Would Jung's alchemical approach to dreams be nomothetic? davew
On Tue, May 19, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > 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/ >
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... 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/
