Granted - "a **sort** of consciousness" davew
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, at 11:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Some supercomputer networks an effective radix of 64. Blue Gene Q had > five-dimensional real torus for connectivity. These network fabrics are > typically autonomous remote DMA systems that are configured so that > processors do not have to intervene in data transfers. > > Extreme ultraviolet lithography systems can fabricate 100 layers for a > digital processor. > > It seems to me a LLM would have a sort of consciousness if 1) it had > continuous real time training and 2) the training was coupled to the physical > world through an array of sensors. > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 9:00 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be > "mystery...deeper".T > > Two separate responses: > > first to Steve—Personally, I do believe in the spectrum of "consciousness" > you suggest with, perhaps a nuance. One contributor tot he spectrum is simply > quantity; a quanta has 1 'bit' of consciousness, an octopus has > Domegegemegrottebyte (real thing according to Wikipedia) 'bits'. A more > significant contributor is "organization." Molecules with differing numbers > of atoms of the same elements, organized differently, have very different > properties and behaviors. A human and an octopus might have the same number > of bits of consciousness, but the organization of those bits (in an > N-dimensional space) is radically different. > > This means it may be possible to say that some threshold quantity and and > organization results in entities being included in the set of generically > conscious things, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say that > Consciousness-Human is identical to or even similar to Consciousness-octopus. > > BTW: much of my antipathy to AI claims arises from this perspective. A > machine very well might have the requisite number of 'bits' of consciousness > from the material of which the embodying machine is composed (and the fact > that every 1/0 bit of the executing code has a 'bit' of consciousness) and > those bits will be 'organized' sufficiently to join the generic set; but > machine consciousness will never equate to human consciousness. My objections > to machine "intelligence" comes from the fact that machines do not have the > N-dimensional organization of humans or octopi. > > to Nick— > > Beware blatant anthropomorphism (applied to both Dave and Dusty) > > Dave is sleepy and calm. > Dusty is anxious and afraid. > Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security. > Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed. > Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her back > and lets her stay as she is. > Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep. > > Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series of > prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between the two > and absent that state the interactions and 'feelings; as presented would not > have occurred. But, perhaps Dave is just an (occasionally) good Buddhist > showing Dusty the same respect he would express to any living being? > > davew > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, at 7:02 PM, steve smith wrote: >> >> >> Nick - >> >> (of course) I've larded up my usual style of response below (maybe only for >> my own need to "express" the buildup of mental-pus that comes with >> everything I hear here and elsewhere) but to save you (and anyone else who >> cares) the burden of parsing a few dozen lines of back-and-forth, I offer >> the punchline. If you are curious about how I came to said (vaguely) >> concise punchline you can read the rest after the <horizontal line> element >> below: >> >> A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you would >> acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a >> (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or a >> brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what are the >> implications of this? or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into >> "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or >> appealing? >> >> Steve >> >> If FriAM typical discourse is the Thunderstorm, is this a (weak) cuddle? >> >> >> >>> Steve, >>> >>> The scale of your response alone suggests that it cannot be baby steps. >> Thus recognizing it was more of a baby (naive) pentathalon (long, arduous >> and multi-modal) hellride of a traverse through the implied space. >> >>> >>> I guess I am proposing a method here, one inn we work outward from an >>> evocative experience to explore our understandings of contraversial >>> concepts, and that we do it in relatively short bursts. >> yes, let us extrude short strands of noodle and see how they criss-cross. >>> >>> **Dusty comes to cuddle with David when she hears thunder.