mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
By all means, read the article, but it was the idea of reading feelings in
pictures of eyes that seemed apropos to the ongoing discussion.
I thought it was clear that Google already knew how to hire produ
pplied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
By all means, read the article, but it was the idea of reading feelings in
pictures of eyes that seemed apropos to the ongoing discussion.
I thought it was clear that Google
This has moved so far beyond what I'm capable of thinking about that I'm
lost. (Although I thank Nick for crediting me with pointing out the
activity of the visual cortex. Good point -- even though it didn't occur to
me to refer to it.)
I'm still way back at a much simpler question. What do Nick
“What type of prospective employee would sacrifice personal measures of
productivity for group measures?”
What I’m suggesting is that the group measures may not serve the group benefit.
By being sensitive to vulnerability and insensitive to competitive pressures,
the whole ship may be put
By all means, read the article, but it was the idea of reading feelings in
pictures of eyes that seemed apropos to the ongoing discussion.
I thought it was clear that Google already knew how to hire productive
individuals, the question was why they, reliably productive individuals,
made such
On 02/29/2016 03:44 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
[NST==>Glen. I started to write a long cranky note, claiming to disagree with
this, but then I realized that I didn’t understand it. Unless, you are arguing … is
this it? … that we can use a scientific abstraction to interpret an observation which
, February 29, 2016 2:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
Great answer! However, it passes the buck to a new question. You seem to be
implying that the only
I suppose REC didn't include the link so as to avoid implicitly encouraging
others to read the article. I have no such scruples:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
On 02/29/2016 10:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Why
Great answer! However, it passes the buck to a new question. You seem to be implying
that the only things that are "scientifically meaningful" are the things that
_construct_ science. John's game doesn't (necessarily) involve the construction of
scientific meaning. I read it purely as
Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 2:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
and to management?
Something a little creepy about that article..
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:06 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
re
>> was a destination point he was trying to reach. He was frustrated because
>> he was not making progress in reaching the destination. By consulting the
>> map, he was able to find his way to the desired point. Moreover, he
>> retained a visual image of the map and this image
tination. By consulting the
> map, he was able to find his way to the desired point. Moreover, he
> retained a visual image of the map and this image helped him find his way.
>
>
>
> From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Russ Abbott [
> russ.abb...@gmail.com]
>
ng Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
Eric: Now, whatever you are experiencing, you are experiencing it as somehow
akin to a visual experience or, presumably, you wouldn't be using such terms,
right?
Russ: When I use terms like &qu
;>
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>>
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>>
>>
>> wimber...@gmail.com wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu
>>
>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918
>>
>>
>>
>
(505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
> Charles
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:58 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity an
of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
>> Abbott
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2016
Larding also
> Nick: If you had the figure in front of you, what you do? You would rotate
> it in your hands.
>
> Russ: If the figure were in front of me and I rotate it, I also look at and
> observe it. Rotating it with my eyes closed or in the dark of while looking
> somewhere else
p://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2016 6:25 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *S
om:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:49 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the w
:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
P.S. Frank, Thanks for the support.
On Sat,
ish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
I don't think the mathematical analogy is relevant. It doesn't seem to me
meritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
>> Wimberly
>> *Sent:* Saturda
25 PM
>
>
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
>
>
>
> Russ,
>
>
>
> In 1967 I took a course in cognitive processes at Carnegie Mellon
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
"I meant counting silently"
Whatever the relationship is between counting very loudly and counting in a
whisper, I would posit the same as the relationship between counting in a
whispe
:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:58 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
"I meant counting silently"
Wha
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 7:50 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and in
t;> measurements collected over time. So when in ordinary language we speak of
>>>> wanting “a hot fudge sundae”, we speak as if we are talking about an
>>>> instantaneous state in some internal space called the mind, when we
>>>> actually characterizing information c
constitute
>>> evidence for a directedness towards those things as an end.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You probably know too much math to get much pleasure out of my use of
>>> that metaphor. John will no doubt correct me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
gt;> NIck
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-b
Of *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 7:50 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
>
>
>
> What I still don't understand (and w
are just
dickering about the price.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
<http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redf
<friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
Russ... well... there we are.
I know the supposed "hard problem" of which you speak, but I think it is a
rabbit hole full of confusion, not an actual problem to be solved. The posite
problem" moot.
