Frank asserts: "but it exists independently of nervous systems."
I am in the middle of synthesizing a dozen or so new books, including Iain McGilchrist's two volume, *The Matter With Things: Our brains, our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World,* all of which advance the essential argument that nothing exists independently of nervous systems and Everything is a product of Mind which is sometimes embedded in nervous systems. davew On Fri, Apr 1, 2022, at 11:49 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Formal logic is not a god but exists independently of nervous systems. > > A -> B <-> -B -> -A > > > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2022, 9:57 AM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Isn’t it the case that, in some sense, the subjects are being good >> Bayesian‘s in that they are taking a count of the priors. I know that’s >> wrong, but you see what I mean. It’s one of those puzzles of the form if >> elephants had wings, and wings convey flight, then elephants could fly? >> Right? The nice thing about Peirce is that he saw logic, not as a God, but >> as the result of the functioning of the elemental operators of the nervous >> system. Nick. >> >> Sent from my Dumb Phone >> >> On Apr 1, 2022, at 7:24 AM, Eric Charles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I mean.... presumably AFTER reading the second option, the participants >> understood the first option to be "a bank teller who is not an activist". >> >> The most notable thing about the study is how shitty psychological research >> is in general. It should be impossible to publish those results without some >> accompanying "qualitative" research exploring how the participants >> understood the question. Whether my interpretation is right or wrong, we >> should not be in the position of speculating blindly. >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 6:39 PM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I am still without a computer, but will try to dictate more precisely, >>> because I am going stir crazy not being able to communicate with friam. >>> There is a huge literature in philosophy and cognitive science in which >>> scientists ask people to make inferences and then fall over themselves >>> laughing when their subjects make inferences that are not correct according >>> to formal logic. Most of the examples that are familiar to me involved >>> abduction which formal logicians seem to regard as a fallacy but which >>> Peirce regards as a formally correct form of logic that is both >>> probabilistic and weak. Here is an example from sobers book, Ockhams razors >>> >>> Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in >>> philosophy. As a student she was deeply concerned with issues of >>> discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear >>> demonstrations. Philosophers asked subjects which of the following >>> statements is more probable: One Linda is a bank teller. Two jLinda is a >>> bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. When subjects answer >>> the latter, the philosophers fall all over themselves laughing because a >>> conjunction can never be larger than its conjuncts. >>> >>> Analytical philosophy aside, what do we suppose is going on here.? I think >>> the subjects have already abducted That the probability that Linda is a >>> bank teller is vanishingly small, And so have rejected the Premises of the >>> problem. Any wiser thoughts? >>> >>> Best my slurred speech and fat thumbs could do! Thanks for your patience. >>> Nick. >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Dumb Phone >>> >>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: >>> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
