Nick, David: you are both correct. Frank
Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank. The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First, you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the conversational table. see you in December On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > David, > > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to. Please > come back so I can administer cold compresses. > > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I > have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge > I don't think I ever would have given it. Try this: Imagine that you > have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space. > Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal. Now, I say, > the signal can either be random or systematic. Let's say that the last > ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz. Now, > it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be > produced by a random signal. But now let us double the number of > readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements > has also diminished by the square root of two. Now double again, and > diminish the variation once again by root 2. And so on. While we both > would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not > random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is > drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz. It's that > way with truth. It's quite possible that our experience is random, and > no amount of consistency can ever convince a rational man that the > randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random. > However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man > will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be > confirmed in the very long run of human experiences. On Peirce,s > account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth" It > is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of > will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. > > Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at > all that is True. I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth > would be if there ever were any. > > Come back. We miss you. > > Nick > > 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 Prof David > West > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” > > Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with > Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past > few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot > of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions > and assertions are, at minimum, ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no > such claim, as will be explained later. > > There can be no Truth. > Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated > - ‘truths’ are possible. > Until the Universe achieves ‘heat death’ (at which time there > might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral > ‘truths’ are possible. > All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally > illusory. > > There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed. > To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded > privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, > scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?” > > There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or > sharing, Truth; were It to exist. > Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the > Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.” > More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said > about software and software development. Specifically that a program was > the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed > it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans > engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to > documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other > minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and > simultaneously, empathy.) > > As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an > intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing > orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the > ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every > living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of > the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this > belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are > those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion. > This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above. > > A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse: > “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be > their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within > them.” Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to > epistemology and metaphysics. > > None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same > essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one. > > > ============================================================ > 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
============================================================ 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
