And that's the God's Honest Truth :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick, David: you are both correct. > > Frank > > Frank Wimberly > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West" <profw...@fastmail.fm> 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:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David > > West > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam@redfish.com> > > 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 >
============================================================ 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