[FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

[Prof David West]

I agree that each is conscious of each other.

Yes, the second one is tricky, so i will take it in parts.

Dusty is conscious of Dusty. One reason: I give Jackson (my other dog) a treat and observe body language and facial expressions exhibited by Dusty that I interpret as, "where's mine?" This indicates to me some kind of Dusty self-awareness/consciousness of self.

Dave is conscious of Dave.
   1) Naive but evident: bullet clips ear—immediate utterance, "*_I'm_* hit." (utterance is observable behavior)
   2) Muddled: noise emanates between navel and spine, sometimes utterance is *_I'm_* hungry; sometimes "stomach empty," sometimes no utterance at all.
   3) Contrarian: extended mediation using the Koan "Who Am I" with each posited answer rejected until no "I" remains. (A state of existence with zero differentiation between 'observer' and 'observed' // 'conscious' and 'conscious-of'.)
   4) Meta: [various ways to achieve, but most blatant is LSD]: conscious/aware of consciousness and ITS-BEING-CONSCIOUS. (A program is aware/conscious of itself as ephemeral sequence of   [voltage | voltage-not]   ?)

Tricky bits:
  A-Cases 1) and 2) can quickly devolve into a kind of circular reasoning: dave is conscious of dave because dave seems to be conscious of dave; or some kind of argument by authority: dave is conscious of dave because Nick heard utterances that are interpretable as dave is conscious of dave; or, blaming language because of the centrality of the verb to-be.

Cases 3) and 4) represent the kind of point-of-departure I warned about earlier—excluded from the conversation because they are not shared, not logical, not "scientific."

davew


On Mon, Jul 15, 2024, at 11:43 AM, Nicholas Thompson 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/20240715/3321906b/attachment.html>