1. Empirical. 2. Freud is as close to God as early 20th century intellectuals can get.
3. Your rationalized procrastination makes sense to me. :-) Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sep 21, 2017 2:46 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Ok. Self-reflection time. > > 1. Ah! Perhaps we ARE just quibbling about meanings. To what > extent does action based on assumption, A, imply that at the moment of > acting, one holds A as a belief? I seem to be claiming that it does so as a > matter of logic; perhaps the rest of you think it is an empirical claim. > > 2. I have not defended my trotting out Peirce as if he were God, > particularly given that I have done so in commentary on others trotting out > Feynman as if HE were God. I do so because it is easier for me to figure > out what somebody else thinks than to figure out what I think, and also if > feels less narcissistic. But as Glen points out, this benefit is ephemeral > because, of course, [What I think Peirce thinks] is just [Something that I > think] and others may wisely doubt that I have Peirce right. > > 3. I now know why I am being cranky. I am supposed to be > winterizing the Massachusetts house and packing to travel to Santa Fe. I > hate travel, I hate winterizing, and I hate packing. From my actions, I > surmise that I have been acting in the belief that I will be happier if I > start a fight on FRIAM then if I put my head down and do the things I am > supposed to be doing. Sober reflection suggests that I may be wrong in > that belief. Will this reflection result in a change in my beliefs? Only > my actions will tell. > > > > 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] *On Behalf Of *Marcus > Daniels > *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:54 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > > > There is nothing that infuriates me more than trying to solve a problem > with/for someone is confident in their hypothesis for no reason other than > a few past experiences. No we definitely can live with doubt. For > goodness sake we have Donald as president. It is a personality disorder > when people can’t depart from their priors in the face of actual evidence. > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson > *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:48 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > > > Dear Glen, > > > > I don't know why I am so pissed at Feynman right now but this quote: > > > > *"When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live > with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more > interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. > I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of > certainty about different things. I'm not absolutely sure of anything. And > there are many things Ι don't know anything about. But Ι don't have to know > an answer. I don't ... Ι don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by > being lost in the universe without having any purpose, which is the way it > really is as far as Ι can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."* > > > > … is another one of those sentiments that we would immediately recognise > as absurd if Feynman hadn’t said it. > > > > Peirce would say, for the most part, we cannot live in doubt. We cannot > doubt that the floor is still under our feet when we put our legs out of > the bed in the morning or that the visual field is whole, even though our > eyes tell us that there are two gian holes in it. Every perception is > doubtable in the sense that Feynman so vaingloriously lays out here, yet > for the most part we live in a world of inferred expectations which are > largely confirmed. Like the other Feynman quote, it is wise only when we > stipulate what is absurd about it and make something wise and noble of what > is left. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] > On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:59 PM > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia > > > > A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from a > BBC interview: > > > > "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live > with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more > interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. > I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of > certainty about different things. I'm not absolutely sure of anything. And > there are many things Ι don't know anything about. But Ι don't have to know > an answer. I don't ... Ι don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by > being lost in the unverse without having any purpose, which is the way it > really is as far as Ι can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." > > > > He was talking in the context of religion, but I think it applies to every > type of "knowledge", including the "thought manipulation" that is > philosophy. The point is not that "thought manipulation" can never be > useful. But that one can _justifiably_ take the position that philosophy > should (moral imperative) be done in the _service_ of something else. > > > > You cited Smullyan in the OP, which is relevant. Many of Smullyan's > publications are puzzles, games. Some of us simply enjoy puzzles. (I > don't.) But every puzzle is a math problem. It's up to the puzzle solver > to settle on why they're solving puzzles. Are they doing it because it > FEELS good? Or are they doing it because either the solutions or the > exercises facilitate some other objective? Some puzzle solvers (e.g. video > gamers) find themselves in a defensive position, trying to justify their > fetish against the world around them. The silly rancor many "practical" > people aim at philosophers can make some of them defensive. And it's a > real shame that we shame philosophers for doing it just because they enjoy > it. > > > > But it moves from merely shameful to outright dangerous when a philosopher > can't distinguish their own _why_. Someone who does it because it's fun > shouldn't waste any time yapping about how useful it is. And someone who > does it because it's useful shouldn't waste any time yapping about how fun > it is. Get over it. Be confident. Engage your fetish and ignore the > nay-sayers. > > > > On 09/21/2017 09:53 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > > Glen - > > > > > > I share your use of the term "Science" as in being an activity (roughly) > defined by "the Scientific Method" just as I use the term "Art" as the > process rather than the product (aka "Artifact"). > > > > > > When I do anything vaguely (or presumptively) artistic, I think of my > role as that of an "Artifex" more than an "Artist" because I feel more > emphasis on the conception/making than on being tuned into or tied into a > larger, higher group/power which is how I read "Art and Artist". I have a > similar ambivalence about "Scientist/Science". Despite degrees in Math > and Physics, my practice has rarely involved actual Science (or more math > than just really fancy arithmetic), though I have worked with "real > Scientists" and close to "Scientific Progress" for most of my life. I > don't even think of my work as having been that of an Engineer, but truly > much closer to simply that of a "Technologist". And as everyone who has > read my missives here can attest, my throwdown as a "Philosopher" is > equally detuned... but suspect myself to oscillate wildly between the poles > of "Philosopher" and "Philistine". All that rattled off, I truly value > having enough understanding of all of these > > > ideals to recognize the differences qualitatively, and to have mildly > informed opinions about the better and worser examples of each > quantitatively. > > > > > > -- > > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > > > ============================================================ > > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove