Somehow this reminds me of the old joke, "Heavenly Father, how do I know that I exist?" "And who is asking?" Seriously, I used to say to Nick that my consciousness is the first thing that I know and the only thing that I know exists with absolute certainty.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 12:22 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: > Since I am not a native speaker my understanding of consciousness is > probably a bit different and less finely nuanced :-( For me the meaning 2) > "Subjective consciousness" and 3) "Self-consciousness" mentioned in this > article are the most interesting ones > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/theory-of-knowledge/202407/unpacking-the-consciousness-suitcase > > I have not thought of consciousness as the result of a bilateral > interaction before, as an experience of an other responding to me. > Fascinating. I thought it was the other way round: I am responding to an > "other" and experience it as myself. You mean if my buddy (for instance my > dog) is conscious of me and I am conscious of him we are as a pair somehow > self-conscious? Interesting. > > It reminds me of Julian Jaynes who argued in "The Origin of Consciousness > in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" that consciousness emerged after > people in ancient civilizations stopped to believe in divine hallucinations > and started to recognize the inner voice as the own self. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind > > > -J. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> > Date: 7/16/24 6:59 PM (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We > Thought > > My goal, which I admit is developing on the fly, is to seek commonalty in > our thinking about consciousness by exploring and perhaps adjusting our > usage of terms with respect to common day to day experiences with > potentially conscious others. > > For instance: I think you said early on that you did not think your > "buddies" were conscious. I would be really startled if they were not. To > come to some sort of common view, including possibly a common view of our > different views, we would explore the experiences that come to our minds > when we think about buddies and conscious things. For instance, I think > of consciousness of me as being marked by experience of an other > responding to me. I think of a buddy, as an other who is particularly > responsive to me in some particular area. A golf buddy is somebody who is > responsive to my desire to play golf (shudder) but not so responsive, say, > to my desire to do philosophy of science. We don't discuss politics. > Since both consciousness and buddy hood imply experiences of > responsiveness, it is difficult for me to square your use of "buddy" with > your use of "non-conscious". I am hoping that further examples will help > us see where the discordance arises. > > Nick > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:40 PM Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: > >> I am not sure what your goal is here. If we speak to our pets like >> chickens, cats, dogs, or horses and expect them to understand us then we >> are ascribe human attributes to them. They can feel our mood and recognize >> certain words but they do not understand language. Giving animal names is >> already a first step of an anthropomorphization, isn't it? >> >> Would we eat a schnitzel if there is a sign in the supermarket which says >> this meat is from Paul the happy pig from Idaho with a picture next to it? >> Probably not. We suppress the idea that the meat we eat comes from a living >> being which is aware of its environment and feels pleasure and pain as we >> do. >> >> The meat we eat comes from unknown and unnamed animals, whereas we know >> our pets well and give them names, because they are our buddies and >> companions. In principle we should all be vegetarians, but I must admit >> occasionally I like to eat a schnitzel as well. >> >> -J. >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> >> Date: 7/16/24 12:30 AM (GMT+01:00) >> 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> 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> 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> >>>> Date: 7/13/24 3:34 AM (GMT+01:00) >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>> 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> >>>> 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> >>>>> Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00) >>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>>> 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> 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> >>>>>> Date: 7/8/24 11:20 PM (GMT+01:00) >>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>>>> 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> >>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> Date: 7/7/24 5:13 PM (GMT+01:00) >>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>> Date: 7/6/24 5:05 AM (GMT+01:00) >>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>> Date: 7/5/24 6:56 PM (GMT+01:00) >>>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>>> Date: 7/5/24 5:02 AM (GMT+01:00) >>>>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> 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/ >> > > > -- > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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/
