allows you to extrapolate that idea, it seems reasonable that the same "next layer pattern" might be generated by *both*, say, spinning a basketball on your finger and thinking about spinning a basketball on your finger. The same "next layer pattern" might obtain for a cat cleaning its own paw vs. seeing another cat cleaning its paw. But is that "psychologizing"? On 09/17/2018 12:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I wasn't making a hypothesis about type, I was making one about degree -- that unless a computing system has some number of functional units and a certain degree of connection between those functional units, some representations and calculations on those representations won't be practical. A predator may (in effect) have very high-speed square root operations as it relates to predatory pursuit motor skills, but no abstract representation of what a number is. The particular behaviors of individual functional units seem to be what you are calling physiology. I'm speculating that if one has a reasonable model of the functional units, then one can build artificial neural systems from that component model, and from those, estimate what different species could calculate. Can a certain neural net of some size learn an arbitrary distribution of some dimensionality? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
So, David,
A tree, when assaulted by caterpillars, alters its physiology to produce toxins (at cost to its growth) and puts out chemicals to alert neighboring trees which do the same. On what basis exactly do you assert that trees don't feel pain. I stipulate that this question is asked by a person who doesn't think humans "feel pain". There aren’t two steps, pain and the feeling of it. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 2:28 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? Weighing yourself everyday is actually an excellent way to promote weight loss. So too frequent, even hourly, measures of heart rate, glucose level, etc. Not because you do something in reaction to the measure, simply because it causes a kind of Hawthorne Effect, that forces you to intentionally take, or refrain from taking, some kind of action - like eating that sixth doughnut. I am watching plants move outside of my window. I doubt the plants are feeling pain, nor are they reacting to/ avoiding pain. True, most people don't eat pines, cedars, and manzanitas, and food plants, e.g. a potato, don't move much. But still, movement, even as an indicator or potential for feeling pain, seems less than useful. Besides, pain is good: 1) "no pain, no gain;" 2) self-flagellation to bring oneself closer to God; or 3) "Pain is instructive." Baron von Masoch davew On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 8:00 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote: > Not at all. One can over-intervene with respect to any ongoing dynamic. > For example, some people concerned about their weight will step on a > scale every day and, based on what they see, either modify their diet > for the day or perhaps simply feel one way or another (good or bad). > But such instantaneous measures are largely useless for health and > fitness. It's the trends that matter. And any intervention should be > done based on the trends and maintained for quite awhile before their > effects can be understood. > > On 09/14/2018 04:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Out of curiosity, does over-intervention concern apply to government behavior only? One could imagine the same technology trends empower many groups and individuals. > > > -- > ∄ uǝʃƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In an attempt to avoid a descent into arguing about the meanings of words, it seems reasonable enough to say that whatever plants may or may not feel, what they feel will result in wildly different qualia than what we experience. Right?
So, we don't have to argue about whether plants feel pain. We can argue about the extent of the similarity between plants' vs. animals' enteroception. On 09/17/2018 01:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > So, David, > > A tree, when assaulted by caterpillars, alters its physiology to produce toxins (at cost to its growth) and puts out chemicals to alert neighboring trees which do the same. > > On what basis exactly do you assert that trees don't feel pain. > > I stipulate that this question is asked by a person who doesn't think humans "feel pain". There aren’t two steps, pain and the feeling of it. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Hi, Glen, I realize I am about to make you grumpy and I HATE when I do that. But ... I think (perhaps Frank will confirm) that I am a person who does not believe in qualia. Let's see. I will check my behavior and see. OH, yes. I have written: Devil’s advocate: If feelings are something that one does, rather than something that one “has inside,” then the right sort of robot should be capable of feeling when it does the sorts of things that humans do when we say that humans are feeling something. Are you prepared to live with that implication? Sure. 