[FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Nicholas Thompson thompnickson2 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 12 21:33:01 EDT 2024 

I  have no trouble stipulating that consciousness is a degree-thing so long
as we understand it with reference to patterns of doings rather than in
terms of the equipment organisms carry around.

Nick

On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

> The dictionary defines intelligence as the ability to learn or understand
> or to deal with new or trying situations. H.G. Wells says in his book "The
> Time Machine" that "There is no intelligence where there is no change and
> no need of change. Only those animals partake of intelligence that have to
> meet a huge variety of needs and dangers." LLMs are the result of endless
> training cycles and they show amazing levels of intelligence. Apparently
> there is a relation between learning and intelligence.
>
> I think languages and codes are more essential to understand
> self-awareness and consciousness because consciousness and self-awareness
> are a side effect of language acquisition which allows to bypass the blind
> spot of the inability to perceive the own self.
>
> Maybe Steve and Dave are correct that there is a spectrum of
> consciousness: plants have 1 bit of consciousness because they are aware of
> sunshine and water levels in the environment. Animals have 2 bits of
> consciousness because they are additionally aware of predators and food
> sources in the environment. Primates have 3 bits of consciousness because
> they are aware of injustice and inequalities (e.g. by being jealous).
> Humans have the most bits of consciousness because of language and
> self-awareness. Wheeler's it from bit comes to mind.
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>
> Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
> Jochen,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging post! It's never too late for a
> good discussion, even if we sometimes get distracted by the call of daily
> life (or perhaps the allure of a particularly captivating cat video).
>
> Your points on the necessity of language for meta-awareness and the
> intriguing idea of the "blind spot" of self-perception are fascinating.
> However, I’d like to suggest a slight pivot in our focus. Rather than
> concentrating on consciousness per se, why not delve into the realm of
> intelligence?
>
> Why, you might ask? Well, what we're really curious about is what’s going
> on in our heads when we're conscious. I'd rather frame it as exploring
> what’s happening when we think. This shift allows us to focus on
> understanding intelligence, which is arguably more tangible and easier to
> study objectively.
>
> Imagine we endeavor to create intelligent AI. By doing so, we can define
> intelligence, observe it externally, and measure it objectively. This
> aligns with Karl Popper's idea that for something to be considered
> scientific, it should be falsifiable. Now, while I don't entirely subscribe
> to the notion that everything in research must be falsifiable (after all,
> some of the best discoveries come from uncharted territories), there's
> undeniable merit in having a testable hypothesis.
>
> Studying consciousness often leads us into murky waters where our findings
> might not be easily falsifiable. On the other hand, examining intelligence
> – with its overlap with consciousness – offers us the chance to make
> objective, external observations that could ultimately shed light on the
> very nature of consciousness itself.
>
> In the end, by focusing on intelligence, we might just find ourselves
> uncovering the secrets of consciousness as a delightful side effect. It’s a
> bit like trying to understand a cat's behavior by studying its fascination
> with cardboard boxes – the journey is just as enlightening as the
> destination.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
>
> Pieter
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 00:06, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
>> Please excuse the late response, I was distracted a bit.
>>
>> What is the reason that one or more languages are essential for meta
>> awareness? I guess we all agree that all animals know their environment and
>> are aware of it. This is necessary to move around in it, to find food and
>> to avoid predators. Their biological blueprint can be found in their DNA.
>>
>> Therefore one language is necessary for the (DNA) code to specify an
>> actor which is embedded in a world and able to move around in it. Beings
>> who are embedded in an environment can perceive everything except
>> themselves because the own self is the center of all perceptions that can
>> not be perceived itself. As observers we are always attached to our own
>> bodies. The own person is the blind spot which a person is unable to see
>> or hear clearly.
>>
>> A second language is necessary to get access to the world of language and
>> to move around in it. It is not necessary for salmons who come back to the
>> stream where they were born (they use smell to do this) or for ants who
>> follow pheromones to find the shortest path to tasty food sources. But it
>> is necessary for us to become aware of ourself because it allows us to
>> remove the limitations of the blind spot. To consider ourself as an object
>> of reflection requires the ability to perceive ourself in the first place.