** >>> **Does Dusty love David?** >> Dave (or does he self-identify as David?) loves Dusty and finds Dusty's >> cuddling sufficiently similar/familiar to his own cuddling to attribute it >> to love if he is in the mood to do so. >>> If yes, what else would you expect Dusty to do with respect to David. >>> given you have made that attribution. >>> If no, what more would have Dusty have to do, before you would make such an >>> attribution. >> Qualified yes... Dusty could cower under the bed, leaving Dave to choose >> to coax Dusty out and cuddle Dusty, giving Dusty the "love" or at least >> comfort which Dave would offer as the closest cross-species expression of >> love he knows how to offer in this moment. Dave loves Dusty, Dusty >> dog-loves Dave. They are reciprocal but asymmetric in quality, even if >> either would give their lives for the other? >>> I would like to respond to an inference that there is something patronizing >>> about my insisting on a method, as if I think you need thought-therapy and >>> I am the guy to give it. >> If in fact you were to have intended (consciously or not) as patronizing, I >> take it as an gesture of love, of filial empathy, of generous guidance from >> someone who has been around at least as many trees as I have... I >> definitely need or seek thought/spiritual therapy/guaidance from every >> quarter, including this one. >>> In reply, I only would say that if somebody were willing to ask me short, >>> to-the-point questions about my thinking on any matter and explore >>> carefully my answers, I would eternally grateful. I might even cuddle >>> with them in a thunderstorm. >> I would choose to give you this level of fine-grain attention around your >> fascination with vortices in the context of meteorology (and other domains) >> more than this domain, but if this is the one you prefer (for the moment), >> let me ask a short, three-part but to-the-point question (and leave it to >> you to ignore the fecundly laden pregnant assumptions hidden by the implied >> simplicity of the construction): >> >> _A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you would >> acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a >> (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or a >> brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what are the >> implications of this? or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into >> "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or >> appealing?_ >> >> Steve >> >> Steve >> >>> >>> NIck >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:05 PM steve smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: >>>> Nick - >>>> >>>> I'm glad you acknowledged (in another branch of this thread?) the >>>> "grumpiness" aspect of your initiation/participation in this thread. Your >>>> analogy around thought/feeling "expression" and that of pimple popping is >>>> in fact very apt if a bit graphic. I do think many of us want this >>>> apparently deeply thorny/paradoxical problem to be easier than it is? >>>> And the plethora of complexly subtle dis/mis-agreements on language around >>>> consciousness, intelligence, cognition, (self) awareness, qualia >>>> complicates that yet more. >>>> >>>> I don't know if my own baby-steps are helpful, given that my >>>> background/perspective might align more with DaveW than most others here >>>> (I'm very sympathetic with a pan-consciousness perspective)? maybe it >>>> parses as baby-babble more than baby-steps... >>>> >>>>> I missed most of this (and related) threads but am surprised at where >>>>> this seems to be going. I always associated consciousness with subjective >>>>> experience and not necessarily with self awareness. The "hard problem of >>>>> consciousness" is qualia, not self-awareness. No? An AI agent cannot >>>>> understand language on anything other than a superficial basis because it >>>>> has no idea what, for example "wet," means. Nevertheless, it will be >>>>> quite good at stringing words together that say coherent things about >>>>> wetness. An AI agent has no *idea *about anything. At the same time, an >>>>> AI agent will be quite good at creating coherent statements about very >>>>> many things. Just because an AI agent is able to create coherent >>>>> statements does not mean that those statements reflect the agent's >>>>> ideas--since it has no ideas. >>>>> >>>> Russ's point here is a good pivot point for me in this conversation if it >>>> is possible to make the pivot. It may not be. >>>> >>>> Knowing and Knowing-About: >>>> >>>>> I use the former to be the quality of qualia... not easily >>>>> formalizeable nor quantifiable nor with obvious models which are not >>>>> intrinsically subjective. "Knowing-About" is for me reserved for the >>>>> formalized models of "facts about the world and relations between ideas" >>>>> and