[FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
glen
gepropella at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 11:18:35 EDT 2024
Ouch. I thought I was going to agree with you through the 3rd sentence. But then you did [⛧] the 4th. Brains, muscles, and neurons *are* doings just like Barry's invocation of the hypothalamus and pituitary glands and their handling of oxytocin induced through stare contests. Nick's ontological lifting of the boundary between humans as "inside" versus "outside" is an oversimplification.
The same oversimplification can be seen in our conception of "LLM" (cf "by itself"). When Marcus mentions prompt overlapping and Steve mentions integrated/interactive simulation, it opens the door to allow for the "LLM" to breach the limits Russ and Stephen talked about. These boundaries (int[er|ra]-human or int[er|ra]-algorithm) present the continual risk of reification - ontological lifting, pretending an abstract thing is real/actual.
And this reification extends, I think, to Jochen's conception that "language" is necessary for reflection or self-awareness. If we allow "language" to include, say, contented staring and the induction of oxytocin, aka "body language" ... or if we allow other forms of paracrinal or endocrinal signaling to be considered "language", then OK. Sure. "Language" is required for self-awareness.
⛧ Yes, your sentence is a "doing", from the thinking to the electrons back to the thinking. It's doings all the way down. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling snake oil.
On 7/14/24 16:20, Prof David West wrote:
> I believe this is the opposite of what Nick was ceding. Plants most certainly do have 'patterns of doings'. Brains and muscles and neurons are 'things organisms carry around' and, according to Nick, cannot be the grounds for stipulating consciousness.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024, at 4:58 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>> Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and no muscles and do not move they have no "patterns of doings" and therefore no consciousness. There is a paper from Taiz et al. which argues plants neither possess nor require consciousness.
>> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
>>
>> I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing Cockatoos and the Dead Man Test: How Behavior Evolves and Why It Matters" from Marlene Zuk
>> https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>> Date: 7/13/24 3:34 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
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <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 <https://chaoticatmospheres.com/mathrules-strange-attractors>
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/>
>>
>> -J.
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
More information about the Friam
mailing list