>>
>>
>> Paradoxically it is the blind spot of the inability to perceive the own
>> self that makes the "I" special. As Gilbert Ryle writes in his book "the
>> concept of mind" on page 198
>>
>> "‘I’, in my use of it, always indicates me and only indicates me. ‘You’,
>> ‘she’ and ‘they’ indicate different people at different times. ‘I’ is like
>> my ownshadow; I can never get away from it, as I can get away from your
>> shadow. There is no mystery about this constancy, but I mention it because
>> it seems to endow ‘I’ with a mystifying uniqueness and adhesiveness."
>>
>>
>> Is this a baby step in the right direction? I am not sure.
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>> Date: 7/8/24 11:20 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
>> Thought
>>
>> i am moved by the romance and beauty of your account, but ultimately left
>> hungry for experiences I can put my foot on.
>> You and I are clearly inclined to disagree, and I was raised to
>> experience disagreement as a discomfort..  So how then are we to precede.
>> I think, not withstandijng Goethe and Cervantes, that baby steps is the
>> only way. Of course, you might be citing Goethe and Cervantes as
>> authorities on the matter, in which case I can only reply, perhaps blushing
>> slightly at my own callousness, that they are not so for me.
>>
>> So, what facts of the matter convince you that one or more languages are
>> essential for meta awareess.  Or is it elf-evident
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:49 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO it is not one language which is necessary, but more than one.
>>> Languages can be used to create worlds, to move around it them, and to
>>> share these wolds with others. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling have created whole
>>> universes. The interesting things happen if worlds collide, if they merge
>>> and melt, or if they drift apart.
>>>
>>> Cervantes in Spain, Goethe in Germany and Dante in Italy helped to
>>> create new languages - Spanish, German and Italian, respectively. They also
>>> examined in their most famous books what happens if worlds collide.
>>>
>>> Cervantes describes in "Don Quixote"
>>>
>>> what happens when imaginary and real worlds collide and are so out of
>>> sync that the actors are getting lost.
>>>
>>> Goethe decribes in his "Faust" what happens when collective and
>>> individual worlds collide, i.e. when egoistic individuals exploit the world
>>> selfishly for their own benefit (in his first book "The sorrows of young
>>> Werther" Goethe focused like Fontane and Freud on the opposite).
>>>
>>> Dante describes in his "Divine Comedy"
>>>
>>> what happens when worlds diverge and people are excluded and expelled
>>> from the world.
>>>
>>> Language is necessary for self awareness because it provides the
>>> building blocks for a new world which is connected but also independent
>>> from the old one. This allows new dimensions of interactions. The
>>> connections between worlds matter. A label is a simple connection between a
>>> word in one world and an class of objects in another. A metaphor is a more
>>> complex connection between an abstract idea and a composition of objects,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 7/7/24 5:13 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
>>> Thought
>>>
>>> I think of large language models as the most embodied things on the
>>> planet, but let that go for a moment.  Back to baby steps.
>>>
>>> Can you lay out for me why you believe that language is essential to
>>> self-awareness.  Does that believe arise from ideology, authority, or some
>>> set of facts I need to take account of.  To be honest here, I should say
>>> where I am coming from.  A lot of my so-called career was spent  railing
>>> against circular reasoning in evolutionary theory and psychology.  So, if
>>> language is essential to self-awareness, and animals do not have language,
>>> then it indeed follows that animals do not have self-awareness.  But what
>>> if our method for detecting self awareness requires language? Now we are in
>>> a loop.  Are we in such a loop, or are there facts of some matter,
>>> independent of language, convince you that animals are not self-aware.  Is
>>> self awareness extricable from language?
>>>
>>> It is an old old trope that animals are automata but that humans have
>>> soul.  Descartes swore by it.  Is "language" the new soul?
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:29 AM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would say cats, dogs and horses don't have meta-awareness because
>>>> they lack language. They live in the present moment, in the here and now.
