Why this distinction for dogs? These things would apply to people too.
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 3:29 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
Oh, so, for instance,
Would you speak to your dog?
Would you expect your dog to under stand you when you speak, some of the time?
Would you see your dog's behavior as going in a direction?
Would you believe that some things give your dog pleasure and others pain..
Would you see your dog as having behaviors designed to convey pleasure and pain.
etc, etc.
NIck
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:26 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi, Jochen,
I haven't read the paper, so grain of salt, here. Anybody who has dealt with a
bittersweet vine knows that plants can do plenty. The question about plants
seems to me to be more one of whether each plant is a unit. We tend not to
attribute consciousness to things we eat, so, to that extent, I am suspicious
of the assertion that all plants are not at all conscious. (Hmmmm. I wonder
if the Chinese think that dogs are conscious.}
But I am not so much interested at the moment in the boundaries of attrribution
as I am in its heartland. What are we getting at when we make these
attributions in ordinary day to day talk.
Imagine both you and I had dogs. I imagine that we would behave toward our
dogs in very similar ways. Yet, on your earlier comments, you would see them
as non-conscious and I would seem them as conscious. What difference does this
attribution make in our behavor, do you suppose. If there is no difference,
then the Pragmatist would accuse us of arguing over metaphysics.
Nick
On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and no muscles and do not move
they have no "patterns of doings" and therefore no consciousness. There is a
paper from Taiz et al. which argues plants neither possess nor require consciousness.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing Cockatoos and the Dead Man
Test: How Behavior Evolves and Why It Matters" from Marlene Zuk
https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
Date: 7/13/24 3:34 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
I have no trouble stipulating that consciousness is a degree-thing so long as
we understand it with reference to patterns of doings rather than in terms of
the equipment organisms carry around.
Nick
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
The dictionary defines intelligence as the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or
trying situations. H.G. Wells says in his book "The Time Machine" that "There is no
intelligence where there is no change and no need of change. Only those animals partake of
intelligence that have to meet a huge variety of needs and dangers." LLMs are the result of
endless training cycles and they show amazing levels of intelligence. Apparently there is a
relation between learning and intelligence.
I think languages and codes are more essential to understand self-awareness and
consciousness because consciousness and self-awareness are a side effect of
language acquisition which allows to bypass the blind spot of the inability to
perceive the own self.
Maybe Steve and Dave are correct that there is a spectrum of consciousness:
plants have 1 bit of consciousness because they are aware of sunshine and water
levels in the environment. Animals have 2 bits of consciousness because they
are additionally aware of predators and food sources in the environment.
Primates have 3 bits of consciousness because they are aware of injustice and
inequalities (e.g. by being jealous). Humans have the most bits of
consciousness because of language and self-awareness. Wheeler's it from bit
comes to mind.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Pieter Steenekamp <piet...@randcontrols.co.za
<mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za> >
Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
Jochen,
Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging post! It's never too late for a good
discussion, even if we sometimes get distracted by the call of daily life (or
perhaps the allure of a particularly captivating cat video).
Your points on the necessity of language for meta-awareness and the intriguing idea of
the "blind spot" of self-perception are fascinating. However, I’d like to
suggest a slight pivot in our focus. Rather than concentrating on consciousness per se,
why not delve into the realm of intelligence?
Why, you might ask? Well, what we're really curious about is what’s going on in
our heads when we're conscious. I'd rather frame it as exploring what’s
happening when we think. This shift allows us to focus on understanding
intelligence, which is arguably more tangible and easier to study objectively.
Imagine we endeavor to create intelligent AI. By doing so, we can define
intelligence, observe it externally, and measure it objectively. This aligns
with Karl Popper's idea that for something to be considered scientific, it
should be falsifiable. Now, while I don't entirely subscribe to the notion that
everything in research must be falsifiable (after all, some of the best
discoveries come from uncharted territories), there's undeniable merit in
having a testable hypothesis.
Studying consciousness often leads us into murky waters where our findings
might not be easily falsifiable. On the other hand, examining intelligence –
with its overlap with consciousness – offers us the chance to make objective,
external observations that could ultimately shed light on the very nature of
consciousness itself.
In the end, by focusing on intelligence, we might just find ourselves
uncovering the secrets of consciousness as a delightful side effect. It’s a bit
like trying to understand a cat's behavior by studying its fascination with
cardboard boxes – the journey is just as enlightening as the destination.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
Pieter
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 00:06, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
Please excuse the late response, I was distracted a bit.
What is the reason that one or more languages are essential for meta awareness?
I guess we all agree that all animals know their environment and are aware of
it. This is necessary to move around in it, to find food and to avoid
predators. Their biological blueprint can be found in their DNA.
Therefore one language is necessary for the (DNA) code to specify an actor
which is embedded in a world and able to move around in it. Beings who are
embedded in an environment can perceive everything except themselves because
the own self is the center of all perceptions that can not be perceived itself.
As observers we are always attached to our own bodies. The own person is the
blind spot which a person is unable to see or hear clearly.
A second language is necessary to get access to the world of language and to
move around in it. It is not necessary for salmons who come back to the stream
where they were born (they use smell to do this) or for ants who follow
pheromones to find the shortest path to tasty food sources. But it is necessary
for us to become aware of ourself because it allows us to remove the
limitations of the blind spot. To consider ourself as an object of reflection
requires the ability to perceive ourself in the first place.
Paradoxically it is the blind spot of the inability to perceive the own self that makes the
"I" special. As Gilbert Ryle writes in his book "the concept of mind" on page
198
"‘I’, in my use of it, always indicates me and only indicates me. ‘You’, ‘she’ and
‘they’ indicate different people at different times. ‘I’ is like my ownshadow; I can
never get away from it, as I can get away from your shadow. There is no mystery about
this constancy, but I mention it because it seems to endow ‘I’ with a mystifying
uniqueness and adhesiveness."
Is this a baby step in the right direction? I am not sure.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
Date: 7/8/24 11:20 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
i am moved by the romance and beauty of your account, but ultimately left
hungry for experiences I can put my foot on.
You and I are clearly inclined to disagree, and I was raised to experience
disagreement as a discomfort.. So how then are we to precede. I think, not
withstandijng Goethe and Cervantes, that baby steps is the only way. Of course,
you might be citing Goethe and Cervantes as authorities on the matter, in which
case I can only reply, perhaps blushing slightly at my own callousness, that
they are not so for me.
So, what facts of the matter convince you that one or more languages are
essential for meta awareess. Or is it elf-evident
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:49 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
IMHO it is not one language which is necessary, but more than one. Languages
can be used to create worlds, to move around it them, and to share these wolds
with others. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling have created whole universes. The
interesting things happen if worlds collide, if they merge and melt, or if they
drift apart.
Cervantes in Spain, Goethe in Germany and Dante in Italy helped to create new
languages - Spanish, German and Italian, respectively. They also examined in
their most famous books what happens if worlds collide.
Cervantes describes in "Don Quixote"
what happens when imaginary and real worlds collide and are so out of sync that
the actors are getting lost.
Goethe decribes in his "Faust" what happens when collective and individual worlds
collide, i.e. when egoistic individuals exploit the world selfishly for their own benefit (in his
first book "The sorrows of young Werther" Goethe focused like Fontane and Freud on the
opposite).
Dante describes in his "Divine Comedy"
what happens when worlds diverge and people are excluded and expelled from the
world.
Language is necessary for self awareness because it provides the building
blocks for a new world which is connected but also independent from the old
one. This allows new dimensions of interactions. The connections between worlds
matter. A label is a simple connection between a word in one world and an class
of objects in another. A metaphor is a more complex connection between an
abstract idea and a composition of objects, etc.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
Date: 7/7/24 5:13 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
I think of large language models as the most embodied things on the planet, but
let that go for a moment. Back to baby steps.
