PS ”truth beyond experience.” “Truth other than experience” “truth IN experience” all equally dualist.
Can’t help but be so as all are legal expressions in a dualist language. davew On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, 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
