Random musings on intelligence (open discussion thread -come on in and let's e
potatohead
Posts: 10,261
For those of you just joining this discussion, it all started when the Potatohead decided to just unload a little to see what might happen. The resulting conversation has been interesting, entertaining, and educational on many levels. This is your thread to just put some stuff out there to see what others think. No politics and religion please, according to the Parallax standards of good conduct, but all else is fair game!
Just keep it civil and be considerate, and the favor will be returned in like kind.
Enjoy!
I'm going to just put this here because I typed it in response to some other posts on a thread that no longer can accept conversation. If this does not make sense, scroll it and move on! If it does, or you want to post up some musings of your own, please do! I'll read them, if no one else does, and that is as good as it gets.
Humans and many animals have a theory of mind. It's possible to model another, read their expressions, consider what their motivations may be and manipulate that for our own ends.
When you get computers playing poker properly, I think we will have gotten close. Here's a bit of Friday night musing as to what I am getting at.
Animals are a source of great interest to me. By watching them, I think we get a good handle on what being conscious is. IMHO, there is a difference between that and raw smarts.
In other words, I believe we will find it possible to make something that is intelligent, but lacking a sense of "self". This scares me actually, because we won't have a lot in common with it, much like we don't have much in common with the sociopath, in that both of them cannot really identify with us. When we do this, (and I think we will) I think we will get an ugly surprise or two.
If we accept that intelligences exist in a container, then it's not too much of a leap to understand that container and it's limits being less than perfect, come with some truths, that manifest as a particular logical progression of behavior. Things simply are necessary when a being is less than perfect. This is where instincts come from, for example. How we see animals behave really is hard wired! But unlike many, I believe it is the body that molds the intelligence, not there being variations of it.
In other words, intelligence is binary. It either exists, or it does not. The form that embodies it, molds it.
It follows, either a given intelligence is embodied in something that empowers it to be self aware, or it's not. All our efforts to date are not self-aware efforts, and are embodied in very crude things which limit the capacity to be self-aware, and thus not conscious.
Consciousness is a state of intelligence. What that manifests as depends on the body that houses and empowers the intelligence.
eg: our bodies are complex enough to be self-aware. The capacity exists for feedback throughout the being, and that breeds the conscious mind. Animals are also this complex, in that they can respond to the smallest touch anywhere on their person.
A quick look at smaller scale things, very quickly reveals how this works. Where there isn't much complexity in the structure of the being, there isn't the capability to make higher states of consciousness meaningful, and they simply don't exist, leaving simple survival as the primary purpose.
Where there is a self, there is a theory of mind and needs and all the other issues people have. If you've ever been close to an animal, where they trust you, and you trust them, all of these things are present. They sneak, love, anger, plot, fear, etc...
What they don't do is speak with a language of abstraction like we do. And a digression here:
Conscious beings are always in a state of expression. This comes with having a body of sufficient complexity and capability to be self-aware.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.
Animals have no need for tools and abstractions like we do. Their bodies are not of sufficient capability for these things to be meaningful. Our bodies, on the other hand, are fragile and we live longer and we need one another to survive. We have the tools necessary to do this.
I'll wrap this up then with an observation about expression:
I love to watch and interact with animals because their very being is expression. How they move, what they smell like, what they do, where they are, the sounds they make, and every little thing is their expression of their selves. To them, this is all one and the same.
To us, we have two states really, and many of us, particularly technical types, don't utilize the lower, simpler state where being is expression. We have a higher state where we utilize reasoned expression, and it's for the purpose of sharing what we know, building, and doing all the other things we need to do to exist.
To sum up then:
Intelligence either exists, or it does not.
It must be embodied to exist. (as far as any of us can deduce that is, and beyond that lies matters of faith really)
The form of the body determines the capacity to be self-aware.
Self-awareness, given a sufficient body, brings a state of consciousness.
If a being is conscious, then being is expression. (think body language being literally true!)
Consciousness has various states depending on the needs of the body and the capability of the body and it's environment.
