Oh, BTW, I didn't notice any testiness. On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, at 5:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: > See Larding below.
> > By the way: my mail interface is taken to tucking some of my mail into a > folder called "important" where, of course, I cannot see it. So, if I appear > to go missing, don't hesitate to write me an unimportant message telling me > that there are important ones awaiting me. > > Of course I have n o I d e a what distinguishes an important message from an > unimportant one. > > As I said, see below: Oh, and dave, what I wrote below is TESTY. I don’t > realty feel testy, I don’t really feel qualified to be testy. I think the > rhetoric just got away with me. It has happened before and you have promised > it doesn’t’ bother you, so I am counting on your grace-under-fire again. > > Your friend , > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation > > thanks Glen, > > I totally agree with you about dead white guys. [Except I have had > face-to-face conversations with a couple of them :) ] I reference them not as > a source of answers but in an attempt to find some kind of conceptual bridge > for a conversation. But that might be totally counterproductive as it tends > to introduce a propensity for forking the conversation. > > Engaging with contemporary scientists is hard when it comes to drug-induced > data sets / experiences. I hope to make some connections with contemporary > researchers at the ICPR conference I mentioned but the focus there seems to > be psycho-medical and related to the oxytocin article you posted, and my > direct interests tend to diverge from that. > > Perhaps something more direct might be useful. Two things, the second is > mostly to tease Nick. > > > 1) I am fascinated by the field of scientific visualization, using imagery to > present complex data sets. Recently I "observed" the precise moment of > sperm-egg fertilization. A whole lot was going on inside the egg cell > boundary immediately upon contact (not penetration) with the sperm. The > visualization was of thousands (millions?) of discrete inter-cellular > elements breaking free from existing structures, like DNA strands, proteins, > molecules and moving about independently. I could see several "fields" that > were a kind of "probability field." These fields constrained both the > movement of the various elements and, most importantly, what structures would > emerge from their recombination. "Watching" the DNA strand 'dissolve" and > "reform" was particularly interesting because it was totally unlike the > "unzip into two strands, the zip-up a strand-half from each donor" > visualization I have seen presented in animations explaining the process. > Instead I saw all kinds of "clumps" form and merge into larger/longer > "clumps" then engage in an interesting hula/belly/undulation dance to > rearrange the structure into a final form. All of this "guided" by the very > visible "probability fields;" more than one and color coded. > > Now, if I were a cellular biologist could I make use of this vision? > **[NST===>] I love this example. Every stain produces a new image and some > stains are more revealing than others, in that the models they facilitate are > more robust and enduring in their predictions. I stipulate that. I also > stipulate that hitting an alarm clock with a sledge hammer MIGHT reveal > robust and enduring information about alarm clocks. I just don’t think it’s > likely. And there is the possibility that the clock wont be very accurate > thereafter. That is the whole of my argument against drug -epistemology. So > if you are NOT arguing that drug-epistemology is somehow superior to > sledge-hammer epistemology, then we agree and we don’t have to argue any > more. ** > > Since I am not a cellular biologist and have no understanding of > inter-cellular structures/dynamics/chemistry, nor any DNA knowledge, where > did the imagery come from and why did it hang together so well? > > Was this experience just an amusing bit of entertainment" Or, is there an > insight of some sort lurking there? > **[NST===>] I like the metaphor with stains. But just remember, if my memory > serves me correctly, you don’t see jack shit when cells divide without the > right stain. All such observations are of the Peircean type/; “If I do this, > then I will get that.” ** > > 2) En garde Nick. > **[NST===>] je me garde** > > Quoting Huxley, paraphrasing C.D. Broad — "The function of the brain, nervous > system, and sense organs is, in the main, eliminative and not productive. > Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever > happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in > the universe. This is Mind-At-Large. > **[NST===>] Dave, even without my characteristic ill ease with dispositions > (like gravity, for instance), this last sentence gives me the heebs. And the > Heaves. It is either a definition of memory (=all that I experience as past > at a moment) or it is non-sense. Or some kind of balmy article of faith. ** > > But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. > **[NST===>] No. No animal has ever survived. No animal has ever tried to > survive. No species has ever tried to survive. This is all foolishness > pressed on us by Spencer. Even Darwin was leery of it. (and no I cannot cite > text)** > To make biological survival possible, Mind-At-Large, has to be funneled > through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at > the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will > help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet." > **[NST===>] I suppose one can make sense of this sort of talk by postulating > a world outside of experience, but unless you postulate that this world > beyond experience can in principle never affect experience, you end up with a > contradiction because anything that effects experience in any way, however > indirect, is, by definition, experienced. ** > > Two personal experiences: 1) I tend to not notice when my glasses get cloudy > from accumulation of dust and moisture until it is quite bad. I clean my > glasses, put them on, and am amazed at how clear and detailed my perceptions > are post-cleaning. A very dramatic difference. > **[NST===>] Well of course. Cleaning glasses is a method that increases the > predictive potential of your current visual experiences. If your argument is > only that there are experiences I have not had which will surprise me if I > have them, I agree, so we don’t have to argue about that any more, right?** > And, 2) the proper dose of a hallucinogen (and/or the right kind of > meditation) and my perceptions of the world around me, using all my senses, > are amazingly clear and detailed in the same way as my visual perception was > changed by cleaning grime from my glasses. > **[NST===>] The innate school marm gives us little jolts of pleasure from > time to time, usually in response to activities that please her. One of those > jolts is a “sense of clarity.” If you break into her storeroom and steal her > clarity candies, you will get the clarity-pleasure even while seeing muddily. > ** > ** ** > **Now I grant you it’s possible you will see something more clearly. See > above the sledgehammered clock argument. ** > > I would contend that the drug (meditation) removed the muddying filter of my > brain/nervous system/ sense organs just as the isopropyl alcohol removed the > muddying filter of moisture-dust on my glasses. > > I see the world as it "really" is.**[NST===>]Well, that remains to be seen, > right. It might be that the dust filters the light in such a way as to reveal > structures that you cannot see through the cleaned glass. The proof is in the > pudding … i.e., the proving out. ** > > Now the tease: I would contend that I am more Apollonian than thou because I > value Life, and more of Life, more directly, than you do. It is not varied > experience I seek, but a direct, clear, complete, apprehension and > appreciation of Life Itself. > **[NST===>] Similarly, let it be the case that I had a dozen clocks and you > told me you had hit them all with a sledge hammer; now, if you told me you > had lied, and gave me back the 12th clock in perfect working order, I would > value it a lot more for having thought I had lost it. ** > > davew > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, at 4:58 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > It's not pesky for me in the slightest. I'm *very* interested. I > > haven't contributed because it's not clear I have anything to > > contribute. > > > > Maybe I can start with a criticism, though. It's unclear to me why you > > (or anyone) would delicately flip through crumbling pages of > > philosophy when there are fresh and juicy results from > > (interventionist) methods right in front of us? The oxytocin post > > really *was* inspired by this thread. But because you guys are talking > > about dead white men like Peirce and James, it's unclear how the science > > relates. > > > > My skepticism goes even deeper (beyond dead white men) to why one > > would think *anyone* (alive, dead, white or brown) might be able to > > *think* up an explanation for how knowledge grows. I would like to, > > but cannot, avoid the inference that this belief anyone (or any > > "school" of people) can think up explanations stems from a bias toward > > *individualism*. My snarky poke at "super intelligent god-people" in a > > post awhile back was > > (misguidedly) intended to express this same skepticism. I worry that > > poking around in old philosophy is simply an artifact of the mythology > > surrounding the "mind" and Great Men > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory>. > > > > It seems to me like science works in *spite* of our biases to > > individualism. So, if I want to understand knowledge, I have to stop > > identifying ways of knowing through dead individuals and focus on the > > flowing *field* of the collective scientists. > > > > Of course, that doesn't mean we ignore the writings of the dead people. > > But it means liberally slashing away anything that even smells obsolete. > > > > Regardless of what you do post, don't interpret *my* lack of response > > as disinterest or irritation, because it's not. > > > > On 3/5/20 6:14 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > > And the key to my being a pest — is anyone else curious about these > > > things? > > > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > ============================================================ > > 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
