Re: resolving trouble

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear John, M

I like and second your phrase '"nobody matches another person's
cummulative experiences". The only point is that it is not always possible
to express them with words, let alone the difficulty arises from the use of
many languages with differing concepts within or beyond their thresholds. In
certain subtle areas metaphores, proverbs make the trick, as you did, even
extracting something from another mental/spiritual framework.

I believe, this kind of, at times sharp, conversations will expand our
horizons further, thus I find them useful. They are, at times, more useful
than other more carefully organized talks as every spontaneous uttering has
a piece of real truth in it, though I am for gentler dialogues. I surely
enjoy being in the list which helps me travel into the deeper and quieter
layers of my mind and soul - as usually music and some art forms do. I
usually find small or big size truths in our ongoing conversations, with
John Kineman around to keep in good health, as healer when needed. Struggles
operate in layers on the surface where the waves are large in dimension. As
we go deeper they'll get smoother and gentler. C'est la vie!
My best,
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: resolving trouble


> JohnK,
> thanks for the trouble and kindness, but you bark up an open door.
> I am NOT leaving the list, (if I am not thrown out) I just try (!) to keep
> my mouse shut. Not in every aspect (that would make me sick), only in
> selected topics. Don M didn't like my 'attitude' and asked me twice over
the
> past years: "just say the word and I delete you from the list" - I didn't
> and I am still on. I am not a mimosa, I think we are still friends.
> I made a frank statement to Judith, as I meant it. I hope that will not
> interfere with our 'human' friendly relationship. I don't expect people to
> agree with me, my opinion is mine. But I don't bow to authority.
>
> "To be heard" is nice (I am a piano performer) to correct false ideas is
> satisfying. I have no 'peers' for my ideas, nobody matches another
person's
> cummulative experiences, but I like to learn from ideas of the others I
> value. Even of those I don't (Hungarian proverb: a blind hen also may find
a
> grain.)
>
> You wrote (and I argued for this same position over years):
> >Artificial Intelligence is merely a human created machine
> > doing the bidding of human intelligence, using aspects of human
> > intelligence as the tools for such work as it is programmed by us to do.
> >Therefore a computer analysis of a picture is, in my view, exactly the
> >same as human analysis, by extension. <
> Lately Ben Goertzel (whose professionalism I value greatly) expressed
> his belief in the success of ongoing development (he allegedly
participates
> in it) to bring up "superthinking" (strong) AI, outperforming the human
> mind. If 'those' take over the world, we may still survive as food for the
> microorganisms. Then there is the project of Streve Kercel et al, with
> combination mind-machine - most likely capable of modeling, and it is your
> choice to deem it a 'human' using a machine, or a machine modeler using a
> human. Or there may evolve(?) models in the internet, (called a superhuman
> organization by Don M), so 'our' terms may senesce into obsolescence.
> I am a young mind, look forward, not backwards.
>
> John, thanks again for your amicable post and reasonable arguments, there
is
> but one mistake you made: you misplaced the (  '  ) in your reference to
me
> in the beginning, it comes AFTER the name  "Mikes", not before the 's' (ha
> ha).
>
> John M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Kineman" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 7:37 PM
> Subject: Re: resolving trouble
>
>
> > Hi Judith and John M.
> >
> > May I intervene in this discussion, which seems to have ended with John
> > Mike's unnecessary retirement?
> >
> > I would like to express a sentiment that I have felt for a long time
> > regarding these discussions (multiple lists, not just this one).
> > They are a mixed blessing to me. On the one hand it is great to discuss
> > ideas with others thinking about the same subjects.
> > But on the other hand, there is always this barrier we all erect around
> our
> > ideas and ways of expressing them.
> > I have been as much a victim of this as a perpetrator of it, so it is a
> > human weakness (assuming I am counted among the human and am typical in
> > this regard).
> > We have to ask first and foremost why we converse at all, I mean what is
> > the goal? The desired outcome?
> > Here's some possibilities:
> > 1. our individual learning, regardless of what others get out of it
> > 2. increase collective understanding
> > 3. seek consensus, i.e., agreement whether it is correct or not
> > 4. get an right answer to a question from others
> > 5. vent frustrations and repressed desires to "be heard"
> > 6. to enlighten others
> > 7. to represent some legacy (person or theory)
> > 8. just to "win" at something with words
> > 9. to have fun
> > 10. to integrate ideas and build on them
> > 11. to discover our own thoughts through the exercise of expressing them
> > 12. to get peer review of our own thoughts
> >
> > We all can probably add more reasons, but each of these requires a
group,
> > so we're here. And each requires that we express our ideas at some point
> > (except if one's purpose is just to listen). The problem with expressing
> > ideas to a group was identified by the famous Murphy (was he a real
> > person?) who said: "It is impossible to make anything fool proof,
because
> > fools are so ingenious."
> >
> > No matter what we say or how we say it, someone will be able to find an
> > objection. From that point on we talk about the objection rather than
the
> > original idea. If that goes on long enough someone might feel offended.
> > Then we talk about the offense or perception of it. Then, ultimately, we
> > get to messages like this asking what we're really trying to accomplish.
> >
> > I think the goal should be to stick to original ideas.
> >
> > To do that, we have to all be disciplined enough to not defend our
> > particular vocabulary, or our particular source of information. An idea,
> > first expressed, requires reflection. One has to look at it from many
> > angles before reacting. There are 1000's of ways to misinterpret it and
> > only one or a few ways to understand it as it was meant. Most of us
don't
> > express ideas with 1000 meanings intentionally.
> >
> > So it is easy to say "no" to say "I disagree" or say "that's not my
> > view"  - so what? Is that the point? Or is the point to find a way to
> > understand?
> >
> > Here's a test in understanding something that at first seems wrong: In
my
> > increasing post-middle age I have come to the idea that there are no
wrong
> > statements (with one exception). We use words as symbols for things we
> have
> > experienced and are experiencing, and there are no wrong experiences. So
> > how can the symbol for something true be called false? Its like saying
if
> > the word "ouch" or the word "damn" is the right one when someone gets
> hurt.
> > The main point is the experience, and we can agree on the words only
after
> > we've agreed on the experiences we're describing.
> >
> > Sounds crazy, right? But think of it this way. Right and wrong are
defined
> > entirely by context. We hear the statement but not the context. So we
can
> > declare it wrong. But there is another choice. Instead of saying "no" we
> > can do the hard work, and ask more about the context - try to find the
way
> > in which we can say "yes."
> >
> > This is a different kind of learning than most are used to. Instead of
> > mechanically labeling syntactic statements as "right" and "wrong", one
is
> > using them to evaluate contexts in which they have meaning. Doing this
> will
> > always result in the feeling of doing something meaningful, because it
is
> > literally working with the meanings, not the structures. Some contexts
> will
> > turn out to be very limited and not much use for anything else. But
still
> > one can agree with the statement and then explore (together) how far it
> > gets us. This is science at its absolute best, I think. Because the real
> > insights come from exploring a paradigm and finding which statements are
> > correct or incorrect in which paradigm.
> >
> > My suggestion: Think first how we can agree. Think last, or not at all,
> how
> > we can disagree. No one's honor will be soiled by this.
> >
> > John K.
> >
> > PS I hope John M. does not leave the list. His insights are extremely
> > valuable and an integral part of this discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:44 PM 4/20/04 -0400, John M wrote:
> > >You wrote:
> > >I'm not sure what your problem is with all this, John.
> > >Are you disagreeing with my father's work or with what
> > >I've said about his work? Or something else?
> > >Let's clear it up.
> > >
> > >Judith
> > >----------------------------------------------------
> > >This is the kind of discussion I will not go into.
> > >So - with all respect - I will hold my opinions in the future
> > >from your list.
> > >I would like to stay in good terms with friends, off list.
> > >
> > >John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc.
> > ><***>
> > >"http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/";
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> > >To: <***>
> > >Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:37 PM
> > >Subject: Re: causing trouble, active/passive
> > >
> > >
> > > > > John M wrote
> > > > > First the photograph, taken by Voyager 13 months after launch and
> > > > evaluated
> > > > > by a computer BEFORE ant human saw it. I hope you don't deny the
> > > > > machine-conciousness working in AI? (I just do not equate it
> > > > > with a human mind).
> > > >
> > > > John, my view is that computers are extensions of the human mind.
They
> > > > evaluate based on our desires and intentions, using our measures and
> > > > perspectives. Artificial Intelligence is merely a human created
> machine
> > > > doing the bidding of human intelligence, using aspects of human
> > >intelligence
> > > > as the tools for such work as it is programmed by us to do.
Therefore
> a
> > > > computer analysis of a picture is, in my view, exactly the same as
> human
> > > > analysis, by extension. This is a completely different situation
from
> what
> > > > happens in organisms regarding the "internal predictive model" and
its
> > > > causal influence on the behavior of the organism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > John M. wrote: Then the hotheaded 'human' superiority. Yes it is
> that.
> > >WE
> > > > are the big ones
> > > > > because we made gadgets. So does a beaver and a bird. "human"
> > > > > consciousness? because we do not understand the other animals?
When
> > > > > I first became upset about "consciousness" (human that is) I
started
> to
> > > > > go 'back' in species and kinds to see where is a natural barrier?
I
> > >didn't
> > > > > find one. Tools, methods, targets changed according to the kind of
> > > > creature
> > > > > (feature?) and its circumstnaces, but no barrier in MY wording of
> the so
> > > > > called 'consciousness', the sensitivity, acknowledgement and
> response to
> > > > > information arriving from the world. (I/O)
> > > >
> > > > Like you, I have also always had a problem with the human assumption
> (more
> > > > like a conceit, really) that we are the only species on the planet
> > >(indeed,
> > > > in the entire universe) gifted with consciousness. I've expressed my
> views
> > > > regarding this subject here on the list several times. What I said
> before
> > > > was that I have finally arrived at a definition of "intelligence" as
> "the
> > > > ability to think". Many other creatures besides human beings clearly
> have
> > > > intelligence. "Consciousness" I define as "the ability to think
about
> > > > thinking". It's harder to measure or evaluate such an ability,
> therefore
> > >we
> > > > can't be "sure" (in the reductionistic scientific sense of the word)
> of
> > >its
> > > > existence in other species. Furthermore, our notion of consciousness
> is
> > > > based on our perceptions of it via the way WE think about thinking.
> Whales
> > > > may be conscious creatures, but their consciousness may be just
enough
> > > > different from ours to not "look" like consciousness to us. Who
knows?
> I
> > > > consider it a distinct possibility that many other species on Earth
> are
> > > > conscious beings. However, based on my definitions, I believe that
> > > > consciousness requires a brain of sufficient complexity to generate
> both
> > >the
> > > > ability to think and the further ability to think about thinking.
> > > > Consciousness is a dimension beyond mere intelligence, in my way of
> > > > organizing these concepts.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, my analysis of statements in the above paragraph of
yours:
> tool
> > > > making (in beavers or birds) reflects intelligence. However,
creating
> a
> > >tool
> > > > that can think requires the ability (in the creator) to think about
> > > > thinking. Computers have certain aspects of human intelligence built
> into
> > > > them, which gives them a limited "artificial intelligence", but not
> any
> > > > artificial consciousness (so far). I have seen other people using
the
> > >terms
> > > > "consciousness" and "intelligence" very differently than I use them,
> so
> > > > perhaps your response to what I wrote is based on a different
> > >understanding
> > > > of what you thought I was saying? If so, I hope that these
definitions
> > > > clarify my position?
> > > >
> > > > John M. wrote:
> > > > > A similar regressive trial I did on 'life' and went back to
viruses,
> > >then
> > > > to
> > > > > those clay-organic and clay structures, back to molecules, and so
> on,
> > > > > if the questions were asked right.
> > > >
> > > > Well, sure: If one chooses to define one's terms imaginatively, then
> black
> > > > can indeed be white, up and be down, hello can be goodbye...
However,
> this
> > > > is not what my father did in delineating his theories on complexity.
> He
> > >saw
> > > > clear differences between the behaviors of living systems and the
> > >behaviors
> > > > of bubbles in clay pots or other physics-explainable, non-living
> systems.
> > >He
> > > > analyized those differences, he defined his terms, he discussed his
> > >reasons
> > > > why he did all these things and the implications of doing them...
I'm
> not
> > > > sure what your problem is with all this, John. Are you disagreeing
> with my
> > > > father's work or with what I've said about his work? Or something
> else?
> > > > Let's clear it up.
> > > >
> > > > Judith
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You wrote the tricky expression: ">...in a certain sense...< Not
as
> > > > > ubiquitously and always generally findable, but picking an
> exemplatory
> > > > case
> > > > > where a goal-oriented 'sense' justifies MY idea. (Pointed
sentence).
> > > > > Such are the carefully planned measurements, how the Big Bang was
> > > > > 'experimentally' proven. (Background radiation, linear
> retrogradicity
> > > > etc.)
> > > > > In a "certain sense" there is (human) life, and that is enough for
> > > > biology.
> > > > > Just consider the 'life' of superhuman artifacts, somebody on
> another
> > >list
> > > > > just mentioned the internet, we don't have to go to the sci-fi
"Hal"
> > > > > supercomputer...or Terra (AL).
> > > > >
> > > > > We can reduce our interest to our life and the heck with a world
w/o
> it.
> > > > > Even narrower than what Dan lately quoted about the biosphere:
> > > > > plants and their parasites. Only ONE, us. Blinders down and we
live.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the harsh ideas (the words are aony pointers)
> > > > >
> > > > > John M
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> > > > > To: <***>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:34 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: causing trouble, active/passive
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > John M. wrote:
> > > > > > > excellent idea, the non-human modeler. I have an example:
> > > > > > > a photograph. It is a reduced model (e.g. no smell included)
> > > > > > > of the visual boundaries-enclosed modeling. Momentarily I
> > > > > > > am at a loss to mention another one - product of not some
> > > > > > > *conscious activity* (like the camera, or say a bee-raindance
> > > > > > > provided information of flowers - to say extremes). I was
> > > > > > > looking for a model 'made' by a stone or a glalxy... Sorry.
> > > > > > > Do you think conscious activity can only lead to models?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any organism other than a human being is a "non-human modeler"
in
> a
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > sense. Complexity itself, is a model creator/generator. Any
> example
> > > > > created
> > > > > > by human beings, like your photograph, is only a model because
of
> > >human
> > > > > > consciousness. As such, I think it muddies the water rather than
> > > > > clarifying
> > > > > > things. Models don't show up in the natural world until
complexity
> > > > reaches
> > > > > > the dimension of living systems (biology). this is why these
> concepts
> > > > are
> > > > > so
> > > > > > alien to physicists. Models, functions, anticipation, life:
These
> are
> > > > all
> > > > > > properties of complex systems of a certain dimension of complex
> > > > > > organization.Contemporary physics deals with systems of lesser
> > > > complexity
> > > > > > than biology does, but the common feature is complexity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judith
>