Some elements of higher consciousness are representations and abstractions.
eg: most animals can do this to a limited degree. One of something, two of something a few of something and many of something, are the most common.
Higher states come with more capability and robustness in the body.
All intelligences grow to fully utilize the form they exist in.
All intelligences seek to exist. This is the basic need.
To apply all of that then, I consider a cat that's very close to me. When I sleep and wake the cat is there. When I leave the cat is there watching. When I come home, that cat finds me and wants attention.
On most days, she finds me and rubs me until I pick her up. She prefers to smell, watch, have me do pets, and kneeds my arm while I'm holding her. There are some specific things she does on some days, different things on others, some things every day.
It finally occurred to me, this is the conversation. I see the cat, it sees me, we are then talking right then and there. The whole greeting gesture is just a conversation not unlike the one I have with my wife about that time.
...and if the cat doesn't get her conversation relatively soon after I arrived, she is annoyed and lets me know that. I believe the reason why is that my state, what I smell like, do, look like, am carrying, how I touch, etc... is the expression she needs to know what happened while being gone. We humans largely ignore that and go right for the language and can get it done in our own time, the animal doesn't do that.
So she's wondering if I have eaten, what it was, who I saw, where I went, how many I saw, tired, angry, slow, fast, and all sorts of stuff. When she does all the little things, including waving her tail in my face, that's her deal. Has she been sleeping, recently ate, happy, where in the yard was the fun today? Bark dust with smell of roses = outside playing, patrolling. Light smell of food, and clean and soft = ate and spent time with my wife grooming, etc...
After realizing these things, I see the cat as a little person. It's not as complex as we are, but it is self-aware enough to know what it is and understand why it would have value to me, bond, play, and do. There is an intelligence in there that can scheme, sneak, plan, wonder, etc...
Some very simple representations happen too. One, two, a few and many, and enough. I've seen this with food offerings and watching behavior, BTW.
Because of these things, I actually think the Turing test is somewhat flawed. It can match a mind like ours and I think that's good. But, it's not so good at just finding a mind, and because of this, I often think we co-mingle things like consciousness with intelligence, causing ourselves more grief than we would otherwise have trying to build one!
If it were me, I think I would be studying those intelligences we can that have low self-awareness. That's kind of like what our first intelligent machine will be like. Then we work up, body and mind together to reach higher states of being, ideally creating things that have enough in common with us to relate, and not take the place over!
So, there you go. Some deep potatohead thoughts to hose you up on a late Friday!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/6/2009 9:57:49 PM GMT
Just keep it civil and be considerate, and the favor will be returned in like kind.
Enjoy!
I'm going to just put this here because I typed it in response to some other posts on a thread that no longer can accept conversation. If this does not make sense, scroll it and move on! If it does, or you want to post up some musings of your own, please do! I'll read them, if no one else does, and that is as good as it gets.
Humans and many animals have a theory of mind. It's possible to model another, read their expressions, consider what their motivations may be and manipulate that for our own ends.
When you get computers playing poker properly, I think we will have gotten close. Here's a bit of Friday night musing as to what I am getting at.
Animals are a source of great interest to me. By watching them, I think we get a good handle on what being conscious is. IMHO, there is a difference between that and raw smarts.
In other words, I believe we will find it possible to make something that is intelligent, but lacking a sense of "self". This scares me actually, because we won't have a lot in common with it, much like we don't have much in common with the sociopath, in that both of them cannot really identify with us. When we do this, (and I think we will) I think we will get an ugly surprise or two.
If we accept that intelligences exist in a container, then it's not too much of a leap to understand that container and it's limits being less than perfect, come with some truths, that manifest as a particular logical progression of behavior. Things simply are necessary when a being is less than perfect. This is where instincts come from, for example. How we see animals behave really is hard wired! But unlike many, I believe it is the body that molds the intelligence, not there being variations of it.
In other words, intelligence is binary. It either exists, or it does not. The form that embodies it, molds it.
It follows, either a given intelligence is embodied in something that empowers it to be self aware, or it's not. All our efforts to date are not self-aware efforts, and are embodied in very crude things which limit the capacity to be self-aware, and thus not conscious.