when I say "formalized" I don't preclude storytelling or the highly >>>>> vilified "just so stories". >>>>> >>>>> Formalized mathematical, statistical, logical models with digital >>>>> computer simulations (or analog electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, >>>>> pneumatic "circuits" or "systems") are "knowing about"... a steam train >>>>> for example embodies "knowing about" converting carbon-fuel into linear >>>>> motion across long distances, carrying heavy loads by way of many >>>>> repeatable mechanisms... the implementation and operation of such a >>>>> device/system is a "proof" in some sense of the design. >>>>> >>>>> On top of that design/system are other design/systems (say the logic of >>>>> Railroad Robber Baronages) upon which yet other systems (say >>>>> Industrial-revolution era proto-hyper-capitalism) on top of which rides >>>>> trans-global corporatism and nationalism in their own "gyre and gimbal" >>>>> with a in intra-stellar and eventually inter-stellar variation in the >>>>> sense of Asimov's Foundation and Empire or perhaps for the youth culture >>>>> here (under 60?) George Lucas' Star Wars Empire or Roddenberry's Star >>>>> Trek Federation vs ??? >>>>> >>>> Consciousness: >>>> >>>>> A the lowest level consciousness or perhaps proto-consciousness registers >>>>> for me as "having a model of the world useful for guiding behaviour >>>>> toward surviving/thriving/reproducing/collectivizing". This permeates >>>>> all of life from somewhere down at the single-celled >>>>> bacteria/archaea/fungi/phyto-thingies/ up to and through >>>>> vertebrates/mammals/hominids/sapiens >>>>> >>>>> On the reflection of whether my cat or dog, or the hummingbirds outside >>>>> my window or the mice trying to sneak back into my house have >>>>> "consciousness", or even more pointedly the mosquito I slapped into a >>>>> blood (my blood by the way) spot on my forearm last night, have >>>>> "consciousness"... while each of these appear to have a "consciousness" >>>>> I know it to be variously more or less familiar to my own. My elaborate >>>>> (unfettered?) imagination allows me to make up (just so?) stories about >>>>> how cetaceans, cephalapods, jellyfish all variously have aspects of their >>>>> "consciousness' that I could (do?) recognize (empathize with?). So I >>>>> would want a multivalued function with at least two simple scalars: >>>>> Familiarity-to-Me(Conscioiusness) and Potency-of(Consciousness), pick >>>>> your scale... my identical twin or maybe conjoined twin might max out on >>>>> the first scale while a nematode or a bacterium might trail off toward >>>>> nil on the first AND second scale. And beyond the scale of organic life >>>>> into artificial life and beyond, the "familiarity" of a glider or >>>>> oscillator in the GameO'Life or the braided rings of Saturn, even less >>>>> significant but not zero? The Potency-scale seems to be something like >>>>> *agency* which feels absolute for most of us except Robert Sapolsky while >>>>> the *agency* of an electron or neutrino seems registered at *absolute >>>>> zero*, though the Quantum Consciousness folks maybe put it at max and our >>>>> own more an illusive projection of that? >>>>> >>>>> The idea of "collective individuation" (e.g. mashup of Eleanor Ostrom's >>>>> collectives and Jung's individuation) suggests that perception, >>>>> cognition, intelligence, even consciousness may well be a collective >>>>> phenomena. Our organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, >>>>> CHON++ molecules, atoms, baryons/fermions, quarks, strings, branes are >>>>> on a loose hierarchy of diminishing Familiarity-Consciousness and >>>>> Potency-Consciousness. I'm more interested (these days) in the emergent >>>>> collective consciousness of the noosphere and perhaps the symbiotic >>>>> culture of humanity and life-at-all-scales (SCHLAAS?) it feels wild and >>>>> science-fictiony to assert that earth's biosphere has already (in the >>>>> last 150 years) conjured a nervous system, a global-brain (ala Francis >>>>> Heylighen: Global Brain Institute) >>>>> >>>>> https://globalbraininstitute.org/ with "our own" Bollen, Joslyn, >>>>> Rodriguez still on the Board of Technical Advisors. I scoffed at this >>>>> somewhat 25 years ago (mostly because of the hubris of "Global" and >>>>> "Brain"). >>>>> >>>> OK Nick, so not "baby steps" more like a hyper-baby's mad dash through an >>>> obstacle course or maybe a pentathalon? I tried shunting all this to >>>> George Tremblay IVo but he referred me to Gussie Tumbleroot who cheered me >>>> on on my careening ideational orbits. >>>> >>>> Gurgle, >>>> >>>> - Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- Russ Abbott >>>>> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science >>>>> California State University, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Glen, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a test to illustrate somethiing about Gmail to Nick. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 4:37 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On July 9, 2024 2:04:29 PM PDT, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Maybe I should not be replying, as I do believe my dogs (and your cat >>>>>>>> if you have one) are conscious. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have not experienced a Vulcan Mind-Meld with either of my dogs, so I >>>>>>>> cannot say with certainty they are conscious—I must infer it from >>>>>>>> observations: >>>>>>>> 1- interactions with other dogs would seem to indicate they "remember" >>>>>>>> past interactions and do not require the same butt-sniffing protocol >>>>>>>> with dogs they have met at the park frequently. Also they seem to >>>>>>>> remember who plays with who and who doesn't. "That ball is not mine, >>>>>>>> this one is." >>>>>>>> 2-they modify their behavior depending on the tenor, sharpness, and >>>>>>>> volume of barks, ear positions, tail wagging differences, by the other >>>>>>>> dogs; e.g., "that's enough." >>>>>>>> 3-They do not communicate to me in English, but seem to accept >>>>>>>> communication from me in that language—not trained responses to >>>>>>>> commands, but "listening to conversations" between myself and Mary and >>>>>>>> reacting to words (e.g., dog park) that are exchanged in those >>>>>>>> conversations. Mary and I are totally sedentary and speaking in >>>>>>>> conversational tone, so pretty sure there we are not sending 'signals' >>>>>>>> akin to training words, training tone of voice. >>>>>>>> 4-they seem to remember trauma, (one of our dogs spent three days with >>>>>>>> dead owner before anyone knew the owner was deceased and will bite if >>>>>>>> anyone tries to forcefully remove him from my (current bonded owner) >>>>>>>> presence. >>>>>>>> 5-seek "psychological comfort" by crawling into my bed and sleeping on >>>>>>>> my shoulder when the thunderstorm comes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **_All of these are grounded in anthropomorphism—long considered a >>>>>>>> deadly error by ethologists._** (Some contemporary ethologists are >>>>>>>> exploring accepting and leveraging this "error" to extend our >>>>>>>> understanding of animal behavior.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> davew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> While I find all the ancillary considerations raised on the original >>>>>>>>> thread extremely interesting, I would like to reopen the discussion >>>>>>>>> of Conscious as a Mystery and ask that those that join it stay close >>>>>>>>> to the question of what consciousness is and how we know it when we >>>>>>>>> see it. Baby Steps. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where were we? I think I was asking Jochen, and perhaps Peitr and >>>>>>>>> anybody else who thought that animals were not conscious (i.e., not >>>>>>>>> aware of their own awareness) what basis they had in experience for >>>>>>>>> thinking that.. One offering for such an experience is the absence >>>>>>>>> of language in animals. Because my cat cannot describe his >>>>>>>>> experience in words, he cannot be conscious. This requires the >>>>>>>>> following syllogism: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing that does not employ a language (or two?) is conscious. >>>>>>>>> Animals (with ;the possible exception of signing apes) do not employ >>>>>>>>> languages. >>>>>>>>> Ergo, Animals are not conscious. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I was trying to find out the basis for the first premise. How do >>>>>>>>> we know that there are no non-linguistic beings that are not >>>>>>>>> conscious. I hope we could rule out the answer,"because they are >>>>>>>>> non-linguistic", both in its strictly tautological or merely >>>>>>>>> circular form. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a closely related syllogism which we also need to explore: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All language using beings are conscious. >>>>>>>>> George Peter Tremblay IV is a language-using being. >>>>>>>>> George Peter Tremblay IV is conscious. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Both are valid syllogisms. But where do the premises come from. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>>>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Frank Wimberly >>>>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>>>> 505 670-9918 >>>>>> >>>>>> Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 >>>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>> >>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>> >>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > *Attachments:* > • smime.p7s
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
