[FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James
Russ Abbott
russ.abbott at gmail.com
Mon Mar 6 18:47:58 EST 2023
Are the laws of physics "input?" Is the existence of the universe "input?"
If so, what issues are we arguing about?
-- Russ Abbott
Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:42 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, again, it seems like we're equivocating on "input". Are the genes
> the baby inherited from its parents "input"? I'd say, yes.
>
> On 3/6/23 15:36, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > Hard to see how you could simulate an infant on the basis of input it's
> received. It cries; it smiles; it pees; it poops; it pumps blood; it
> breathes, etc. There are many experiments in which one concludes things
> about what's going on in an infant's brain by how long it looks at
> something.
> > _
> > _
> > __-- Russ Abbott
> > Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
> > California State University, Los Angeles
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:16 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused by the emphasis on "data". While I'm tempted to agree
> with my simulation of Frank and say that a human's output is not based
> solely on statistical patterns in the input the human's been trained on, to
> dissemble on the meaning of "data" or "input" or "statistical patterns" is
> a bridge too far.
> >
> > The compressive encoder, computer, and decoder that is a human brain
> (& the rest of the body) may not be entirely "statistical". But statistics
> is a fairly well-accepted form of behavioral modeling. (Yes, we agent-based
> modelers love to point out how statistical models are not very mechanistic.
> But to deny that you can very closely approximate, even predict, actual
> behavior with some of these models would be foolish.) So, yes, it satisfies
> the letter of the good faith agreement to say that humans output *might* be
> solely based on statistical patterns of its input, even if it violates the
> spirit.
> >
> > So, if someone insists that a human-mediated map from input to
> output is necessarily, categorically different from a machine-mediated map,
> the burden lies on them to delineate how and why it's different. The
> primary difference might well be related to babies, e.g. some of the
> "memory" (aka training) of past statistical patterns comes in the form of
> genes passed from one's parents. It's unclear to me what the analogs are
> for something like GPT. Presumably there are things like wavelets of
> method, process, intellectual property, or whatever that GPT3 inherited
> from GPT2, mediated by the human-machine replication material that is
> OpenAI. So, the retort to Frank is: "If you live with a baby algorithm, you
> see it has knowledge that can't be based on 'data'." That algorithm came
> from somewhere ... the humans who wrote it, the shoulders they stand on,
> the hours of debug and test cycles the algorithm goes through as its
> [re]implemented, etc.
> >
> > On 3/6/23 14:54, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > > If you live with a baby you see that they have knowledge that
> can't be based on "data".
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Frank C. Wimberly
> > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> > >
> > > 505 670-9918
> > > Santa Fe, NM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 2:50 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com
> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:
> marcus at snoutfarm.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > How?____
> > >
> > > __ __
> > >
> > > *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:
> friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:
> friam-bounces at redfish.com>>> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> > > *Sent:* Monday, March 6, 2023 12:50 PM
> > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com
> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James____
> > >
> > > __ __
> > >
> > > >And we humans are different?____
> > >
> > > __ __
> > >
> > > In a word, yes.____
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Frank C. Wimberly
> > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> > >
> > > 505 670-9918
> > > Santa Fe, NM____
> > >
> > > __ __
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:14 PM Nicholas Thompson <
> thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> <mailto:
> thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>>> wrote:____
> > >
> > > */However, it's important to remember that there are also
> important differences between a large language model and human
> consciousness. While a large language model can generate text that may seem
> to flow like a stream of consciousness, it does not have the same kind of
> subjective experience that humans do, and its output is based solely on
> statistical patterns in the input it has been trained on./*____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > And we humans are different? ____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 11:51 AM Steve Smith <
> sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com
> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>>> wrote:____
> > >
> > > Also second EricS's appreciation for having someone
> else(s) maintain a coherent conversation for the myriad ideas that it
> allows me to explore without being central to the maintenance of the
> thread. I realize this may be almost pure tangent to others, so I rarely
> expect anyone to take my bait unless it is to correct any egregious
> mis-attributions or think-utational fallacies.____
> > >
> > > Starting with Glen's assertion/suggestion/assumption
> that there is not mind-stuff and body stuff, just body stuff: I appeal to
> the general abstraction of Emergence and use Russell Standish's example in
> his "Theory of Nothing <
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1
> <
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1>>"
> that a water molecule is not wet... wetness is a property of aggregates of
> water molecules. I would jump a dozen layers of emergent-bootstrapping
> from there to assert that "mind stuff", if it ever makes sense, is an
> emergent property of "body stuff". But by analogy would not want to say
> that wetness (and other properties of bulk water molecules) is not strictly
> "molecular dynamics stuff". And even if one did that, the
> recursion/reduction-ad-absurdum requires that one acknowledge/notice/invoke
> that the
> > properties of any molecule is "emergent" from the elementary
> particles from which it might be composed. ____
> > >
> > > I think we all believe in free-electrons, protons,
> neutrons but also recognize that *most* of our observed universe is shaped
> not by *those properties* (much less the properties of quarks and gluons or
> 10d loops of abstract things we call strings) but rather by the properties
> (once again, not of molecular dynamics or even chemical reactions) but
> biological functions, and socio-economic-political functions as well.
