Marcus,
Please see larding, below; thanks again for your help in thinking about this. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 3:56 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff An intent is an outcome; an intent is not a cause. [NST===>I absolutely agree that an intent is not a cause. I would call it a design, a higher order structure of behavior over time and space such that the responses to a variety of circumstances converge on single outcome. So I guess I would have to disagree that an intent IS an outcome. <===nst] In your model intents come from the l.teleonomicus, machinery that follows the same rules of physics as everything else. [NST===>Yes, but not just those laws. <===nst] From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:40 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff Marcus, Thanks for engaging. However, I am not sure I understand your comment. The statement that events in the brain mediate events in behavior are in no way inconsistent with materialism, a form of monism, are they? Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:00 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff Nick writes: < Jones is accused of a terrible crime which requires forming and acting on an intention. The police bungle the arrest and jones is shot dead. Jones’s wife sues the police, claiming the underlying crime could not have been performed by Jones because he was incapable of forming an intention. Since Jones is dead, the simple test procedure cannot be performed. So Jones’s wife demands an autopsy, where it is found that indeed, Jones had developed a cancerous lesion in l. teleonomicus. Judgment is made in favor if the wife. > Still haven’t addressed the dualism in your l.teleonomicus argument. You’ve just compartmentalized it as a magic black box. The wife may have case because the cops bungled the arrest. They don’t determine guilt or innocence. Marcus
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
