Hi, Glen,

As usual, I have launched myself into alien territory without a pass port.
I cannot follow the analysis stuff, but allow me to comment on
objectivity.  I dont think it has anything to do with
physiiological correlates-=- that's just icing on the cake.  Do you get
migraine auras?  Lets imagine for a moment that migraine auras had
absolutely no physiological correlates.  How would we go about doing
science on them?  Or are they a subjective phenomenon.  That would be odd
because already we seem to be talking about them. they seem to be on the
face, intersubjective.  I wonder what the difference is between
intersubjective and objective?

Nick

Nick

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:45 PM glen <[email protected]> wrote:

> I haven't read the New Yorker article. But the category seems hopelessly
> fraught. Even the 2 "objective" measures I'm aware of (pupil response and
> binocular rivalry) are intertwined with the body. I'm reminded of "motor
> imagery", where imagining some physical action causes similar patterns to
> performing that action, and so-called mirror neuron[al activation].
>
> But we've been here before, right? What does it mean to "do math"? Is the
> outfielder "doing math" when she catches a fly ball? I mean, we know
> missile interceptors are "doing math" ... maybe. Is a Kalman filter
> executing in the on board computer a "mental image". Can one understand
> quantum mechanics without doing the math? Etc.
>
> But I'm attracted to the invocation of analysis. My prof, which I managed
> to retain during all 3 of Anal I, II, & III, was a fan of priming. He'd
> *draw* graduate level concepts on the chalkboard before class, then really
> quickly run through all the jargon as if we understood whatever he was
> yappin' about. Then he'd callously erase the art and get on with what we
> were "supposed" to be learning. Dude was an artist. Full stop.
>
>
> On 11/6/25 3:24 PM, Santafe wrote:
> > I see; thanks Nick,
> >
> > I am happy the expected categories fell apart.  But there have been
> occasions when I went looking for categories something like these on my own
> too.
> >
> > In college (which I hit about like a bird flying into a window), as
> sophomores we were taught algebra by Mike Aschbacher, one of the great
> algebraists of the just-past generation.  A man who never brought notes,
> wrote every proof spontaneously, and could write on a chalkboard at the
> same speed as he talked.
> >
> > A friend and I — both of us just getting pounded into the ground —
> decided that there were geometric thinkers, who exapted visual thinking,
> and algebraic thinkers, who exapted syntactic thinking.  Aschbacher being
> the most syntactically superhuman being we had ever encountered.  And we
> decided we were both “algebraically impaired”.
> >
> > In contrast, analysis was straightforward, and always seemed to me to
> have a somewhat visual angle to it, and algebraic topology and differential
> geometry were even better.  Although I never tried anything hard in those
> fields, like proving things about more than 3 dimensions.  So not sure how
> much visual/geometric skill I have beyond the baseline for primates.
> >
> > I have continued to wonder where one should go to characterize
> “elementary” or “primitive” modalities of cognition, and how to take them
> to assemble into the kinds of synthetic things we call “skills”.  Marc
> Hauser once gave some very compelling talks along these lines for
> mathematical reasoning.  But since he was found fabricating data some years
> later, I don’t know how much of the earlier stuff I should continue to find
> compelling.  It might not have been tainted at all; but I am not in the
> field.
> >
> > It’s a nice topic.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 6, 2025, at 15:59, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’m sorry for the misprint. The correct term is aphantasia.
> >>
> >> It took 15 minutes with a handful of people at thuam  for the
> categories to break down horribly. My prediction was based on no great
> insite. I had divided the world up into picture people and word people
> assume that our word.  I claimed no wisdom here, only prejudices I seem to
> be a.-side myself
> >> Sent from my Dumb Phone
> >>
> >> On Nov 6, 2025, at 1:02 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, please, what Eric asked.
> >>
> >> I would expect most people on this list to tend towards the "hyper,"
> not the "apha."
> >>
> >> davew
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2025, at 10:38 AM, Santafe wrote:
> >>> That’s interesting, Nick (on limited time here, but just for a while)
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 6, 2025, at 11:19, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the work that many of you do, many of you are candidates for
> "aphatasia"
> >>>
> >>> Can you say more about why you expect a correlation?  This is not an
> >>> association that would ever have occurred to me.
> >>>
> >>> Eric
> --
> ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα
> σώσω.
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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/
>


-- 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
[email protected]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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/

Reply via email to