[FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke

Mon Nov 8 09:40:04 EST 2021

Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about
themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have
self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is
the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable
knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the
world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology
without Magic.)

That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about themselves
is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of knowledge. Sometimes
that social convention is very helpful, and other times it causes big
problems.

Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers?

Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad sectors.
The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that guarantee
those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, but
there's no guarantee it's perfect.  Maybe some birst of
electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right
nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic
program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time.
Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due
to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the
diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as
problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer
blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is
that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at
tennis" after one bad experience and never tries it again?

Why are we talking about this?

<echarles at american.edu>

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:33 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric inter alia,
>
>
>
> The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge
> is of the form of inferences made from evidence.  To the extent that some
> sources of knowledge may lead to better inferences-- may better prepare the
> organism for what follows--  some may be more privileged than others, but
> that privilege needs to be demonstrated.  Being in the same body as the
> knowing system does not grant  the  knowing system any *a priori*
> privilege.  If you have followed me so far, then a self-knowing system is
> using sensors to infer (fallibly) the state of itself.  So if Glen and
> Marcus concede that this is the only knowledge we ever get about anything,
> than I will eagerly concede that this is “self-knowledge”.  It’s only if
> you claim that self-knowing is of a different character than other-knowing,
> that we need to bicker further.  I stipulate that my point is trivial, but
> not that it’s false.
>
>
>
> I have cc’d bits of the thread in below in case you all have forgotten.  I
> could not find any contribution from Eric in this subject within the
> thread, although he did have something to say about poker, hence I am
> rethreading.
>
>
>
> Nick .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> 18
>
> uǝlƃ ☤>$ via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en>
> redfish.com
>
> Nov 1, 2021, 4:20 PM (6 days ago)
>
>
>
> to friam
>
> Literal self-awareness is possible. The flaw in your argument is that
> "self" is ambiguous in the way you're using it. It's not ambiguous in the
> way me or Marcus intend it. You can see this nicely if you elide "know"
> from your argument.  We know nothing. The machine knows nothing. Just don't
> use the word "know" or the concept it references.  There need not be a
> model involved, either, only sensors and things to be sensed.
>
> Self-sensing means there is a feedback loop between the sensor and the
> thing it senses. So, the sensor measures the sensed and the sensed measures
> the sensor. That is self-awareness. There's no need for any of the
> psychological hooha you often object to. There's no need for privileged
> information *except* that there has to be a loop. If anything is
> privileged, it's the causal loop.
>
> The real trick is composing multiple self-self loops into something
> resembling what we call a conscious agent. We can get to the uncanny valley
> with regular old self-sensing control theory and robotics. Getting beyond
> the valley is difficult: https://youtu.be/D8_VmWWRJgE A similar
> demonstration is here: https://youtu.be/7ncDPoa_n-8
>
> Attachments area
>
> Preview YouTube video Realistic and Interactive Robot Gaze
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0>
>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8_VmWWRJgE&authuser=0>
>
> Preview YouTube video Mark Tilden explaining Walkman (VBug1.5) at the 1995
> BEAM Robot Games <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0>
>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ncDPoa_n-8&authuser=0>
>
>
>
> Marcus Daniels via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en>
> redfish.com
>
> Nov 2, 2021, 8:37 AM (5 days ago)
>
>
>
> to The
>
> My point was that the cost to probe some memory address is low.   And all
> there is, is I/O and memory.
>
>  It does become difficult to track thousands of addresses at once:  Think
> of a debugger that has millions of watchpoints.   However, one could have
> diagnostics compiled in to the code to check invariants from time to time.
>  I don't know why Nick says there is no privilege.   There can be complete
> privilege.   Extracting meaning from that access is rarely easy, of
> course.  Just as debugging any given problem can be hard.
>
> uǝlƃ ☤>$ via <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en>
> redfish.com
>
> Nov 2, 2021, 9:06 AM (5 days ago)
>
>
>
>
>
> to friam
>
> Well, I could be wrong. But both Nick and EricC seem to argue there's no
> privilege "in the limit" ... i.e. with infeasibly extensible resources,
> perfect observability, etc. It's just a reactionary position against those
> who believe in souls or a cartesian cut. Ignore it. >8^D
>
> But I don't think there can be *complete* privilege. Every time we think
> we come up with a way to keep the black hats out, they either find a way in
> ... or find a way to infer what's happening like with power or audio
> profiles.
>
> I don't think anyone's arguing that peeks are expensive. The argument
> centers around the impact of that peek, how it's used. Your idea of
> compiling in diagnostics would submit to Nick's allegation of a *model*. I
> would argue we need even lower level self-organization. I vacillate between
> thinking digital computers could [not] be conscious because of this
> argument; the feedback loops may have to be very close to the metal, like
> fpga close. Maybe consciousness has to be analog in order to realize
> meta-programming at all scales?
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 177554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0004.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0005.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10082 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 237 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 353 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211108/b6271cf2/attachment-0003.png>