Hi, Glen, 

 

I have swum (swam? Swimmed?) way out beyond my depth, but I have long wanted to 
explore this "experience" thing, so thank you.  First, remember, a proper 
monist shouldn't talk about his "stuff",whatever it is, as if it is 
distinguishable from other "stuff",  because that is dualism, full stop.  So I 
really shouldn’t be doing this at all.  But see larding below.  On to FRIAM

 

N

 

 

 

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 7:47 AM
To: FriAM <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

I described experience as a comprehension.

[NST===>I am happy with this so long as comprehension (= conception, a la 
Peirce) is taken as a relation not as an instantaneous event.  By the way, 
there is a nasty typo in my original statement.  I should have written, “A 
“unique experience” is like acceleration AT an instant.” i.e., a contradiction. 
 I have always been fascinated by the fact that calculus is based on just such 
contradictions.  <===nst] 

 Then you say it's not that sort of thing. Then you go on to describe 
experience as a comprehension. 8^) I guess the problem is that I'm relying too 
much on that jargon? You describe 2 types of comprehension: O∞) the object 
versus On) the observers of the object.

[NST===>I don't think we are struggling with jargon.  I think we are struggling 
with the limits of language.  Wittgenstein thought that such struggles were 
perhaps not worth the effort.  "That of which we cannot speak should be passed 
over in silence" or something like that. But putting aside w’s warning for a 
moment, let me just say that I don’t think we have different kinds of 
comprehension here, but comprehensions of different types of objects.  <===nst] 

 

I know this is pedestrian, but to see that these are both comprehensions, the 
wikipedia disambiguation page might help:  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehension> 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehension 

[NST===>I want to join friam so I will look at this later.  Dopeslap me if I 
forget. <===nst] 

 

To me, these 6 different things reduce to 2 different categories: {logical, the 
axiom, lists} versus {language, ideas}. The two things you identify O∞ and On 
fall into the 1st category. An experience is the act of slicing up and bundling 
together a new thing from what we find laying around in

the ambient muck. O∞ -- the unified, total object, the elephant -- 
slices/rebundles in one way and On -- the super-set comprised of the subsets 
sliced/rebundled by each observer -- does it in another way. 

[NST===>Yes.  I like this.  Holt would like it.  We are constantly doing 
Catscan's <===nst] 

O∞ is stunted/approximated, as von Neumann tried to point out when claiming 
that the description of an object is an order higher than the object itself. 
Or, as Robert Rosen tried to point out by claiming "there is no largest model 
of a complex thing". The On comprehension isn't stunted like O∞. But it's a 
collective thing, which can't be sliced/rebundled by any one of us. And that 
means no _one_ of us can really grok it.

[NST===>Ok.  ASAP, let's dig into this "stunted" thing.  It is the case, taking 
the point of view metaphor seriously, that "our" view on you is perhaps more 
different from your view on you, than each of our views is on the elephant.  
But that would be true if we were talking about haircuts.  It doesn't need to 
be about souls. I need to know why you think the appropriate word is “stunted”, 
rather than just “different”.  Could you “work” the stunted metaphor a bit?  

<===nst] 

 

 

On 4/30/20 2:05 PM,  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 
wrote:

> I just don’t think “experience” is that sort of thing.  Experience is 

> always a step from one thing to another.  A “unique experience” is like 
> acceleration an instant.  A fiction that is useful for some purposes.  We 
> know how to study the elephant; and we know how to study the uniqueness of 
> the observers of the elephant.  But those are distinct objects of study.

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... 
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... 
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Reply via email to