[FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

[Nicholas Thompson]

Oh, and, the project is to describe experiences that would lead to one
conclusion or anotherj.

Here is an example  If you play a dog's bark back to him, does he respond
as if it's the bark of an intruder?
If not, that suggest some sort of self recognition mechanism,  given that
the bark I give sounds a heluva lot different  from the bark I would hear
if if I were the hearer of my own bark.

Buts let's secure agreement on the first two propositions first:

 There would seem to be two kinds of experiences necessary to support the
idea that A is conscious of B.
Stories that suggest that A  moves in relation to and in anticipation of
B;s movements.
And, Stories that suggest that A's movements in relation to B are nnot
movements deployed to every othe member of the class A without
discrimination.

i,e, that A is conscious B distinctly.

Nick

On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:43 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Prof Dave n all,
>
> I would like us to come back to this point:
>
> *Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dave (Dusty).*
> *Is  Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dusty (Dave).*
> Using our progress around the word Love, I feel like we ought to be able
> to agree on the first two propositions.  We agree that the two particiants
> are consciouus of one another.
>
> So, if I am correct about that, could we move on to dis cuss the second
> pair, whether each of the two is conscious of themself.
>
> This is really truicky and, to be honest, I have no idea where it comes
> out.
>
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nicholas Thompson <
> thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or
>> other closely related down-to-earth experiences.
>>
>> Dave, you offer as data:
>>
>>
>> *Dave is sleepy and calm.*
>>
>> *Dusty is anxious and afraid.*
>>
>> *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.*
>>
>> *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.*
>>
>> *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
>> back and lets her stay as she is.*
>> *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.*
>>
>> You then offer the following guide to interpretation:
>>
>>
>> *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a
>> series of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness
>> between the two *
>>
>> I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an
>> arrangement of other behavioral states.  So I will leave that alone.
>> Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the
>> data you set forth, that  a meta-state of lovingness exists between you.
>> (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG,
>> I will adopt your lingo.]  To call your joint behavior loving is to perform
>> an abduction.  The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that
>> flow from it:
>>
>> So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my
>> understanding, the following would be true:
>>
>> *You would protect one another against harm.*
>> *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or
>> depressed.*
>> *You would  become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long
>> time.*
>>
>> Are these things true?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240715/bb6e054d/attachment.html>