Dreams: A *lot* of clinical (idiographic) reading would be obligatory to do it right. I am skeptical that a nomothetic approach would be possible or useful.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, May 19, 2020, 1:41 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, all, > > > > Before it gets buried and institutionalized in the thread, the term is > “idiographic”, not “ideographic”. It doesn’t have to do with ideas but > with the study of events that are thought of as inherently individual, > one-off, non-repeatable. Case histories are idiographs. The contrast > class is nomothetic, having to do with the discovery of laws that relate > classes of objects or events. A full on double blind controlled experiment > is an example of nomothetic research. Psychology Departments can tear > themselves apart arguing about which is the most worthy. I think the > distinction is worth bearing in mind, although common sense dictates that > an experience that cannot be assigned to a class and does not imply some > lawful relation is impossible. > > > > So what about the FRIAM study of dreams? > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:28 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden > > > > > I don’t have anything useful or clarifying to say about inner > experience either, except to vote that it seems a fine term from which to > begin an in > > > > Psychoanalysts have been working on this for over a century but scientists > reject their methodology and many of their conclusions. They reject them > qua scientists but many embrace them personally if they live in a place > where psychodynamic therapy is available. Nothing could be more > ideographic than an extremely deep investigation of an individual's "inner > life" including her dreams, fantasies, and memories of childhood pains and > joys. > > > > Based on living in Pittsburgh where there are two major universities I can > say, tentatively, that there are high energy physicists and even > behaviorists who have benefitted from this approach. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020, 12:49 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > EricS, Glen, David, Frank, Steve, EricC Old Uncle Tom Cobbley, and all, > > > > Let me again thank you all for allowing me to sharpen my thinking against > your whetstone. > > > > I am perhaps at my most uneasy arguing against EricS, but here goes. > > > > Speaking of whetstones, let’s start with Glen’s most recent post, because > it set’s a limit to how far I am willing to push the argument I have been > making: > > > > With the above context, I confirm "out loud" that I don't believe in this > position that EricC and Nick seem to hold. I firmly believe in an opaque > inner world. But it's an ideal belief, not a practical one. That's the only > reason I find it interesting to try to formulate their position in my own > words. > > My monism is limited to formal thought, to the project of building an > approach to understanding that is as comprehensive and consistent as > possible. I.e., a scientific understanding. But I am an > imagination-pluralist. For instance, one of my favorite sayings is, “No > person should be denied the pleasures of imagining heaven because s/he > happens to be an atheist.” I routinely suggested to graduate students that > they should stop trying to cram their ideas into a scientific format and go > write a novel, since the idea they were trying to expose was more suitable > to that format. So, if we are arguing about the right of humans to take > sustenance from any form of thinking that pleases them, then let the > argument cease. But whenever informal thinking shapes formal thinking > (which it always does, to some extent), then I think we need to talk about > it in a formal way.) Thus, if you change Glen’s “practical” above to > “Practicial” (= of, or related to, scientific practice), I agree with him > entirely. > > > > That said, if you’re not exhausted, you might have a look at the larding > of EricS’s note, below: > > > > Thanks again, all, > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2020 10:26 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden > > > > As I read this,I am reminded of the 20th century (seems to long ago), in > which the high-energy physicists dug a social pit for themselves, from > which the ones they offended do not want ever to let them escape. > > > > Keyword is Reductionism. The narrative went something like this (HEP = > High Energy Physicist; ROS = anyone from the Rest of Science) > > *[NST===>I am a reductionist, but let me be precise about what that means > to me. To me, a concept has been reduced when anybody asserts that there > is only one key into it (to use the Metaphor Glen and I have been > exploring.) The traditional forms of reduction are reductions in scale, as > when somebody asserts that the mind is just brain activity or behavior is > just muscle twitches. I abhor this kind of reductionism, and think it is > the worst kind of misdirection and obscurantism. I am an > “up-reductionist”. My crime is that I assert that the one key to the mind > is to look up and out, rather than down and in. Our minds are something > about us, not something within us. <===nst] * > > > > HEP: In principle, whatever you care about is a result of interaction of > our building blocks. > > ROS: Well, okay, but your saying that hasn’t addressed basically anything > in what we wanted to understand from what we do. > > HEP: Whatever you wanted to understand was just a problem of assembly. > > ROS: “Just assembly” has its own rules which are not already expressed in > the rules by which you characterize your building blocks (Of course, the > objection was never made with such circumspection, but usually in less > clear terms.) > > HEP: Well, in principle we understand all that. > > ROS: Then In Practice, say something we find useful or interesting. > > HEP: In Principle we understand all that. > > ROS: You are a robot. > > > > And in that way, “reductionist” got entrenched as a synonym for > “philistine” who thinks there isn’t anything left to explain beyond a few > descriptions of building blocks. Not only did it lead to a lot of > unproductive fighting, it also made it much harder for those who had useful > points of view on what reductionism is, or isn’t, to relate its > contributions to all the other work that involves understanding of new > explanatory primitives. > > *[NST===>If anybody on this list thinks I hold the above position, I have > been a very poor expositor, indeed. <===nst] * > > > > > > The behaviorists sound _so_ much like the reductionists sounded, and it is > not for me to say whether they want to sound that way or not. > > *[NST===>Well, sure. I guess some behaviorists have sounded that way. > But not Tolman, and certainly not Peirce, for instance. <===nst] * > > They are so hell-bent on not giving an inch to the spiritualists (a > worthy position IMO) > > *[NST===>OK, so here I am about to confirm my philistinity… (By the way, > when is the world going to wake up and remember that Philistine is a racist > term.)… by asking you what you think spiritualism is and what it is worthy > OF? In other words, I don’t think you get your “by the way.” It may be “in > the way.” <===nst] * > > that they sound like they are claiming a scope of knowledge including all > the things about which they don’t have anything particularly satisfying to > say. They are sure, in the end, They Know what science will consist of, at > least In Principle. They may actually be right on parts of that, but to > assert that your system of understanding will, you are confident, subsume > all the future problems about which, for the present, you are unable to say > anything actually elucidating, is of questionable utility. > > *[NST===>There’s a huge difference between agreeing to try to build such a > system (knowing you will almost certainly fail), and asserting that one > already has one. <===nst] * > > It’s fine to believe that, but if it does no work for you, it is not > easily distinguishable from a not-even-wrong claim. At the most benign, it > substitutes putting a lot of energy into defending the turf (of what? of > “materialism”? or is that now such an overused term that we would like > something fresh to characterize the non-spiritualist, non-vitalist > position?), instead of engaging with where the other person wants the > discussion to be, which is to say “Hey, there is some distinct cognitive or > experiential primitive here, which I don’t know how to characterize in a > satisfying way; would you like to help me think about it?” > > *[NST===>Great! Let’s do that work! * Is this the same as saying “hey, we > seem to share some productive patterns of thought, here, which we have not > articulated, let alone integrated into our larger system. How can we do > that? But to the extent that spiritual means not amenable to integration > into the practices of science, we are blocked from having any systematic > conversation about spirit. <===nst] * > > > > My own expectation is that the kinds of primitives that people are after > will have a certain character of irreducibility about them, and that is > what makes them both interesting and hard to drag out into clarity. And be > careful: when I say “irreducibility” I use the word advisedly, and by > analogies to cases where it does very good work. In group theory, we are > very interested in distinctions between irreducible and reducible > representations. Tononi’s construction — whatever its other virtues or > defects — is essentially a measure of the irreducibility in some > information-transmission measure. Even prime numbers have a specific kind > of irreducibility that makes their status not decidable with less than > exhaustive search. The image I want to take from those examples is the > same kind of “irreducibility” of patterns that the ROS character above was > referring to when he said there are aspects of the patterns that come out > at higher order that require their own system, which is its own kind of > thing that occupies science in addition to the system that characterizes > the building blocks and the local rules for their combination. All the > systems that characterize all the irreducible patterns are compatible with > the building blocks, but precisely because each of them captures something > different, the system for the building blocks doesn’t extract any of them > _in its particularity_, and it is getting at that particularity that the > whole rest of science is occupied with. > > *[NST===> Is a cake irreduceable? I think it is. If you agree on that > point, then I really don’t have to say anything other than that I agree > with all of the above. To the extent that I see you-all exploring a > mathematical or algorithmic reduction of the irreducible, I wait outside > your conference room for news of your success. <===nst] * > > > > (Btw, the rabid Darwinists do the same thing. That is what enables > Richard Dawkins to take what would otherwise be completely reasonable > positions, and turn them into an overall offensive posture. > > *[NST===>Dawkins does not have a consistent or comprehensive view of > evolution, let along anything else. He flagrantly abuses the Darwinian > metaphor. So please don’t hang that particular dead chicken around my > neck. Any Darwinist who did not get on the evo-devo train, was left at the > station a generation ago. <===nst] * > > And the character of the deflection is the same. If Darwinism contains > everything, then it isn’t doing the work for you of extracting some > further, particular thing.)*[NST===>I agree that anything that claims to > be everything is probably nothing. That does not keep me from – as a > matter of method – attempting to “push” a line of thought as far as it > takes me. I see that this is contradictory. [sigh].<===nst] * > > > > > > Sorry for the meta-commentary on conversation analysis (or opinionizing). > I don’t have anything useful or clarifying to say about inner experience > either, except to vote that it seems a fine term from which to begin an > interesting investigation. > > *[NST===>Well, only if it’s not understood as “that which we cannot > investigate.” <===nst] * > > > > *[NST===>* I have decided to adopt Glen’s footnote practice. OK, so how > about we commit ourselves right now to the design and execution of a > research project on dreams. How would we go about it? I think it might > turn out to be the hardest thing we ever did. <===nst] * > > Eric > > > > > > On May 19, 2020, at 12:15 PM, <[email protected]> < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > You have a life for which, at the moment, only you hold the key. That’s > the furthest I am prepared to go. > > > > N > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2020 9:13 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden > > > > Then quit saying I don't have an inner life. The inner expeeiences are > the memories I have in the present and at various times in the past and the > wondering about whatever became of her (and others). > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020, 8:48 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Frank, > > There are many things that you have experienced that I have not, and vv, > but no value is added by calling these “inner.” I can sort of go along > with Glen’s gloss on “inside”, but when you metamorphose it to “inner”, I > get antsy. > > > > But I think we have tilled this ground for all it is worth, for the > moment. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2020 8:02 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] hidden > > > > Forget covariant tensors (again). There was a beautiful, talented girl in > my sixth grade class. She could dance ballet, draw striking pictures, > etc. I thought of her occasionally over the decades. When Google search > became available I discovered that she was married to a celebrity. > > > > When you say that my inner life isn't private, Nick, do you mean you could > figure out her name given what I've just written? As I think of her face, > can you "see" it well enough to recognize her photo? > > > > I just don't understand what you mean when you question that I have a > private inner life. > > > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020, 7:47 PM Jon Zingale <[email protected]> wrote: > > Frank, Glen, Nick, > > > > Glen writes: > > `... in last week's Zoom, I mentioned to Jon (in response > > to his query to Frank about RSA-encryption::mind) that I > > think homomorphic encryption is a better analogy (to mind).` > > > > Fully homomorphic encryption† was also the metaphor I originally > > had in mind. In an effort to not complicate matters, I decided to focus > > on the idea of public key encryption more generally. Thank you, Glen > > for taking it the rest of the way. Because Glen, Nick and I appear to > > differ on Frank's mind only in that we disagree about the way that > > Frank's mind is public, I will attempt to switch sides and argue for > > why his mind may be private. > > > > Firstly, while we may only need to know some combination of > > *transformations* which will allow us to know his mind, it may > > be the case that those transformations are not accessible to > > us. As an example and in analogy to computation, it may be the > > case that we are not the kind of machines which can recognize > > the language produced by a mind. While we as observers are > > able to finite automata our way along observations of Frank, > > his mind is producing context-free sentences, say. I don't > > entirely buy this argument, but it also may be defendable. > > As another example/analogy, we may be attempting to solve > > a problem analogous to those geometric problems of Greek > > antiquity††. It may take a psychological analog to Galois theory > > before we understand exactly why we can't know Frank's mind. > > > > Secondly, it may be that the encryption metaphor should > > actually be something closer to hashing. A friend of mine > > once said that *rememberings* were morphisms between > > *forgettings*. We are often ok with the idea that memory is > > lossy, but why not thoughts themselves? Perhaps, at least > > with regard to what we can observer of Frank, every time > > Frank thinks of a covariant tensor he is reconstituting > > something fundamentally different. The *remembering* is > > always between different *forgettings*. > > > > Ok, I am not sure I could necessarily defend these thoughts. > > Further, I am not sure they are necessarily helpful to our > > conversation. It seemed a good idea to try. > > > > On the topic of steganography, I wanted to mention the > > book *Steganographia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganographia>*. I > had originally read about it in some > > part of Neal Stephenson's *Baroque Cycle*, and it has since > > found a place in my heart. The book, originally written in > > 1499, is perhaps the oldest text on the subject of cryptography. > > What is amazing about the book is that it is an example of > > itself (nod to Nick). The plaintext content of the book is > > on the subject of magic, but for a reader clever enough to > > find the deciphering key the book is about cryptography. > > I had found a copy from the 1700's in the rare books library > > at the University of Texas some years ago. The content was > > *doubly hidden* from me as I neither had the deciphering > > key nor can I read Latin ;) > > > > Jon > > > > †: If any members of the group would like to form a reading > > group around Craig Gentry's thesis on FHE > <https://www.bookdepository.com/Fully-Homomorphic-Encryption-Scheme-Craig-Gentry/9781243663139>, > I would gladly > > participate. > > †† While it turned out that the Greek's assumptions about > > the power of a compass and straightedge were incorrect, > > work beginning with Margherita Beloch > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margherita_Piazzola_Beloch> (and > culminating > > with the Huzita-Hatori > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzita%E2%80%93Hatori_axioms> axioms) show > that origami would > > have been a more powerful choice! > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . > ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
