[FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

[Prof David West]

>From the beginning, I believed this thread was, in substantial part, Nick's attempt to 'teach' us to think as behavioralists and see how far we could go in achieving some kind of consensus. I tried very hard to couch all of my responses in such terms. I did express, early on, that I had serious doubts about how far we could go without deviating into other questions—and the answer appears to be not far.

First I copped to blatant anthropomorphism with seem to be accepted with no concern.
Then Nick introduced metaphysics followed by a quick mea culpa.
Then a flood of additional metaphsysics (inside/outside), inter-species (human-whale, human-machine) illustrations, definitional nuances (consciousness, awareness, intelligence), and my challenge to the 'approach' because it excluded 'evidence' from meditation or drugs.

Although Nick keeps saying he is 'pleased' with responses, I am curious as to whether or not we are really making progress towards consensus of any kind.

But, just in case, responding to Nick's last question to me:
Dusty will look up, at Jackson, as he is receiving a treat, then stand, in a position I interpret as 'being on alert' and look at Jackson, then at me, then Jackson, then me (sometimes as many as 4-5 times), then 'staring' at me.  Jackson does something similar, but he will also utter a small bark/yip while staring.

davew



On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, at 11:59 AM, steve smith wrote:
> Nick -
>> I must say, I am grateful and pleased by all these testimonials and I 
>> am beginning to sense method in my madness.
> I'm glad you were willing able to wade through my gallop of 
> observations/reflections/experiences with these two highly central 
> creatures in my household.
>> I notice you are much vaguer about Cyd than you are about Hank.
> Very much so, as I experience with many cats, she does not reach as far 
> into human psyche/nature to meet me as most dogs (Hank in particular) does.
>>    So, in your assertion that Cyd is both conscious and self 
>> conscious, I am inclined to ask for more details.   So the method goes 
>> something like this
>>
>> We statt with the intouition that because Cyd does X,  Cyd is conscious.
>
> I think you know from my pan-consciousness self-diagnosis that all of 
> the things I am inclined to report about Cyd also applies to the 
> hummingbirds, the lizards she stalks, and the fish Hank barks at.
>
> Cyd has a very highly adaptive sensorimotor system which not only allows 
> her to be good at stalking and catching lizards but also at begging her 
> people to let her out to do so, or to give her a helping of "second 
> dinners" like the hobbit she channels.   She observes, considers, acts, 
> observes the consequences of her acts (the book falling from the top of 
> the bookcase when she traverses it too rambunctioiusly, the way Mary 
> jumps up and lets her out when she hits the right note of plaintive 
> meow, the way the lizard freezes when it senses her).   This is an 
> overwhelming indication of consciousness in my apprehension of the world.
>
> We were implying that an animal's "Love" or "loving relationship with" a 
> human familiar had something to do with consciousness.   I think that is 
> a red-herring,   I don't think the lizards love Mary when she frees them 
> from Cyd's jaws, but I do think they are acutely conscious.
>
>>   From our prior  usage of the term, we know that if Cyd is conscious, 
>> he will do things A, B, C, D, ....N with greater frequency than 
>> otherwise. We check t o  see if this is true. Does Sbe?  Ifso, we now 
>> add Cyd to the list  of conscious beings.   Now we check to see if 
>> other conscious beings do X with greater frequency than non conscious 
>> ones.  If so, we have added to the list of things that conscious 
>> beings do.
>
> See above...  A==sense, B==process, C==respond.    I don't know that A, 
> B, C singularly without both of the others even makes sense.
>
> The fish in the pond are almost continuously in some level of motion, 
> they appear to be sensing with their photon and olfactory and 
> vibration/pressure-wave sensors.   They respond to signals (shadow of 
> human or dog looming over pond, insect landing on the surface of the 
> pond, bit of high-nutrient food sinking in the pond) by bolting or 
> gulping or seeking more input (curiosity). While a lot of their 
> processing may be prewired/instinctive, I do believe that part of their 
> processing is in support of "learning".    The dragonflies who like the 
> high-ground of the tips of everything they can alight on seem yet more 
> automatic/instinctual yet they appear (because I project?) to learn... 
> they appear to become more and more tolerant of my approaching them the 
> more I do it?  They likely recognize that despite the appeal of the tip 
> of my car antennae, the tips of the cat-tails in the pond seem to be 
> more appealing given the likely food-flux they can spy and grab from 
> that vantage (but this is a just-so projection since I'm not a very 
> disciplined naturalist, I really have nothing but anecdotal observations).
>
> So perhaps D might be "learn"...
>
> Which takes me to the trees and bushes I feel a strong 
> affinity/familiarity with.   Do they A, B, C (and even D?).  I say yes.  
> They don't have lenses over their photo-receptors, but since their 
> primary/singular energy gathering activity is photonic/light, they 
> clearly sense light.   They also seem to be able to extend root growth 
> toward water and nutrients, or along same said nutrients...  this 
> represents A and C as does growth "reaching" growth out from under the 
> shade to gather more light? What about B?   B would seem to be entirely 
> pre-wired processing, not adaptive at the scale of the individual 
> single-lifetime organism?   Which spills over to "learning" (D) which 
> maybe isn't happening at the scale of the individual... does a branch or 
> root keep "reaching" even if it gets stymied over and over?  I'm not 
> sure.  So if B and even D are required for "consciousness" then perhaps 
> it is only a population of such organisms and the germline phenotypic 
> expression which we must acknowledge some level of "proto-consciousness" 
> to?
>
> To go on down the line of lower-and lower complexity entities or systems 
> i'd have to grasp further and seek the existing guidance of others in 
> the pan-consciousness world who have worked through this in their own ways.
>
> Bottom line, is that the "bottom line" of consciousness feels very hard 
> for me to even begin to want to draw between Hank and Cyd or where it 
> excludes Lizzy or Fishy or DraggyFly or any and all of the 
> yet-less-familiar creatures they stalk and eat. Interesting that all of 
> these are predators, no?
>
> Yet another free-associateve gallop?
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/