Dave - Your invocation of Sheldrake/Morphenetic Fields was a nice surprise. I think you are on to something with that connection and I would suggest that Hoffman's work does support Sheldrake in a distant/qualitative way without endorsing his specifics.
I am also reminded of a Science Fiction novel by David Brin, "The Practice Effect" which has been discussed here before (someone corrected/reminded me of the proper source last time I mentioned it at least). Morphogenetics seems about as believeable as "the Practice Effect" as presented. I *would* be interested in more elaboration by yourself and others on how you see Hoffman and Sheldrake living on the same continuum and the landscape between them. - Steve On 9/13/19 8:51 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Dave, > > > > Please see larding below! > > > > 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: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation > > > > this is the FRIAM I knew and loved, > > */[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous. When ARE you > coming back? <==nst] /* > > > > > > As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, > perception of that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments > are not surprising. Blaming the existence of the interface on > evolution was kind of new and interesting. > > */[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it > deserves, but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, > so I am going to allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, > though, how you tell the difference between your direct knowledge, and > the other kind. Does direct knowledge come with little “d” icons > attached? So, not only do you have direct knowledge but you also have > direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and direct knowledge > that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad finitum. > Just checking. <==nst] /* > > > > It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with > Heidegger, Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy > that caused the greatest amount of thinking. Although not a > hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems to be at minimum, a fellow traveler. > > */[NST==>Yes, I agree. Although, in my present demented state, I > wouldn’t know a Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst] /* > > > > The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only > thing we can know is the interface and whatever is behind that > interface is not what everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— > seems to parallel the hermeneutic position that all we can know is the > interpretation and whatever is behind the interpretation is not what > every thinks it is, i.e. Truth. > > */[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice. Either we must assert > a truth beyond experience, or deny any truth at all. By why not a > truth IN experience. Truth is a [mathematical] property of > experience. That upon which human experience converges. Truth is > just what keeps banging us on the head as we grope around in the > dark. <==nst] /* > > > > Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less > the same thing as Interface or Interpretation. > > */[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth. > Some methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, > asserting only that talk of events beyond experience was > scientifically nugatory. Philosophical behaviorists [Wittgenstein??] > assert that talk of events beyond experience is MEANINGLESS. <==nst] /* > > > > Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the > same spot in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly, > Interface made me think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and > morphogenetic fields. > > */[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are > talking about the manner in which development channels us into common > paths, the fact that even though there is tremendous randomness in > epigenetic processes, yet we all end up looking [pretty much] the > same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is excellent. <==nst] /* > > > > It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating. > > > > davew > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote: > > > Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my > > > defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting. > > > But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think > > > the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting. > > > > > > To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my > > > day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about > > > any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why* > > > they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever, > > > Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the > > > *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the > > > green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red, > > > then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent > > > hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made > > > their decision, then my judgment is negative. > > > > > > Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic. > > > Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of > > > attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like > > > "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year > > > old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's > > > not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try > > > to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the > > > control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more > > > understandable. > > > > > > I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to > > > put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on > > > how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively, > > > I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for > > > Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse* > > > to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to > > > "what I thought at the time". > > > > > > To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished. > > > The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's > > > "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life. > > > It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the > > > idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of > > > what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the > > > interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^) > > > > > > On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > > > I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip > > > > my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what" > > > > and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument. > > > > > > > > My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument: The utility > > > > of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or > > > > actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of one or > > > > more fixed > > > > domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being > > > > involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?) > > > > relationship formulized by GmM/r^2. This "utility landscape" IS > > > > the fitness landscape for evolution. Obviously there must be > > > > "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this > > > > landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to > > > > predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g. eclipses). > > > > > > > > I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important > > > > or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes > > > > how I live my everyday life for the most part. I am *literally* > > > > trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly > > > > aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to > > > > reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been > > > > put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly? > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