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. Devil’s advocate: But, Nick, while “paining” sounds nice in an academic paper, it is just silly otherwise. The other day I felt quite nauseous after a meal. I am interested in what it’s like to feel nauseous, and you 237 cannot honestly claim that you don’t know what feeling nauseous is like. Behavioral correlates aren’t at issue; stop changing the subject. What is “being nauseous” like? It’s like being on a small boat in a choppy sea, it’s like being in a world that is revolving when others see it as stable, it’s like being gray in the face and turning away from the sights and smells of food that others find attractive, it’s like having your head in the toilet when others have theirs in the refrigerator. But you have brought us to the crux of the problem. Nobody has ever been satisfied with my answers to these “What is it like to be a ?” questions. “What is it like to be in pain? What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to be Nick Thompson?” Notice how the grammar is contorted. If you ask the question in its natural order, you begin to see a path to an answer. “What is being Nick Thompson like?” “It’s like running around like a chicken with its head cut off.” OK. I get that. I see me doing that. You see me doing that. But most people won’t be satisfied with that sort of answer, because it’s the same as the answer to the question, “What do people like Nick Thompson do?” and therefore appears to convey no information that is inherently private. To me, the question, “What is it like to be X?”, has been fully answered when you have said where X-like people can be found and what they will be doing there. However, I seem to be pretty alone in that view. Devil’s advocate: Now I see why you annoy people. I ask you a perfectly straightforward question about the quality of an experience and you keep trying to saddle me with a description of a behavior. You just change the subject. You clearly understand me when I ask you about the quality of feeling nauseous, yet you answer like a person who doesn’t understand. Well, here you just prove my point by refusing to believe me when I say that for me, feeling is a kind of doing, an exploring of the world. Where does somebody who believes that mental states are private, and that each person has privileged access to their own mental states, stand to deny me my account of my own mental states? You can’t have it both ways—you have run smack-dab into the ultimate foolishness of your position. Gee. I guess I don’t believe in qualia. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- In an attempt to avoid a descent into arguing about the meanings of words, it seems reasonable enough to say that whatever plants may or may not feel, what they feel will result in wildly different qualia than what we experience. Right? So, we don't have to argue about whether plants feel pain. We can argue about the extent of the similarity between plants' vs. animals' enteroception. On 09/17/2018 01:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > So, David, > > A tree, when assaulted by caterpillars, alters its physiology to produce toxins (at cost to its growth) and puts out chemicals to alert neighboring trees which do the same. > > On what basis exactly do you assert that trees don't feel pain. > > I stipulate that this question is asked by a person who doesn't think humans "feel pain". There aren’t two steps, pain and the feeling of it. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Hi Nick,
I don't recall saying trees feel no pain. I just said that movement was a poor indicator of the ability to feel pain or the potential ability to feel pain. For a host of reasons I would agree with you that neither trees nor humans "feel pain." That which we label pain (some kind of physiological stimulus-response) simply is. The label and the verb-label dyad are delusional overlays. davew On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > So, David, > > A tree, when assaulted by caterpillars, alters its physiology to produce > toxins (at cost to its growth) and puts out chemicals to alert > neighboring trees which do the same. > > On what basis exactly do you assert that trees don't feel pain. > > I stipulate that this question is asked by a person who doesn't think > humans "feel pain". There aren’t two steps, pain and the feeling of it. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 2:28 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] do animals psychologize? > > > Weighing yourself everyday is actually an excellent way to promote > weight loss. So too frequent, even hourly, measures of heart rate, > glucose level, etc. Not because you do something in reaction to the > measure, simply because it causes a kind of Hawthorne Effect, that > forces you to intentionally take, or refrain from taking, some kind of > action - like eating that sixth doughnut. > > I am watching plants move outside of my window. I doubt the plants are > feeling pain, nor are they reacting to/ avoiding pain. True, most people > don't eat pines, cedars, and manzanitas, and food plants, e.g. a potato, > don't move much. But still, movement, even as an indicator or potential > for feeling pain, seems less than useful. > > Besides, pain is good: 1) "no pain, no gain;" 2) self-flagellation to > bring oneself closer to God; or 3) "Pain is instructive." Baron von > Masoch > > davew > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, at 8:00 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote: > > Not at all. One can over-intervene with respect to any ongoing dynamic. > > For example, some people concerned about their weight will step on a > > scale every day and, based on what they see, either modify their diet > > for the day or perhaps simply feel one way or another (good or bad). > > But such instantaneous measures are largely useless for health and > > fitness. It's the trends that matter. And any intervention should be > > done based on the trends and maintained for quite awhile before their > > effects can be understood. > > > > On 09/14/2018 04:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, does over-intervention concern apply to government behavior only? One could imagine the same technology trends empower many groups and individuals. > > > > > > -- > > ∄ uǝʃƃ > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > > at St. John's College to unsubscribe > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |