[FRIAM] ChatGPT and William James
Barry MacKichan
barry.mackichan at mackichan.com
Tue Mar 14 13:58:01 EDT 2023
I haven’t followed the discussions here carefully, but the question
“And we humans are different?” brings up Noam Chomsky’s view in
the NYT, gifted here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html?unlocked_article_code=QwaHrmmodXXtHVMT-PXM3n5X5165QgywGnhK8kHA4bQ4YwI-1ChPS_7jCUaaUoFfOEcH5StWFGnaCzyJsSW6zuHN-U410lTznWM8Mvsg-JDhGg8JVpzBMO0zuuwLEceZ7nsik2RLOi3H_hFSlBy4EF1c2Rn8ueGmhh3n6TnF58p3Vo2dkK0Y8RCrYhzpvCdlBd51fLA6DWil5Xn3vRhZ6gTYuUw8Eoy6HbR2cA4PcoI_PzQ5Ozz4Rrb5vH1C_pX5agNGvJ9CS0q9bGH7NvB0HSTIA480_k--x8f-srXvID5llZmAxRHEkS5Yf05rn820RIR3j70yIH7hddfh6GkkjQ&smid=url-share
—Barry
On 6 Mar 2023, at 16:49, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> How?
>
> From: Friam <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>
> 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>> 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>> 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>"
> 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>...
> 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> 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.
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ..- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,8BDW87YFiB3QNAjcIaO6BGlsbpQidygnymSv3LCZ9P7pwZGyd4U3KmqMqp2RHu0KBeFpflf-wmR9fYFSD3_qVmiN-3Oak3Rqzm1CgWtukM2r-mw,&typo=1
>
> to (un)subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,gQVpgiX_VNtXFysWPCfmMZ8YAlmBuLdFFVB8KiYVzpXRLZ88Tn7adkUdAIiWGyOLS_hF-tLm1Ha9g3qHNgA-buGK2QskVo9NfrOk-T5FVA,,&typo=1
>
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,b8ksbdPxaq64zxsqYThJH7EXFiPMe5gvFNDnCWFeIA6YFyjEoE2b8yTbp2QmsFXfZNTgvtUiHDEWHG_CQQDWxnRLm--xBhfscDLMpa44vmQ0DPIyuvnm60Lyb4dh&typo=1
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,pz7eKdQ54oOzQL5LsB_uVKtud4rf2wLGQjSHUcZdSAJx2RfZ4Uk8SCpHZbwR7M6nGIqd4ahar7hC1fRlZ1y1pk24iQLOS0ASegLZUOlWeBK8L87R6k4,&typo=1
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/20230314/18fd5a4a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list