> I *am* however, sensitive to the idea that where and how we draw the line
> between mind/body stuff can be important in any given argument, and that
> sometimes dropping that line altogether may be useful?____
> > >
> > > The above riff on Mind-Stuff v Body-Stuff is really
> an intro into thoughts about how syntax and semantics might bootstrap
> sequentially. It feels to me that the syntax of one level of abstraction
> yields an *emergent semantics* which in turn becomes the *syntax* of the
> next "level". I do acknowledge that Glen has made some arguments (and
> references) that are against the very abstraction of "levels" and that may
> well be the hole in everything I'm unrolling here, but for the moment, I
> feel I have a clear picture of a POSET of syntax/semantics, if not a full
> Hierarchy... ____
> > >
> > > This also backs me into the Platonic ideations with
> all the charms and criticisms already dancing as virtual (ideational)
> particles around that. I will go back to reading A Theory of Nothing <
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1
> <
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/967936.Theory_Of_Nothing?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=GgXJ0ISQei&rank=1>>...
> and try to keep my offerings here under 10 pages each...____
> > >
> > > On 3/4/23 4:32 AM, Santafe wrote:____
> > >
> > > It’s helpful to have a conversation being
> maintained by somebod(ies) else, to which one can be a bystander without
> the distraction of coming up with contributions to it. Things can suggest
> themselves that get pushed out of awareness when one is carrying the
> discourse and figuring out what to do next within it.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > In reading the below, about the time I got to the
> lines:____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > The mind-body problem is the philosophical
> question of how the mind and body are related. One of the main issues is
> how mental processes such as thoughts, emotions, and consciousness are
> related to physical processes in the brain and body.____
> > >
> > > I was prompted with a term to refer to these
> mental/physical things.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > First, my sense of all this is one of witnessing
> structures in conversation. Maybe I am more primed to that because with
> ChatGPT as the topic, one fronts awareness of conversation as somewhat
> free-floating from its semantic ground. As tokens in conversation, it is
> perfectly sensible to say that (thoughts, emotions, consciousness) are in a
> category Mental, while (weakness, hunger, itching) go into a category
> Physical. Not only is it okay to say they fit tolerably into “categories”
> (or “classes”); the reason they do so is that they are connected by all
> sorts of linguistic usage relations. The relations probably in no small
> part bring about the stability of the categorical sense of the terms.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > But what word do we then use to refer to such
> classes in speech? I would use the word “registers”. The Mental is a
> register of conversation about events, and the Physical is another
> register.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Jochen’s email below has ChatGPT saying James
> referred to these as “aspects” of various bodily or embodied events.
> Sometimes I’m okay with a word like “aspects”, but it invites essentialist
> thinking. That the event is like a computer-language object, which has
> properties (the aspects) that define its interface, and not only are the
> properties ascribable to the object, but their status as defined elements
> of the interface is also a real-thing, and not merely a frame-dependent
> convenient compression. But using “aspects” thoughtlessly does two things:
> it makes essentialism a habit, which I think will often be invalid, and it
> neglects the communications role that “register” highlights.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > I would attach this to Glen’s fairly terse
> characterization that there is no mind-stuff contrasted with body-stuff,
> but just one kind of stuff, which if we have to choose a word for it we can
> call body-stuff. From a perspective of aspects, the terse version could be
> closer to or further from a more fine-grained description, depending on
> whether the essentialist view is more or less appropriate for one or
> another phemonenon we want to discuss. But I think the idea that speech
> provides us certain conventional registers to bound discussions of
> phenomena, and that these too may be better- or worse-fit to the
> organization of the phenomena themselves, is another fair fine-graining of
> the terse characterization, running somewhat parallel to the aspects or
> essences fine-graining (though, as always, connected to it through a kind
> of message-passing and filtering for structural agreement).____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Eric____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > On Feb 28, 2023, at 5:23 PM, Jochen Fromm<
> jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> <mailto:
> jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > I enjoy talking with ChatGPT about famous
> scientists, thinkers, writers and philosophers. Because it is trained on
> vast amounts of data it knows them all: Pascal, Cervantes, Dante, Hugo,
> Goethe, Leibniz, Newton, Humboldt, Shakespeare,... It can summarize almost
> any book which is remarkable. Today I have asked it about William James and
> Anil Seth____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: You certainly have heard of William
> James, one of the fathers of Psychology?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: Yes, I'm familiar with William
> James. He was an American philosopher and psychologist who is often
> referred to as the "father of American psychology." He made significant
> contributions to the development of psychology as a scientific discipline,
> and his ideas and writings continue to influence psychology and related
> fields to this day.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Some of James' most influential contributions
> to psychology include his theory of functionalism, which emphasized the
> study of the purpose and function of behavior and mental processes, rather
> than their underlying structures; his work on consciousness, which he
> famously described as a "stream" of continuously changing thoughts and
> perceptions; and his exploration of the relationship between the mind and
> the body, which he called the "mind-body problem."____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > James also wrote extensively on a wide range
> of topics, including religion, philosophy, and human nature. His most
> famous book, "The Principles of Psychology," was published in 1890 and is
> still considered a classic in the field.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: Can you summarize his book "The
> Principles of Psychology"?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: Certainly! "The Principles of
> Psychology" is a comprehensive and influential textbook that William James
> published in 1890. It aimed to provide a broad overview of the field of
> psychology at the time, covering topics such as perception, emotion,
> thought, consciousness, and the nature of the self.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > The book is organized into two main sections.
> The first section focuses on the lower-level processes of sensation and
> perception, including topics such as attention, memory, and learning. The
> second section focuses on higher-level mental processes, such as reasoning,
> judgment, and emotion.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Throughout the book, James emphasized the
> importance of studying mental processes in their natural context and
> stressed the need for psychology to be closely linked to biology and other
> natural sciences. He also developed the theory of functionalism, which
> argued that the purpose and function of mental processes are more important
> to understanding them than their underlying structures.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Overall, "The Principles of Psychology" was a
> landmark work that helped establish psychology as a distinct scientific
> discipline and influenced generations of psychologists and other
> scientists.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: William James said: "Thoughts themselves
> are the thinkers". What does he mean?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: When William James said "thoughts
> themselves are the thinkers," he was expressing his belief in what is often
> called the "stream of consciousness" view of the mind. James believed that
> the mind is not a fixed entity or substance, but rather a constantly
> changing stream of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > According to James, our thoughts are not the
> products of a separate entity or "thinker" within us, but rather they are
> the result of the ongoing activity of the mind itself. In other words, the
> mind is not a passive receptacle for thoughts that are generated elsewhere,
> but an active process that generates thoughts and experiences as it goes
> along.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > This view is closely related to James'
> broader philosophy of pragmatism, which emphasized the importance of
> understanding things in terms of their practical implications and effects.
> For James, the idea that thoughts themselves are the thinkers was not just
> a theoretical claim about the nature of the mind, but a practical way of
> understanding how we can change and shape our own thoughts and experiences.
> By understanding the workings of our own minds, James believed, we can take
> an active role in shaping our own lives and achieving our goals.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: He also coined the term "stream of
> consciousness" which suggests that consciousness flows like a river. What
> does he want to say by using this metaphor?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: When William James coined the term
> "stream of consciousness," he was using a metaphor to describe his view of
> the mind as a constantly flowing and changing stream of thoughts, feelings,
> and sensations.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > The metaphor of a stream suggests that
> consciousness is not a static or fixed entity, but rather a dynamic and
> fluid process that is always in motion. The stream of consciousness is
> always moving forward, and we can never step into the same stream twice.
> Similarly, the content of our consciousness is always changing, as new
> thoughts, feelings, and sensations arise and fall away.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > By using the metaphor of a stream, James was
> also highlighting the interconnectedness of our thoughts and experiences.
