[FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James
glen
gepropella at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 10:18:04 EST 2023
Why does the "agent" have to be the same across the transition from gametes to zygote? Historical transitions exist. Genes are input to humans in the same way, for example, a traumatic injury at age 10 is input to the human at age 20. Theseus' ship, anyone?
I wrote and deleted a long post about deep reinforcement learning in the online tuning of hyperparameters, and the distinction of hyper- from ... oh, IDK, regular old parameters. No self-modifying software required, only [hyper]parameter modifying ... unless we kick the can down the road yet again and argue about the meaning of "software". What does "mean" even mean, as long as we're at it? >8^D
But that discussion doesn't target the incredulity fallacy responses like Frank's make. If there is some definition of "input" that clearly demonstrates humans are different from bots, then it's the burden of those who make the claim to provide the definition. I don't see it. I don't have such a definition. I wish someone would provide it.
On 3/6/23 22:03, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Lisp or Haskell macros..
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 6, 2023, at 8:22 PM, Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let's consider the word "input" again. The implication is that there is an "agent" of some sort that is separated/distinguishable from some "environment" from which it gets "input." The question (or at least one question) concerns our specification of what that "agent" is. If, as Glen suggested, genes are "input" to a human, what is the agent that is separated from its genes and for which the genes provide "input?" Another way of putting it--although I don't want to push the analogy too far--is that if genes are "input" to a human, is software "input" to the software system it defines? Since a software system is essentially nothing without the software that defines it, what would it even mean to say that the software is "input" to itself? This isn't an invitation to talk about self-modifying software. Let's deal with the easier case first. Assuming we are talking about non-self-modifying (and non-self-interpreting) software, what does it mean to say that software is "input"
>> to itself?
>> _
>> _
>> __-- Russ Abbott
>> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
>> California State University, Los Angeles
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:52 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Well put. When Frank emphasized "data", he doubled-down on the ambiguity. The fact is, those who claim a human is categorically different from a machine have no legs on which to stand. Every single boundary between them is broken, year after year.
>>
>> On 3/6/23 15:47, Russ Abbott wrote:
>> > 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 <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com <mailto: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> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> <mailto: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>> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> <mailto: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>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> <mailto: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>> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> <mailto: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>> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>>> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> <mailto: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>> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>>> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> <mailto: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> <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>> <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>
>> <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> <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>> <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>
>> <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>> <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net> <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>>> <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net> <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> <mailto: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
More information about the Friam
mailing list