[FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Tue May 5 13:38:43 EDT 2020

behavior:

1) the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others
2) the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.
3) the way in which a natural phenomenon or a machine works or functions

Ignoring the first definition, is there a qualitative difference between the behavior attributed to a human being or animal and that attributed to the machine or natural phenomena? I believe there is.

Machine "behavior" is either a metaphor or an error of anthropomorphism. This is true, I believe, whether one speaks of a computer's UI (the computer is but a lump and sans any behavior) or a robot.

Alan Kay and Seymour Papert speak of the "user illusion" — the illusion that the computer is thinking or behaving or acting as if it were intelligent, a turtle dragging its tail to draw a line, etc. The key word is "illusion." Papert, incidentally was a student and protege of Jean Piaget, a psychologist.

This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon which to argue that they do.

davew

On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 9:45 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Dave,

> 

> So the same may be said of brains, right? Brain’s don’t behave. 

> 

> Where are you going with this? 

> 

> N

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

> 

> 

> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

> 

> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is thinking."

> 

> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

> 

> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?

> 

> davew

> 

> 

> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:

>> Yup. That’s what he would say. What **persuades** you that a super competent computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think? 

>> 

>> Nick

>> 

>> Nicholas Thompson

>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

>> Clark University

>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly

>> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>

>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

>> 

>> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say: There appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers? 

>> 

>> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

>> 

>> Frank

>> 

>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

>>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

>>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like

>>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of

>>> an allegorist?

>>> 

>>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.

>>> > 

>>> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>>> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

>>> 

>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...

>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

>> 

>> 

>> --

>> Frank Wimberly

>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz

>> Santa Fe, NM 87505

>> 505 670-9918

>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...

>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

>> 

> 

> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200505/f132fdb9/attachment.html>