Consciousness is a state of intelligence. What that manifests as depends on the body that houses and empowers the intelligence.
eg: our bodies are complex enough to be self-aware. The capacity exists for feedback throughout the being, and that breeds the conscious mind. Animals are also this complex, in that they can respond to the smallest touch anywhere on their person.
A quick look at smaller scale things, very quickly reveals how this works. Where there isn't much complexity in the structure of the being, there isn't the capability to make higher states of consciousness meaningful, and they simply don't exist, leaving simple survival as the primary purpose.
Where there is a self, there is a theory of mind and needs and all the other issues people have. If you've ever been close to an animal, where they trust you, and you trust them, all of these things are present. They sneak, love, anger, plot, fear, etc...
What they don't do is speak with a language of abstraction like we do. And a digression here:
Conscious beings are always in a state of expression. This comes with having a body of sufficient complexity and capability to be self-aware.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.
Animals have no need for tools and abstractions like we do. Their bodies are not of sufficient capability for these things to be meaningful. Our bodies, on the other hand, are fragile and we live longer and we need one another to survive. We have the tools necessary to do this.
I'll wrap this up then with an observation about expression:
I love to watch and interact with animals because their very being is expression. How they move, what they smell like, what they do, where they are, the sounds they make, and every little thing is their expression of their selves. To them, this is all one and the same.
To us, we have two states really, and many of us, particularly technical types, don't utilize the lower, simpler state where being is expression. We have a higher state where we utilize reasoned expression, and it's for the purpose of sharing what we know, building, and doing all the other things we need to do to exist.
To sum up then:
Intelligence either exists, or it does not.
It must be embodied to exist. (as far as any of us can deduce that is, and beyond that lies matters of faith really)
The form of the body determines the capacity to be self-aware.
Self-awareness, given a sufficient body, brings a state of consciousness.
If a being is conscious, then being is expression. (think body language being literally true!)
Consciousness has various states depending on the needs of the body and the capability of the body and it's environment.
Some elements of higher consciousness are representations and abstractions.
eg: most animals can do this to a limited degree. One of something, two of something a few of something and many of something, are the most common.
Higher states come with more capability and robustness in the body.
All intelligences grow to fully utilize the form they exist in.
All intelligences seek to exist. This is the basic need.
To apply all of that then, I consider a cat that's very close to me. When I sleep and wake the cat is there. When I leave the cat is there watching. When I come home, that cat finds me and wants attention.
On most days, she finds me and rubs me until I pick her up. She prefers to smell, watch, have me do pets, and kneeds my arm while I'm holding her. There are some specific things she does on some days, different things on others, some things every day.
It finally occurred to me, this is the conversation. I see the cat, it sees me, we are then talking right then and there. The whole greeting gesture is just a conversation not unlike the one I have with my wife about that time.
...and if the cat doesn't get her conversation relatively soon after I arrived, she is annoyed and lets me know that. I believe the reason why is that my state, what I smell like, do, look like, am carrying, how I touch, etc... is the expression she needs to know what happened while being gone. We humans largely ignore that and go right for the language and can get it done in our own time, the animal doesn't do that.
So she's wondering if I have eaten, what it was, who I saw, where I went, how many I saw, tired, angry, slow, fast, and all sorts of stuff. When she does all the little things, including waving her tail in my face, that's her deal. Has she been sleeping, recently ate, happy, where in the yard was the fun today? Bark dust with smell of roses = outside playing, patrolling. Light smell of food, and clean and soft = ate and spent time with my wife grooming, etc...
After realizing these things, I see the cat as a little person. It's not as complex as we are, but it is self-aware enough to know what it is and understand why it would have value to me, bond, play, and do. There is an intelligence in there that can scheme, sneak, plan, wonder, etc...
Some very simple representations happen too. One, two, a few and many, and enough. I've seen this with food offerings and watching behavior, BTW.
Because of these things, I actually think the Turing test is somewhat flawed. It can match a mind like ours and I think that's good. But, it's not so good at just finding a mind, and because of this, I often think we co-mingle things like consciousness with intelligence, causing ourselves more grief than we would otherwise have trying to build one!
If it were me, I think I would be studying those intelligences we can that have low self-awareness. That's kind of like what our first intelligent machine will be like. Then we work up, body and mind together to reach higher states of being, ideally creating things that have enough in common with us to relate, and not take the place over!
So, there you go. Some deep potatohead thoughts to hose you up on a late Friday!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/6/2009 9:57:49 PM GMT
Comments
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
· -- Carl, nn5i@arrl.net
Post Edited (Carl Hayes) : 9/5/2009 2:42:37 PM GMT
My explanation is this:
Sometimes there is a dynamic that occurs in reply mode, that wouldn't occur when just bothering to note a thought down. It happens when I'm following a discussion that triggers some interesting thought. Choosing not to ignore that as the distraction it normally is, sometimes leads to good things. I'll simply enterain it once in a while, if it makes sense to do so.
IMHO, the good thing out of the above is this potential realization:
The state of being conscious occurs when an intelligence is embodied in such a way that it is possible to become self-aware.
I'm going to think some more on that, and the rest can just fade like other ramblings do. That is simply something that has not occurred to me before. Doing it "live" in the sense that there is actually a discussion occurring (and there was), means doing some of the work to model it and talk about it, and with that comes solidifying it so it is not forgotten as many fleeting ideas so often are.
A prior one brought me this:
Fear has two forms: mortal and what we usually refer to as inhibition. Fear of self-expression, the inhibition kind, can sharply limit our potential to realize that understanding which our experiences bring to us.
Frankly, I buy that one. Some pretty damn potent stuff comes from simple musing and expression. A simple lark can take one in surprising places! Why not then? That is all this was.
If that does not compute, or is some other thing, I'm sorry, and I completely understand.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/5/2009 3:42:06 PM GMT
I can tell you this: We are very good at detecting other minds. I have no doubt, after having interacted with an annoying crow or two, that they are indeed self-aware and do posses the ability to form a theory of mind. Those things are not annoying due to some random combination of attributes. I think we are simply entertaining to them.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
So here is another one of those fleeting musings, sparked by your mushroom comment!
People will go and get high to reach a lower state of inhibition. They do this for the entertainment value and to relieve tension. What a lot of them don't know is that state is something we can cultivate on our own and expose when it makes sense to do so. Life is considerably easier that way.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Potatohead, Those were indeed "random" musings. Sometimes bad things happen to good thoughts when you try to record them. The biggest problem I see in discussing intelligence, mind, self awareness, consciousness, etc. is that the terms do not even have a firm definition that everyone can agree on.
The definitions are very difficult. It's not exactly a scientific leap to arrive where I did on a couple of those. However, I have found it helpful in life to go ahead and make that leap. I don't consider the core elements above truths at all. I do however consider them tools by which to see whether or not some other efforts may align with those ideas, and or as potential tools to model things with.
Call those inclinations. They are those things we maintain internally as beliefs or biases until we've got rational reasons to do otherwise. If there is some reasoning to be done, where firm definitions are not yet realized, this is one way to do it. Modeling, then observing to backward infer what might actually be true is safe enough, given that purpose is known.
From there, I have some tools to help me interact with the crow, or the cat, for example.
To make a complete mess of this, when considering other people, you can't always ask these kinds of things. However, you can take the info you have, find best fit models, then interact and observe to see what fits what. It sure helps the poker game, (I am 100 percent serious about that) and is not possible without either a doctorate in that particular discipline, or a few liberties taken in the same manner I have above. One has to have models to work with, and some means to realize them. That is how I sort out that chicken and egg problem.
When some observation, or education, or conversation nullifies an inclination of this kind, I simply remodel, thinking it over for a while, and once that stuff is sorted, continue one step closer to real understanding. This is a great activity for that long drive home, BTW.
Edit: Well there is another thing here too. I could have went ahead and posted that, then edit away all of it. Sometimes I do that, just wanting to capture the product of conversation in context. (that's hard to explain... the closest thing I can say is that I've some impression of everybody here, can take the forum thread, picture where all of you are at, then write as if speaking) I left it this time, curious as to how it would be received. So far, I've not been surprised by anything other than Mike Green taking it at face value and suggesting some material of interest to me. I didn't expect that actually.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/5/2009 7:40:51 PM GMT
Post Edited (Mike Green) : 9/5/2009 8:07:21 PM GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-locality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
I think about this kind of stuff a lot...I'm just so strange.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- Some mornings I wake up cranky.....but usually I just let him sleep -
Where I was going was more along the lines of something like pattern recognition. Given a medium and a mind on each end, we get that stuff sorted out rather quickly, and I think that's an interesting element to this discussion. It is possible for two people, who do not know one another to tap on a wall and build up enough common representations to share their lives, despite having no other means to communicate. We can bridge that cap with animals too, with surprising results! Wasn't it KoKo the gorilla, who learned enough common representations to ask for a pet kitten?
Then we've got the identical twins, who claim to feel something when their other twin is killed. Interesting and entertaining stuff to be sure. That kind of thing is why I say, "highly likely" and not just flat out voodoo! [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Well, this is the sand box, and I expected much worse from what is a decidedly hard core, rational crowd. Thanks for entertaining a bit of a lark. I have little ego and inhibition surrounding these things. Never have, see no reason to. All that does is shut down the playful mind we enjoyed as kids. No fun in that.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
There is a very forward thinking group whose activities I follow, and one branch of their activities is working with agencies like NASA to examine and plan for possible scenarios that are 50 to 100 years out. One of those more remote scenarios is contact with alien life forms, and how to determine the scentience of life before we begin to think about altering the environment to their detriment to suit human needs. How can we do this when we have a hard time determining the scentience of life we already know?
I actually DON'T think we as a species are all that good at detecting other minds. There are still a huge number of people who view animals - even domesticated animals like dogs and cats - as nothing more than walking meat with the sentience value of a rock. And yet there have been many articles demonstrating the fact that many dogs may have at LEAST the intelligence of a 5 to 10 year old human. And that tiny creatures like spiders may have the equivalent intelligence of a rabbit.
Could it be that consciousness is EVERYTHING, and intelligence flows from the level of awareness any given consciousness posesses?
How would we test for consciousness as opposed to mind? And why is it that human creativity flows best when mind stops and we exist in being consciousness/present moment awareness?
We can create "Artificial Intelligence" - but if we ever learn to create "Artificial Consciousness" - would it really be artificial?
How's THAT for some random Musings, Mr. Potatohead?
Dave X
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
· -- Carl, nn5i@arrl.net
Well, I like it. Good stuff. I was actually dancing around the problem of our representations and not theirs.
Here's an interesting intelligence observation. I do think cats and dogs rate on par with average young human intelligence. Once the family cat had peed on my daughters bag. She was mean to the cat at times, and I think that cat decided to express itself right on the bag!! She had been warned, and that act did not surprise me in the least.
Anyway, she announced she was going to kill the cat! I watched with morbid interest, ready to put a stop to the whole thing, but she couldn't actually get the cat. The moment it saw her, that cat KNEW! When she came home, the cat had followed her, then stopped as she entered her room. It waited and watched. Spooky actually. When she came out with the bag in hand, I could see the change in it's body language, and the battle began! The two of them were fairly well matched at that point, IMHO the various handicaps all balancing out. And they did! After 30 minutes, she announced that she couldn't actually kill the cat! She was 11 at the time.
I wish I had video of this. Both of them tried every trick in the book. Deception, intimidation, aggression, feints, dodges, the works!! As quickly as she could think of things to do, the cat realized it's moves as well, able to maintain enough degrees of freedom to just avoid her. Amazingly, they ended up in her room, working the bed. She had closed the door. I thought bad things might happen, so I entered only to see them juxtaposed with the bed. It was a zero sum game. For every move, there was a counter move, and this lasted about 3 minutes, before she gave up.
The two of them were in their corners, staring each other down huge, looking for all the world like just two siblings, who got just a bit too hot under the collar for their own good.
After some consideration, I think I do agree with you. We do vary though. Some of us "read" expression better than others do. IMHO, our ability to utilize basic expression below language has atrophied some, because we have the higher form.
Your point on the whales is a good one. We have so little in common with them, yet there are things we can discern. For me, the indicator of high intelligence is families. Whales have them, and they endure over long periods of time --not just long enough to boot strap new members of the species. They have them, because they value them. --or, that's my take anyway.
I've a compelling whale story too. One that flat out moved me.
When Keiko was housed here in Oregon, I took the kids to the aquarium to see him. My younger son was on my shoulders and was just amazed at the whale. I walked him up close to the glass, and he was animated and yelling stuff to the whale. Keiko came to where he was and just stayed there watching. We moved, keiko moved. Fun stuff.
The following day we returned, and it was immediate. Keiko returned to his position in the tank where he could see my son. Same exact behavior as before. We move, he moves. The whole room ended up silent both times. Perhaps we as a species have poor science about these things, but there seemed to be a fair amount of perception going on that time. I don't think anybody there would question those two bonding on some level. The whale rolled and moved about in response to my sons antics. It wasn't just watching. Frankly, it reminded me of when land animals want to play. They will roll to expose their belly, and that's a harmless position that says to me, "ok listen --I'm not into conflict right now, you?"
What struck me this time, and what prompted that post really was the idea that we would be able to discern the intelligence of the machine based on responses WE would consider intelligent, without regard to the stark limitations and differences an electro-mechanical form would bring to the table. That's all really. There were some implications to that, if a solid realization, that were worth following, if only to remember I had considered them later on.
To be perfectly clear, this is not an area of formal study for me. Just musings from an adult, who does pay attention to the interactions between people, things and animals. (yes, we interact with things and I could go on for pages about the personification we take for granted when considering physical objects --your average product concept designer would probably better describe this)
Thanks for your quite unexpected reply.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
I think I just realized why I think animals don't feel shame like we do. Being is expression. There is no capacity for shame because they have no need, nor ability to entertain modesty. They don't lie, but will feint.
We have a layer of abstraction between our minds and our expression. We can lie, as well as feint.
That is where shame can exist.
That's it for this one.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
I like these kinds of conversations. Your musings out of context created a new context in which my musings seem(ed) to make sense. Meaning does change with context!
And my take on animals and shame: Animals, while they may have memory of the past, do not live in it. They live in the present moment, and therefore cannot review with judgement previous actions. For them, all that exists is what is happening in that moment of now. Judgement is not possible unless one relives a past experience in a disassociated state. Animals are too authentic to be doing that!
And I would also say that Being is not an expression - being is our most fundamental state as living entities. We are born "all-being" and mind develops as we go along. Being also develops the ability to learn to control our bodies while mind is learning to use those movements syntactically. This eventually develops into language, etc. But the interesting thing is that mind can be put on hold, while being takes over, and we do not revert to an infantile state (well, most of us, anyway!) Examples of this are found everywhere - from extreme sports that preclude the possibility of thinking and rely entirely on body knowledge and muscle memory to be able to respond to the changing situation rapidly enough to prevent catastrophic misstep; emergency situations, such as accidents, war, etc., in which people have no active mind for varying lengths of time in the face of extraordinary circumstances - and yet respond with incredible accuracy and swiftness. Martial arts experts would tell you that when they need to call on their skills at maximum performance, there is no room for mind in the equation.
OK, I guess I'm done now too. I think...
Dave
I like your take on shame a bit better than mine. That question really isn't modeled or answered correctly for me yet. Probably I'll sort that out when I'm too old for it to be of serious use. For now, I'll continue to question shame because it contributes to unhealthy inhibition. Why, is still something to be sorted over time.
We might have to entertain another lark someday on being and expression. I'm not so sure I can agree. IMHO, the body brings with it expression as the needs of the being are met. Let's then just say being comes with expression. I'm not sure the two can be separated in any meaningful way, other than to say that beings express things. I guess I'm saying they can't not do that, or there isn't a whole lot of purpose to being. Expression is one of the markers that an intelligence is present, IMHO. Without it, I think of plants. Are plants beings then? If so, perhaps I can agree and consider the self-aware bit above and that all could sort of work. Lots to say on that matter another time. Defining it better would be a good start.
Your last thoughts are actually quite relevant to ordinary life.
Many of us experience this. Since childhood, I've always tagged it the trance. Can happen on a video game (where I first experienced it), fight or flight reactions, sports and lots of things. IMHO, this is a state where thoughts are actions. There isn't time for the usual abstractions and such we have at ordinary times. For the longest time, I thought this was a higher state and now I'm not so sure. When I experience this, the most notable artifacts of it are fast reaction times (thought is action kinds of things), and a kind of bizzare record mode happening where I can review all of it later with a clarity I don't normally experience. IMHO, these are things to cultivate and manage. We learn from them, and we can apply them with some surprising results.
Here's my attempt at some sort of Parallax relevance: Once in a while, when programming the Propeller, I reach a state where I can "see" the thing that needs doing. Coding is SO easy then. It would be nice to bring that forward more --damn nice!
Thanks again everyone who participated. I'm not sure how meaningful this muse ended up being, but I can deffo say it was entertaining, relaxing and thought provoking. Appreciated [noparse]:)[/noparse]
I'll read subsequent posts, but not likely reply. Of course, I thought that last time and Dave ended up being compelling. Who knows?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/6/2009 3:48:18 AM GMT
First: If you haven't already done so, ask some good artists what they think about consciousness, self awareness, mental states, etc. Better yet, round up some computer science types and some artist types, buy them all something to drink, and toss your topics into their middle.
Second: I'd keep an open mind about telepathy, etc. I know there are tons of frauds out there, billions of words written exposing tricksters, etc. and no hard overwhelming scientific evidence. But if the human ego happens to be somehow antagonistic to such phenomena, then it's a catch-22 situation to study it appropriately.
I'm just sayin.
This differs from, say, a rock. Which a rock definitely has unique appearances characteristic of only that particular example of rock, the "expression" of that rock is entirely the result of external forces leaving their mark upon interaction with it, those forces being friction, impact, heat, pressure, chemical action, etc. There is no "will to expression" in a rock. There IS a "will to expression" in a being. And in my view, yes, even plants are "beings", and have consciousness, albeit not what you or I would recognize as consciousness, but that doesn't count for much. We can't even figure out what a fly sees- we know what the lenses must do to the light, but we can't even begin to imagine what the world really looks like to said fly - because we have no idea how that little critter's neurophysiology actually does with it's visual data in the pre-process. Even human vision electrochemical signals go through THOUSANDS of transformations and reductions between the time the "light hits our retina" and the time our nerve fibers present some distant echo of that signal to our occipital lobes. So how could we even begin to assign what has or has not "being". But in my limited understanding, only being is required for expression, because only being can have true Will (as opposed to our concept of will, which is a mind-construct - "willpower" - which is a conscious mind construction, but I digress...)
And what has being, but not consciousness?
And being and consciousness, but not awareness? (Besides so many people today... LOL!)
OK.... it's well after midnight here.... time to give my awareness and consciousness a rest, and drop into pure being, the void, for some sleep and rejuvenation. I've truly enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for making the space for it.
Dave
Two great thoughts to end on:
"A wise man once said that if one truly understood the nature of life, they would make it their business to get to know intimately those things which transcend death. I now know of two: The Void (The Emptiness, Nothing), and the Present Moment. These, and only these, existed before time, and will exist after as well".
"...My father is the Void, and my mother is the Universe..."
Yes! Animals are very keen at reading us. Not what we say, but US. That is their normal mode, and is the source of many of their perceptual wonders. We lose a lot of this because our primary mode is abstracted from this. Frankly, this is why I really enjoy animals. They give me some exercise in using their mode. How someone walks up to you tells a story. The dog understands that story, many of us don't. Actually, many of us fear that story and this manifests as shy, introverted, clumsy, etc... (Nothing a little theatre education won't cure in a week!)
