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
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com
<https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
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
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:56 AM Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > 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 <sasm...@swcp.com
<mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > 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
<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
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
<http://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
<http://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/
