From the beginning, I believed this thread was, in substantial part, Nick's attempt to 'teach' us to think as behavioralists and see how far we could go in achieving some kind of consensus. I tried very hard to couch all of my responses in such terms. I did express, early on, that I had serious doubts about how far we could go without deviating into other questions—and the answer appears to be not far.
First I copped to blatant anthropomorphism with seem to be accepted with no concern. Then Nick introduced metaphysics followed by a quick mea culpa. Then a flood of additional metaphsysics (inside/outside), inter-species (human-whale, human-machine) illustrations, definitional nuances (consciousness, awareness, intelligence), and my challenge to the 'approach' because it excluded 'evidence' from meditation or drugs. Although Nick keeps saying he is 'pleased' with responses, I am curious as to whether or not we are really making progress towards consensus of any kind. But, just in case, responding to Nick's last question to me: Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat, then stand, in a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and look at Jackson, then at me, then Jackson, then me (sometimes as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring' at me. Jackson does something similar, but he will also utter a small bark/yip while staring. davew On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, at 11:59 AM, steve smith wrote: > Nick - >> I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these testimonials and I >> am beginning to sense method in my madness. > I'm glad you were willing able to wade through my gallop of > observations/reflections/experiences with these two highly central > creatures in my household. >> I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about Hank. > Very much so, as I experience with many cats, she does not reach as far > into human psyche/nature to meet me as most dogs (Hank in particular) does. >> So, in your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self >> conscious, I am inclined to ask for more details. So the method goes >> something like this >> >> We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X, Cyd is conscious. > > I think you know from my pan-consciousness self-diagnosis that all of > the things I am inclined to report about Cyd also applies to the > hummingbirds, the lizards she stalks, and the fish Hank barks at. > > Cyd has a very highly adaptive sensorimotor system which not only allows > her to be good at stalking and catching lizards but also at begging her > people to let her out to do so, or to give her a helping of "second > dinners" like the hobbit she channels. She observes, considers, acts, > observes the consequences of her acts (the book falling from the top of > the bookcase when she traverses it too rambunctioiusly, the way Mary > jumps up and lets her out when she hits the right note of plaintive > meow, the way the lizard freezes when it senses her). This is an > overwhelming indication of consciousness in my apprehension of the world. > > We were implying that an animal's "Love" or "loving relationship with" a > human familiar had something to do with consciousness. I think that is > a red-herring, I don't think the lizards love Mary when she frees them > from Cyd's jaws, but I do think they are acutely conscious. > >> From our prior usage of the term, we know that if Cyd is conscious, >> he will do things A, B, C, D, ....N with greater frequency than >> otherwise. We check t o see if this is true. Does Sbe? Ifso, we now >> add Cyd to the list of conscious beings. Now we check to see if >> other conscious beings do X with greater frequency than non conscious >> ones. If so, we have added to the list of things that conscious >> beings do. > > See above... A==sense, B==process, C==respond. I don't know that A, > B, C singularly without both of the others even makes sense. > > The fish in the pond are almost continuously in some level of motion, > they appear to be sensing with their photon and olfactory and > vibration/pressure-wave sensors. They respond to signals (shadow of > human or dog looming over pond, insect landing on the surface of the > pond, bit of high-nutrient food sinking in the pond) by bolting or > gulping or seeking more input (curiosity). While a lot of their > processing may be prewired/instinctive, I do believe that part of their > processing is in support of "learning". The dragonflies who like the > high-ground of the tips of everything they can alight on seem yet more > automatic/instinctual yet they appear (because I project?) to learn... > they appear to become more and more tolerant of my approaching them the > more I do it? They likely recognize that despite the appeal of the tip > of my car antennae, the tips of the cat-tails in the pond seem to be > more appealing given the likely food-flux they can spy and grab from > that vantage (but this is a just-so projection since I'm not a very > disciplined naturalist, I really have nothing but anecdotal observations). > > So perhaps D might be "learn"... > > Which takes me to the trees and bushes I feel a strong > affinity/familiarity with. Do they A, B, C (and even D?). I say yes. > They don't have lenses over their photo-receptors, but since their > primary/singular energy gathering activity is photonic/light, they > clearly sense light. They also seem to be able to extend root growth > toward water and nutrients, or along same said nutrients... this > represents A and C as does growth "reaching" growth out from under the > shade to gather more light? What about B? B would seem to be entirely > pre-wired processing, not adaptive at the scale of the individual > single-lifetime organism? Which spills over to "learning" (D) which > maybe isn't happening at the scale of the individual... does a branch or > root keep "reaching" even if it gets stymied over and over? I'm not > sure. So if B and even D are required for "consciousness" then perhaps > it is only a population of such organisms and the germline phenotypic > expression which we must acknowledge some level of "proto-consciousness" > to? > > To go on down the line of lower-and lower complexity entities or systems > i'd have to grasp further and seek the existing guidance of others in > the pan-consciousness world who have worked through this in their own ways. > > Bottom line, is that the "bottom line" of consciousness feels very hard > for me to even begin to want to draw between Hank and Cyd or where it > excludes Lizzy or Fishy or DraggyFly or any and all of the > yet-less-familiar creatures they stalk and eat. Interesting that all of > these are predators, no? > > Yet another free-associateve gallop? > > > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > 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/