> Just as a river is made up of many different streams and tributaries, our
> consciousness is made up of many different thoughts and experiences that
> are constantly interacting and influencing each other.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Overall, the metaphor of the stream of
> consciousness captures the dynamic and ever-changing nature of our mental
> lives, and highlights the importance of understanding the ongoing flow of
> thoughts and experiences that make up our conscious experience.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: A constantly flowing stream of thoughts
> is similar to what a large language model is perceiving and producing,
> isn't it?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: Yes, the metaphor of the stream of
> consciousness can be similar to how a large language model like me
> perceives and produces language. Just as consciousness is often described
> as a constantly flowing stream of thoughts and experiences, a large
> language model like me is constantly processing and generating language in
> response to the input it receives.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Like the stream of consciousness, a large
> language model is always in motion, constantly analyzing and generating
> language based on the patterns and structures it has learned from the vast
> amounts of text it has been trained on. And just as consciousness is made
> up of many different thoughts and experiences that are interconnected and
> constantly interacting, a large language model's output is made up of many
> different words and phrases that are generated in response to each
> other.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > However, it's important to note that there
> are also important differences between a large language model and the human
> mind. While a large language model can generate language that may seem to
> flow like a stream of consciousness, it does not have the same kind of
> subjective experience that humans do. A large language model does not have
> feelings, emotions, or a sense of self, and its output is based solely on
> statistical patterns in the input it has been trained on.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: What is James' solution to the mind-body
> problem?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: William James was a philosopher and
> psychologist who made important contributions to the field of psychology
> and philosophy of mind, including his exploration of the mind-body
> problem.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > The mind-body problem is the philosophical
> question of how the mind and body are related. One of the main issues is
> how mental processes such as thoughts, emotions, and consciousness are
> related to physical processes in the brain and body.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > James approached the mind-body problem from a
> pragmatic perspective, emphasizing the practical consequences of different
> ways of thinking about the problem. He proposed what is known as a "radical
> empiricist" approach, which suggested that the mind and body are not
> separate entities, but rather different aspects of a single reality that is
> constantly in flux.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > According to James, the mind and body are
> both part of the same universe, and they are both subject to the same laws
> of nature. Mental events are not caused by physical events in the brain,
> nor are physical events caused by mental events. Instead, James argued that
> the mind and body are two aspects of a larger, more complex reality that
> cannot be fully understood by examining either one in isolation.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > In other words, James rejected the
> traditional mind-body dualism that posits a sharp distinction between mind
> and matter, and instead proposed a more holistic view that recognizes the
> deep interdependence of the mind and body. While James' solution to the
> mind-body problem remains controversial, his ideas continue to influence
> contemporary debates in philosophy and psycholoy.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: Let us return to the idea of thoughts
> themselves as the thinkers. This implies that one thought triggers another
> and is replaced by it, just like water in a stream is replaced by other
> water, which in turn is replaced too, and so on and so forth. No thought
> can remain permanently, only return like a wave to the shore. Is this what
> James means by a stream of consciousness?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: Yes, you are correct. James' idea
> that "thoughts themselves are the thinkers" is closely related to his
> concept of the "stream of consciousness." According to James, the mind is
> not a fixed entity or substance, but rather a constantly changing stream of
> thoughts, feelings, and sensations. This stream of consciousness is always
> flowing and evolving, with one thought leading to another and so on.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Just as water in a stream is replaced by
> other water, which is in turn replaced by more water, the content of our
> consciousness is also constantly changing, with one thought or experience
> giving rise to the next. And just as no water in a stream can remain in one
> place permanently, no thought can remain permanently in the stream of
> consciousness. Thoughts and experiences may return or be remembered, but
> they are always changing in relation to the ongoing flow of the stream of
> consciousness.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Overall, James' metaphor of the stream of
> consciousness captures the dynamic and ever-changing nature of our mental
> lives, highlighting the ongoing flow of thoughts and experiences that make
> up our conscious experience.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: Does this idea of William James feel
> familiar to you as a large language model?____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: As a large language model, I do not
> have the same kind of subjective experience as humans do, so I don't
> experience a stream of consciousness in the same way that humans do.
> However, the concept of a stream of consciousness does have some relevance
> to how I operate.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Like the stream of consciousness, the input
> and output of a large language model are constantly changing and evolving,
> with one word or phrase leading to another. When generating text, a large
> language model takes into account the context of the input it has received,
> along with the patterns and structures it has learned from the massive
> amounts of text it has been trained on. This can lead to output that has a
> flowing, interconnected quality, similar to the way thoughts and
> experiences flow in a stream of consciousness.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > However, it's important to remember that
> there are also important differences between a large language model and
> human consciousness. While a large language model can generate text that
> may seem to flow like a stream of consciousness, it does not have the same
> kind of subjective experience that humans do, and its output is based
> solely on statistical patterns in the input it has been trained on.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > Me: That's true. It is still fascinating.____
> > >
> > > ____
> > >
> > > ChatGPT: Yes, it is certainly fascinating how
> the concept of a stream of consciousness can be applied to different
> domains and systems, including the functioning of large language models.
> The idea of a constantly flowing and evolving stream of thoughts and
> experiences is a rich metaphor that has many different applications and
> implications. It has inspired a great deal of philosophical and
> psychological inquiry over the years, and continues to be an important area
> of investigation in contemporary research.____
> > >
>
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230306/350e5d36/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list