>>>
>>> Was any of that satisfying?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Eric P. Charles
;>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
>> Lab Manager
>> Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning
>> American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A
>> 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
>> Washington, D
ompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
I meant to follow up on th
gns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 3:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and in
o the ultimate foolishness of your position.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun..
AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Russ,
>>
>>
>>
>> Partly exhaustion, I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once we all agree that there is no *in-principle reason* that I cannot
>> ultimately tap your subjective mind, t
com> Date: 2/25/2016 06:14 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re:
[FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy (lost in the weeks?)
Nick, Eric,
I'm disappointed that neither of you responded to my reply (below) to Eric's
message. Pe
hlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:15 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
>
ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/281409844_Intentionality_is_the_mark_of_the_vital>
>>> .
>>> Ethology is thick with intentionality. Language is not an necessary
>>> condition for intentionalty. All is required is the sign relation (cf
>>> Peirce)
re and the computer that
>> runs it has no subjective experience.)
>>
>> I guess in both cases in which computers seem to "think" or "plan" we are
>> using those terms as analogs to what we see ourselves doing and not really
>> to
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> See Larding below:
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturalde
Abbott
> *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 3:08 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>
>
>
> Sorry that I'm not responding to Glen, Jochen, or John
f Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
Sorry that I'm not responding to Glen, Jochen, or John, but I've got to defend
Nick's devil's advocate. Nick,
John said "Your apparent anti-subjectivism is not a scientific proposition
supposedly verified by experiments, but is, instead, your definition of
consciousness. The definition allows one to study consciousness
scientifically, while avoiding certain paradoxes."
YES, Yes! Or at least something
Sorry that I'm not responding to Glen, Jochen, or John, but I've got to
defend Nick's devil's advocate. Nick, you do keep changing the subject.
In response to your two suggested definitions of intimacy I asked the
following.
--
Version 1: Intimacy is just being so close that you see
I may as well chime in, too, since none of what's been said so far is
meaningful to me. My concept of intimacy runs along M-W's 2nd entry:
2 : to communicate delicately and indirectly
This is almost nothing to do with subjectivity and almost nothing to do with non-private
knowledge
Tricorder Original message From: Russ Abbott
<russ.abb...@gmail.com> Date: 2/22/2016 06:17 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re:
[FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
Sorry. Guess I missed it.
Version 1: Intimacy
m] on behalf of Nick Thompson
[nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1:05 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
Hi, Russ,
Your questions are so answered by the “Old New Realist” article. I w
k.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
> Charles
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:16 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject
sh.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
"But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask me
about my experienc
as kicking
>> myself about bailing; and then another point, around 8 pm, when I was
>> wolfing hydrocodone and thanking God that I had.
>>
>>
>>
>> Debby must be exhausted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
&
rthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:25 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
>
bruary 21, 2016 12:25 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
Nick,
I hope I am the "other FRIAMMER" to which you referring.
Frank
Frank Wimberly
Phone
(505) 670-9918
On Feb 20, 2016 9
.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
> <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@red
As Lee's father used to imply, one can't know whether one's own pain is
like someone else's. But if we assume we are all human, have similar
experiences, etc. one can imagine what someone else's pain is like based on
one's own experience. Certainly isn't the issue; one does the best one can
with
Re: your dental pain. Patsy had to have a tooth pulled a couple of weeks ago;
her dentist,
instead of prescribing opioids, told her to take 2 ibuprofen and 2
acetominipehn (sp.?),
together, every four hours. It worked great.
No doubt not recommended for long term use or if you have liver
esigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 10:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the reply -- and
;
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
> <friam-boun...@re
ay, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about
knowing something
[friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Nick Thompson
[nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:33 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
John,
What I used to say, when you knew me back at Clark, is that MY
> Dreams and hallucinations are experiences that don't, in the long run, pan
> out.
Speak for yourself, man!
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
nison
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 2:26 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
I think Russ is raising an important point.
It seems that Nick is saying that consciousness is something that is
externa
fee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject:
[FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting
frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly).
It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in
ffee Group
<friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and
Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity
supposed to be a sci
; Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>
>
>
> One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion
> and Nick's denial i
, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting
frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly).
It occurred to me recently
We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting
frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly).
It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it
-- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private)
subjective
70 matches
Mail list logo