Can you lay out for me why you believe that language is essential to
self-awareness. Does that believe arise from ideology, authority, or some set
of facts I need to take account of. To be honest here, I should say where I am
coming from. A lot of my so-called career was spent railing against circular
reasoning in evolutionary theory and psychology. So, if language is essential
to self-awareness, and animals do not have language, then it indeed follows
that animals do not have self-awareness. But what if our method for detecting
self awareness requires language? Now we are in a loop. Are we in such a loop,
or are there facts of some matter, independent of language, convince you that
animals are not self-aware. Is self awareness extricable from language?
It is an old old trope that animals are automata but that humans have soul. Descartes
swore by it. Is "language" the new soul?
Nick
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:29 AM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
I would say cats, dogs and horses don't have meta-awareness because they lack language.
They live in the present moment, in the here and now. Without language they do not have
the capability to reflect on their past or to think about their future. They can not
formulate stories of themselves which could help to form a sense of identity. Language is
the mirror in which we perceive ourselves during "this is me" moments. Animals
lack this mirror completely. One dimensional scents trails do not count as language.
Large languages models lack consciousness because they do not have a body which
is embedded as a actor in an environment. These two things are necessary: the
physical world of bodies, and the mental world of language. When both collide
in the same spot we can get consciousness.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
Date: 7/6/24 5:05 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
Well, that's because Socrates claimed not to know what he thought, and since I
genuinely don[t know what I think until I work it out, the conversation has the
same quality. I apologize for that. my students found it truly distressing.
So, if you will indulge me, why don't you think your cat has meta=awareness?
Authority, ideology, or is there some experience you have had that leads you to think
that. It would be kind of odd if it she didn't because animals have all sorts of ways
of distinguishing self from other. They have ways of knowinng that "I did
that". (e.g., scent marking?)
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:19 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
Well yes, if meta-awareness is defined as acting in response to one's own
awareness then I would say animals like a cat don't have it but humans have. As
an example I could say this almost feels like I am a participant in a dialogue
from Plato...
I would be surprised if it can be described in simple terms. If the essence of
consciousness is subjective experience then it is indeed hard to describe by a
theory although there are many attempts. Persons who perceive things
differently are wired differently. And what is more subjective than the
perception of oneself?
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/
If we can describe it mathematically then probably as a way an information
feels if it is processed in complex ways, ad infinitum like the orbits of a
strange attractor.
https://chaoticatmospheres.com/mathrules-strange-attractors
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
Date: 7/5/24 6:56 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
,
Great! Baby steps. "If we aren't moving slowly, we aren't moving." So, can I define
some new terms, tentatively, per explorandum ? Let's call acting-in-respect-to-the-world,
"awareness". Allowing this definition, we certainly seem to agree that the cat is
aware. Lets define meta-awareness as acting i respect to one's own awareness. Now, am I correct
in assuming that you identify meta-awareness with consciousness and that you think that the cat is
not meta-aware and that I probably am? And further that you think that meta-awareness requires
consciousness?
Nick
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:17 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
I would say a cat is conscious in the sense that it is aware of its immediate
environment. Cats are nocturnal animals who hunt at night and mostly sleep
during the day. Consciousness in the sense of being aware of oneself as an
actor in an environment requires understanding of language which only humans
have ( and LLMs now )
https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>
Date: 7/5/24 5:02 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
Jochen,
I think the first step in any conversation is to decide whether your cat is conscious.
If so, why do you think so; if not, likewise. I had a facinnationg conversation with
GBT about whether he was conscious and he denied it "hotly", which, of course,
met one of his criteria for consciousness.
So. Is your cat connscious?
Nick
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net> > wrote:
I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to school, from
Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all kinds of languages,
and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will be the same for AI: first
we spend millions and millions to train them all available knowledge, and then
we wonder how they can develop understanding of language and consciousness...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
-J.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
Why this distinction for dogs? These things would apply to people too.
*From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Thompson
*Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2024 3:29 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
Thought
Oh, so, for instance,
Would you speak to your dog?
Would you expect your dog to under stand you when you speak, some of the time?
Would you see your dog's behavior as going in a direction?
Would you believe that some things give your dog pleasure and others pain..
Would you see your dog as having behaviors designed to convey pleasure and pain.
etc, etc.
NIck
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:26 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi, Jochen,
I haven't read the paper, so grain of salt, here. Anybody who has dealt
with a bittersweet vine knows that plants can do plenty. The question about
plants seems to me to be more one of whether each plant is a unit. We tend not
to attribute consciousness to things we eat, so, to that extent, I am
suspicious of the assertion that all plants are not at all conscious. (Hmmmm.
I wonder if the Chinese think that dogs are conscious.}
But I am not so much interested at the moment in the boundaries of
attrribution as I am in its heartland. What are we getting at when we make
these attributions in ordinary day to day talk.
Imagine both you and I had dogs. I imagine that we would behave toward
our dogs in very similar ways. Yet, on your earlier comments, you would see
them as non-conscious and I would seem them as conscious. What difference does
this attribution make in our behavor, do you suppose. If there is no
difference, then the Pragmatist would accuse us of arguing over metaphysics.
Nick
On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and no muscles and do not
move they have no "patterns of doings" and therefore no consciousness. There is
a paper from Taiz et al. which argues plants neither possess nor require consciousness.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d>
I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing Cockatoos and the Dead
Man Test: How Behavior Evolves and Why It Matters" from Marlene Zuk
https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test
<https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test>
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
Date: 7/13/24 3:34 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
Thought
I have no trouble stipulating that consciousness is a degree-thing so
long as we understand it with reference to patterns of doings rather than in
terms of the equipment organisms carry around.
Nick
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
The dictionary defines intelligence as the ability to learn or understand or to deal
with new or trying situations. H.G. Wells says in his book "The Time Machine" that
"There is no intelligence where there is no change and no need of change. Only those animals
partake of intelligence that have to meet a huge variety of needs and dangers." LLMs are the
result of endless training cycles and they show amazing levels of intelligence. Apparently there is
a relation between learning and intelligence.
I think languages and codes are more essential to understand
self-awareness and consciousness because consciousness and self-awareness are a
side effect of language acquisition which allows to bypass the blind spot of
the inability to perceive the own self.
Maybe Steve and Dave are correct that there is a spectrum of
consciousness: plants have 1 bit of consciousness because they are aware of
sunshine and water levels in the environment. Animals have 2 bits of
consciousness because they are additionally aware of predators and food sources
in the environment. Primates have 3 bits of consciousness because they are
aware of injustice and inequalities (e.g. by being jealous). Humans have the
most bits of consciousness because of language and self-awareness. Wheeler's it
from bit comes to mind.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Pieter Steenekamp <piet...@randcontrols.co.za
<mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>>
Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper
Than We Thought
Jochen,
Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging post! It's never too
late for a good discussion, even if we sometimes get distracted by the call of
daily life (or perhaps the allure of a particularly captivating cat video).
Your points on the necessity of language for meta-awareness and the
intriguing idea of the "blind spot" of self-perception are fascinating.
However, I’d like to suggest a slight pivot in our focus. Rather than concentrating on
consciousness per se, why not delve into the realm of intelligence?
Why, you might ask? Well, what we're really curious about is what’s
going on in our heads when we're conscious. I'd rather frame it as exploring
what’s happening when we think. This shift allows us to focus on understanding
intelligence, which is arguably more tangible and easier to study objectively.
Imagine we endeavor to create intelligent AI. By doing so, we can
define intelligence, observe it externally, and measure it objectively. This
aligns with Karl Popper's idea that for something to be considered scientific,
it should be falsifiable. Now, while I don't entirely subscribe to the notion
that everything in research must be falsifiable (after all, some of the best
discoveries come from uncharted territories), there's undeniable merit in
having a testable hypothesis.
Studying consciousness often leads us into murky waters where our
findings might not be easily falsifiable. On the other hand, examining
intelligence – with its overlap with consciousness – offers us the chance to
make objective, external observations that could ultimately shed light on the
very nature of consciousness itself.
In the end, by focusing on intelligence, we might just find
ourselves uncovering the secrets of consciousness as a delightful side effect.
It’s a bit like trying to understand a cat's behavior by studying its
fascination with cardboard boxes – the journey is just as enlightening as the
destination.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
Pieter
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 00:06, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
Please excuse the late response, I was distracted a bit.
What is the reason that one or more languages are essential for
meta awareness? I guess we all agree that all animals know their environment
and are aware of it. This is necessary to move around in it, to find food and
to avoid predators. Their biological blueprint can be found in their DNA.
Therefore one language is necessary for the (DNA) code to
specify an actor which is embedded in a world and able to move around in it.
Beings who are embedded in an environment can perceive everything except
themselves because the own self is the center of all perceptions that can not
be perceived itself. As observers we are always attached to our own bodies. The
own person is the blind spot which a person is unable to see or hear clearly.
A second language is necessary to get access to the world of
language and to move around in it. It is not necessary for salmons who come
back to the stream where they were born (they use smell to do this) or for ants
who follow pheromones to find the shortest path to tasty food sources. But it
is necessary for us to become aware of ourself because it allows us to remove
the limitations of the blind spot. To consider ourself as an object of
reflection requires the ability to perceive ourself in the first place.
Paradoxically it is the blind spot of the inability to perceive the own self that
makes the "I" special. As Gilbert Ryle writes in his book "the concept of mind"
on page 198
"‘I’, in my use of it, always indicates me and only indicates me.
‘You’, ‘she’ and ‘they’ indicate different people at different times. ‘I’ is like my
ownshadow; I can never get away from it, as I can get away from your shadow. There is no
mystery about this constancy, but I mention it because it seems to endow ‘I’ with a
mystifying uniqueness and adhesiveness."
Is this a baby step in the right direction? I am not sure.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
Date: 7/8/24 11:20 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper
Than We Thought
i am moved by the romance and beauty of your account, but
ultimately left hungry for experiences I can put my foot on.
You and I are clearly inclined to disagree, and I was raised to
experience disagreement as a discomfort.. So how then are we to precede. I
think, not withstandijng Goethe and Cervantes, that baby steps is the only way.
Of course, you might be citing Goethe and Cervantes as authorities on the
matter, in which case I can only reply, perhaps blushing slightly at my own
callousness, that they are not so for me.
So, what facts of the matter convince you that one or more
languages are essential for meta awareess. Or is it elf-evident
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:49 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
IMHO it is not one language which is necessary, but more
than one. Languages can be used to create worlds, to move around it them, and
to share these wolds with others. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling have created whole
universes. The interesting things happen if worlds collide, if they merge and
melt, or if they drift apart.
Cervantes in Spain, Goethe in Germany and Dante in Italy
helped to create new languages - Spanish, German and Italian, respectively.
They also examined in their most famous books what happens if worlds collide.
Cervantes describes in "Don Quixote"
what happens when imaginary and real worlds collide and are
so out of sync that the actors are getting lost.
Goethe decribes in his "Faust" what happens when collective and
individual worlds collide, i.e. when egoistic individuals exploit the world selfishly for their own
benefit (in his first book "The sorrows of young Werther" Goethe focused like Fontane and
Freud on the opposite).
Dante describes in his "Divine Comedy"
what happens when worlds diverge and people are excluded
and expelled from the world.
Language is necessary for self awareness because it
provides the building blocks for a new world which is connected but also
independent from the old one. This allows new dimensions of interactions. The
connections between worlds matter. A label is a simple connection between a
word in one world and an class of objects in another. A metaphor is a more
complex connection between an abstract idea and a composition of objects, etc.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
Date: 7/7/24 5:13 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is
Deeper Than We Thought
I think of large language models as the most embodied
things on the planet, but let that go for a moment. Back to baby steps.
Can you lay out for me why you believe that language is
essential to self-awareness. Does that believe arise from ideology, authority,
or some set of facts I need to take account of. To be honest here, I should
say where I am coming from. A lot of my so-called career was spent railing
against circular reasoning in evolutionary theory and psychology. So, if
language is essential to self-awareness, and animals do not have language, then
it indeed follows that animals do not have self-awareness. But what if our
method for detecting self awareness requires language? Now we are in a loop.
Are we in such a loop, or are there facts of some matter, independent of
language, convince you that animals are not self-aware. Is self awareness
extricable from language?
It is an old old trope that animals are automata but that humans have
soul. Descartes swore by it. Is "language" the new soul?
Nick
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:29 AM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
I would say cats, dogs and horses don't have meta-awareness
because they lack language. They live in the present moment, in the here and now. Without
language they do not have the capability to reflect on their past or to think about their
future. They can not formulate stories of themselves which could help to form a sense of
identity. Language is the mirror in which we perceive ourselves during "this is
me" moments. Animals lack this mirror completely. One dimensional scents trails do
not count as language.
Large languages models lack consciousness because they
do not have a body which is embedded as a actor in an environment. These two
things are necessary: the physical world of bodies, and the mental world of
language. When both collide in the same spot we can get consciousness.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
Date: 7/6/24 5:05 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness
Is Deeper Than We Thought
Well, that's because Socrates claimed not to know what
he thought, and since I genuinely don[t know what I think until I work it out,
the conversation has the same quality. I apologize for that. my students
found it truly distressing.
So, if you will indulge me, why don't you think your cat has
meta=awareness? Authority, ideology, or is there some experience you have had that
leads you to think that. It would be kind of odd if it she didn't because animals have
all sorts of ways of distinguishing self from other. They have ways of knowinng that
"I did that". (e.g., scent marking?)
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:19 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net
<mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
Well yes, if meta-awareness is defined as acting in
response to one's own awareness then I would say animals like a cat don't have
it but humans have. As an example I could say this almost feels like I am a
participant in a dialogue from Plato...
I would be surprised if it can be described in
simple terms. If the essence of consciousness is subjective experience then it
is indeed hard to describe by a theory although there are many attempts.
Persons who perceive things differently are wired differently. And what is more
subjective than the perception of oneself?
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/
<https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/>
If we can describe it mathematically then probably
as a way an information feels if it is processed in complex ways, ad infinitum
like the orbits of a strange attractor.
https://chaoticatmospheres.com/mathrules-strange-attractors
<https://chaoticatmospheres.com/mathrules-strange-attractors>
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
Date: 7/5/24 6:56 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of
Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
,
Great! Baby steps. "If we aren't moving slowly, we aren't
moving." So, can I define some new terms, tentatively, /per explorandum/ ? Let's call
acting-in-respect-to-the-world, "awareness". Allowing this definition, we certainly
seem to agree that the cat is aware. Lets define meta-awareness as acting i respect to one's own
awareness. Now, am I correct in assuming that you identify meta-awareness with consciousness and
that you think that the cat is not meta-aware and that I probably am? And further that you think
that meta-awareness requires consciousness?
Nick
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:17 PM Jochen Fromm
<j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
I would say a cat is conscious in the sense
that it is aware of its immediate environment. Cats are nocturnal animals who
hunt at night and mostly sleep during the day. Consciousness in the sense of
being aware of oneself as an actor in an environment requires understanding of
language which only humans have ( and LLMs now )
https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/
<https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/>
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>>
Date: 7/5/24 5:02 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of
Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
Jochen,
/I think the first step in any conversation is to decide
whether your cat is conscious. If so, why do you think so; if not, likewise. I had a
facinnationg conversation with GBT about whether he was conscious and he denied it
"hotly", which, of course, met one of his criteria for consciousness. /
/So. Is your cat connscious?/
/Nick /
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm
<j...@cas-group.net <mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:
I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our
children 20 years to school, from Kindergarten to college and university, to
teach them all kinds of languages, and then we wonder how they can be
conscious. It will be the same for AI: first we spend millions and millions to
train them all available knowledge, and then we wonder how they can develop
understanding of language and consciousness...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/>
-J.
