Hi there, Please unsubscribe me.
Thanks, C On 28 Jan 2015 7:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: academic fields whose practitioners believe ... > (Roger Critchlow) > 2. [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > (Vladimyr Burachynsky) > 3. Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > (Frank Wimberly) > 4. Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > (Marcus G. Daniels) > 5. Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? (glen) > 6. Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? (Nick Thompson) > 7. Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? (Grant Holland) > 8. [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > (Marcus G. Daniels) > 9. [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > (Marcus G. Daniels) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:51:40 -0700 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic fields whose practitioners believe ... > I was just pointing some others at this article and I found an author's > reprint collection with links to commentary: > > http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~acimpian/reprints/ > > As the Economist understates: "All this raises interesting and awkward > questions." > > -- rec -- > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Great article in Science this week: >> >> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6219/262.short >> >> The more the practitioners of an academic field agree that "Being a top >> scholar of >> [discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught", the >> less successful women and african americans are in the field, as measured >> by the percentage of PhD's graduated. Measured across all disciplines and >> in competition with three other hypotheses. >> >> -- rec -- >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Vladimyr Burachynsky <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:25:32 -0600 > Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > To Marcus and Group, > > If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many > can > be true, or are all true in some respect? > If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we > decide which is true? > Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of > numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. > The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. > Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the > brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. > We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value > of the map is compromised. > > Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only > one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction > and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been > squashed as the admission price) . > > Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" > and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. > But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. > > There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer > in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. > Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so > ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the > victory > of his argument. ad hominem fallacy > > Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as if > there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me > to > adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any > group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they > appear. > The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the > judges, > or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. > Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the > drive for literary quality may be very small. > vib > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. > Daniels > Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > Glen writes: > > "but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it > than > he seems to be." > > It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to > persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? > Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult > leader. > > Marcus > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:35:59 -0700 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > Well said, Vladimyr. > > Frank > > > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > [email protected] [email protected] > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr > Burachynsky > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > To Marcus and Group, > > If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many > can > be true, or are all true in some respect? > If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we > decide which is true? > Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of > numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. > The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. > Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the > brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. > We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value > of the map is compromised. > > Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only > one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction > and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been > squashed as the admission price) . > > Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" > and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. > But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. > > There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer > in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. > Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so > ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the > victory > of his argument. ad hominem fallacy > > Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as if > there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me > to > adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any > group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they > appear. > The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the > judges, > or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. > Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the > drive for literary quality may be very small. > vib > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. > Daniels > Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > Glen writes: > > "but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it > than > he seems to be." > > It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to > persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? > Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult > leader. > > Marcus > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:23:29 -0700 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:25 -0600, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > > > The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the > judges, > > or do they? > > Yes, it is just a struggle for power. There are no rules. > > Marcus > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: glen <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:26:52 -0800 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > I agree with Marcus that the litigants do have the "right" to "enforce" > their contrived rules on the judges (as usual, the scare quotes foreshadow > my rhetoric). I think this is mostly because there is no line between > judge and litigant. We can see this quite obviously with the rampant > accusations of "activist judge" in punditville today. Even if there is > some sort of line, it's a fuzzy one. The memes of the litigants infect the > judges and the rulings of the judges infect the litigants. > > I am quite taken (aback?) by the neoreactionary movement (e.g. > http://www.moreright.net/why-nrx-is-winning/). If you filter out the > nonsense: misogyny, racism, etc., their criticism of democracy is > interesting. What it seems you do (in your criticism of consensus > democracy) and what they do (in their criticism of populism) are to > oversimplify the inverse and forward maps by which the high dimensional and > low dimensional data relate. > > Even within a single eyeball, there is no single perspective. So, even in > your parallax analogy, the oversimplification can be demonstrated. Perhaps > the foveal blindspot thing works to demonstrate it? The image generated by > 1 eyeball is already a reduction from a higher dimensional image, as shown > by the single eyeball consensus that there is nothing in that foveal area. > Adding the new eyeball just combines two pre-reduced consensuses to create > an even further reduction... but thereby adding back the two blinded areas. > > Similarly, the litigants are collectives; the judge is a collective; and > their both collectives of collectives, all the way down and up. Any > instantaneous snapshot is open to some false clustering... the stability of > any given consensus can be largely illusory, ready to vanish in an instant. > > On 01/27/2015 01:25 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > >> To Marcus and Group, >> >> If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many >> can >> be true, or are all true in some respect? >> If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we >> decide which is true? >> Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of >> numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. >> The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. >> Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the >> brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. >> We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value >> of the map is compromised. >> >> Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only >> one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all >> contradiction >> and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been >> squashed as the admission price) . >> >> Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" >> and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. >> But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. >> >> There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer >> in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. >> Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so >> ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the >> victory >> of his argument. ad hominem fallacy >> >> Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as >> if >> there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me >> to >> adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any >> group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they >> appear. >> The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the >> judges, >> or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. >> Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the >> drive for literary quality may be very small. >> > > > -- > ⇔ glen > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nick Thompson <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:40:38 -0700 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > FWIW, Charles Peirce has a rather novel solution to this problem. First, > he > writes as if there are such things as facts ... things that are true not > matter what you, or I, or any other person might think. So, up to that > point he seems like a straight-on dualist: reality is distinct from human > thought. But then he takes a sharp turn. Facts are NOT independent of all > human thought. Indeed, a fact is just what we, as inquiring creatures, are > fated to agree upon in the very long run. Truth is that upon which > scientific thought will converge. Thus there is no reality outside human > thought, just reality outside the thought of any particular set of persons. > > > Strange, huh? > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:36 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > Well said, Vladimyr. > > Frank > > > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > [email protected] [email protected] > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr > Burachynsky > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > To Marcus and Group, > > If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many > can > be true, or are all true in some respect? > If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we > decide which is true? > Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of > numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. > The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. > Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the > brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. > We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value > of the map is compromised. > > Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only > one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all contradiction > and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been > squashed as the admission price) . > > Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" > and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. > But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. > > There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer > in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. > Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so > ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the > victory > of his argument. ad hominem fallacy > > Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as if > there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me > to > adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any > group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they > appear. > The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the > judges, > or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. > Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the > drive for literary quality may be very small. > vib > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. > Daniels > Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > > Glen writes: > > "but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it > than > he seems to be." > > It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to > persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? > Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult > leader. > > Marcus > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Grant Holland <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>, > Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 21:22:46 -0700 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > One either knows the answer (to whatever question) or one doesn't. You > actually know that God exists, or you don't know. Pretending that you know > when you don't is...well...pretense. Accepting that you don't know when > you don't and keeping an open mind usually leads to less self delusion. > > I see no reason to adopt an idea as a belief when you know damn well that > you don't know whether it is true or not. This goes for atheism as well as > theism or any other idea. FWIW I think that pretending to know when I > don't - one way or the other - is simply unnecessary, fruitless and > self-deluding. > > Grant > > On 1/27/15 3:35 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > >> Well said, Vladimyr. >> >> Frank >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> [email protected] [email protected] >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr >> Burachynsky >> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:26 PM >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? >> >> To Marcus and Group, >> >> If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many >> can >> be true, or are all true in some respect? >> If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we >> decide which is true? >> Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very simple matter of >> numerical superiority with no better a chance of being right. >> The collective opinion is reduced to one and gains nothing by addition. >> Parallax is the simplest such example, left eye versus right eye and the >> brain merges the disparate 2D images into a 3D mapping. >> We could decide to blind one eye in favour of the other but then the value >> of the map is compromised. >> >> Control Freaks would prefer their working eye or viewpoint to be the only >> one ever considered. So the control freak must annihilate all >> contradiction >> and be elevated in the esteem of the group ( whose opinions have also been >> squashed as the admission price) . >> >> Harris may simply be indulging in a manoeuvre to appear as an "authority" >> and enrich himself at the expense of a naïve group. Quite Normal. >> But none of that makes him right but only wealthier than some. >> >> There is something so medieval about pitting an atheist against a believer >> in an arena each using bludgeons to assert their position. >> Well if both are deluded in some manner there will never be truth , who so >> ever gets the killing blow in first conflates assassination with the >> victory >> of his argument. ad hominem fallacy >> >> Everyone seems to assume that one is either a Believer or an Atheist as >> if >> there are only two possibilities. As a "judge", neither side can force me >> to >> adopt certain limitations, or petitions. If the judge is outside of any >> group affiliation he is free to shrug off fallacious arguments as they >> appear. >> The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the >> judges, >> or do they? anymore than the left eye has tricks to exclude the right eye. >> Harris may also be motivated by a need for status as well as funds, the >> drive for literary quality may be very small. >> vib >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. >> Daniels >> Sent: January-26-15 2:17 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? >> >> Glen writes: >> >> "but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it >> than >> he seems to be." >> >> It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want >> to >> persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? >> Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a >> cult >> leader. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 21:33:25 -0700 > Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > "I see no reason to adopt an idea as a belief when you know damn well that > you don't know whether it is true or not." > > It's a question of what gets mental resources. Rejection of a proposition > as inadequate is not the same thing as saying that it is false. It's > simply > uninteresting whether it is true or false. > > Marcus > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[email protected]> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:06:38 -0700 > Subject: [FRIAM] [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? > "I see no reason to adopt an idea as a belief when you know damn well that > you don't know whether it is true or not." > > Consider counting boolean values. > > Trial one gives `1', `0', `0'. > > Trail two gives `1', `0', `0', and, `GodIsGreat'. > > All tabulators count trial 1 to be 1/3 `1'. > > Tabulator one counts trial 2 to be 1/3 `1'. > Tabulator two counts trial 2 to be 1/4 `1'. > Tabulator three counts trial 2 to be `unknown'. > Tabulator four counts trial 2 to be 1/2 heads. > Tabulator five counts trial 2 to be `GodIsGreat'. > > Tabulator 1 preserves the evidence she is given. > Tabulator 2 opts for tails when there is no explanation given for missing > evidence. > Tabulator 3 throws away all the evidence. > Tabuatlor 4 opts for heads when there is no explanation given for missing > evidence. > Tabulator 5 is an evangelist. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > [email protected] > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