>>>> Without language they do not have the capability to reflect on their past
>>>> or to think about their future. They can not formulate stories of
>>>> themselves which could help to form a sense of identity. Language is
>>>> the mirror in which we perceive ourselves during "this is me"
>>>> moments. Animals lack this mirror completely. One dimensional scents trails
>>>> do not count as language.
>>>>
>>>> Large languages models lack consciousness because they do not have a
>>>> body which is embedded as a actor in an environment. These two things are
>>>> necessary: the physical world of bodies, and the mental world of language.
>>>> When both collide in the same spot we can get consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> -J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: 7/6/24 5:05 AM (GMT+01:00)
>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
>>>> Thought
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's because Socrates claimed not to know what he thought, and
>>>> since I genuinely don[t know what I think until I work it out, the
>>>> conversation has the same quality.  I apologize for that.  my students
>>>> found it truly distressing.
>>>>
>>>> So, if you will indulge me, why don't  you think your cat has
>>>> meta=awareness?   Authority, ideology, or is there some experience you have
>>>> had that leads you to think that.   It would be kind of odd if it she
>>>> didn't because animals have all sorts of ways of distinguishing self from
>>>> other. They have ways of knowinng that "I did that".  (e.g., scent
>>>> marking?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:19 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well yes, if meta-awareness is defined as acting in response to one's
>>>>> own awareness then I would say animals like a cat don't have it but humans
>>>>> have. As an example I could say this almost feels like I am a participant
>>>>> in a dialogue from Plato...
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be surprised if it can be described in simple terms. If the
>>>>> essence of consciousness is subjective experience then it is indeed hard to
>>>>> describe by a theory although there are many attempts. Persons who perceive
>>>>> things differently are wired differently. And what is more subjective than
>>>>> the perception of oneself?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can describe it mathematically then probably as a way an
>>>>> information feels if it is processed in complex ways, ad infinitum like the
>>>>> orbits of a strange attractor.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://chaoticatmospheres.com/mathrules-strange-attractors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -J.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: 7/5/24 6:56 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than
>>>>> We Thought
>>>>>
>>>>> ,
>>>>>
>>>>> Great!  Baby steps. "If we aren't moving slowly, we aren't moving."
>>>>> So, can I define some new terms, tentatively, *per explorandum* ?
>>>>> Let's call acting-in-respect-to-the-world, "awareness".   Allowing this
>>>>> definition, we certainly seem to agree that the cat is aware.  Lets define
>>>>> meta-awareness as acting i respect to one's own awareness.  Now, am I
>>>>> correct in assuming that you identify meta-awareness with consciousness and
>>>>> that you think that the cat is not meta-aware and that I probably am?  And
>>>>> further that you think that meta-awareness requires consciousness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:17 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say a cat is conscious in the sense that it is aware of its
>>>>>> immediate environment. Cats are nocturnal animals who hunt at night and
>>>>>> mostly sleep during the day. Consciousness in the sense of being aware of
>>>>>> oneself as an actor in an environment requires understanding of language
>>>>>> which only humans have ( and LLMs now )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -J.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: 7/5/24 5:02 AM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than
>>>>>> We Thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jochen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I think the first step in any conversation is to decide whether your
>>>>>> cat is conscious.  If so, why do you think so; if not, likewise.  I had a
>>>>>> facinnationg conversation with  GBT about  whether he was conscious and he
>>>>>> denied it "hotly", which, of course, met one of his criteria for
>>>>>> consciousness.  *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *So.  Is your cat  connscious?*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Nick *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't get Philip Goff: first we send our children 20 years to
>>>>>>> school, from Kindergarten to college and university, to teach them all
>>>>>>> kinds of languages, and then we wonder how they can be conscious. It will
>>>>>>> be the same for AI: first we spend millions and millions to train them all
>>>>>>> available knowledge, and then we wonder how they can develop understanding
>>>>>>> of language and consciousness...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -J.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> 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/20240712/6ea6e822/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Friam mailing list