self-consciousness

[Nick Thompson]

In an era of increasingly bombastic titles, I like the modesty of yours.  

I may title my next book Not a Theory of Anything.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson


> [Original Message]
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>

> Date: 6/26/2006 5:09:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] self-consciousness
>
> It seems a little like an argument where the two sides are squaring
> off with different terminological bases.
>
> For me, "intentional" is an emergent concept. Something has intention
> if modeling something as having a mind with intentions gives a better
> model than modeling without.
>
> Most complex animals are better modeled that way. Simpler animals (eg
> ants) can often be modelled as mindless automata, and so could be
> described as intentionless.
>
> Of course there will be no obvious line of demarcation. One can model
> a thermostat as having a mind - its just that its not that good a model.
>
> So this means I more or less agree with you.
>
> However, the other camp are probably interested in the mind in the
> "what is it like to be" sense. Just because we model a creature as
> having a mind, doesn't mean there is anything it is like to be that
> creature. It need not be conscious. It definitely need not be
> self-aware (which is a more objectively measureable property). I argue
> that it is necessary to be self-aware to be conscious, but this email
> is too short to repeat the argument here. It is in my upcoming book
> "Theory of Nothing" though, if I've whetted anyone's appetite.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 09:20:04PM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > For those rare few of you that are INTENSELY interested by the recent

discussion on self consciousness, here is a paper on the subject  which
asserts that every organism must have a point of view.  
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/id14.html
> >
> > If anybody survives this one, there is a later one that establishes
that such a point of view must include itself as a part.

> >
> > Nothing if not Escherian.  (Escherian Coli, some would say.)
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > nickthompson at earthlink.net
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> Mathematics                               0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au            
> Australia                              
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------