[FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Tue Mar 7 12:02:52 EST 2023
This is such a great example of Glen's assertion (probably a misquote)
that "Communication doesn't exist". We are all (mostly?) talking past
one another with different assumptions and definitions? I can use the
term "input" with nouns but they only make sense with "nouns which
represent processes"?
I don't find a "gene" to be an input to a human until I start thinking
in terms of genetic modification.
<blah technospecific blah blah> In humans, a zygote is a collection of
things we nominally call "genes" packaged with the machinery for a very
basic metabolism and reproduction through fission until it "becomes" an
organism (human in this case). There is an ambiguous stage between
single-cell zygote and blastocyst with the fissioned zygote-clones
called blastomeres and a morula-embryo until it reaches roughly 16
blastomeres and then begins to be considered a blastocyst which has
enough structure (and differentiation) to potentially attach to the
uterine endothelial wall where it proceeds to differentiate into
(roughly) placenta and embryo. Pretty much nobody knows or cares about
all this reserved terminology and process except embryologists and
extremist pro-live/choice fanatics? </blah blah blah>
If there is "input" into the zygote, blastomeres, blastocyst, embryo it
is the molecular exchange at the cell walls with the uterine fluid and
then later the amniotic fluid, which has as input the blood chemistry
of the mother (in mammals) whilst the more mechanical environment
(thermal, sonic, etc) also provides "inputs", etc.
All of these "objects" and "stages of development" are not exactly
arbitrary but do wonderfully express/reflect the ambiguity/arbitrariness
of the composition and character of a "becoming being" while having a
fairly clear boundary between "self" and "other" even though by some
measures (mother-child). This may be (or at least sound like) a
gish-gallop, but I don't really intend it that way.
This is probably in many ways an "edge case" (or is it "corner", I'm not
that clear on the details of the metaphor?) for "objectness" since most
of the "objects" we consider are not living, becoming things in quite
the same way. A "skipping stone" is also a "final" result of a series
of processes and "evolves" from some proto-skipping-stone I suppose, as
is a "mountain" or a "river".
I don't know what I would say is an "input" to a lake. <blah blah
blah> The water entering through rivers/rivulets/rainfall is an
*obvious* input, but then so is the dust circling the globe from the
Gobi Desert and the Trinity Test (homeopathic doses of those
radionuclides?) and the leaky petrol tank of the zodiac that the
reservoir managers use to do inspection/maintenance and run off
civilians with the temerity to try to shed their epithelial cells,
blood, sweat, tears and toe jam into the water while wading and
cursing. And gawd knows what water molecules, minerals, organic matter,
and live bacteria and virus particles make it into the pores, skin
lesions and other orifices. Inputs... until later the Antiobiotic
dosed saline from an IV is introduced into the bloodstream to (maybe)
knock down a rampant infection that presumably started from</blah blah
blah> that breakdown between self-other?
Maybe I've talked myself into the corner that an "input" only makes
sense with a (dynamic?) model, not with a "real thing" whatever that
is? I think I should go back to trying to extrude ontological entities
from (the?) metaphysical flux... or maybe learn enough Haskell to write
a macro...
Mumble, Ramble,
- Steve
On 3/7/23 8:18 AM, glen wrote:
> 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.____
>>> > > >
>
>
More information about the Friam
mailing list