...and all of that has practical application in sales and poker. What can I say? I'm forced to deal with sales more than I would like, and poker is just gaming people as much as it is understanding the probabilities and managing risk. If you watch the various players, they each have their style, and all have very good perception of others in the animal way. Some apply game theory and other higher math to gain leverage. Others simply read people and force them to play themselves. What is very interesting is how balanced that ends up being. I honestly expected the rational types who deal in the math and theory to prevail, and they do. But, those very perceptive people punch well above their weight consistently. This is part of why I like the game.
@ElectricAye -- Noted. I remain open, but somewhat biased. That's about as good as it gets. For what it's worth, I do absolutely believe what you said about ego. That is true enough, and I can honestly say I don't have any self-investment in that stuff being true or false. Progress either direction would be good from where I stand.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/6/2009 5:49:02 AM GMT
Interesting discussion ... as far as your comment "How someone walks up to you tells a story. The dog understands that story, many of us don't." - you nailed it! Using your own body language whether you realize it or not you are broadcasting your intentions, and in many cases, the reason that the animal (dog) can detect if you are a threat is because it's "reading" your story as your body consciously or subconsciously writes it in your approach.
Some animals just like people may have problems reading the story, or might have read a bad story at one point in their life. Animals do remember the stories they read, they also forget and are much closer than you might think with their level of understanding of the story.
I encourage anyone to find a Dog park near them, and instead of “people watching”, do a little bit of “Dog watching”. Not only how the dogs interact with their owner, but with each other and as “new” dogs enter and exit. The park gives them more sense of freedom, and they already know (probably before you even left the house) that this is a wonderful place for them and it is meant to meet and greet other dogs attached to the occasional human on a leash.
BTW) Matter of fact we went to the dog park earlier today. IVAN, our 85 pound Golden had a blast!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Beau Schwabe (Parallax)) : 9/6/2009 7:33:14 AM GMT
That stuff has been thoroughly discredited:
www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html
When I was studying psychology at Birkbeck College, Uri Geller visited the physics dept. (Professors Hasted and Bohm believed that his magic tricks were genuine scientific phenomena). Members of the psychology department wanted to attend, but Geller said he he'd walk out if any psychologists were present!
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Most psychologists and most psychology professors, I think, would be as taken in by someone like Geller as the general public is, but there is a significant group of psychologists who do know what to look for. I did a critical thinking presentation with several other psychologists including one who does stage magic about 12 years ago in Tucson. Great fun.
* Had it been Geller or one of the other con men, I wouldn't have asked them to be respectful, though I probably wouldn't have goaded them into being disrespectful either (well, not too much). But a stage magician is a skilled, honest practitioner.
We have at least one psychologist here in the UK who used to be a professional magician - Richard Wiseman:
www.richardwiseman.com/
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Post Edited (Leon) : 9/6/2009 6:11:30 PM GMT
I wouldn't use Geller's behavior as a reason to discredit anyone else but him personally. He's notorious for being fussy.
Also, beware of the fallacy that, if a magician can duplicate something a "psychic" does, that the "psychic" must be a fake. That only proves that a researcher or other observer has to be careful about the observations made.
Post Edited (Mike Green) : 9/6/2009 6:11:02 PM GMT
I don't think there are any parapsychology experiments that have stood up to rigorous scientific investigation and been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Re. psychologists, unfortunately, there are a LOT of psychologists who do not have any idea how to design experiments involving people, and who fall prey to many of the same fallacies that lead lay people to believe in psychic phenomena (e.g., the "you can't prove it's not true, so it is true" thing, the "people in other cultures have used this for thousands of years!" and the "I experienced it personally, so I KNOW it's true" thing). On the other hand, it does seem to me that natural scientists are more likely than psychologists (in general) to believe that if people are shown that something is false, they will believe that it is false.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle