Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks for these comments. 

Sorry, I used the word "school" in a very idiosyncratic way -- to mean a group 
of people who, while they don't agree, necessarily, are so thoroughly familiar 
with one another's positions that they can state them to the owner's 
satisfaction and represent them in the owner's absence.  

I am going to think about all of this.  Now I have to get ready for the Weekly 
Service. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 6:48 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick -

I'll second Glen's suggestion that you delineate as best you can, specific 
things you don't understand and iterate with one or more of us an those as best 
you can.   As evidenced by my discussion with Glen on "means of production", it 
can be rather grueling for both sides, but since I have a lot of trust in 
Glen's good intentions and his commitment to not just throw up his hands and 
give up on the discussion, we are powering through it and I *think* getting 
somewhere.  More on that on that thread soon.

What I hear you saying is that our perspectives/experiences feel too foreign to 
you to to know where to start?   While my response was rather wordy (as are all 
of my  submissions), I think my perspective might be closer to yours than 
Dave's for sure and perhaps others. 

- Steve

On 11/21/19 5:08 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> The only way to fix this is to do what I'm trying to do with Steve in the 
> "means of production" thread. He seemed to use "means of production" as if 
> it's a meaningful concept. And because I can't make sense of the phrase, I've 
> asked him why he finds it meaningful. Then when he explains himself, I *try* 
> to say what I thought he said but in my own words.
>
> Checking your rendition of what you think a person might say against that 
> person is the only way to get better. You have to always ask "Did I restate 
> your position right?"
>
> I don't intend to harass you, here. And I'm probably wrong. But I don't 
> recall you ever doing that on this mailing list. You seem to hold quite fast 
> to your side of the discussion. I'm a hypocrite, of course, because I don't 
> do it anywhere near as much as I should. It's a flaw in our (particularly we 
> males) ways of interacting. We're more interested in talking than listening. 
> You could try it, now, by repeating back to one of us what you *think* we're 
> saying and hope that person takes the (often significant) time, effort, and 
> good will to iterate.
>
> Of course, that type of iteration is *nothing* like what we tend to get in 
> "school".
>
> On 11/21/19 10:05 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize 
>> that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives.  In a good "school", I 
>> should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other 
>> members such that I could, if necessary,  fill in if one of you were absent. 
>>   But I can't.  I would like to do better.  



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] means of production take 3

[Nick Thompson]

All, 

Because I now have two computers that don't work, one newer than the other, I 
decided I didn't have bandwidth (or clockspeed) for a discussion of Marxism, 
when it broke out last week.  So forgive me if I am tilling old ground.  I have 
rethreaded to minimize harm to the ongoing conversation.  

My ears perked up at the discussion of "ownership".  Dogs seem to have (or 
enact) a concept of ownership.  What you have within a few inches of your 
mouth, you own.  Ownership, like territory, seems to involve some sort of 
mutual acknowledgement and agreement not to challenge a status quo.  

It seems that of late, the conversation of ownership has morphed into a 
discussion of "control".  What wealthier people seem to have is the ability, 
more than the rest of the world, to control their experience.  ( You can hear 
the my Apollonian creeping in, here, again.)  So, Dave might say, in rebuttal, 
notice how frequently people put their control of their circumstances at risk.  
Think about Epstein, Madoff, even Trump, etc.,  for instance.  There seems to 
be yet another impulse to ==>demonstrate<== control by putting it at risk and 
then recapturing it --thrill seeking, I believe one of you called it.  This 
seems to be very primitive:  for instance, the idea of bonding introduced by 
John Bowlby back in the Dawn of Time, seems to have to do with control of 
access to Mom, which the toddler tests by going away and returning.  Hence, 
peek-a-boo. This seems to ring in a third concept, Power.  Power, let's say, is 
the potential to control.  So, when Trump says he could murder somebody on 
fifth avenue in broad daylight and not suffer any consequences, he is asserting 
power.   The people with the most power never have to exhibit it.   Trump would 
just put down his smoking gun and walk away, perhaps to the cheers of the 
crowd.  He wouldn't have to resist arrest.  Nobody would ever think to arrest 
him.  

There's a guy who visits the institute who wrote a book called Democracy in the 
Forest.  The basic idea is that an attractor in human affairs is for a single 
person have power over control a group of dominant individuals who in turn 
exert control over a much larger population.  Think Mafia.  This scheme is 
known as altruistic enforcement because from a Darwinian modeling point of 
view, it's hard to see why the dominant individuals -- the soldiers, if you 
will -- don't pool their resources and take down the Don.  I haven't been into 
the literature for years, but you can see something like this form of 
organization in baboons and in chimpanzees, at least sometimes.  

All very interesting.  Don't let me take you off your track 

Oh, and thanks for the vivid description of over-clocking.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:08 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] means of production take 2

Excellent! Thanks for that summary. I don't want to disagree with much of what 
you said, because what I'm trying to do is work out why some people can use the 
phrase "ownership of the means of production" with a straight face. 8^)

What you lay out below worked. I did *not* grok that the key difference you see 
is one of ingrained vs. contrived senses of ownership. I think we could have an 
interesting discussion down into that. But it's definitely not what I *thought* 
we were talking about. I'd like to tie the 2 topics together more explicitly 
than you do below.

To be clear, the 2 topics are: 1) what do people (e.g. you) mean when they use 
the phrase "means of production" and 2) ingrained vs. contrived senses of 
ownership. It's tempting to dive down into the mechanisms of something being 
ingrained vs. contrived. But I don't think that dive pulls much weight in 
relation to question (1). Whatever lurks at the depth of the distinction, maybe 
we can just allow that there is a distinction and stay "up here" for a minute? 
Perhaps you're suggesting that people who use the phrase "ownership of the 
means of production" are trying to make that distinction between an ingrained 
vs. a contrived ownership claim.

It would make sense to me to identify people who use that phrase as accusing 
others of conflating ingrained "rights" vs contrived "rights". E.g. if only 
socialists used the phrase as accusations that the "ownership of the means of 
production" is contrived and not ingrained (or "natural"). I.e. the "means of 
production" should be collectively shared, not privately owned. Whereas a 
capitalist might counter-claim that allowing for a more ingrained (or 
"intuitive"), expansive extent of ownership fosters things like innovation, and 
accuses socialists of defusing one's motivations (ingrained sense of ownership) 
into the collective. So each side is 

Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, Marcus, Steve, 

Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize 
that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives.  In a good "school", I 
should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other members 
such that I could, if necessary,  fill in if one of you were absent.   But I 
can't.  I would like to do better.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:20 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

And among the reasons I don't have a security clearance is to preserve the 
*option* of taking cocaine, at will. 8^) I agree with both you and Dave in that 
I would not choose to take cocaine. But I might choose to take other drugs. 
E.g. I've taken some THC since it's been legal, here. It's fun for a few hours, 
but then I almost always get a massive headache. So, I have a built-in 
Puritanifier ... well, Puritanical is mostly a word used to control *other 
people* ... So, we're definitely abusing the word, here.

The real question is about thrill-seeking. I can't imagine purposefully 
avoiding thrilling experiences. I may not seek them out like some do. But 
avoiding them seems like evidence of PTSD. Of course, given the violence of my 
childhood, maybe *not* avoiding them is evidence of PTSD. 8^) If so, then 
seeking it out would be something like psychosis. Regardless, I'm a firm 
believer in "resets". I enjoy moving, changing jobs, hanging out in unfamiliar 
places, traveling to foreign lands, etc. And that's how I view the psychedelics 
(both drugs and practices like meditation or even Cognitive Behavior Therapy), 
as ways to "reset". Anyone who purposefully avoids resets seems a bit strange 
to me. If you're simply too lazy to engage in resets, that's more reasonable 
than purposefully avoiding them.

On 11/20/19 10:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Puritanism?  Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a 
> security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had 
> done that.   For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by 
> pouring gasoline on it.   Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention 
> like that to work on my brain?   Why should I go out of my way to find more 
> bad habits within unknown consequences?


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

[Nick Thompson]

Can somebody explain “overclocking”

 

That’s a new one for me.  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 5:09 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

 

Marcus,

 

"puritanism" was mentioned only because Nick, and indirectly Frank, used the 
term as a self-descriptor. Obviously there are other reasons for self imposed 
limits other than puritanism.

 

You might not pour gasoline on your computer to improve it, but you might 
overclock it.  For me, hallucinogens are closer to overclocking the brain/mind 
while cocaine, morphine, oxycodone, etc. are akin to gasoline. The latter are 
(bad) habit inducing but not the former.

 

Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect  like overclocking — 
of generating excess heat.

 

davew

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

 

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most 
everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, 
reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. 
cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance 
novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

 

Puritanism?  Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a 
security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had 
done that.   For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by 
pouring gasoline on it.   Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like 
that to work on my brain?   Why should I go out of my way to find more bad 
habits within unknown consequences?

 

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Here 
  
from the Neuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica 2007, IX/4; 201-205, which, of 
course, I follow religiously, is a lovely little summary which is NOT behind a 
paywall.  

 

I like to think of our author, bathed in endogenous dmt, living out is his 
golden years in the ten thousand block of Jolly Way.  

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 2:34 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

Glen,

 

The primary source of the assertion is probably Rick Strassman, M.D., a 
clinical psychiatrist at the University of New Mexico. I have some other papers 
in a filing cabinet back in Utah that seem to take endogenous DMT as a given 
and then focused on why and how it got there. 

 

davew

 

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 4:45 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:

> I looked for some scientific evidence of this, but failed to find it. 

> Can you clue me in to the sources showing it's made in the brain?

> 

> On 11/19/19 7:10 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> > DMT is present, manufactured, in the human brain ...

> 

> 

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe 

> at St. John's College to unsubscribe 

>   
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives back to 2003:   
> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC   
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> 

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:   
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC   
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Russ, 

 

Oh, gosh.  You have always done right by me, and now I have to confess a sin.  
I have accurately traced the word back to the Latin word for "fart".  However, 
in order to be more colorful, I left out an intermediate step in the etymology 
<https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=petard> .  I am afraid the French got in 
there.  During the middle ages when people were running around laying siege to 
one another’s castles, somebody invented a bomb which soldiers would place 
against the lock of the castle doors in order to blow them open.  To maximize 
the force exerted on the doors, the bombs were heavily packed.  Hence, when 
they went off, they went Pt! rather than Boom!  Hence the name, Petard,, I 
think.  So, in fact, I was a little bit pulling your leg.  I like the idea that 
being hoist by one's petard is a reference to a particular form of falling from 
one's high horse.  As a former academic, being flung from the saddle of your 
High Horse by your own hot air, seems a proper way to go.  

 

So, in fact, all of this is an example of itself. 

 

Shamefacedly, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 1:30 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:27:39PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:

> 

> By the way, speaking of etymology, to be hoist by one’s own petard is 

> to be ejected from one’s own saddle by the force of one’s own fart.  Look it 
> up.

 

Thanks for this. I always knew that petard meant fart, since schoolboy French 
anyway, but did ocasionally wonder how you get hoisted by a fart.

 

 

 

-- 

 



Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)

Principal, High Performance Coders

Visiting Senior Research Fellow <mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au> 
hpco...@hpcoders.com.au

Economics, Kingston University  <http://www.hpcoders.com.au> 
http://www.hpcoders.com.au



 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] So disjointed

[Nick Thompson]

AND to whom they are important.  

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Barry MacKichan
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So disjointed

Aha! Maybe the singularity is here, and Google AI spam identifier knows
better than humans what communications are really important.

--Barry

On 18 Nov 2019, at 23:31, Roger Critchlow wrote:

> I wondered why the discussions on friam had been so incomplete lately.
> Gmail was storing most of them in my spam folder, 32 threads spam 
> canned in
> 30 days.
>
> -- rec --


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

[Nick Thompson]

No.  Indeed, your message came through … as our president would say … perfect.  

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

 

Nick -

I'm suspect that my own habits around indentation, italicization, etc.   are 
not explicit enough to make things clear enough as to who is speaking to whom.  
 I also tend to trust/defer to my mailtool (thunderbird) which *seems* to add 
very limited HTML markup of included sections.  I do this in deference to those 
here who might be using (rich?)text-only tools. I am wondering if YOUR mail 
tool of choice strips that?

I assume you might see both:

Indentation 

Italics

and does the  following inclusion of your text appear as significantly 
different text than my own?

 

On 11/19/19 9:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi, Dave, 

 

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use 
HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what.  And also, this 
business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever 
crazier than I usually am.  I find myself typing a response on my new computer 
while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing 
is happening.  So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the 
disjointedness of the conversation.  Sorry for that. 

 

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.  

 

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that 
smacks of “experience enhancement”.  I can hear you all putting on your 
Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, 
“Sad!”  But there it is.  I am not one to be tempted by the giant 
roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall.  To me, life 
is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps.  Nor do I 
have a much of an interest in science fiction.  I come from the Silent 
Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!)  The sixties is the chasm across which 
you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one 
another.  In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I 
am at pains to manage.  I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death 
and starvation of millions.   I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on 
the news every day.   To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement.  
Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well 
… annoying.  Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me 
with wonder.  If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil 
it shatters into … well … flints.  Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, 
or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like 
that.  Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing 
you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me 
ANYTHING about the Universe.  Good LORD.  Why would it?  

 

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in 
…

 

I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers 
rolled. …

Do I dare to eat a peach? 

I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.

I have heard the mermaids singing each to each. 

I do not think that they will sing for me. 

 

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving.  Even though I was a 
little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity.  And now 
you find joy and wisdom in madness?!  I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s 
Dionysians.

Yes.  I know.  Sad! 

 

Nick 

 

PS:  OK.  It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand.  Assign me something. Not 
too much, please.  N. 



 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Prof David West [mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson  <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> 

Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

 

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experie

Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Dave, 

 

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use 
HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what.  And also, this 
business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever 
crazier than I usually am.  I find myself typing a response on my new computer 
while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing 
is happening.  So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the 
disjointedness of the conversation.  Sorry for that. 

 

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.  

 

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that 
smacks of “experience enhancement”.  I can hear you all putting on your 
Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, 
“Sad!”  But there it is.  I am not one to be tempted by the giant 
roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall.  To me, life 
is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps.  Nor do I 
have a much of an interest in science fiction.  I come from the Silent 
Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!)  The sixties is the chasm across which 
you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one 
another.  In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I 
am at pains to manage.  I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death 
and starvation of millions.   I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on 
the news every day.   To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement.  
Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well 
… annoying.  Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me 
with wonder.  If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil 
it shatters into … well … flints.  Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, 
or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like 
that.  Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing 
you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me 
ANYTHING about the Universe.  Good LORD.  Why would it?  

 

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in 
…

 

I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers 
rolled. …

Do I dare to eat a peach? 

I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.

I have heard the mermaids singing each to each. 

I do not think that they will sing for me. 

 

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving.  Even though I was a 
little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity.  And now 
you find joy and wisdom in madness?!  I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s 
Dionysians.

Yes.  I know.  Sad! 

 

Nick 

 

PS:  OK.  It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand.  Assign me something. Not 
too much, please.  N. 



 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Prof David West [mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson 
Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

 

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt 

[NST==>what is a covert sensory experience? <==nst] 

sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically 
associate with experience.

 

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, 
dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that 
experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative 
Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total 
congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, 
but Reality is dualist/pluralist.

[NST==>Well, to a monist there is, in your sense, no reality at all!  Reality 
is an aspiration. Reality is what arises from the management of experience. 
Given our generational difference, I sometimes wonder if you don’t take for 
granted the reality that I am fighting for.  <==nst] 

 

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not 
i

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Sorry, Steve, to have taken you name in vain.  

 

I thought the views expressed were a bit more Steve-ish than Dave-ish … (};-)]  
So, what is the difference between Steve-ish and Dave-ish on this topic?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 10:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

Nick -

No, Steve.  Absolutely not.  No Way.  

Whether FriAM's server or my mailer's mode of larding vs your mode of reading 
it, you misattribute these words to me when they were in fact Dave's...  what 
follows *after* that, namely the Lakoff/Nunez reference and discussion of that 
perspective is mine.

Carry on!

 - Steve

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience

 

No.  There lies spiritualist blather.  Having pried me away from my monism, you 
are driving me back toward it.  Ex hypothesi, what ever your R. B. O. E. might 
be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a construction of experience.  Because, we 
agreed, there is no other source, right?  Now, if you want to introduce God’s 
Love or Extra Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk.  
But e   ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still 
contributing to experience.  Unless you are willing to stipulate some other 
source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that while some 
experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others, get the label 
“extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just experiences and experiences of 
other experiences, ad infinitum.  To assert more is to engage in 
epistemological smugness.  

 

By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting little 
obstacles to our communication.  So, for instance, I don’t have Dave’s original 
response to what Steve responded to. 

 

Nick 

 

  Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where Mathematics Comes 
From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human cognitive 
apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive terms. WMCF advocates 
(and includes some examples of) a cognitive idea analysis of mathematics 
  which analyzes mathematical ideas 
in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, generalizations, and other 
cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them. A standard mathematical education 
does not develop such idea analysis techniques because it does not pursue 
considerations of A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or 
B) the philosophy of mathematics 
 . 

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though Lakoff/Nunez 
do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and that all humans 
roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it merely 

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

No, Steve.  Absolutely not.  No Way.  

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience

 

No.  There lies spiritualist blather.  Having pried me away from my monism, you 
are driving me back toward it.  Ex hypothesi, what ever your R. B. O. E. might 
be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a construction of experience.  Because, we 
agreed, there is no other source, right?  Now, if you want to introduce God’s 
Love or Extra Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk.  
But e   ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still 
contributing to experience.  Unless you are willing to stipulate some other 
source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that while some 
experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others, get the label 
“extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just experiences and experiences of 
other experiences, ad infinitum.  To assert more is to engage in 
epistemological smugness.  

 

By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting little 
obstacles to our communication.  So, for instance, I don’t have Dave’s original 
response to what Steve responded to. 

 

Nick 

 

  Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where Mathematics Comes 
From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human cognitive 
apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive terms. WMCF advocates 
(and includes some examples of) a cognitive idea analysis of mathematics 
  which analyzes mathematical ideas 
in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, generalizations, and other 
cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them. A standard mathematical education 
does not develop such idea analysis techniques because it does not pursue 
considerations of A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or 
B) the philosophy of mathematics 
 . 

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though Lakoff/Nunez 
do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and that all humans 
roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it merely 
"widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western Anthropology?

I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with 
DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is universal 
that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally specific interpretations 
(in the sense of your use of the term I think) of "another plane" and "alien 
beings"  which could range from angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to 
multidimensional alien beings and parallel existences.

- Steve

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

 

On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Nick said:

 

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was 
beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the 
thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could convince them that that 
their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  
So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience.  
Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

 

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; 
with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs 
(sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with 
experience.

I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where Mathematics Comes 
From:

from the Wikipedia article on this book:

Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human cognitive 
apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive terms. WMCF advocates 
(and includes some examples of) a cognitive idea analysis of mathematics 
  which analyzes mathematical ideas 
in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, generalizations, and other 
cognitive mechanisms giving rise to them. A standard mathematical education 
does not develop such idea analysis techniques because it does not pursue 
considerations of A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or 
B) the philosophy of mathematics 
 . 

This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though Lakoff/Nunez 
do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and that all humans 
roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive apparatus.
...

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in 
every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 
2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence 
(pre- and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this 
universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is it merely 
"widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western Anthropology?

I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with 
DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is universal 
that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally specific interpretations 
(in the sense of your use of the term I think) of "another plane" and "alien 
beings"  which could range from angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to 
multidimensional alien beings and parallel existences.

- Steve

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen, and Dave, 

 

Well, I should have conceded this point long ago:  of course I am a
==>methodological <== pluralist.  There are many ways to skin a cat.  

 

Years ago I participated in a longrunning forum on Research Gate on
Philosophy of Science run by an Iranian intellectual who was putting some of
the great texts of western science into Persian so they would be more widely
read in Iran.  My colleagues in this forum were mostly an odd lot of
physicists.  What struck me about them was how many of them held the view
that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues
to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience.  I never could
convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to
be based on . experience.  So, why not be monists, and talk about
organizations of experience.  Ultimately, it was their dualism that
confirmed me in my monism. 

 

I am serious about your forcing me to become an "of" monist.  Everything is
relations; it's relations all the way down.  So the turtles are themselves
relations. <https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/189399.Clifford_Geertz>
To the inevitable "what about the first relation: what was that a relation
of?" I will only say, "The limiting case is never a particularly interesting
one; I will worry about it when I have explained all the others."  (I do not
understand the complexity theorists' passion for explaining "first life",
for instance, or psychologists who tie themselves in knots over the "dawn"
of consciousness."  To worry so intensely over origins when there is so much
other work to be done is an implicit caving to Christian theology.  We
pragmatists, we begin in the middle. 

 

So you force me to admit that even if I declare my allegiance to "of"
monism, I have immediately to admit that there are different kinds of
"of's".  So EVERY monist is a pluralist at the next level up.  So why am I
suddenly stuck on the monist origin story?  Ach.  Hoist by my own petard.  

 

By the way, speaking of etymology, to be hoist by one's own petard is to be
ejected from one's own saddle by the force of one's own fart.  Look it up. 

 

By the way, speaking of Clifford Geertz, here is the original quote: 

 

"There is an Indian story -- at least I heard it as an Indian story -- about
an Englishman who, having been told that the world rested on a platform
which rested on the back of an elephant which rested in turn on the back of
a turtle, asked (perhaps he was an ethnographer; it is the way they behave),
what did the turtle rest on? Another turtle. And that turtle? 'Ah, Sahib,
after that it is turtles all the way down" 
― Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures
<https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1166845> .

 

By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I
deplore.  

 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 10:25 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

My guess is you're a methodological pluralist just like the rest of us.

 

The trick is that monism is moot. Even *if* all things are somehow
organizations of experience, to be pragmatic, you have to be able to
*generate* 2 seemingly different things (like your experience vs. my
experience) by different organizations (or timelines, or historical
ephemerides, or iterations, or embeddings, or whatever). And so even if
there is only 1 stuff, there must be different ways of organizing the stuff.
So, there's, literally, no point in making a big stink about the 1 stuff.
Multiplicities will *always* creep in. So, monism is one of: tautological,
false, or useless, perhaps all three!

 

Worst case, if we can't *show* (i.e. actually *do* it) how the 1 stuff is
differently organized into different things and are only left with the
different things, then reality may as well *be* pluralist because saying
it's not is pure fideism/imputation/speculation and does no explanatory or
predictive work.

 

String theory and loop quantum gravity are *trying* to show how to construct
multiple stuff from singular stuff. So, they're setting the bar pretty high.
If you want to be a monist, why not work on those?

 

On 11/17/19 8:42 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Gosh.  So Stuff of Stuff and
plain old stuff are different stuffs?  So Nick

> Thompson is a dualist?

> 

> Damn!

> 

> Perhaps to maintain my monism I  have to become an "of" monist.  It's
"of's"

> all the way down.

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to 

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Steve, 

 

Apparently the modern definition of apocryphal is “widely circulated though 
probably untrue” .  Nothing that we have said about Hywel (so far) is untrue.  
We need a word for “widely circulated and true”.  Notorious?  

 

As you know, I love etymology.  Here from etymology on line: 

 

apocrypha (n.)

late 14c., Apocrifa, in reference to the apocryphal books of the Bible, from 
Late Latin apocrypha (scripta), from neuter plural of apocryphus "secret, not 
approved for public reading," from Greek apokryphos "hidden; obscure, hard to 
understand," thus "(books) of unknown authorship" (especially those included in 
the Septuagint and Vulgate but not originally written in Hebrew and not counted 
as genuine by the Jews), from apo "off, away" (see apo- 
 ) + 
kryptein "to hide" (see crypt 
 ). 

Non-Biblical sense "writing of doubtful authorship or authenticity" is from 
1735. Properly plural (the single would be Apocryphon or apocryphum), but 
commonly treated as a collective singular.

Nick

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:56 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

 

I never met Hywel myself, but the stories of him are always apocryphal...  
someday I expect all of the stories referencing Mulla Nasruden to reappear with 
Hywel as the central character.

On 11/17/19 8:40 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Hywel was an experimental particle physicist and a regular Friam attendee.  He 
had been a professor at Penn and Cornell and a group leader at Los Alamos.  
Once he said to me, "the number one does not exist".  He meant that there is 
nothing that is precisely one centimeter long, for example.  I asked him, "How 
many biological mothers did you have?"  I don't have enough time to repeat his 
answer.

 

Frank 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 8:31 AM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Yes, I meant to say including the types type.

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 8:02 AM glen∈ℂ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I don't know this Hywel person. But number of things of a type is different 
from number of types of thing. 8^) Unless types of a thing are also things of a 
type. Channeling a modern teenager: That's so meta, dude.

On 11/17/19 6:55 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Channeling Hywel, I hope accurately: There is no irrational number of
> things of any type in the Universe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, Dave,

Gosh.  So Stuff of Stuff and plain old stuff are different stuffs?  So Nick
Thompson is a dualist?  

Damn!  

Perhaps to maintain my monism I  have to become an "of" monist.  It's "of's"
all the way down. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:49 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

Herein lies the monist rub. If types of things are the same as things of
type, then why do we have 2 words: "thing" and "type"? Why not just have one
word: "thing"? The same is true of "kind" vs. "type". Or any 2 words you
might choose at random from the dictionary. So, we all turn into
"enlightened" people and go around mumbling "mu" all the time.

My answer, of course, is methodological pluralism. It's pragmatic to allow
different types, to distinguish one thing from another. And that's the end
of the hand-wringing. 8^) Sure, if you can partially unify things in order
to make some task simpler/better (e.g. inducing patterns into causal graphs
to stress test markets), fine. Do your partial unification. But moderation
in all things (including moderation) ... except beer consumption, which
cannot be moderated!

On 11/17/19 7:17 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>  "There are two kinds of people.  Those who believe there are an 
> irrational number of types of things, and those who don't."

On 11/17/19 7:31 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Yes, I meant to say including the types type.

On 11/17/19 7:40 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Hywel was an experimental particle physicist and a regular Friam attendee.
> He had been a professor at Penn and Cornell and a group leader at Los 
> Alamos.  Once he said to me, "the number one does not exist".  He 
> meant that there is nothing that is precisely one centimeter long, for
example.
> I asked him, "How many biological mothers did you have?"  I don't have 
> enough time to repeat his answer.



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

Hywel was Welch born particle physicist who came to rest at Los Alamos.  He
was a dedicated attender of the Mother Church, even though he thought we
were all as silly as hens.  His most famous line was, "It's more complicated
than that" and out would come the pad of paper and the elegant pen and we
would all be subjected to particle diagrams with Greek-lettered thisses and
thatses flying off in various directions.  He loved to taunt the
mathematicians in the group with "Mathematics is ok but eventually you have
to know something."  He was a climate skeptic. He died a couple of years
back.  We miss him terribly, perhaps BECAUSE he drove us crazy.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:02 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

I don't know this Hywel person. But number of things of a type is different
from number of types of thing. 8^) Unless types of a thing are also things
of a type. Channeling a modern teenager: That's so meta, dude.

On 11/17/19 6:55 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Channeling Hywel, I hope accurately: There is no irrational number of 
> things of any type in the Universe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Dave, 

 

Sorry not to have responded to you  interesting probes.  I finally walked my 
new computer over to Capitol Computer and left it, like a pet for euthanasia.  
Two weeks of my life burned.  For  mere 200 dollars they promise to return it 
to me in functioning condition.  I hope that’s where the pet metaphor breaks 
down. 

 

About what you write below, I just have to say I don’t follow.  Dualisms 
presuppose more than one kind of “stuff”.   I think I presuppose only one kind, 
which I call, for want of a better label, experience.  All other stuff consists 
of organizations of experience.  Now, if “organizations of stuff” is to you 
another kind of stuff, then, by god, I AM  a dualist.  But I think stuff of 
stuff is no less or no more than stuff.  So, unless you talk me out of that, I 
still think I am a good monist.  I kinda thought you were a monist, too, so are 
you just jerking my chain? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 12:23 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

PS

 

”truth beyond experience.” “Truth other than experience” “truth IN experience” 
all equally dualist. 

 

Can’t help but be so as all are legal expressions in a dualist language.

 

davew

 

 

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

 

Please see larding below!

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM

To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,

[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous.  When ARE you coming back? 
<==nst] 

 

 

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of 
that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. 
Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and 
interesting.

[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, 
but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to 
allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the 
difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind.  Does direct 
knowledge come with little “d” icons attached?  So, not only do you have direct 
knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and 
direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad 
finitum.  Just checking.  <==nst] 

 

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, 
Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the 
greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems 
to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.

[NST==>Yes, I agree.  Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a 
Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst] 

 

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we 
can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what 
everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the 
hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is 
behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.

[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice.  Either we must assert a truth 
beyond experience, or deny any truth at all.  By why not a truth IN experience. 
 Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience.  That upon which human 
experience converges.  Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we 
grope around in the dark.  <==nst] 

 

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same 
thing as Interface or Interpretation.

[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth.  Some 
methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only that 
talk of events beyond experience was scientifically nugatory.  Philosophical 
behaviorists  [Wittgenstein??] assert that talk of events beyond experience is 
MEANINGLESS.  <==nst] 

 

Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the same spot 
in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly,  Interface made me 
think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields.

[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are talking about 
the manner in which development channels us into common paths, the fact tha

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Eric,

 

Perfect.  Both sides laid out to perfection.  

 

Now, at any given point, how do we tell which situation we are in? And if we 
are wanting to speak truth about both situations, what truths an we speak about 
 a reassuring lie?  

 

To do “liberal” politics, we need “facts”.   No, actually, we need facts.  Or 
even Facts.  We cannot commit to common future if we do not agree – or have a 
means of coming to agree – on present conditions, on how we might improve them, 
and on collective actions likely to make those improvements. 

 

What I see in much relativism is not fallibilism, which I endorse, but 
nihilistic fatalism**, which I deplore.  I am not sure I can argue either  for 
my endorsement OR my condemnation, but them’s my values.  Nihilistic fatalism 
is endorsed opportunistically by people like Putin because, while they 
themselves are planning for the “inevitable” collapse, they are arguing that 
there is no future in planning.  

 

Nick 

.   

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

"You hold the child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going to be all 
right”.  You might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.”  You might 
also do it when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward the ground.  
The fact that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t change how 
those situations “prove out”.  Some interpretations are better than others."

 




You and your denial of William James's "Will to Believe"! I will grant you that 
the holding and crooning doesn't change the outcome when the plane is hurtling 
to the ground, no problem there. But of course it is quite possible that the 
holding and cooning DOES change the outcome for the child afraid of the goblin. 
More specifically, cuddling the child and telling them that everything is going 
to be all right is sometimes an essential causal element within the process by 
which things change from "not all right" to "all right." The fact that the 
goblin doesn't actually exist is a weird distraction from the fact that the 
parent's assertion of alright-ness is often essential for alright-ness to 
actually occur. 

 

Some interpretations are better than others... and some interpretations 
actually create the truth of the interpretations... based on the individual 
will of the actor/interpreter making it so.

 


---

Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist

American University - Adjunct Instructor

 

 

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

All, 

 

“Everything is interpretation.”

 

Yey-AH! Duh!  What else could it possibly be?  Does God speak to you?  
Presumably not.  Hopefully, not. 

 

Welcome to monism.  So now what?

 

You only get five seconds to be amazed at the wisdom of monism before you have 
to start making distinctions between those interpretations that prove out in 
the end and those that don’t.  

 

Now I admit that problems arise in those situations in which some participants 
in the collective discussion have the power to alter the outcomes.  Presidents, 
bosses, and parents are all in that position, to some degree.  You hold the 
child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going to be all right”.  You 
might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.”  You might also do it 
when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward the ground.  The fact 
that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t change how those 
situations “prove out”.  Some interpretations are better than others. 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  
It’s Pragmatism.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 8:44 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Steve,

 

On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, 
Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse 
and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite 
distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of 
hermeneutics.

 

"Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from this 
th

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

All, 

 

But doesn’t all this relativist talk beg the fundamental issue:

 

This conversation goes on, can go on only within the framework of a liberal 
(broadest sense, please) democracy.

Under what circumstances, under a liberal democracy, am I called to defend it?

Has that time come?

What tools, under a liberal democracy, are available to me to defend it?  

What personal sacrifices must I make in its defense. 

 

I suppose, if the answer to all these questions  is never, no, none, and none, 
then we can go on talking in this relativistic way forever.  But somehow it 
feels a bit like we’re whistling by the graveyard.   Or continuing to play 
croquet on the deck of a rocking ship whose cannons have come loose.  

 

For instance, the current international conversation on “responsibility” in the 
“digital space” is harrowing.  I have no idea how to handle it, yet it will get 
handled, and we will live with the consequences.  

 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 1:33 AM
To: Prof David West ; friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Dave writes:  

 

< Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but 
I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often 
in the same day.  >

 

My test is whether someone will play the nihilist game with me.   If someone 
will put aside all of their values one-by-one, then there may be a mind worth 
engaging.   But that means identifying the values, coming to agree on 
definitions, and that sort of thing.   When that doesn't work, like because 
someone insists that the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, then the 
debate can alternatively shift to the costs and benefits of that set of norms 
relative to another set of norms.   Sometimes what happens is that the other 
person feels their Very Important Value System is being minimized, and they 
make a call for a fatwa (or similar) to be issuer or they put on their MAGA 
hat.  Whatever.  If you are interested in ethnography, be an ethnographer.  

 

Marcus

 

 

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> >
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 11:37 PM
To: friam@redfish.com   mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism 

 

Glen writes:

"And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and  trying to 
tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with Trump has done or 
not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you crack open that layered 
chitin an Ismist accretes around their self without killing them?"

Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I 
have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in 
the same day. As an anthropologist I am pretty much an absolute cultural 
relativist and abhor ethnocentrism. Also, I would not presume to attempt to 
"crack open that layered chitin" of another until and unless I had shattered my 
own shell.

davew


On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, at 8:00 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> On 11/11/19 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from 
> > promulgating a prescriptive ideology.   The point is to open up space for 
> > what might work, and that which has yet to be falsified.  The Trumpism 
> > behaviors are not drawn from a complex data set.
> 
> Maybe not. But *how* do we open up that space for people who are dead 
> set for Trump, against someone like Bill Weld or Joe Walsh? By the same 
> token, how could we have opened things up for the Bernie Bros who were 
> so against Clinton? Or the coming nastiness between whichever D's make 
> it to the primaries?
> 
> I mean, if ranked choice were more widespread, that alone would help a 
> lot. The tendency to -isms is canalized by over-zealous reduction. My 
> self-ascribed Christian neighbor (who doesn't seem to be a follower of 
> Christ, but whatever) once gave me a book with a title like "Jesus: 
> Insane, Liar, or God." The idea being that the 3 ideas were mutually 
> exclusive. When Dave points out that membership in his set of 
> disgruntled people isn't crisp, he's only reiterating the thread topic: 
> how to integrate -isms. I made my lame attempt to talk to my neighbor 
> about the Axiom of Choice, modal logics, etc. ... and of course failed 
> utterly. And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and 
> trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with 
> Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you 
> crack open that layered chitin an Ismist 

Re: [FRIAM] culture vs things

[Nick Thompson]

G and M

It's the hair.  Oh, god, what's living in that HAIR> 

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 9:17 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] culture vs things

LoL!  First laugh of the day. Thanks.

On 11/11/19 8:15 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Pinker is an idiot.  Always has been.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Barry,

 

This is very helpful.  

 

Are there any programs that help you move the right stuff, or shall I just 
restore the back up to the new computer and trust that my back up software 
knows what it is doing. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Barry MacKichan
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 10:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

 

The last time I had to do this, I tried the following, and it worked moderately 
well.

For any software that costs me money, I put the software license/serial/unlock 
code in my password manager (1Password).
It helps also to try to make a list of the open-source software I’m using.

The new computer has the basic system and apps installed.

I download new copies of the bought software and unlock with the info in 
1Password. I pass over software I no longer use.
I reinstall the open-source software I know I will use.

I copy data that I know I need (mail archive, some program settings, etc.)

I leave the rest on the backup disk, which I keep for the life of the new 
computer, and recover stuff from it on an as-needed basis.

I have a multidisk backup where I put archival files that I won’t be using 
actively.

 

--Barry

On 8 Nov 2019, at 15:20, Nick Thompson wrote:

Kindly FRIAMers,

 

Do you have any advice to give, or a website to suggest, that will help me 
decide how to set up the computer I just bought.  I back up the old computer to 
a hard drive every night, and I had always thought to transfer the data to the 
new one by restoring the backup file to the new computer. But I assume there is 
a LOT of crap in there I don’t want.  SOMEBODY must have thought about this 
issue and written something avuncular for people like me.  

 

Thanks, as always, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, 

Funny.  I don't read Schiff that way.  I don't watch any TV, and get all my 
news from text or podcasts, so I may be missing a lot of nonverbals.  But I 
thought his "It's not OK that ..." speech of a year or so back was terrific. I 
read him as a prosecutor.  His job is to present the case.

I do agree about A.O.C.  But she was playing a different role.  What was 
splendid about her questioning was the disciplined manner in which she stayed 
within the bounds of the role she was playing.  She let the case present 
itself.  

Nick 





Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:00 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Glen,

Your "larger point is that communities are 
> responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome* 
> challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed 
> impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the 
> impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational 
> people should welcome challenges to their words and actions."

is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational 
challenges ...

What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - 
it is emotional and ego-driven.

Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should 
be leading the impeachment effort  - quiet, informed, questions that clearly 
demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the 
ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the 
population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give 
the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting 
— something that will never happen with  the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 3:49 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> While I agree that your *narrative* is plausible, I'm always skeptical 
> of such narratives. The system is more complex than these stories we 
> tell ourselves. I didn't confidently support impeachment until Trump 
> released his readout of the Ukraine call. And most of my more 
> conservative friends didn't support impeachment until the 
> whistleblower came forward. Those who've been shouting for Trump's 
> impeachment for years were not in control of the process.
> 
> More importantly, I think Obama should have been impeached, as well. 
> To me, his drone strikes were very close to crimes against humanity ...
> but, of course, crimes against humanity may not be crimes against our 
> country... I don't know. But the larger point is that communities are 
> responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome* 
> challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed 
> impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the 
> impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational 
> people should welcome challenges to their words and actions.
> 
> Think of impeachment like your friend telling you there's spinach in your 
> teeth.
> 
> On 11/9/19 12:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > "They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence 
> > the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, 
> > Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and 
> > commentators.
> > 
> > In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not 
> > motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and 
> > balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.
> > 
> > And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.
> > 
> > "They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the  populace 
> > outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could 
> > possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: 
> > racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be 
> > illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he 
> > is a symbol of "Their" failures.
> > 
> > Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong 
> > reasons, at the wrong time.
> > 
> > Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far 
> > more importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point 
> > that future Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad 
> > things."
> > 
> > There are so many other ways that the country could have been 
> > protected from Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those 
> > alternatives would require reason, effort, and, most importantly for 
> > "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." (Mao)
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

Gosh, Dave.  What is the solution they are entertaining?  As a guilty 
meat-eater, I want to know. 


I was musing the other day on the amount of food waste between harvest and 
eating and wondering vaguely if meat isn't a more efficient way to bring plants 
to table than we give it credit for.  In the same way that I wonder about these 
claims that my lightbulbs are saving energy when they give off less heat 
...during the winter?  Aren't those nice warm incandescent lightbulbs helping 
to heat my house?  

I don't share your more general implication that government should leave off 
thinking about this stuff and leave the cattlemen to solve it on their own.  
That leads back to our conversation ofn Grapes of Wrath. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Marcus,

There was no implication that your ego was bruised, nor anyone else's outside 
of the very small number (500-1000) that I included in my definition of "They."

I hope that when you talk about the "red hat folks," you are also speaking of a 
small, very small actually, percentage of those supporting Trump. The vast 
majority of Trump supporters are NOT "People with a backward way of thinking 
that need constant oversight.   A danger to themselves and others."

One tiny example: I was in the US the month of October and talking with a large 
number of ranchers. The conversations were about conservation and climate 
change. These people know far more about conservation and far more about how 
cattle contribute to green-house gasses than (almost) anyone in the government 
bureaucracy charged with writing rules and regulations.

The ranchers (and I am excluding the large corporate ranches, but there are 
fewer of them than there are of corporate farms) are constantly seeking and 
applying knowledge to enhance conservation and to ameliorate adverse affects on 
climate. They justifiably take umbrage at the imposition of 
uninformed/misinformed regulations that frequently make things worse.

They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and 
making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, not because they deny the 
climate effect, but because they are working on a better way to address the 
problem - and they know it is better because they have the data and a forward 
way of thinking about that data.

And most of them are wearing red hats (actually the favored re-election hat is 
black with a flag motif on half the brim).

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Dave writes:
> 
>"And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos."
> 
> It is just not so.   Sure, I was disappointed when George W was 
> elected.   I was disappointed by what I saw was a preference too many 
> people had for a good 'old boy rather than a person with ideas for 
> governance.   When 9/11 happened, I was supportive of the use of 
> violence.  I remember his State of the Union address and being amazed I 
> supported this guy -- the loyal opposition.   But this is what had to 
> be done. That carried over to Obama with the drone strikes too.   Ugly 
> measures are sometimes needed for the greater good, or at least our 
> good.
> 
> I see the red hat folks in much the same way I see militant Islamists.  
>  People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.  
> A danger to themselves and others.   They are cultural regressions 
> waiting to happen, and both of them did.  It really doesn't have 
> anything to do with Hillary and Donald.
> 
> Marcus
> 
>  
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe 
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, russ, again, 

I just discovered that my new computer comes up in my directory for my old one. 
 So I guess I COULD just transfer EVERYTHING on my old computer onto my new 
computer.  

But surely this is a sheep-dip moment, and I should transfer only data, emails, 
and other stuff in the backup.  

Save me from myself. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:33 PM
To: friam 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:20:31PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Kindly FRIAMers,
> 
>  
> 
> Do you have any advice to give, or a website to suggest, that will 
> help me decide how to set up the computer I just bought.  I back up 
> the old computer to a hard drive every night, and I had always thought 
> to transfer the data to the new one by restoring the backup file to 
> the new computer. But I assume there is a LOT of crap in there I don’t 
> want.  SOMEBODY must have thought about this issue and written something 
> avuncular for people like me.

I always restore from backup, or from the original drive if it is still 
working.  Getting rid of crap is a different task, requiring dedication and 
thought about what you do or don't need. I usually do that either when slightly 
bored, or when my disk is full and I'm desparate for space.

Cheers
-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Russ, 

Are things sane down there?  

Is it to Australia that we FRIAMMERS can retreat when the madness becomes 
terminal?

When Putin strolls upon the otherwise empty Northern Hemisphere stage and gives 
is triumphant soliloquy?  

The situation in Britain seems beyond crazy.  Did you know that after the 
presently anticipated devolution of the UK Scotland, Wales, and after much 
grumbling, Northern Ireland, a radical new plan is forming for a Wessexexit?   
Who needs those bloody Celts in a Pure Anglo Saxon Britain?  

[sigh]

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:33 PM
To: friam 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:20:31PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Kindly FRIAMers,
> 
>  
> 
> Do you have any advice to give, or a website to suggest, that will 
> help me decide how to set up the computer I just bought.  I back up 
> the old computer to a hard drive every night, and I had always thought 
> to transfer the data to the new one by restoring the backup file to 
> the new computer. But I assume there is a LOT of crap in there I don’t 
> want.  SOMEBODY must have thought about this issue and written something 
> avuncular for people like me.

I always restore from backup, or from the original drive if it is still 
working.  Getting rid of crap is a different task, requiring dedication and 
thought about what you do or don't need. I usually do that either when slightly 
bored, or when my disk is full and I'm desparate for space.

Cheers
-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

Well, I agree that there are some obscurantist Pragmatists.  Rorty drives me 
bonkers. 

 

But is there an Obscurantist movement?  For that matter, are their 
Despair-ists?  

 

Watching Boris Johnson manoeuver is a wonderful  lesson concerning the degree 
to which people and power can (and cannot) actually alter truth. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Be fair Nick, what about capital O, Obscurantism?

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 11:46 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Please note the capital P. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:45 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  
It’s Pragmatism.  

Well said Nick. 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Setting up a new PC

[Nick Thompson]

Kindly FRIAMers,

 

Do you have any advice to give, or a website to suggest, that will help me
decide how to set up the computer I just bought.  I back up the old computer
to a hard drive every night, and I had always thought to transfer the data
to the new one by restoring the backup file to the new computer. But I
assume there is a LOT of crap in there I don't want.  SOMEBODY must have
thought about this issue and written something avuncular for people like me.


 

Thanks, as always, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

Please note the capital P. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:45 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  
It’s Pragmatism.  

Well said Nick. 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Nick Thompson]

All, 

 

“Everything is interpretation.”

 

Yey-AH! Duh!  What else could it possibly be?  Does God speak to you?  
Presumably not.  Hopefully, not. 

 

Welcome to monism.  So now what?

 

You only get five seconds to be amazed at the wisdom of monism before you have 
to start making distinctions between those interpretations that prove out in 
the end and those that don’t.  

 

Now I admit that problems arise in those situations in which some participants 
in the collective discussion have the power to alter the outcomes.  Presidents, 
bosses, and parents are all in that position, to some degree.  You hold the 
child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going to be all right”.  You 
might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.”  You might also do it 
when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward the ground.  The fact 
that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t change how those 
situations “prove out”.  Some interpretations are better than others. 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  
It’s Pragmatism.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 8:44 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Steve,

 

On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, 
Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse 
and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite 
distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of 
hermeneutics.

 

"Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from this 
thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite dictum, 
"Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the foundation for my 
critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process.

 

Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data set; 
humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly, 
self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential and 
unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it. (This 
point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to survive, not 
what is really "out there.")

 

At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers" convince 
an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation) and voila we 
have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The foundational "story" 
can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the existence of, or simply 
disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points in the original rich and 
complex data set.

 

When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of that 
data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a great deal of 
assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points is never less than 
50:50.

 

in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in a 
simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth." 
Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic perspective, 
such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It is more 
complicated than that.

 

The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of 
"fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a 
reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data points 
with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions about 
post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.)

 

With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less than a 
thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and interpreting each 
point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral of the story," weaving 
this grand interpretation narrative and selling it to a herd of tens of 
millions.

 

But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an extent 
that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations — believing that 
everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH.

 

This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost 
guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed 
intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting out 
the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.)

 

If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive deconstruction.

 

davew

 

 

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

DaveW -

 

As a card carrying Hermeneutic 

"Hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood" - 
Wikipedia

>From the viewpoint of 

[FRIAM] The Weil Conjectures

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Frank, 

 

Last Thursday, in order to stir up a conversation amongst the mathematicians
and the humanists, I forwarded the attached to the FRIAM list.  It is a book
about the intellectual/emotional relationship between the two siblings, the
mathematician Andre Weil, and his sister Simone.  When I got home, I
realized that absolutely nobody had mentioned it.  Now, the experience of
being ignored is not ENTIRELY unfamiliar to me, but I did begin to wonder if
the message had never gone out on the list.   So, if you don't get this from
the list, but only directly, could you forward it on to the list?  You might
want to edit a bit, first, to take out some of the nesting.  

 

Oh, and . don't forget to read it yourself.  You were one of the people I
had in mind when I wrote it. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Nick Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 3:21 PM
To: Friam (Friam@redfish.com) 
Cc: 'Jon Zingale' 
Subject: Document8

 

Dear Phellow Phriammers, 

 

So I have been reading, Olsson, K. The Weil Conjectures
<https://www.amazon.com/Weil-Conjectures-Math-Pursuit/dp/0374287619> : On
the pursuit of math and the unknown. New York, NY Farrar Straus Giroux.
2019.  Not only does the book evoke the chasm that mathematical genius
excavates around itself, but it also has many interesting meditations on
conjecture, metaphor, and scientific creativity generally.  I keyed in some
passages, attached them, and will copy them in below 

 

Love to hear some comments tomorrow.  Also, I am hoping for a continuation
of our discussion of Darwin's Origin as a metaphor.  

 

Nick 

  _  

  _  

Selections From, Olsson, K. The Weil Conjectures: On the pursuit of math and
the unknown. New York, NY Farrar Straus Giroux.  2019. 

 

  _  

  _  

PP 41-2

 

The word conjecture derives from a root notion of throwing or
casting things together, and over the centuries it has referred to
prophecies as well as to reasoned judgments, tentative conclusions,
whole-cloth inventions, and wild guesses.  "Since I have mingled celestial
physics with astronomy in this work, no one should be surprised at a certain
amount of conjecture," wrote Johannes Kepler in his Astronomia Nova of
1609."This is the nature of physics, of medicine, and all the sciences which
make use of other axioms beside the most certain evidence of the eyes."
Here conjecture allows him to press past the visible, to sacrifice the
certainty of witnessing for the depth and predictive power of theory.
There's another definition of conjecture that means something inferred from
signs or omens (for example, from a Renaissance work on occult philosophy:
"Whence did Melampus, the Augur, conjecture at the slaughter of the Greeks
by the flight of little birds.").

  

Elsewhere it's hokum, claptrap, bull: "Conjecture, which is only
a feeble supposition, counterfeits faith; as a flatterer counterfeits a
friend, and the wolf the dog" wrote one early Christian theologian.  So it's
a word with contradictory meanings since at times conjecture carries the
weight of reasoning behind it, and at other times it's a wild statement, an
unfounded claim.  Good thinking or bad, clever speculation or a reckless
mental leap. 

 

In contemporary mathematics, conjectures present blue-prints for
theorems, ideas that have taken on weight but haven't been proved.  Couched
in the conditional, they establish a provisional communication between what
can be firmly established and might turn out to be the case.  More than a
guess, conjecture in this sense is a reasoned wager about what's true.  

 

A rough draft.  A trial balloon.  It seems to me laced with
optimism, a bullishness about what could, in the future, come more fully to
sight. 

  _  

  _  

P 54

Strategies for tackling problems, from Polya's How to Solve it:
Do you know a related problem.  Look at the unknown! Here is a problem
related to yours and solved before.  Could you use it? 

But what about the problem of too many related problems? My
weakness for juxtaposition: I'll sense that one thing might be illuminated
by another thing and go chasing the other thing. .For better or worse, a
light paranoia goads me along.  Maybe it's all connected! This and this and
this and - look, over there - that. There's the bringing together of
disparate elements that informs a conjecture, and then there's the mental
nausea brought on by the fact that there's too much out there to know.  Not
grasping but googling.  I can't always tell one from the other.  

  _  

  _  

Pp 95-6

 

At last Andre goes on the offensive,, that is to say, he answe

[FRIAM] Document8

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Phellow Phriammers, 

 

So I have been reading, Olsson, K. The Weil Conjectures
 : On
the pursuit of math and the unknown. New York, NY Farrar Straus Giroux.
2019.  Not only does the book evoke the chasm that mathematical genius
excavates around itself, but it also has many interesting meditations on
conjecture, metaphor, and scientific creativity generally.  I keyed in some
passages, attached them, and will copy them in below 

 

Love to hear some comments tomorrow.  Also, I am hoping for a continuation
of our discussion of Darwin's Origin as a metaphor.  

 

Nick 

 

 

 



Document8.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

[Nick Thompson]

“… a deaf policeman heard the noise,

And came to rescue those two dead boys.”

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 5:44 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

 





Jochen,

 

 

“WEAK”??

Suh!   Pistols at Dawn! 

One bright day, in the middle of the night
two young boys stood up to fight
back to back they faced the other
drew their swords and shot one another

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

[Nick Thompson]

Jochen,

 

 

“WEAK”??

Suh!   Pistols at Dawn! 

 

N

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2019 4:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

 

The turtle chapter 3 is rather weak. I like for example the beginning for 
chapter 5 where Steinbeck describes the land owners in Oklahoma:

 

"Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and 
some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were 
cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one 
were cold. And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves."

 

Or a bit later where he describes the banks that many of the land owners work 
for:

 

"The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates 
what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than 
men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it."

 

-J.

 

 

 

 Original message ----

From: Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > 

Date: 10/26/19 17:54 (GMT+01:00) 

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> > 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century 

 

Steinbeckers –

 

Does anybody else remember that one-page chapter about the tortoise on 66 in 
Grapes of Wrath? 

 

It is such a metaphor for everything. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 7:00 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

 

 

On 10/25/19 1:21 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I've read Cannery Row and liked it. I like the books from Steinbeck in general. 
What is the name of the biography from the Doc? "Beyond the Outer Shores" ? Is 
it recommendable? 

Very... 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/401670.Beyond_the_Outer_Shores

 

-Jochen

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

 

 Original message 

From: Steven A Smith  <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>  

Date: 10/25/19 16:53 (GMT+01:00) 

To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>  

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century 

 

...On a recent pleasure/work trip I *re*visited Monterrey CA and Cannery Row 
which lead me to *re*read Steinbeck's Cannery Row which lead me to read 
something of a biography of the Doc character in his novel (and the movie) for 
whom the prototype was Ed Ricketts...

Beyond the Outer Shores was written roughly 15 years ago, recounting Ricketts' 
life and career.  I knew that Steinbeck was a good friend of Ricketts but I was 
not aware of how much work they did together, including a summer of kayaking in 
the Sea of Cortez which yielded the data for the book they co-authored by the 
name "Sea of Cortez".   I was also unaware that Joseph Campbell spent his 
formative (adult) years in the company of both of these mens (and more to the 
point, Ricketts).   The author of this biography credits Ricketts as being 
highly influential in the work of both Steinbeck (beyond Cannery Row) and 
Campbell, and credits him with leading the transition from traditional biology 
focused on taxonomic approaches to identification of collected specimens.  
Ricketts approached collecting and identifying (mostly marine) species as well 
as writing them up in his famous trilogy on the topic in the context of a newly 
emergent field of "ecology".   He was simultaneously under-appreciated due to 
his lack of formal education, his lack of academic affiliation whilst also 
being a highly prolific commercial collector/supplier of specimens to the same 
community while identifying a huge number of new species (perhaps only 
recognizing the subtle differences based on habitat and foodweb relations) 
within his purview (the range of the Pacific coast along the North American 
coast from Bering Sea to Panama).

On 10/23/19 3:39 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I recently stumbled upon John Steinbeck's classic novel "The Grapes of Wrath" 
and wonder if it is similar to the situation today. You will all know it since 
it is often read in High Schools, right? (I had to read Goethe in School. And 
"Animal Farm" plus "To kill a Mocking Bird" in the English class).

 

As you

Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

[Nick Thompson]

Steinbeckers –

 

Does anybody else remember that one-page chapter about the tortoise on 66 in 
Grapes of Wrath? 

 

It is such a metaphor for everything. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 7:00 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century

 

 

On 10/25/19 1:21 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I've read Cannery Row and liked it. I like the books from Steinbeck in general. 
What is the name of the biography from the Doc? "Beyond the Outer Shores" ? Is 
it recommendable? 

Very... 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/401670.Beyond_the_Outer_Shores

 

-Jochen

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

 

 Original message 

From: Steven A Smith    

Date: 10/25/19 16:53 (GMT+01:00) 

To: friam@redfish.com   

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] John Steinbeck in the 21st century 

 

...On a recent pleasure/work trip I *re*visited Monterrey CA and Cannery Row 
which lead me to *re*read Steinbeck's Cannery Row which lead me to read 
something of a biography of the Doc character in his novel (and the movie) for 
whom the prototype was Ed Ricketts...

Beyond the Outer Shores was written roughly 15 years ago, recounting Ricketts' 
life and career.  I knew that Steinbeck was a good friend of Ricketts but I was 
not aware of how much work they did together, including a summer of kayaking in 
the Sea of Cortez which yielded the data for the book they co-authored by the 
name "Sea of Cortez".   I was also unaware that Joseph Campbell spent his 
formative (adult) years in the company of both of these mens (and more to the 
point, Ricketts).   The author of this biography credits Ricketts as being 
highly influential in the work of both Steinbeck (beyond Cannery Row) and 
Campbell, and credits him with leading the transition from traditional biology 
focused on taxonomic approaches to identification of collected specimens.  
Ricketts approached collecting and identifying (mostly marine) species as well 
as writing them up in his famous trilogy on the topic in the context of a newly 
emergent field of "ecology".   He was simultaneously under-appreciated due to 
his lack of formal education, his lack of academic affiliation whilst also 
being a highly prolific commercial collector/supplier of specimens to the same 
community while identifying a huge number of new species (perhaps only 
recognizing the subtle differences based on habitat and foodweb relations) 
within his purview (the range of the Pacific coast along the North American 
coast from Bering Sea to Panama).

On 10/23/19 3:39 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I recently stumbled upon John Steinbeck's classic novel "The Grapes of Wrath" 
and wonder if it is similar to the situation today. You will all know it since 
it is often read in High Schools, right? (I had to read Goethe in School. And 
"Animal Farm" plus "To kill a Mocking Bird" in the English class).

 

As you know Steinbeck describes how migrants from Oklahoma called Okies look 
for a better life in California. They travel along the Route 66, which 
Steinbeck helped to make popular, passed Albuquerque and Santa Fe, and drove to 
the West until they arrived in California where the locals disliked and 
rejected them.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/news/grapes-wrath

 

Today we have migrants from Cuba and Mexico looking for a better life in the US 
and refugees from Syria and Afghanistan who cause a lot of trouble in the EU. 
Many of these refugees and migrants live in camps, just like the ones Steinbeck 
visited. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/feb/02/johnsteinbeck.socialsciences

 

Steinbeck's novel takes place during the "Dust Bowl". Today the dry regions in 
the South suffer from droughts and wild fires caused by Climate Change 
worldwide. Everything sounds similar, as if history is repeating itself. 

https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-dust-bowl

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

 

 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] How does that style transfer work?

[Nick Thompson]

“Hebbian” accuracy?

 

How does that differ from “Peircean truth”?

 

n

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 10:28 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How does that style transfer work?

 

Cody,

 

I really have no idea. The site that I signed up for is called

Deep Dream Generator  , and it supposedly 
exists to give

users hands on experience with image generation with

neural nets. It is setup like the typical social media site,

allowing users to make their `dreams` public and for

others to `like` the `dreams`. Experimenting with different

images and styles is starting to give me some heuristics

to work from and some ideas for how features are extracted.

 

My current working theory is something of a metaphor.

I imagine that when a `style` image is uploaded the

neural net is like a teenager in a punk band. It has maybe

three favorite bands, but one that really really is the best.

The teenagers memorize and test themselves on all the

idiosyncrasies of this favorite band, deconstructing the

lyrics and the moves on stage. Then when teenager and

band of friends go to cover a song by anyone else, this

song is effectively reconstituted from all of this training

on the bands favorite band.

 

Meanwhile, what is actually happening? Well, you know,

weights on edges in a database are increasing when nodes

`fire` together, and weaken when Hebbian accuracy is not

achieved.

 

Jon


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] My new book

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Jon, 

 

No image attached to my copy.  

 

But, more important, what in the name of doo-wah-ditty is the Book of Kells?  

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 10:23 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] My new book

 

Cool! To celebrate your new book I submit this image I rendered over the 
weekend. I trained a neural net on an image from the Book of Kells and then had 
it reconstruct a picture of some mushrooms in the Sangre De Christos:

 




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Test

[Nick Thompson]

So, Frank:  Does this thinking entail, in any sense, however dilute, the 
hearing of a voice?  

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:30 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Test

 

The reason I posted it was that for some reason the fact that people think has 
been controversial at Friam at times.  I said that when I tried TM I couldn't 
not think.

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Idle question

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Fellow Friamers,

 

Has anybody ever tried to turn the tables on a Nigerian Prince Scammer?  So,
I agree that you are going send me a million dollars, and I agree that I
have to, say, send you $1000 dollars, to facilitate the transfer, but I ask
you, the scammer, first to send ME a check for $100 dollars to establish the
validity of your bank account, before I send you my thousand?  Defectors all
the way down?  In the end, I am offering to send you penny in order to
receive a dime.  The whole thing collapses when there are no smaller
denominations.  

 

Did any of you hear that marvelous This American Life episode in which the
bored homeowner decided to respond to the Carpet Cleaning cold caller, by
asking, in a tentative, nervous sort of way, if the carpet cleaner could
clean blood.  Yes. "I mean, human blood?" Uh, yes.  And when assured that it
could, "Could he clean blood off WALLS?".  And when assured on that point,
too, could the carpet cleaner come NOW!  

 

The police officer who appeared at his door, after seeing that there was in
fact no blood, arrested the home owner.  When he asked why, the officer
said, "I don't know; we'll figure something out in the car."  

 

Yes.  I know.  I need to get a life. 

 

Nick 

 

  

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Roger, 

 

That was exactly my point.  That’s what makes it “altruistic” in some sense to 
be a looney- croney, i.e.,, to be somebody who invests in a single looney.  
Unless all looney-cronies take out a common insurance policy, most are going to 
lose.  Yet, it is the loonies that explore new spaces, and thus, with their 
individual sacrifices, benefit the whole.  So you don’t need to be dubious, any 
more.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 2:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Read a blog post at https://stratechery.com/2019/day-two-to-one-day/ yesterday 
which was examining Amazon's balance of harvesting (twiddling the search engine 
to maximize Amazon's profits) versus investing (putting up $800 million to 
achieve single day deliveries) against the stated Bezos principles of how 
Amazon should work.  That's the same exploit/explore tradeoff that 
reinforcement learning tries to automate, it's the decision between optimizing 
the bottom line or attempting to grow the area of the plane that the bottom 
line rests upon, it's searching where the light is good versus exploring the 
shadows, wandering around with your favorite hammer looking for nail-like 
problems versus browsing a yard sale and finding a new tool.

 

Nick's assertion that investing in fringes never pays off on average seems 
highly suspect.  Much of what we take for granted in our world was so far on 
the fringe that it didn't even exist in 1819.  So, no, for an individual making 
investment decisions being a looney-croney rarely pays off, but for the economy 
as a whole the loonies have run the table time and time again.

 

-- rec --

 

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:21 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

I wouldn’t invest it in research, I’d invest it in development and then hire a 
team that understood research.   There is $5k spent per person (all persons) by 
venture capital in San Francisco alone.   That’s not like the ~ $500k per 
person at a DOE government lab, but the total amount in the region is about 
like the combined DOE and NSF budgets, of which only a fraction goes to 
research anyway.

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Steve, 

 

If you had money to invest on research, and were hoping to make 5 percent on 
your money, would you give it to an nsf vetted project, or to a random project? 
 The former, surely.  Yet, if everybody invests that way, all the money ends up 
being piled up in the middle and nothing novel is ever tried.  We need the 
loonies, and we need some crazy people who have faith in loonies.  They are the 
equivalent to “sports” in a breeding program.  Without loonies and their 
cronies, there is no variation for selection to work on.  Unfortunately, most 
people who bet on loonies loose.  Yes, a few win big, but most lose.  So, on 
average, it doesn’t pay to be a loonie-croney.  That’s the paradox.  This leads 
me to the conclusion that madness is a form of altruism.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 11:35 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Dave -



 

It seems like the ideas that seem to capture my imagination - Sheldrake, 
quantum consciousness among them - tend to be labeled as "pseudo." This is 
annoying, first because my hermeneutical hackles bristle whenever anyone tries 
to  assert their interpretation as privileged over someone else's; and because 
there seem to be so many cross-connections that afford all within the net to 
gain plausibility simply from being in the net.

 

Thanks for making this point and sharing this predilection.   I find a duality 
in this experience myself which can be a challenge to manage.  I deeply share 
your suspicion/resentment of "privileged interpretation".   I also am deeply 
suspicious of persuasive modes of communication (NLP as an extreme example, bad 
but conventional rhetoric second to

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Steve, 

 

If you had money to invest on research, and were hoping to make 5 percent on 
your money, would you give it to an nsf vetted project, or to a random project? 
 The former, surely.  Yet, if everybody invests that way, all the money ends up 
being piled up in the middle and nothing novel is ever tried.  We need the 
loonies, and we need some crazy people who have faith in loonies.  They are the 
equivalent to “sports” in a breeding program.  Without loonies and their 
cronies, there is no variation for selection to work on.  Unfortunately, most 
people who bet on loonies loose.  Yes, a few win big, but most lose.  So, on 
average, it doesn’t pay to be a loonie-croney.  That’s the paradox.  This leads 
me to the conclusion that madness is a form of altruism.  

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 11:35 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Dave -



 

It seems like the ideas that seem to capture my imagination - Sheldrake, 
quantum consciousness among them - tend to be labeled as "pseudo." This is 
annoying, first because my hermeneutical hackles bristle whenever anyone tries 
to  assert their interpretation as privileged over someone else's; and because 
there seem to be so many cross-connections that afford all within the net to 
gain plausibility simply from being in the net.

 

Thanks for making this point and sharing this predilection.   I find a duality 
in this experience myself which can be a challenge to manage.  I deeply share 
your suspicion/resentment of "privileged interpretation".   I also am deeply 
suspicious of persuasive modes of communication (NLP as an extreme example, bad 
but conventional rhetoric second to that).  I have been a direct "victim" of 
this in my life from time to time, but more chronically I have *observed* 
others being persuaded to believe things for which there is either shaky 
evidence or which is highly contradicted by the evidence available.   My 
judgement of this can sound or feel like my own positioning with "privileged 
interpretation" which is what makes manipulative rhetoric so insidious.   I 
agree that all that is labeled "pseudo" is not false or flimsy, or is only 
*contingently* so.  

On the other hand, one of the common tools I've seen in this type of 
manipulative rhetoric is to *claim* that dismissal by the mainstream is nearly 
"proof" of truthiness.  For example, Climate Denial, AntiVax, ChemTrails, 
UFOlogy, etc.  seem to hold up as their prime (or at least significant) 
evidence the simple fact that the "mainstream" or the "establishment" dismisses 
them.   The apparent bias of many to believe anything wrapped up in the 
trappings of a "conspiracy".

On the other other hand, new or changing or revolutionary paradigms in 
knowledge are *naturally* strongly or fundamentally counter to the 
common/standard "truth".   Copernicus and Galileo and their move from 
geocentric to heliocentric astronomical models.

You use the phrase "capture my imagination" which I find *also* holds a dualism 
for me.   On the one hand, I believe that intuition is a critical element in my 
own understanding and knowledge of the world.  On the other, I find that my 
"imagination" is vulnerable to "whimsy" and a carefully constructed "whimsy" 
can be as compelling in it's own way as the biases of "conspiracy".   The 
carrot to go with the stick.

Being trained formally in Science and Mathematics, I have a deep respect for 
the methods and sensibilities of those domains.   Working in "Big Science" 
among a broad cross-cutting set of disciplines (27 years at LANL) also gave me 
a deep suspicion of "received wisdom".   While the largest portion of the work 
I observed stood on it's own merits, the largest portion of the *funding* for 
the work seemed to follow the biases of "privileged interpretation" and 
"received wisdom".   I also felt that *publication* of scientific work went 
through a similar but not as extreme biased filter.   Peer review and 
reproduction of results are central to scientific progress, so this can be 
problematic. On the other, other, other hand, irresponsible publication of 
"hooey" without proper peer review seems somewhat pervasive and corrupts the 
process in it's own insidious way.



- Steve


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Re Rant

[Nick Thompson]

Steve Smith, 

I am now completely tangled in my own threads here.  Can you provide a 
translation?  

Nick 


Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:41 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Re Rant

Now that I've finally had a chance to read the entry Roger posted, I have an 
opinion. (Ha! As if I would ever *not* have an opinion)

On 9/14/19 7:56 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Frank has been unfairly accused.  His 
was an Anti-Rant Quip. 
> 
> The material Roger cites doesn’t obviously relate  (for me) to Frank’s and my 
> standing argument about the efficacy of inner life.  But its themes, 
> continuity and anti-determinism, are Peirceian themes.  And my respect for 
> Roger is such that I know that he don’t never say somethin’ for nothin’.  So, 
> can somebody explicate?  Perhaps even Roger? 

> On 9/13/19 9:19 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:>> Rant??  
>> I am a proponent, in human affairs, of both/and rather than either/or 
>> propositions.  In math I use the law of the excluded middle, however.

First) Both Nick's and Frank's reaction to Roger's classification of Frank's 
post as a "rant" are "so meta" -- said in the voice of a 20-something hipster. 
Rants can be both good and bad, subtle and over the top. Reacting as if Roger 
said anything accusatory is, I think, an example of artificial discretization, 
over and above what's present in the original discussion. 8^)

On 9/13/19 11:49 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> “dichotomania: the compulsion to replace quantities with dichotomies 
> (‘black-and-white thinking’), even when such dichotomization is unnecessary 
> and misleading for inference.”
> 
> Floating point and multi-precision numbers are used all the time on base 2 
> digital computers.

Second) Yeah, but it's important to remember that these are approximations to 
the (ideal) numbers. If an artificial discretization is used to facilitate the 
resolution/granularity of the lens, then that's where I part ways with the blog 
entry. I'd argue such artificial discretization isn't inappropriate at all. 
This is the problem I have with Lee's definition of computation. Free variables 
can be bound with schema, themselves having free variables, not merely with 
primitive values. So, *sure* floating point numbers are only approximations... 
but it's good enough for now ... or even for anything we'd ever need, anyway.

The real trick is *why* we artificial discretizers can't fluidly switch back 
and forth between thinking of bindings as definite or indefinite? 

--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

"all about entertainment"

That seems an over-aggressive reduction to me.  Like "all action is 
self-interested" or "all natural selection is at the genetic level".  

Perhaps the largest personality difference I can think of among people concerns 
what entertains them.  I am entertained by rhetoric.  Other people think it's 
boring.  So, there you have it.  

All the best,

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

My own instinct is that the `serious' communication between people, factored 
from rhetoric or not, is mostly about entertainment.   It's code that matters.

On 9/17/19, 1:22 PM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" 
 wrote:

Sorry.  I thought the name of my new company would be obvious: 

"Rhetor Rooter"

I suppose it also could be the name of a person who cheers on rhetoricians. 

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

This instinct taken to an extreme might explain how someone would end-up at 
a Trump rally and not an Obama rally.
Fear of those that can tell a complex and convincing story and cut corners 
in hard-to-detect ways.   Individuals having such fear might be more at ease 
with someone that does not have these skills.   Someone that makes them feel 
relatively good about themselves.

On 9/17/19, 10:06 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" 
 wrote:

Ha! "Rhetor". It's fantastic how you assembled those words so that 
"rhetor" seems so distasteful. I'm going to start using "rhetor" as a username 
for those throwaway logins I'm always having to create.

On 9/17/19 9:46 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> My favorite and perhaps most  disillusioning was a
> talk he gave at Google, where with maybe six people
> in the room, I had the privilege to observe what a
> rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost
> never think about him or his theory.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Sorry.  I thought the name of my new company would be obvious: 

"Rhetor Rooter"

I suppose it also could be the name of a person who cheers on rhetoricians. 

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

This instinct taken to an extreme might explain how someone would end-up at a 
Trump rally and not an Obama rally.
Fear of those that can tell a complex and convincing story and cut corners in 
hard-to-detect ways.   Individuals having such fear might be more at ease with 
someone that does not have these skills.   Someone that makes them feel 
relatively good about themselves.

On 9/17/19, 10:06 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣"  wrote:

Ha! "Rhetor". It's fantastic how you assembled those words so that "rhetor" 
seems so distasteful. I'm going to start using "rhetor" as a username for those 
throwaway logins I'm always having to create.

On 9/17/19 9:46 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> My favorite and perhaps most  disillusioning was a
> talk he gave at Google, where with maybe six people
> in the room, I had the privilege to observe what a
> rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost
> never think about him or his theory.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

A rhetor is just a teacher of writing, right?  But I want to pursue this idea 
of a Rhetor as villain.  I think it has legs.  So, suppose I start a company 
whose job is to go into companies and identify and fire all the people who are 
picky about writing.  What would we name such a company?  

I have idea, in case somebody else doesn’t think of it.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:06 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

Ha! "Rhetor". It's fantastic how you assembled those words so that "rhetor" 
seems so distasteful. I'm going to start using "rhetor" as a username for those 
throwaway logins I'm always having to create.

On 9/17/19 9:46 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> My favorite and perhaps most  disillusioning was a talk he gave at 
> Google, where with maybe six people in the room, I had the privilege 
> to observe what a rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost never 
> think about him or his theory.


--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Could Dr. Rhetor be in a mortal combat with Dr. Strangelove?  

Marvel Comics where are you when we need you!?

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:06 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

Ha! "Rhetor". It's fantastic how you assembled those words so that "rhetor" 
seems so distasteful. I'm going to start using "rhetor" as a username for those 
throwaway logins I'm always having to create.

On 9/17/19 9:46 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> My favorite and perhaps most  disillusioning was a talk he gave at 
> Google, where with maybe six people in the room, I had the privilege 
> to observe what a rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost never 
> think about him or his theory.


--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Hi,, Jon, 

 

Another case of my being at risk of drowning in my own thread.*  Ach!

 

Please see larding below.

 

Nick 

 

*! Mixed metaphor alert.  Can one drown in a thread?  I think Dave is going 
to like that metaphor!  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:46 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Nick,

 

`Signs all the way down` ... hmm.

 

Such a theory strikes me as necessarily objective, in the sense that:

1) there is nothing that signs ultimately refer to, signs

are not produced through reflection about the world.

[NST==>To be honest, I am having trouble understanding your meaning of 
“objective”, so I may be off the mark, here, but… :  Let’s say for starters 
that a sign is a relation such that if I stands in relation to O via S, S is a 
signifier of O for I.  OK, now that is an objective relation in the sense that 
you and I, and scientists everywhere, could have a meaningful conversation 
about whether these conditions are fulfilled by any situation in nature.  I 
think when those conversations are held, we will see controversially that all 
biological systems, including human social systems, are governed by signs.  In 
some of his writings, Peirce seems to take the step down to the next level and 
insist that physical laws are of the same character.  People like me call that 
“Weird Peirce”:  we are tantalized by it but we don’t like to be caught  
talking about it in public.  Please see my comments about Sheldrake, below. 
<==nst] 

2) that the corresponding system of signs is to be taken

as the privileged frame of reality, there is no world.

[NST==>Well, I agree if you mean by “no world”, no world apart from experience 
as I use the term (monistically –i.e. the world consists of everything that is 
experienced and there is not experience outside of experience because 
experience is just everything that is.  Or, you could put it the other way 
around and switch the words experience and world in the above sentence and 
still be a proper monist.)  It really doesn’t matter to a monist what you call 
“it”, because every naming I inevitably falsifies monism by  implying a 
contrast.   <==nst] 

 

To the extent that you agree with this characterization

of your own Piercean interpretation, what prevents the

ultimate collapsing of sign (and reality) under Baudrillard's

`sign as universal equivalent`?

[NST==>alas, I don’t know what you are talking about here. <==nst] 

 

Wrt Sheldrake, I remember being tempted by his theory

that the universe evolves through habit.

[NST==>Oh, Crap!  Now I have to read Sheldrake.  Your words might have been 
written by Peirce.  In fact, come to think of it, I think they WERE written by 
Peirce.  Since I cannot do this justice now, I am going to cc Mike Bybee, and 
see what he has to say.  <==nst] 

 I very much enjoy

thinking that physical law began through arbitrary and

frivolous fluctuations before settling on what happened

most. In an effort to see where he would take such a

theory, I found some youTube videos of him speaking.

My favorite and perhaps most  disillusioning was a

talk he gave at Google, where with maybe six people

in the room, I had the privilege to observe what a

rhetor he was capable of being. Now, I almost

never think about him or his theory.

 

Jon

[NST==>Jon, please put aside readings for me for when I get back. N<==nst] 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Steve, 

 

This is one of those moments when I have to be grateful you-guys let me 
participate here because it is so obvious to me that I am out of my depth in 
this conversation.  But …

 

You have my shroedinger (what is life?) crystal humming AND my Peirce (it’s 
signs all the way down) crystal humming.  The proposition, “It’s signs all the 
way down” has to be understood as the proposition that a sign is a certain kind 
of relation in which something stands in for something for something else.  
Full stop.  So all basic biological processes (think enzymes) are sign systems. 
 Another way to think of a sign system is as a relation ==>to a relation<==.  
So is the sorting of the pebbles on a beach a sign relation?  What about the 
tendency of slush to maintain a 32 degree temperature?  Fill in your favorite 
example, here.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 10:41 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Dave -

It felt a strange coincidence, but in the early days of SFx, we were holding a 
"blender" on the topic of morphometrics at the same time that Sheldrake was 
visiting SFe to speak at a "Science of Consciousness" conference.  This was the 
meeting at which he was stabbed by a 'fan' who was apparently disturbed going 
in but more disturbed by Sheldrake's ideas?

https://boingboing.net/2008/04/09/biologist-rupert-she.html

Our "morphometrics" was an acutely more mundane conversation about the 
practicalities of starting with laser scans of paleontological  and 
archaelogical artifacts and doing statistical analysis to try to reveal 
"hidden" correlations.  For example, we were hoping to be able to recognize the 
"hand" in objects such as flaked lithic tools or hand-formed ceramics.

It is interesting to me that you bring up homeopathic "dilution to nothing" 
based on the assumption that the water's quasi-crystalline structure somehow 
holds something meaningful from the original inoculant which had been titered 
into oblivion.

Are you familiar with Mae-Wan Ho's work in quasi-crystals in water and water 
emulsions?   I understand that where she (and others more acutely) have taken 
her research to fundamentally vitalistic places in a way that is hard to not 
dismiss as pseudo-science, but the underlying science seems pretty sound?   My 
daughter who is a molecular biologist has been unable to provide either 
confirmation nor refutation of the application of this work in her own domain 
(flavivirii).

I naively discarded a personal/professional correspondence (typed letter on 
letterhead ca 1984) from Roger Penrose in response to a tiny bit of work I did 
in pre-quantum consciousness (:Cellular automata in cytoskeletal lattices" : 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278984902598).  Penrose 
was postulating that it was aperiodic tilings (surprise!) that were at the root 
of consciousness (in human brains).   This was some years before his "Emperor's 
New Mind" and pursuit of "Quantum Consciousness" (with my co-author Stuart 
Hameroff).   I am unable to get sufficient traction on contemporary QC work 
including Penrose's nor Stu Kauffman's to know what I believe on the topic.  I 
am most sympathetic with the Pibram/Bohm perspective, but that is more 
intuitive than anything.

I understand that Marcus' has moved from LANL to a day-job in full-up Quantum 
Computing.   I don't know that Q computing has any implications for Q 
consciousness, but it would seem that it can't help but lead to more experience 
with quantum effects translated into human scales of time and space.   

- Steve

On 9/16/19 12:20 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Yes, Sheldrake,yearns for a kind of metaphysical reality and scientific 
validity that still eludes him. I think that have have reached, and are at risk 
of blending with, homeopathy and the like cure like, the dilution of "stuff" 
til there is no stuff left, but the "water has memory." 

 

All based, of course on shared resonance.

 

Not sure about the data set. Most of it is from him or true believers and 
suffers from finding what you are looking for. But, because no one is really 
taking him seriously, no one is presenting data sets that might prove him 
wrong. Also, not a statistician so can't comment on methodology or significance.

 

Another of those connection things — a few years back, in a Quantum 
Consciousness type book, there was a discussion of resonance starting from the 
vibrating strings of physics fame to aggregates of strings creating blended 
vibrations to larger aggregates creating "harmonies" and feedback from 
"observers" blending everything — and when I was reading that it seemed to 
"resonate 

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Right.  Beware the over-stretched metaphor.  However, I get the impression that 
human beings do resonate when they interact in a quite literal sense.  There 
was a time when I could always figure out who my wife was talking to on the 
phone because she would instinctively mimic the cadences and pitches of the 
voice she was hearing on the phone.  Also, isn't there evidence that moms and 
babies "beat" together when they interact?  

I am not sure I want to extend the metaphor to two people coming to share the 
same idea by talking.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 7:33 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

Dave -

Sympathetic Resonance is a well accepted, even fairly easy to observe 
phenomenon in the overt physical world (e.g. stringed musical instruments).  

Sheldrake seems to *start* from there and then go *all over the place* with it. 
  I don't have a problem of positing that there are higher-level strata in 
which this phenomena can operate (e.g. "memes") but Sheldrake (or maybe just 
his most zealous groupies?) seem to stretch it arbitrarily to fit *anything* 
they want to believe might be "in resonance" (e.g. the law of similars where a 
plant remedy "heals" the heart because it has a "heart shape" (a valentine is 
not really that heart-shaped BTW)).

Brin's "Practice Effect" seemed to be a parody of such things.

I think I heard (but can't seem to find?) you say that Sheldrake has a 
significant store of supporting data.   I've always assumed what I've seen that 
was relatively compelling to simply be "cherry picked" and "post hoc".   Do you 
believe otherwise?

- Steve

> Assemble and organize a bunch of these monads to create a more interesting 
> ensemble, something resembling a computer. We still have a "signal," its 
> frequency limited to a sequence of square waves (a program expressed ordered 
> 1s and 0s); and a "crystal" with the the attribute of structure (more 
> complicated than an arrangement of atoms, but still nothing more than a 
> structure). Assume the same feedback mechanism, something like a binary 
> string in, the same string, with a bit or two flipped, out.
>
> Because this is a closed system, there is a hidden assumption, that 
> signal "loops" in some fashion: Turing's infinite tape with its ends 
> spliced together. [For reasons not important here, it can be assumed 
> that the length of the tape is infinite only because it is circular, 
> but the diameter of the circle expands in parallel with the age of the 
> Universe.]
>
> Still no Perceiver / Experiencer.
>
> Now, using these descriptions to address questions of Nick and Steve Smith, 
> Steve first.
>
> If you have a lot of ensembles each of which has a crystal with the same 
> structure, they will respond to the same signal (frequency).
>
> Both Sheldrake and Hoffman assert that the "crystal's" structure is 
> determined by morphology. All entities with similar morphology will have a 
> similarly structured "crystal" and therefore respond/react to the same 
> signal.  Both assume a single signal. — as if there was but one global 
> (universal) radio station broadcasting on frequency Y and all crystals with 
> structure X vibrate in the presence of that sole signal.
>
> For Hoffman it pretty much ends there - and only accounts for the commonality 
> of the interface among those with the same morphology.
>
> Sheldrake goes further, and asserts the existence of the feedback mechanism 
> describe earlier. Since there is one signal, all of the crystals responding 
> that signal, modify the signal with their individual outputs; such that the 
> looping signal, with its modifications, is common input to all crystals to 
> behave in the same, signal determined, alternate manner.
>
> Sheldrake's model is nothing other than a model of culture, where shared 
> culture predisposes individual behavior, but variations in individual 
> behavior can feedback and alter the probabilities of behavior X and X' given 
> the same context. This allows culture to evolve - most of the time slowly, 
> but occasionally quite dramatically.
>
> Sheldrake simply wants his mechanism to be grounded in physics or metaphysics.

The part of Sheldrake (and Hoffman) that I get implicitly is the "coupled 
oscillator" which can operate in as many dimensions as the elements can 
oscillate and couple in.   Sheldrake (or maybe it is his
followers) merely seems to take it too far... to postulate (out of wishful 
thinking?) that there are more dimensions of oscillation and coupling than seem 
reasonable (or more importantly detectable/verifiable)?

You credit him with

>
> Now Nick,
>
> When the ensemble described reaches some degree of scale (perhaps complexity) 
> 

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Geez, Steve, 

 

I didn’t know that morphs COULD resonate. 

 

What on earth are you talking about? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:32 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

 

 

Interesting, David.  With most people I find that if we talk long enough, we 
disagree; with you it mostly works the other way.  Thank you. 

 

Nick 

 

Looks like a case of morphic resonance to me!


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Interesting, David.  With most people I find that if we talk long enough, we 
disagree; with you it mostly works the other way.  Thank you. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 12:23 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

Don’t think it is a miracle. Just a new property of the ensemble arising from 
an ordering or an arrangement. Scale plays a role only in making 
ordering/arrangements possible that were not there before. If you only have 
three monads, you cannot have an ordering resembling a square.

 

The only subterfuge is an unspoken assumption that when a sufficient number of 
Experiencers discuss their experiences they will converge on the name, and 
common understanding of that behind the name, of “self awareness.”

 

But, intentionally or not, you make me think that you are not a “thing” monist, 
but a “flow” monist.  Yes they are different, but will have to wait for a later 
time to discuss. But even with that difference I don’t think my argument or 
response changes.

 

davew

 

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

 

Your contribution needs to be "honored" by an hour or two of larding which I 
cannot do right now.  Let's just say I owe you some lard.

 

But one passage bemused me particularly, and I thought you might direct my 
understanding of it.

 

When the ensemble described reaches some degree of scale (perhaps complexity) 
an epiphenomena, "self awareness" emerges. You now have a named thing - an 
Experiencer and the ensemble, the Experienced.

 

Why isn’t this just a version of , “And then a miracle happened!”  Certainly, 
for Frank it’s the whole ball game.  And for Descartes, too?   I don’t think 
that as a monist I can have “emergence,” except to say, perhaps, that some 
properties of ensembles are not given by their components but by the 
arrangement or order of inclusion of the components. 

 

I will get back to this late this afternoon.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:35 AM

To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 

Subject: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

A longer attempt to address issues raised by Nick and Steve Smith - separate 
threaded so those not interested can quickly bypass.

 

Crude metaphor follows.

 

Consider this description of an ensemble: a "signal" and a "crystal." The 
signal has an attribute, say frequency, and the crystal has an attribute, say 
structure (arrangement of atoms perhaps) such that the crystal in the presence 
of the signal exhibits a behavior, say vibrates, and that vibration is 
expressed as an output, say emission of an electrical current. If  the signal 
is variable in some dimension, the behavior of the crystal echoes that 
variation as does the output.

 

The ensemble is a crudely described crystal radio. Is there, in this 
description, anything that is perceiving? experiencing?

 

Make some suppositions: First, a mechanism of some sort (absorption of energy 
from the signal by crystal?) such that an attribute of the crystal, its 
structure, is altered a bit, and its behavior (vibrating) is modified a bit, as 
is the output. Second, the output is not otherly directed as in the crystal 
radio, but is feedback to the signal itself and modifies that signal but the 
same tiny bit.

 

The ensemble is closed and although inside the ensemble there are two things 
(signal and crystal), hence a dualism, from the outside we see something not 
inconsistent with a Leibniz -ian monad.

 

Perceiver / Experiencer still absent.

 

Assemble and organize a bunch of these monads to create a more interesting 
ensemble, something resembling a computer. We still have a "signal," its 
frequency limited to a sequence of square waves (a program expressed ordered 1s 
and 0s); and a "crystal" with the the attribute of structure (more complicated 
than an arrangement of atoms, but still nothing more than a structure). Assume 
the same feedback mechanism, something like a binary string in, the same 
string, with a bit or two flipped, out.

 

Because this is a closed system, there is a hidden assumption, that signal 
"loops" in some fashion: Turing's infinite tape with its ends spliced together. 
[For reasons not important here, it can be assumed that the length of the tape 
is infinite only because it is circular, but the di

Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, 

 

Your contribution needs to be "honored" by an hour or two of larding which I 
cannot do right now.  Let's just say I owe you some lard. 

 

But one passage bemused me particularly, and I thought you might direct my 
understanding of it. 

 

When the ensemble described reaches some degree of scale (perhaps complexity) 
an epiphenomena, "self awareness" emerges. You now have a named thing - an 
Experiencer and the ensemble, the Experienced.

 

Why isn’t this just a version of , “And then a miracle happened!”  Certainly, 
for Frank it’s the whole ball game.  And for Descartes, too?   I don’t think 
that as a monist I can have “emergence,” except to say, perhaps, that some 
properties of ensembles are not given by their components but by the 
arrangement or order of inclusion of the components.  

 

I will get back to this late this afternoon. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:35 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception - sheldrake

 

A longer attempt to address issues raised by Nick and Steve Smith - separate 
threaded so those not interested can quickly bypass.

 

Crude metaphor follows.

 

Consider this description of an ensemble: a "signal" and a "crystal." The 
signal has an attribute, say frequency, and the crystal has an attribute, say 
structure (arrangement of atoms perhaps) such that the crystal in the presence 
of the signal exhibits a behavior, say vibrates, and that vibration is 
expressed as an output, say emission of an electrical current. If  the signal 
is variable in some dimension, the behavior of the crystal echoes that 
variation as does the output.

 

The ensemble is a crudely described crystal radio. Is there, in this 
description, anything that is perceiving? experiencing?

 

Make some suppositions: First, a mechanism of some sort (absorption of energy 
from the signal by crystal?) such that an attribute of the crystal, its 
structure, is altered a bit, and its behavior (vibrating) is modified a bit, as 
is the output. Second, the output is not otherly directed as in the crystal 
radio, but is feedback to the signal itself and modifies that signal but the 
same tiny bit.

 

The ensemble is closed and although inside the ensemble there are two things 
(signal and crystal), hence a dualism, from the outside we see something not 
inconsistent with a Leibniz -ian monad.

 

Perceiver / Experiencer still absent.

 

Assemble and organize a bunch of these monads to create a more interesting 
ensemble, something resembling a computer. We still have a "signal," its 
frequency limited to a sequence of square waves (a program expressed ordered 1s 
and 0s); and a "crystal" with the the attribute of structure (more complicated 
than an arrangement of atoms, but still nothing more than a structure). Assume 
the same feedback mechanism, something like a binary string in, the same 
string, with a bit or two flipped, out.

 

Because this is a closed system, there is a hidden assumption, that signal 
"loops" in some fashion: Turing's infinite tape with its ends spliced together. 
[For reasons not important here, it can be assumed that the length of the tape 
is infinite only because it is circular, but the diameter of the circle expands 
in parallel with the age of the Universe.]

 

Still no Perceiver / Experiencer.

 

Now, using these descriptions to address questions of Nick and Steve Smith, 
Steve first.

 

If you have a lot of ensembles each of which has a crystal with the same 
structure, they will respond to the same signal (frequency).

 

Both Sheldrake and Hoffman assert that the "crystal's" structure is determined 
by morphology. All entities with similar morphology will have a similarly 
structured "crystal" and therefore respond/react to the same signal.  Both 
assume a single signal. — as if there was but one global (universal) radio 
station broadcasting on frequency Y and all crystals with structure X vibrate 
in the presence of that sole signal.

 

For Hoffman it pretty much ends there - and only accounts for the commonality 
of the interface among those with the same morphology.

 

Sheldrake goes further, and asserts the existence of the feedback mechanism 
describe earlier. Since there is one signal, all of the crystals responding 
that signal, modify the signal with their individual outputs; such that the 
looping signal, with its modifications, is common input to all crystals to 
behave in the same, signal determined, alternate manner.

 

Sheldrake's model is nothing other than a model of culture, where shared 
culture predisposes individual behavior, but variations in individual behavior 
can feedback and alter the probabilities of behavior X and X' given the same 

Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM email delivery and reliability (was: Re: query and observation)

[Nick Thompson]

All, 

 

I told you He would deny it.  

 

But still, Almighy Guerin, I continue to believe in you.  When my mouth runneth 
over, 

Thou whilst shut me up.  Praised be the Guerin. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 2:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] FRIAM email delivery and reliability (was: Re: query and 
observation)

 

As we speak, Dr. Strangelove may be painting the image of the Symposiarch 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium#Drinking) regulating the flow. Or a 
kind of immanent Maxwellian Demon actively operating the email gate so that 
intellectual work can be extracted. Or as we're running on Majordomo listserv 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majordomo_(software)>  I think the acequia 
metaphor is best -- An all powerful Majordomo organizing annual fatiga parties 
<http://bloodhound.tripod.com/aceqglos.html>  to remove the neo-darwinist logic 
clogging up the acequia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acequia>  ;-p

 

Alas, we might employ Hanlon's Razor 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor>  to explain your lack of 
observed traffic. It may be a failing FRIAM listserv running on the back of a 
discount weary server we've been riding for 17+ plus years. Before switching 
mid stream, I'd ask Glen, Russell, Owen, Marcus, Josh, Frank and Gary to look 
at their email client history and see if there's missing emails since August 
when compared to the archives listed in the FRIAM signature 
<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> . If there's a significant discrepancy, we 
can start tracking down the cause.  Email delivery has many other places in the 
chain that can fail. If it's the server we can start looking for alternatives. 
FWIW, I haven't seen a disruption on my gmail client. 

 

Somewhat related: if folks post with an email that they didn't subscribe with, 
it automatically gets rejected. The listserv gets hit with 100's of spam 
addresses a day that aren't in the subscriber list. I stopped manually 
monitoring the rejection list 10 years ago. Many of you have given me 
alternative email addresses to put on the whitelist so you can post from 
different accounts. Email me offline if you want to add one.

 

- IAmWhoAm (AKA APF-O)

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:45 AM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Frank, Dave, 

 

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close 
attention, but …

 

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August 
on.  

 

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a 
classical “symposium”,  more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and 
quality of the conversation.  He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in 
a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … 
agitated?  I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same 
way, as a beneficent god should.  I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, 
but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just 
go missing for a while.  So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving 
FRIAM correspondence in late August.  I just assumed that the All Powerful 
Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.  

 

Thank you APF-O.  We love you and worship you.  

 

Nick 

 

Ps.  Let me know if you don’t get this message.  (};-\)

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

Dave,

 

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle.  I posted a 
couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't 
remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages 
you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al.  Glen did comment insightfully.  Nick will be 
back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote:

Hello All,

Traffic on the F

[FRIAM] Re Rant

[Nick Thompson]

Frank has been unfairly accused.  His was an Anti-Rant Quip.  

 

The material Roger cites doesn’t obviously relate  (for me) to Frank’s and my 
standing argument about the efficacy of inner life.  But its themes, continuity 
and anti-determinism, are Peirceian themes.  And my respect for Roger is such 
that I know that he don’t never say somethin’ for nothin’.  So, can somebody 
explicate?  Perhaps even Roger?  

 

NIck

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] a problem in how we think, not just in how we act

 

Rant??  

 

I am a proponent, in human affairs, of both/and rather than either/or 
propositions.  In math I use the law of the excluded middle, however.

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:08 PM Roger Critchlow mailto:r...@elf.org> > wrote:

It's funny that this should show up twice on my desktop the same day as Frank's 
rant.

 

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/09/13/deterministic-thinking-dichotomania
 

 

 

-- rec --

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] a problem in how we think, not just in how we act

[Nick Thompson]

Monocycles Are Everywhere!  

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:08 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] a problem in how we think, not just in how we act

 

It's funny that this should show up twice on my desktop the same day as Frank's 
rant.

 

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/09/13/deterministic-thinking-dichotomania
 

 

 

-- rec --

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

But Frank, 

 

The pattern of behavior of that train IS a behavior.  Conductor Frank insists 
that we not take that into account at the instant and that we defer to the 
engineer concerning where the train is going; Conductor Nick includes it within 
the behavioral analysis, and insists that the engineer is not in principle any 
more knowledgeable than the rest of us concerning the destination of the train. 
 

 

Signed,

 

Conductor Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 9:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

Didn't you get the names interchanged?  I thought Nick was the one who thought 
that the only thing you can know about an individual is his/her observable 
behavior.

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 4:48 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

So, you are late meeting the train to Albuquerque.  As you drive into the 
station, you see a train sitting at the platform, absolutely motionless.  You 
rush up to the conductor and demand to know, “Is this train going to 
Albuquerque?”  “No!” the Frank, conductor replies.  As you can plainly see, it 
is sitting here not going anywhere.”  Confused, you rush down to the other end 
of the car where there is another conductor, Nick and you ask the same 
question. “Yes,” Nick replies.  “Given what this train has been doing all day 
and how it is standing in the station, and the time of day, there is every 
reason to believe that this train is going to Albuquerque.  C’mon aboard!”  
“Shouldn’t I ask the engineer first?” you ask.  “Well, you might.  He has a lot 
of experience with this train.  But the answer is so obvious that he might pull 
your leg, and you’ld miss the train.  Are you getting on, or not?. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

Straw man:

 

Nick:  People don't think, they only behave.

 

Frank:  You reached that conclusion by thinking.

 

Nick:  You presume to have observed my reaching the conclusion.

 

Frank:  I am certain your mind works like mine.

 

Nick:  How could you know that?  You are a Cartesian.

 

Frank:  And proud of it.

 

Nick:  People don't feel; they infer their feelings from their behavior.  They 
recognize hunger from eating or food seeking behavior.

 

Frank:  I know I'm hungry from feeling hungry.  I could feel hungry while 
totally still, with no observable behavior.

 

Nick:  No because...

 

Etc., etc

 

No resolution to date.

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:17 PM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

We love our "flocking" models but FRIAM is less of a 'birds-of-a-feather'  
group than something much harder to similize.  It feels to me that some of our 
conversations are a bit flocky or schooly (rarely herdy) but others are more 
geophysical like flares or eruptions...  a good schoolyard "pileon" 
occasionally happens as well... and then there are... as we are now 
contemplating, the long dark-tea-times of our collective-soul.

On 9/12/19 10:04 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

FRIAM is such a strange beast. At times full of philosophical discourse that 
flies far above my head, other times full of irreverent inanities that defy 
categorization, and occasionally even with something to do with complexity. And 
then the periodic deafening silence that makes me realize just how much I would 
miss it if it were to go away. Long live FRIAM.

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Frank, Dave, 

 

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close 
attention, but …

 

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August 
on.  

 

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is l

Re: [FRIAM] quickening

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen.  On reflection I did know what D and D was, but was confused by 
its pairing with the word campaign.  

Also, I thought Dungeons and Dragons died years ago.  The last time I saw D and 
D it was a reference to Dick and Dorothea in SWALLLOWS AND AMAZONS.  

 I think I still don't understand the constraints that make the game possible.  
 Just to put it bluntly, what keeps me from declaring that you all catch the 
plague and I win.  Anyway, I shouldn't trouble you with this, when I am sure 
that Wikipedia will firehose me with information, if I need more than you have 
already provided. 

By the way, I keep hearing programs on NPR that suggest that 5G will eliminate 
life as we know it.  Do you agree? 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 7:02 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quickening

8^) Since Jon didn't answer this directly, I'll stab at it. D is Dungeons and 
Dragons. It's a medieval/fantasy role-playing game where people draw up 
characters and interact within the bounds of a (fairly complicated) set of 
schema. The free variables in the schema can be filled by finer-grained rules 
or dice rolls. A Dungeon Master assembles the schema into a world that's then 
explored (and fleshed out) by the players.

And while many of the people who play it resemble Gollum, Jon's point is 
important, the world is co-constructed by the players. So, the wider mix of 
people playing, the more interesting the world. E.g. During the time I played 
it as a kid, I went through stints in band, cross country, weight lifting, and 
tae kwon do, over and above my schoolwork. So, most of the campaigns I played 
in required significant open space where I could physically demonstrate the 
various violent acts my character was supposed to carry out.

I remember one argument vividly. A cavalry rider tried to poke me with his 
spear and I told the DM that I deflect it into the ground so that it would 
stick. I maintained that if successful, the rider would:

1) lose the spear,
2) get knocked off the horse,
3) break the spear,
4) or have to "roll a 20" and manage to ride by and deftly pull the spear out 
of the ground before attacking again.

The DM (who sucked at math/physics, couldn't fight, and who eventually became a 
copyright lawyer) disagreed with all of that. He claimed that my guy (on foot) 
wouldn't be able to knock the spear downward at all. I could only dodge. We 
argued about that for hours. I lost because ... well ... he was the DM and he 
defines the physics in his world. Pffft.

In college, a few of us continued the collaborative fiction by snail mail, 
writing a few pages of the cumulative story and passing it on, round-robin 
style. It was quite difficult because most of us (players) didn't like the 
other players' characters. So, while the document was in your hands you could 
write in embarrassing events that would happen to the other characters and 
they'd have to write in graceful recoveries.

On 9/12/19 10:55 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> What on earth is a D and D campaign?

--
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

No, Dave.  Truth IN experience only means that as a matter of fact some 
experiences converge.  So truth is that upon which a pattern of experiences 
converges and when I assert that something is true, I predict such a 
convergence.  If, for instance, I assert that the speed of light is constant in 
a vacuum I assert that that is the opinion upon which we will converge in the 
very long run.  I make no assertion about anything outside experience.  Not a 
dualist.*  Nyaah.  Nyahh.  

 

You’re the dualist. Dualist! Dualist! Dualist!  

 

You might be a zeroist.  “Nothing IS!”  A zeroist would assert that not only 
are there no enduring patterns in experience, there is no experience.  
HM.  

 

Nick 

 

*I suppose you might claim that I am a levels of analysis dualist, I.e there 
are (1) experiences and (2) patterns of experience.  But if that is how you 
want to take me, then you must think of me as pluralist, because all 
experiences are just patterns of experiences of patterns of experiences of 
patterns of experiences ….. etc….. of patterns of experiences.  Experiences are 
like fleas, per Jonathan Swift via Augustus deMorgan  via 
http://wiki.c2.com/?FleasAdInfinitum.

 

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,

  And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

  And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;

  While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 2:23 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

PS

 

”truth beyond experience.” “Truth other than experience” “truth IN experience” 
all equally dualist. 

 

Can’t help but be so as all are legal expressions in a dualist language.

 

davew

 

 

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

 

Please see larding below!

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM

To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,

[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous.  When ARE you coming back? 
<==nst] 

 

 

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of 
that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. 
Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and 
interesting.

[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, 
but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to 
allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the 
difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind.  Does direct 
knowledge come with little “d” icons attached?  So, not only do you have direct 
knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and 
direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad 
finitum.  Just checking.  <==nst] 

 

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, 
Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the 
greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems 
to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.

[NST==>Yes, I agree.  Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a 
Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst] 

 

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we 
can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what 
everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the 
hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is 
behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.

[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice.  Either we must assert a truth 
beyond experience, or deny any truth at all.  By why not a truth IN experience. 
 Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience.  That upon which human 
experience converges.  Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we 
grope around in the dark.  <==nst] 

 

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same 
thing as Interface or Interpretation.

[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth.  Some 
methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, 

 

Please see larding below!

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,

[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous.  When ARE you coming back? 
<==nst] 

 

 

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of 
that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. 
Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and 
interesting.

[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, 
but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to 
allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the 
difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind.  Does direct 
knowledge come with little “d” icons attached?  So, not only do you have direct 
knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and 
direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad 
finitum.  Just checking.  <==nst] 

 

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, 
Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the 
greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems 
to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.

[NST==>Yes, I agree.  Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a 
Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst] 

 

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we 
can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what 
everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the 
hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is 
behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.

[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice.  Either we must assert a truth 
beyond experience, or deny any truth at all.  By why not a truth IN experience. 
 Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience.  That upon which human 
experience converges.  Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we 
grope around in the dark.  <==nst] 

 

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same 
thing as Interface or Interpretation.

[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth.  Some 
methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only that 
talk of events beyond experience was scientifically nugatory.  Philosophical 
behaviorists  [Wittgenstein??] assert that talk of events beyond experience is 
MEANINGLESS.  <==nst] 

 

Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the same spot 
in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly,  Interface made me 
think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields.

[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are talking about 
the manner in which development channels us into common paths, the fact that 
even though there is tremendous randomness in epigenetic processes, yet we all 
end up looking [pretty much] the same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is 
excellent.  <==nst] 

 

It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating.

 

davew

 

 

 

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:

> Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my 

> defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting.

> But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think 

> the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.

> 

> To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my 

> day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about 

> any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why* 

> they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever, 

> Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the 

> *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the 

> green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red, 

> then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent 

> hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made 

> their decision, then my judgment is negative.

> 

> Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic. 

> Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of 

> attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like 

> "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year 

> old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's 

> not very easy 

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

In haste:  "what is the validator of a veridical perception?"

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:25 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

The best answer to "so what?" comes in Hoffman's paper:

  Natural selection and veridical perceptions
  http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/PerceptualEvolution.pdf

from the abstract:
> We find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by 
> non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective 
> reality.This suggests that natural selection need not favor veridical 
> perceptions, and that the effects of selection on sensory perception deserve 
> further study.

I haven't seen the book Dave mentions. But I suspect whatever it says cites 
these *games*. It's basically antithetic to the idea that the truth will win 
out over time/evolution. I.e. trust in the progress of metaphysical ideas is 
misplaced.

Coincidentally, I found this article interesting:

  Anti-Realist Pluralism: a New Approach to Folk Metaethics
  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-019-00447-8

> Abstract
> 
> Many metaethicists agree that as ordinary people experience morality as a 
> realm of objective truths, we have a prima facie reason to believe that it 
> actually is such a realm. Recently, worries have been raised about the 
> validity of the extant psychological research on this argument’s empirical 
> hypothesis. Our aim is to advance this research, taking these worries into 
> account. First, we propose a new experimental design for measuring folk 
> intuitions about moral objectivity that may serve as an inspiration for 
> future studies. Then we report and discuss the results of a survey that was 
> based on this design. In our study, most of our participants denied the 
> existence of objective truths about most or all moral issues. In particular, 
> many of them had the intuition that whether moral sentences are true depends 
> both on their own moral beliefs and on the dominant moral beliefs within 
> their culture (“anti-realist pluralism”). This finding suggests that the 
> realist presumptive argument may have to be rejected and that instead 
> anti-realism may have a presumption in its favor.



On 9/12/19 10:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> By coincidence I had dinner and beers with Glen along the way, and I'm 
> pretty sure he has brought Hoffman's work up here a few times?
> [...]   So while I think Hoffman might be dead on, I still hold a bit 
> of "so what?" and "what does it help me do?".

--
☣ uǝlƃ

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

So, you are late meeting the train to Albuquerque.  As you drive into the 
station, you see a train sitting at the platform, absolutely motionless.  You 
rush up to the conductor and demand to know, “Is this train going to 
Albuquerque?”  “No!” the Frank, conductor replies.  As you can plainly see, it 
is sitting here not going anywhere.”  Confused, you rush down to the other end 
of the car where there is another conductor, Nick and you ask the same 
question. “Yes,” Nick replies.  “Given what this train has been doing all day 
and how it is standing in the station, and the time of day, there is every 
reason to believe that this train is going to Albuquerque.  C’mon aboard!”  
“Shouldn’t I ask the engineer first?” you ask.  “Well, you might.  He has a lot 
of experience with this train.  But the answer is so obvious that he might pull 
your leg, and you’ld miss the train.  Are you getting on, or not?. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

Straw man:

 

Nick:  People don't think, they only behave.

 

Frank:  You reached that conclusion by thinking.

 

Nick:  You presume to have observed my reaching the conclusion.

 

Frank:  I am certain your mind works like mine.

 

Nick:  How could you know that?  You are a Cartesian.

 

Frank:  And proud of it.

 

Nick:  People don't feel; they infer their feelings from their behavior.  They 
recognize hunger from eating or food seeking behavior.

 

Frank:  I know I'm hungry from feeling hungry.  I could feel hungry while 
totally still, with no observable behavior.

 

Nick:  No because...

 

Etc., etc

 

No resolution to date.

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:17 PM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

We love our "flocking" models but FRIAM is less of a 'birds-of-a-feather'  
group than something much harder to similize.  It feels to me that some of our 
conversations are a bit flocky or schooly (rarely herdy) but others are more 
geophysical like flares or eruptions...  a good schoolyard "pileon" 
occasionally happens as well... and then there are... as we are now 
contemplating, the long dark-tea-times of our collective-soul.

On 9/12/19 10:04 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

FRIAM is such a strange beast. At times full of philosophical discourse that 
flies far above my head, other times full of irreverent inanities that defy 
categorization, and occasionally even with something to do with complexity. And 
then the periodic deafening silence that makes me realize just how much I would 
miss it if it were to go away. Long live FRIAM.

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Nick Thompson  
wrote:

Frank, Dave, 

 

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close 
attention, but …

 

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August 
on.  

 

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a 
classical “symposium”,  more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and 
quality of the conversation.  He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in 
a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … 
agitated?  I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same 
way, as a beneficent god should.  I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, 
but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just 
go missing for a while.  So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving 
FRIAM correspondence in late August.  I just assumed that the All Powerful 
Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.  

 

Thank you APF-O.  We love you and worship you.  

 

Nick 

 

Ps.  Let me know if you don’t get this message.  (};-\)

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

Dave,

 

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle.  I posted a 
couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't 
rem

Re: [FRIAM] quickening

[Nick Thompson]

Jon

 

What on earth is a D and D campaign?  

 

Imagination runs wild.

 

The first question to an evolutionist is, “what is a given pain for?”  So, pain 
is a mechanism to get the organism to do or not to do something, including, in 
social species, to cry for help.  Once you know what a pain is for, the next 
question is, “How can it misfire?”  So, if a particular pain system is designed 
to operate with in some limits, forcing it to operate outside those limits will 
produce pain that is for nothing (Phantom Limb), or will produce no pain when 
there is something that needs paining (carbon monoxide poisoning).  

 

To a dualist, pain is kind of troublesome because, of all the senses, it is the 
once that is most about … itself!  In other words, it’s not easy to designate 
the domain, external to the senses, that pain tells you about.  But to a 
monist, all senses are like that, since the only thing that experience can 
“speak” of is other experiences.   

 

There.  Is that friammish enough for you? 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 1:33 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] quickening

 

With few apologize, I have not been contributing very much as of late.

The last few months have offered new opportunities for work, meditations

on new life, and a whole lot of commutative ring theory / algebraic geometry.

 

Sometime soon, I hope to meet with my friend Ashley (an ex-Johnnie)

whom it seems has thought quite a bit about consciousness and embodiment.

She and I are in a D campaign together and we spend our `smoke` break

talking about phenomenology and mind. I would appreciate any `concise`

thoughts that members of FRIAM have on the subject, as sometimes I see

it as my job to pollinate my environment with the thoughtful ideas of others.

 

For those that do not yet know, Sarah and I are going to have a baby in

March. This experience has me wondering about how it is that we `come

online`. This tiny organism begins as Sarah and slowly develops a heart

and a nervous system. Is it an eventual critical mass of neurons and the

like that brings this thing (otherwise indistinguishable from an organ)

across the threshold and into a cognitive being? I muse that the first

experiences are proto-painful as I am not sure what a growing pain is

when what is growing are the very first sensory organs the thing has.

What is it to experience and then to become aware of experiencing?

Unfortunately, I cannot remember.

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

[Nick Thompson]

Frank, Dave, 

 

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close 
attention, but …

 

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August 
on.  

 

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a 
classical “symposium”,  more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and 
quality of the conversation.  He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in 
a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … 
agitated?  I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same 
way, as a beneficent god should.  I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, 
but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just 
go missing for a while.  So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving 
FRIAM correspondence in late August.  I just assumed that the All Powerful 
Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.  

 

Thank you APF-O.  We love you and worship you.  

 

Nick 

 

Ps.  Let me know if you don’t get this message.  (};-\)

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

 

Dave,

 

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle.  I posted a 
couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't 
remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages 
you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al.  Glen did comment insightfully.  Nick will be 
back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote:

Hello All,

Traffic on the FRIAM list seems to have ground to a halt, from my reception 
point in Amsterdam - i.e. I have seen nothing for some time. Not in spam 
filter, so question is has the list trickled to a stop or just not making it 
across the Atlantic.?

Observation: an interesting coincidence arising from reading a new book, The 
Case Against Reality, How evolution hid the truth from our eyes, by Donald D. 
Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at UC Irvine. Main thesis is that what 
we perceive is but a constructed, via evolution,  "interface" and not a 
veridical perception of "Reality." 

Not a new idea but the evolution / survival / fittest being the ones that see 
the optimal interface instead of what is behind the interface is interesting.

Coincidence comes from simultaneously rereading Heidegger and Gadamer, and even 
some Peirce,  and seeing apparent parallels between "interface,: 
"interpretation," and "experience."  Feels like a lot of Nick's Monism 
convictions might be illuminated by looking at these works in juxtaposition.

dave west


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] FW: Mathematical Inquiry

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, John, 

 

Thanks for answering.  I will look into the Wolfram site.  

 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Friam 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] FW: Mathematical Inquiry

 

Hi Nick,

 

I'm not a probabilist nor a statistician

but I think you could find a math web site that would give you what you
want. The Wolfram Mathematica gives the normal distribution and I imagine
that you could subtract one distribution function from another .

 

I'm not certain why you seem to think it would be normally distributed,
which is symmetric in both directions. I vaguely think it would be some kind
of beta function, in part because I remember pictures of beta distributions
and they seen to be about right--but I have forgotten the hypotheses that
would lead to such a function.

 

--John

 

  _  

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >
on behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:41 AM
To: Friam mailto:Friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: [EXT] [FRIAM] FW: Mathematical Inquiry 

 

 

Dear Mathematical Friammers,

 

What follows is a problem in mathematics, which, of course, has nothing to
do with me.  

 

Jones is a diabetic, and he has a glucose monitor that gives him his exact
blood glucose level moment to moment.  Jones notices at that after
breakfast, his blood sugars behave in in very different manners, even though
he eats exactly the same food every day, doesn't exercise at that time of
day ever, and takes exactly the same amount of insulin.  Some mornings, his
blood sugar rises steadily for several hours after a meal, sometimes it
falls steadily.  Only rarely does it remain steady.  One variable seems left
for Jones to control and that is the exact timing of the relation between
when he take his insulin and the time he begins his meal.  

 

So, Jones imagines a model as follows.  Because Jones always takes exactly
the amount of insulin necessary to account for the amount of sugar he eats,
he assumes that the curves of insulin activity and sugar activity are both
normal curves, with the same median time and the same sd and, therefore, the
same area under the curve.  However, one curve is offset from the other
because sometimes Jones takes his insulin before he eats his sugar and
sometimes he eats his sugar before he takes his insulin.  Bearing in mind
that the Insulin curve SUBTRACTS from the sugar curve, Jones wonders about
the shape of the difference curve that results from different offsets
between eating his meal and taking his insulin.  He wonders if, perhaps,
that this whole dramatic failure of control, could be due to the fact that
on some days he takes his insulin a little too early and the sugar in the
meal is slow to catch up and on other days, he takes it too late and the
insulin is slow to  catch up.  Thus, the correct offset is a tipping point,
an unstable equilibrium which is very difficult to achieve.  

 

Jones is not a mathematician, but he hangs around with mathematicians, and
he suspects that there is a software that is readily available on line for
free that would allow him to display the different curves that result from
the different offsets and, perhaps, even better, display the function that
relates the integral of the difference function as a function of the offset.
This function might have some interesting properties that could be used to
guide Jones's injection behavior.  

 

Does anybody have any thoughts on Jones's predicament?  

 

Not that I care, but still, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fhome.earthli
nk.net%2F~nickthompson%2Fnaturaldesigns%2F=02%7C01%7Cjkennison%40clarku
.edu%7Cb1d0995ee78b49a0e5f608d72a09a8de%7Cb5b2263d68aa453eb972aa1421410f80%7
C1%7C0%7C637024093301850348=%2BeLnXgSkhJhirEWVI8foM4O0MfE5v1Yy89WBgzGd
gGM%3D=0> 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] FW: Mathematical Inquiry

[Nick Thompson]

 

Dear Mathematical Friammers,

 

What follows is a problem in mathematics, which, of course, has nothing to
do with me.  

 

Jones is a diabetic, and he has a glucose monitor that gives him his exact
blood glucose level moment to moment.  Jones notices at that after
breakfast, his blood sugars behave in in very different manners, even though
he eats exactly the same food every day, doesn't exercise at that time of
day ever, and takes exactly the same amount of insulin.  Some mornings, his
blood sugar rises steadily for several hours after a meal, sometimes it
falls steadily.  Only rarely does it remain steady.  One variable seems left
for Jones to control and that is the exact timing of the relation between
when he take his insulin and the time he begins his meal.  

 

So, Jones imagines a model as follows.  Because Jones always takes exactly
the amount of insulin necessary to account for the amount of sugar he eats,
he assumes that the curves of insulin activity and sugar activity are both
normal curves, with the same median time and the same sd and, therefore, the
same area under the curve.  However, one curve is offset from the other
because sometimes Jones takes his insulin before he eats his sugar and
sometimes he eats his sugar before he takes his insulin.  Bearing in mind
that the Insulin curve SUBTRACTS from the sugar curve, Jones wonders about
the shape of the difference curve that results from different offsets
between eating his meal and taking his insulin.  He wonders if, perhaps,
that this whole dramatic failure of control, could be due to the fact that
on some days he takes his insulin a little too early and the sugar in the
meal is slow to catch up and on other days, he takes it too late and the
insulin is slow to  catch up.  Thus, the correct offset is a tipping point,
an unstable equilibrium which is very difficult to achieve.  

 

Jones is not a mathematician, but he hangs around with mathematicians, and
he suspects that there is a software that is readily available on line for
free that would allow him to display the different curves that result from
the different offsets and, perhaps, even better, display the function that
relates the integral of the difference function as a function of the offset.
This function might have some interesting properties that could be used to
guide Jones's injection behavior.  

 

Does anybody have any thoughts on Jones's predicament?  

 

Not that I care, but still, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen, 

 

This is really good.  I am going to repost it, in case I was not the only one 
omitted in the feed:

 

Dave West wrote:

 

1.   a secondary definition of casuistry is "resolving moral problems by 
application of theoretical rules."  NST==>Dave:  this is interesting.  Can you 
give me any idea of what a “theoretical” rule is?  <==nst

 

2. A Jesuit practice, "reform of the individual," seems to incorporate a sense 
(not definition) of "individual" consistent with Duns Scotus' concept of 
haecciety and, because Peirce used that term in his work, to explain what he 
meant by the individual, there seems to be a thread to medieval Catholicism. 
NST==>Peirce’s attachment to Scotus is legendary, so this is indeed 
interesting. <==nst

 

3. Jesuit values, e.g. "Respect For The World, Its History And Mystery" and 
especially, Learning From Experience lead to philosophical thought that is not 
contradictory to Peircian notions of experience. NST==>Dave, how do you KNOW 
this stuff, and why have you hidden it from me before. Is this from your time 
at <==nst

 

4. But, Jesuits are dualists, not in the objective world / experience of it 
sense (there they seem to be quite close to Peirce) but in the sense that TRUTH 
can come, not just from experience (and science) but from revelation - the 
direct word of God. NST==>So, whose experience are we talking about here: mine, 
yours, or OURS.  And what do we do when experience contradicts the WOG. And is 
revelation a kind of experience?<==nst

 

5. Jesuits, among many others (Galileo), often found themselves at odds with 
the Church over the issue of whether or not a thing could be true in philosophy 
but not in theology, or vice versa. The Jesuits focused on truth in philosophy 
and their method for identifying that truth would, again, not be incompatible 
with Peirce. So only point four would be contrary to Peirce's ideas. 
NST==>Again, I would love for you to say more, but that seems a lot to ask.  Is 
there a Jesuit philosophy for Idiots, anywhere?  <==nst

 

6. No intellectual lineage is evident from any Jesuit philosopher and Charles 
Sanders. NST==>Well, a quick, lazy-man’s Google suggests that you are right!  
But wouldn’t that be extraordinary?  Vry EENteresting, David.  Vary 
EENteresting.  <==nst

 

davew

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: glen [mailto:geprope...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 7:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group ; 
Nick Thompson ; 'The Friday Morning Applied 
Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

 

How about a link to his archived message?

 

 <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2019-August/080050.html> 
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2019-August/080050.html

 

 

On August 24, 2019 12:21:13 PM PDT, Nick Thompson < 
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Oh, by the way, I DID miss Dave's contribution.  Every once a while, 

>just to keep me nimble, the FRIAM server doesn't send me something, so

>this may be a case of that.   Can you forward it to me?  

 

--

glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

Oh, by the way, I DID miss Dave's contribution.  Every once a while, just to 
keep me nimble, the FRIAM server doesn't send me something, so this may be a 
case of that.   Can you forward it to me?  

Thanks, 

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

First, did you miss Dave's contribution?  It was more on-topic than mine!

On Rigor: Yes, there's quite a bit of what you say I can agree with. But only 
if I modify *my* understanding of "rigor". I think rigor is any methodical, 
systematic behavior to which one adheres to strictly. It is the fidelity, the 
strict adherence that defines "rigor", not the underlying structure of the 
method or system. And in that sense, one can be rigorously anti-method. 
Rigorously pro-method means adhering to that method and never making 
exceptions. Rigorously anti-method means *never* following a method and paying 
(infinite) attention to all exceptions, i.e. treating everything as a single 
instance particular, an exception. I grant that "methodical anti-method" is a 
paradox... but only that, not a contradiction.

On monism vs. monotheism: The simple answer is "no". I'm not confusing the two. 
By reducing every-stuff to one-stuff, *and* talking about types of inference 
like ab-, in-, and de-duction, you are being (at least in my view) axiomatic, 
with a formal system based on 1 ur-element. Everything else in the formal 
system has to be derived from that ur-element via rules. To boot, your attempt 
to classify casuistry and abduction (same or different is irrelevant, it's the 
classification effort that matters) argues for some sort of formalization of 
them. A/The formalization of abduction is an active research topic. My use of 
the word "deontological" was intended to refer to this rule-based, axiomatic 
way of thinking. I'm sorry if that lead to a red herring off into moral 
philosophy land.

On inferring from particulars: While it's true that induction builds a 
predicate around a particular, it is a "closed" set. (Scare quotes because 
"closed" can mean so much.) Abduction doesn't build predicates and any 
explanation it does build is "open" in some sense. So, I would agree with you 
that one can't really *argue* from a particular using abduction. I tend to 
think of it more like brain storming, in a kindasorta Popperian, open way. Any 
proto-hypothesis can be brought to bear on the abductive target. And the best 
we can do is play around with the abductive target to see if it might 
kindasorta *fit* into that open set of proto-hypotheses. Once you land on a set 
of proto-hypotheses that's small enough to be feasibly formulated into testable 
hypotheses, then you reason by induction over those hypotheses.

In some ways, this would be very like what I, in my ignorance, think casuistry 
is. I'd argue that an experimentalist's focus on putting data taking in 1st 
priority and hypothesis formulation in 2nd priority falls in the same camp. So, 
I agree that casuistry looks a lot like abduction. But I don't think that that 
criminologist was doing either of them.

On ontology vs. rules *and* reasoning from particulars: The proto-hypotheses I 
mention above do not have to take the form of "rules to apply" to the abductive 
target. Think of the game "connect the dots", where the dots are particulars 
and they are/can be interpolated and/or extrapolated by an infinite number of 
lines between them. On the one hand, more dots can make it more difficult to 
find a pattern that includes the *new* dot, but perhaps only when you're 
already pre-biased with a set of lines that connect the old dots. On the other 
hand, if you're rule-free when you look at the old set of dots *and* rule-free 
when you look at them with the new dot included, you're open to any set of 
connecting lines.

Of course, in science, we do have an ur-rule ... that *all* the dots must be 
connected. So, that constrains the set of lines that connect the dots. And the 
more dots, the fewer ways there are to connect them. But practicality demands 
that we doubt at least some dots. So, we're allowed to throw out the weakest 
dots if that allows us to form more interesting connective patterns.

So, in this scenario, the proto-hypotheses are really just collections of old 
dots in which the new dot must sit.  We're not reasoning from *one* particular 
to testable hypotheses. We're reasoning from the addition of that particular to 
collections of other particulars.

On 8/21/19 9:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u

Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Glen, 

This is one of those moments when Steve Smith may be able to rescue my ability 
to participate further in this conversation by making a translation.   Steve?  
Can you help here?  

By the way, I am still puzzled by how one makes inferences or explanations 
without categories and/or principles?  Can you give me an example from everyday 
life?  

So, the way into my basement requires passing through a low doorway.  Every 
year, in the first week we come here, I go down there and ram my head on the 
top of the door.   Ok, so the next time I go down, as soon as I enter the 
passageway leading to the door, I feel uneasy "This is like the time I 
bumped my head" ... and, unless I am demented by haste, I duck my head.  Simple 
as this example is, still it involves (on my account, anyway), the application 
of a principle to a category.  

Which suggests to me that when you seem to talk about rule-less thinking 
(unruly thinking?), you actually talking about choosing among different sorts 
of rules and categories, how we decide amongst them, when we decide to give up 
on one and employ another. 

 Perhaps this is a way of asking the same question:  As you understand 
"deontological" thought, how is it different from plain-old logical thought?  

Nick  

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:49 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

Maybe to give context to my hand-wavey colloquial nonsense below, I *really* 
like Gabbay and Woods' [†] formulation of an "abductive schema":

> Let Δ=(A_1,…,A_n) be a *database* of some kind. It could be a theory or an 
> inventory of beliefs, for example. Let ⊢ be a *yielding relation*, or, in the 
> widest possible sense, a consequence relation. Let Τ be a given wff 
> (well-formulated formula) representing, e.g., a fact, a true proposition, 
> known state of affairs, etc. And let A_(n+j), j=1,…,k be wffs. Then 
> <Δ,⊢,Τ,A_(n+j)> is an abductive resolution if and only if the following 
> conditions hold.
> 
> 1. Δ⋃{A_(n+j)} ⊢ Τ
> 2. Δ⋃{A_(n+j)} is a consistent set
> 3. Δ ⊬ Τ
> 4. {A_(n+j)} ⊬ Τ
> 
> The generality of this schema allows for variable interpretations of ⊢. In 
> standard AI approaches to abduction there is a tendency to treat ⊢ as a 
> classical deductive consequence. But, as we have seen, this is 
> unrealistically restrictive.

(Emphasis is theirs, at least in the draft copy I have.) They go on to assert:

> ⊢ can be treated as a relation which gives with respect to Τ *whatever* 
> property the investigator (the abducer) is interested in Τ's having, and 
> which is not delivered by Δ alone or by {A_(n+j)} alone.

In my colloquial description, Δ is the collection of old dots there at the 
start of the process and Τ is the new dot. It's open whether or not the set of 
wffs (A) are also dots or part of the connections drawn between them, depending 
on how you feel about *dot composition* (e.g. subsets of dots that are all very 
close together, so we just draw them as one big dot or somesuch) and 
scale/resolution. Rule (2) is *clearly* a rule for how the dots can be 
connected. In general, consistency is also an ambiguous concept.

As always, I'm probably wrong about whatever it is Gabbay and Woods are saying. 
Any errors are mine. But maybe their words above can give some context for how 
I feel about "reasoning from particulars".

[†] https://www.powells.com/book/-9780444517913



On 8/22/19 8:26 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> First, did you miss Dave's contribution?  It was more on-topic than mine!
> 
> On Rigor: Yes, there's quite a bit of what you say I can agree with. But only 
> if I modify *my* understanding of "rigor". I think rigor is any methodical, 
> systematic behavior to which one adheres to strictly. It is the fidelity, the 
> strict adherence that defines "rigor", not the underlying structure of the 
> method or system. And in that sense, one can be rigorously anti-method. 
> Rigorously pro-method means adhering to that method and never making 
> exceptions. Rigorously anti-method means *never* following a method and 
> paying (infinite) attention to all exceptions, i.e. treating everything as a 
> single instance particular, an exception. I grant that "methodical 
> anti-method" is a paradox... but only that, not a contradiction.
> 
> On monism vs. monotheism: The simple answer is "no". I'm not confusing the 
> two. By reducing every-stuff to one-stuff, *and* talking about types of 
> inference like ab-, in-, and de-duction, you are being (at least in my view) 
> axiomatic, with a formal system based on 1 ur-element. Everything else in the 
> formal system has to be derived from that ur-element via rules. To boot, your 
> attempt to classify casuistry and abduction (same or different is 

Re: [FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

[Nick Thompson]

sh 
of blue on your feeder: “bluejay”.  All the criminologist is doing is 
suggesting that this death is not an instance of police brutality but, in fact, 
is an instance of “suicide by cop”.   Of course, now that I reread your 
message, the shrink-wrap metaphor does apply to multiple-abductions.  So, I 
suppose, “flash of blue, large aggressive bird, long beak, loud “jay” call” is 
all shrunk-wrapped by “bluejay”.  But the original step, the “I have here a 
blue jay” step, is the abductive step. This is part of what is mysterious about 
abduction – it is unclear what it gets you unless you have a really clear and 
powerful idea of what a category is … which I don’t.   <==nst] 

 

Thanks, again, for answering.  I guess you and I are the only ones who are 
going to engage on this one, so I am particularly grateful. 

 

Nick 

 

On 8/20/19 12:19 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Once you become aware of abduction as a mental operation, you start to 

> see it everywhere.  I saw it in Malcom Gladwell’s three part series (   
> <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-standard-case/id1119389968?i=1000444756825>
>  
> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-standard-case/id1119389968?i=1000444756825;
>   
> <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dr-rocks-taxonomy/id1119389968?i=1000445285031>
>  
> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dr-rocks-taxonomy/id1119389968?i=1000445285031;
>   
> <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/descend-into-the-particular/id1119389968?i=1000445850049)on>
>  
> https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/descend-into-the-particular/id1119389968?i=1000445850049)on
>  Jesuitical casuistry.  I always thought of casuistry as a form of sophistry 
> or hypocrisy, but apparently it began is as method for incorporating the new 
> experiences that global travel brought to the 16^th Century Catholic World.  
> As an inquiry into the identity of a particular case, it looks a lot like 
> abduction to me.  Because many of you live in NM, you may take particular 
> interest in the third episode, which presents an analysis of the Angelo 
> Navarro shooting by Albuquerque police. Was it case of a violent man charging 
> the police with a weapon?  Or was it the case of a racially motivated firing 
> squad of unarmed men by heavily armed police?  Or, ….? You would get a lot of 
> benefit from just listening to this one episode, but to fully understand its 
> philosophical impact, you need the other two to set the context.

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] abduction and casuistry

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, all, 

 

Once you become aware of abduction as a mental operation, you start to see
it everywhere.  I saw it in Malcom Gladwell's three part series (
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-standard-case/id1119389968?i=10004
44756825;
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dr-rocks-taxonomy/id1119389968?i=10004
45285031;
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/descend-into-the-particular/id11193899
68?i=1000445850049)on Jesuitical casuistry.  I always thought of casuistry
as a form of sophistry or hypocrisy, but apparently it began is as method
for incorporating the new experiences that global travel brought to the 16th
Century Catholic World.  As an inquiry into the identity of a particular
case, it looks a lot like abduction to me.  Because many of you live in NM,
you may take particular interest in the third episode, which presents an
analysis of the Angelo Navarro shooting by Albuquerque police. Was it case
of a violent man charging the police with a weapon?  Or was it the case of a
racially motivated firing squad of unarmed men by heavily armed police?  Or,
..? You would get a lot of benefit from just listening to this one episode,
but to fully understand its philosophical impact, you need the other two to
set the context. 

 

Enjoy.  Or not. 

 

Nick   

 

P. S., Does anybody know anything about the relation between Peirce and the
Jesuits?  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Net monitoring softwares

[Nick Thompson]

Hello, all, 

 

Greetings from the mosquito infested bog. 

 

You remember that my situation, here, in the third world (rural
Massachusetts), I have the "last mile" problem, so am dependent on a Verizon
hotspot for my data connection.  Verizon, of course, is devious, venal, and
rapacious, and every once in a while claims I have downloaded 4 gigs and
bills me accordingly, even though we never load moving images, etc. 

 

In this connection I have been trying out Net Monitoring softwares. 

 

Does anybody have experience with these?  I have Net Balancer loaded now,
but perhaps Net Limiter is better?  By the way, CAN I safely download
programs from Cnet or Techspot?

 

Net Balancer is run by some guy named Rusian in Moldova.  How much do I
trust? 

 

The only use to which I have put it, so far, is to give me statistics on my
data use per day.  On the Day that Verizon claims I used 4 G, Net Balancer
says I used barely 400 megs, so it's "on" with Verizon.  Anybody else in
this situation?  

 

Paranoically yours, 

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Archangel Michael's Message For You

[Nick Thompson]

Eric, Glen,

There are two moments when I am vulnerable to pfishing.  Yes, the first is when 
I am bored.  Stipulated.  But the second, and worst, is when I am 
extraordinarily stressed.  So, if, on such a day, a message comes which says 
that "my mastercharge account has been breached", the "leetle voice in my head" 
says, "You better deal with this immediately" and then I start doing stupid 
things.  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 10:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Archangel Michael's Message For You

So, being technically only semi-literate, here is the main response I have to 
the spam-ocean in which we now all seem to be adrift.

As for Michael below, I cannot imagine anyone would deliberately follow up 
anything like this, except bored people who click on a link to see what kind of 
entertainment lies at the other end, and who are computer-senior enough to 
think there won’t be any undue trouble they have to deal with as a consequence.

So what, then, is the mechanics of the angle?  If there are embedded URLs for 
tracking, the “text" could be a random space-filler to check which emails are 
active.  It probably is not yet all that common for people to turn off 
autoloading of remote content to reduce the number of channels through which 
they are tracked, but it is presumably becoming more common.

Is there timing in the way that remote content is loaded, so that somebody can 
compile the rate at which readers sift through the text?  Or are there other 
completely unrelated mechanisms for which the email is a distraction while a 
pickpocket works in some other direction?

Eric



> On Aug 17, 2019, at 9:10 AM, glen  wrote:
> 
> This is the best spam I've received in a long time! And it's all thanks to my 
> broken spamassassin config. Am I alone in finding spam and phishing email 
> fascinating? I'm procrastinating fixing SA because my spam is more 
> interesting than my "ham".
> 
> Maybe the most interesting was the one claiming there was a bomb threat at 
> "your office building". Of course, I was immune to it because I work from a 
> shed in the back yard. But I can imagine that scared a lot of people. I never 
> looped back to see if they caught any of those jerks.
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> From: 7 Day Prayer Miracle <7dayprayermira...@miraclle.pro>
> Sent: August 17, 2019 5:49:01 AM PDT
> To: c...@tempusdictum.com
> Subject: Archangel Michael's Message For You
> 
> Dear lbu...@energynewengland.com,
> 
> 
> Today, Archangel Michael has a life-changing message for you. 
> 
> 
> He’s about to teach you a mysterious prayer that drops you into the 
> ocean of abundance, where boundless blessings flow:
> 
> 
> My good friend Amanda Ross has a special connection to Archangel 
> Michael. Through his divine intervention Amanda successfully restored 
> her marriage, reclaimed her joy and even won the lottery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click here for her astonishing story:
> 
> 
> Best,
> Barbara L. Martin
> 
> 
> P.S. You want to know something that will blow your mind and open your 
> heart? Archangel Michael is the guardian angel that fights for you.
> If you are struggling with any form of conflict -- big or small -- then 
> saying this 4-sentence prayer holds the key to your victory. 
> 
> 
> Heaven is smiling over you and cheering you on to win your breakthrough. 
> Receive it here:
> 
> 
> 77 Petunia Way
> Birmingham, AL 35209 If these updates do not interest you please end 
> them click here
> 
> 
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 23451244624375524566434321563221435322435566445175326178
> 545454542324345562434565644575244575621433241546334456
> 

Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

[Nick Thompson]

 I wonder if the thing Husserl and 
Ortega are after goes part of the way to supplying one relevant such concept.

 

This is not my day job, and thank god for that, so all of the above is “grain 
of salt” commentary.  Fortunately, the books exist as things-in-themselves, and 
anybody can start fresh with them.

[NST==>Thanks, Eric, for taking a shot at it.  I see all these positions as 
groping toward an experience-monism of some sort, and that seems the only kind 
of position that makes any damned sense at all. <==nst] 

 

Best,

 

Eric

 

 

 





On Jul 29, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

 

Eric, 

 

Can you direct me to any particular passages or chapters in the book?   I am 
unlikely to read the whole thing, but I want to know your thought. 

 

I rummaged around in the  <http://books.google/> Books.google site for a bit 
and found this: 

 



 

If so, I don’t think I was saying anything this profound.  I was just trying to 
get in on the ground floor of the “skepticaller-than-thou” battle I saw 
developing.  

 

There are either, or there are not, consistencies in our experiences, in my 
experiences, in your experiences, and in those we represent to one another.  If 
there are not, then we have nothing to talk about, and all talk is meaningless. 
 If there are,  If somebody cares to call these, the world, then all power to 
them.  To announce that something is “the world” or “the real” or “true” or 
“exists outside experience” is only to announce that someday the speaker 
believes people will come to agree on it, the way we have come to agree on so 
many things in the last 300 years of science.  If we share that belief, that’s 
one heluva heuristic, and it is the heuristic that makes science possible, but 
it is, after all, only a heuristic.  I deplore a skepticism that drinks only 
9/10ths of the potent, and then puts the glass down, burps, and walks away with 
a smug look on its face.

 

Nick  

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [ <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> 
mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 5:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

 

I think Ortega y Gasset had things to say about that in Man and Crisis.

 

I haven’t read enough to know yet whether I think his take is important.  But 
it would be hard to find someone who picked up the question in terms more 
identical to those that Nick uses below to frame it.

 

Eric

 

 

 

> On Jul 28, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Nick Thompson < 
> <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 

> While we're getting rid of concepts, let's just get rid of this foolish, 
> unsubstantiated concept, "the world."  What sort of heuristic is THAT? 

> 

> N

> 

> Nicholas S. Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 

>  <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> 

> -Original Message-

> From: Friam [ <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> 
> mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A 

> Smith

> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:41 AM

> To:  <mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

> 

> I KNEW that confirmation bias was a problem and NOW this confirms it!

> 

> I TOLEYA!

> 

> On 4/24/19 5:25 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

>> Our World Isn't Organized into Levels 

>>  <https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail> 
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail

>> 

>>> In my view, our adherence to the levels concept in the face of the 

>>> systematic problems plaguing it amounts to a failure to recognize 

>>> structure we’re imposing on the world, to instead mistake this as 

>>> structure we are reading off the world. Attachment to the concept of 

>>> levels of organization has, I think, contributed to underestimation 

>>> of the complexity and variability of our world, including the 

>>> significance of causal interaction across scales. This has also 

>>> inhibited our ability to see limitations to our heuristic and to 

>>> imagine other contrasting heuristics, heuristics that may bear more 

>>> in common with what our world turns out to actually be like. Let’s 

>>> at least entertain the possibility that the invocation of leve

Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

[Nick Thompson]

Dave,

"All is illusion" is exactly the kind of partial draught that I am complaining 
about.  It clings to the very hope it mocks.  If skepticism is what you desire, 
then there is no warrant to speak of anything beyond experience, and experience 
is "of" nothing except  other experiences.  So the only question becomes, To 
what extent is experience organized.  Or is experience merely random.  If by 
"all is illusion" you mean there are no consistencies in experience, then, of 
course, you are welcome to that view, in the same way you are welcome to the 
view that all the molecules in the lovely Dutch beer sitting in front of you 
will instantaneously leap out of the glass,  roll across the table, and jump 
into your mouth without any assistance from your hands.   But I wouldn't bet on 
it.  If I wanted some of that beer, I would reach for it. 


Nick   
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 2:18 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

Nick stated:

"I deplore a skepticism that drinks only 9/10ths of the potent, and then puts 
the glass down, burps, and walks away with a smug look on its face."

Excepting the mystic who recognizes that "ALL is illusion," has anyone drunk 
the full potent?

davew


On Sun, Jul 28, 2019, at 9:23 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> While we're getting rid of concepts, let's just get rid of this 
> foolish, unsubstantiated concept, "the world."  What sort of heuristic 
> is THAT?
> 
> N
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A 
> Smith
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:41 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!
> 
> I KNEW that confirmation bias was a problem and NOW this confirms it!
> 
> I TOLEYA!
> 
> On 4/24/19 5:25 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > Our World Isn't Organized into Levels 
> > https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail
> >
> >> In my view, our adherence to the levels concept in the face of the 
> >> systematic problems plaguing it amounts to a failure to recognize 
> >> structure we’re imposing on the world, to instead mistake this as 
> >> structure we are reading off the world. Attachment to the concept 
> >> of levels of organization has, I think, contributed to 
> >> underestimation of the complexity and variability of our world, 
> >> including the significance of causal interaction across scales. 
> >> This has also inhibited our ability to see limitations to our 
> >> heuristic and to imagine other contrasting heuristics, heuristics 
> >> that may bear more in common with what our world turns out to 
> >> actually be like. Let’s at least entertain the possibility that the 
> >> invocation of levels can mislead scientific and philosophical 
> >> investigations more than it informs them. I suggest that the onus is on 
> >> advocates of levels of organization to demonstrate the well-foundedness 
> >> and usefulness of this concept.
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe 
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe 
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

[Nick Thompson]

Eric, 

 

Can you direct me to any particular passages or chapters in the book?   I am 
unlikely to read the whole thing, but I want to know your thought. 

 

I rummaged around in the Books.google site for a bit and found this: 

 



 

If so, I don’t think I was saying anything this profound.  I was just trying to 
get in on the ground floor of the “skepticaller-than-thou” battle I saw 
developing.  

 

There are either, or there are not, consistencies in our experiences, in my 
experiences, in your experiences, and in those we represent to one another.  If 
there are not, then we have nothing to talk about, and all talk is meaningless. 
 If there are,  If somebody cares to call these, the world, then all power to 
them.  To announce that something is “the world” or “the real” or “true” or 
“exists outside experience” is only to announce that someday the speaker 
believes people will come to agree on it, the way we have come to agree on so 
many things in the last 300 years of science.  If we share that belief, that’s 
one heluva heuristic, and it is the heuristic that makes science possible, but 
it is, after all, only a heuristic.  I deplore a skepticism that drinks only 
9/10ths of the potent, and then puts the glass down, burps, and walks away with 
a smug look on its face.

 

Nick  

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 5:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

 

I think Ortega y Gasset had things to say about that in Man and Crisis.

 

I haven’t read enough to know yet whether I think his take is important.  But 
it would be hard to find someone who picked up the question in terms more 
identical to those that Nick uses below to frame it.

 

Eric

 

 

 

> On Jul 28, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Nick Thompson < 
> <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 

> While we're getting rid of concepts, let's just get rid of this foolish, 
> unsubstantiated concept, "the world."  What sort of heuristic is THAT? 

> 

> N

> 

> Nicholas S. Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 

>  <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> 

> -Original Message-

> From: Friam [ <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> 
> mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A 

> Smith

> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:41 AM

> To:  <mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

> 

> I KNEW that confirmation bias was a problem and NOW this confirms it!

> 

> I TOLEYA!

> 

> On 4/24/19 5:25 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

>> Our World Isn't Organized into Levels 

>>  <https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail> 
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail

>> 

>>> In my view, our adherence to the levels concept in the face of the 

>>> systematic problems plaguing it amounts to a failure to recognize 

>>> structure we’re imposing on the world, to instead mistake this as 

>>> structure we are reading off the world. Attachment to the concept of 

>>> levels of organization has, I think, contributed to underestimation 

>>> of the complexity and variability of our world, including the 

>>> significance of causal interaction across scales. This has also 

>>> inhibited our ability to see limitations to our heuristic and to 

>>> imagine other contrasting heuristics, heuristics that may bear more 

>>> in common with what our world turns out to actually be like. Let’s 

>>> at least entertain the possibility that the invocation of levels can 
>>> mislead scientific and philosophical investigations more than it informs 
>>> them. I suggest that the onus is on advocates of levels of organization to 
>>> demonstrate the well-foundedness and usefulness of this concept.

> 

> 

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe 

> at St. John's College to unsubscribe 

>  <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives back to 2003:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 
> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> 

> 

> =

Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

[Nick Thompson]

While we're getting rid of concepts, let's just get rid of this foolish, 
unsubstantiated concept, "the world."  What sort of heuristic is THAT? 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:41 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias!

I KNEW that confirmation bias was a problem and NOW this confirms it!

I TOLEYA!

On 4/24/19 5:25 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Our World Isn't Organized into Levels
> https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail
>
>> In my view, our adherence to the levels concept in the face of the 
>> systematic problems plaguing it amounts to a failure to recognize 
>> structure we’re imposing on the world, to instead mistake this as 
>> structure we are reading off the world. Attachment to the concept of 
>> levels of organization has, I think, contributed to underestimation 
>> of the complexity and variability of our world, including the 
>> significance of causal interaction across scales. This has also 
>> inhibited our ability to see limitations to our heuristic and to 
>> imagine other contrasting heuristics, heuristics that may bear more 
>> in common with what our world turns out to actually be like. Let’s at 
>> least entertain the possibility that the invocation of levels can mislead 
>> scientific and philosophical investigations more than it informs them. I 
>> suggest that the onus is on advocates of levels of organization to 
>> demonstrate the well-foundedness and usefulness of this concept.


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Einstein: physics for English Majors

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Steve,

 

Old habits die hard.  VERY hard.  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2019 3:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Einstein: physics for English Majors

 

Reposting Nick's original email with a web link to the paper instead of an 
attachment (10MB).  The book he references is here:

 

 http://redfish.com/friam/evolutionofphysi033254mbp.pdf

 

note: the FRIAM listserv currently has a 1MB attachment limit. It doesn't sound 
like a big file but if it goes to >500 subscribers that's 5GB of traffic.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Subject: FW: Einstein: physics for English Majors

 

Dear Friamers, 

My wife, who haunts the dusty back stacks of local libraries and brings me 
treasures, brought me a copy of the attached book, which I later located on 
line.  It takes me from Gallileo to Quanta.  It is calmly and simply written.  
For anybody who thinks that relativity gives warrant for relativism, it will 
be, I think, an education.   The second author is a Polish physicist who 
collaborated with Einstein for a couple of years at Princeton before going on 
to the University of Toronto.  How two writers for whom English was not a first 
language, write so intimately and lucidly on such complex matters is a wonder 
to me. I am also startled by how closely the philosophy of science – it’s 
“idealist realism” – parallel’s Peirce’s.

 

Great summer read! 

 

Nick 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, David, 

 

I realize I didn’t really address your points, I think mostly because I don’t 
understand them.  Please see larding below. 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:11 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

 

BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.

[NST==>by whoom?  <==nst] 

 

There is no such thing as experience that is not OF something — at least as 
long as experiences are intermediated, first by embodied senses, then by 
cognitive “constructions.” YOU cannot regulate your experiences, only the 
process of experiencing can yield what might appear to be regularities / 
patterns / consistencies.[NST==>Even in a monist system, can’t a model of the 
self-screen experience and thus lead to different experiences.  Hence, 
self-control?  <==nst]  

 

Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to 
be.

[NST==>I have no idea what you mean be this… honestly.  <==nst] 

 

Quantum sensitivity is not “thrown away” by the design of your retina, or any 
other sense organ. The only thing that can ‘block’ such sensitivity are those 
pesky cognitive constructs, and they do not block so much as they establish a 
willful disregard.[NST==>I still don’t know what a quantum signal would look 
like, so I don’t know what quantum sensitivity would be sensitivity to.  But it 
seems to me that if one threw in random input between a quantum signal, 
whatever that might be, and the optic nerve, whatever sensitivity the cone 
cells might have would be sensitivity to extraneous events in the retina (the 
passing blood cell, say), rather to anything in your dualist’s world “out 
there”.  <==nst]  

 

To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think 
(understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.

[NST==>As I said earlier, I can enumerate all sorts of sins that you might be 
accusing me of here, but I don’t know which one, and I don’t see why I should 
do the work of accusation for you.  Thus your hubris is matched by my 
bone-headedness. <==nst] 

 

You somewhere nice?  

 

Hubristic, ain’t I?

davew

 

 

 

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave West  Wrot:

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the 
external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs 
within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and 
predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to 
conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, 
karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum 
and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

 

The Monist replyeth,

 

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world.  All I care for is experience.  
I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such 
constructions help me to regulate my experience.  But the Monist still wonders 
why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the 
prediction and control of my experience.  Why go to all the trouble to have a 
quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM

To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

re: "deep philosophical questions:

 

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school 
answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" 
comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of 
course to the odd butterfly or two.

 

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some 
Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both 
model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at 
least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is 
more akin to a kind of momentum.

 

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the 
process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter 
opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of 
dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, 
wind, etc. - an

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

Oh when the words, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” were first 
spoken, I am sure they were spoken of me.  I am a terrible intellectual 
amateur.  So, stipulated. 

 

However, your are just wrong if you say that experience talk cannot be monist 
talk.  Experience can be of other experiences, and not of anything else.  If 
you ask me, what was the first experience of, I will say, I dunno, but let’s 
worry about all the others before we worry about that one, eh?  But you are 
correct: If one is a monist, and being rigorous, one cannot give any name to 
the stuff of which everything is composed, because any name implies the 
existence of its opposite, it’s contrast class, whatever.   I use the term 
“experience monism” because it is the most neutral term I can think of, but it 
does lead to endless hassles, as you point out. 

 

What exactly is this “you” that is doing the regulating?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:11 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

 

BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.

 

There is no such thing as experience that is not OF something — at least as 
long as experiences are intermediated, first by embodied senses, then by 
cognitive “constructions.” YOU cannot regulate your experiences, only the 
process of experiencing can yield what might appear to be regularities / 
patterns / consistencies.

 

Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to 
be.

 

Quantum sensitivity is not “thrown away” by the design of your retina, or any 
other sense organ. The only thing that can ‘block’ such sensitivity are those 
pesky cognitive constructs, and they do not block so much as they establish a 
willful disregard.

 

To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think 
(understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.

 

Hubristic, ain’t I?

davew

 

 

 

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave West  Wrot:

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the 
external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs 
within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and 
predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to 
conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, 
karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum 
and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

 

The Monist replyeth,

 

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world.  All I care for is experience.  
I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such 
constructions help me to regulate my experience.  But the Monist still wonders 
why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the 
prediction and control of my experience.  Why go to all the trouble to have a 
quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM

To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

re: "deep philosophical questions:

 

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school 
answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" 
comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of 
course to the odd butterfly or two.

 

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some 
Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both 
model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at 
least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is 
more akin to a kind of momentum.

 

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the 
process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter 
opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of 
dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, 
wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a 
process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in 
the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - 
const

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Frank, 

 

You are correct about the reversal, but it was not of the retina but of the 
lenses of the eyes, which invert the image.  This work was done by Hans 
Wallach, who was my first chairman at Swarthmore College, and is probably the 
main reason I did not get to stay there: I annoyed him.  But my concern is NOT 
about the lenses, but about the anatomy of the retina itself.  The 
light-sensitive elements of the retina, the rods and cones, are at the BACK of 
the retina. The complex neuroanatomy of the retina, the ganglion cells that 
summarize and organize the incoming information all lie BETWEEN the rods and 
cones and the light.  One theory 
<http://theconversation.com/look-your-eyes-are-wired-backwards-heres-why-38319> 
 is that the glial cells of the retina are already processing the light before 
it gets to the rods and cones.  I don’t know what a monist would say about 
this, but I do know that the notion that the retina is a “film” is deeply 
flawed.  

 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 10:35 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

Nick,

 

I think I remember, from my time as a psych student, an experiment in which the 
reversal of the retina was undone by special lenses and the subjects adapted 
perfectly surprisingly quickly.  Is that correct?

 

Frank

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:16 AM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Dave West  Wrot:

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the 
external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs 
within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and 
predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to 
conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, 
karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum 
and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

 

The Monist replyeth, 

 

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world.  All I care for is experience.  
I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such 
constructions help me to regulate my experience.  But the Monist still wonders 
why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the 
prediction and control of my experience.  Why go to all the trouble to have a 
quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

re: "deep philosophical questions:

 

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school 
answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" 
comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of 
course to the odd butterfly or two.

 

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some 
Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both 
model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at 
least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is 
more akin to a kind of momentum. 

 

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the 
process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter 
opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of 
dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, 
wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a 
process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in 
the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - 
constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) 
with memories.

 

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but 
messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage. 

 

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

Hang on!  I missed this the first time.  What the dickens is a quantum signal, 
anyway? 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Simon
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 10:47 AM
To: Prof David West 
Cc: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

And what about stochastic resonance?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 24, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Prof David West  wrote:
> 
> Ah Nick,
> 
> because they finely tune the carrier wave (that which you perceive as neural 
> noise) in such a way that my quantum signal, being the delicate creature it 
> is, can survive multiple synaptic shocks as it moves from neuron to neuron — 
> the way you would want a well padded barrel when going over Niagara Falls.
> 
> davew
> 
> (I assume you are wearing your hip boots as standard gear in the MIB.)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> David,
>> 
>> I will see your "bushwash" and raise you a hornswaggle.
>> 
>> Why, my feathered friend, if quantum accuracy is so important, do you 
>> wear your retina backwards?  Why do you see through your ganglion 
>> cells.
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof 
>> David West
>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>> 
>> Nick said:
>> "I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT 
>> long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea,
>> etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that. 
>> 
>> So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the 
>> elements are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole 
>> system cannot  resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near."
>> 
>> Not to impugn your professors, but bushwah!
>> 
>> To make an analogy: the "neural noise" is akin to "junk DNA" just 
>> because they had not figured out what signals existed within the 
>> noise and how they were transmitted and received does not mean lost signal.
>> 
>> While "the system" seldom makes the effort to resolve at quanta scale 
>> does not mean that it cannot. (Why it seldom does is whole 'nuther
>> thread.)
>> 
>> But, assuming your professors were correct, would it be permissible 
>> to ask why the organism evolved the sensitivity only to evolve  the 
>> blockade? Or, having evolved the blockade why then evolve the 
>> sensitivity? Where is the competitive advantage in having either the 
>> sensitivity or the blockade? Or, do such questions tend not to 
>> edification?
>> 
>> I have seen the angels dancing on the head of the pin, so I know it 
>> can be done. Have also consorted with others, directly or 
>> intermediated by words, who can say, and demonstrate, the same.
>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> Can somebody forward this on to Mike Daly, whose email I can NEVER recover?
>>> 
>>> I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT 
>>> long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina 
>>> (cochlea,
>>> etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.  
>>> So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the 
>>> elements are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system 
>>> cannot
>>> resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near.   To do what it does, it 
>>> needs to weed out its own noise.  So accuracy in vision is not a 
>>> question of accuracy of the elements, but of the ingenuity of 
>>> construction.  Note, for instance that we wear our retinas "backwards":
>>> we actually see THOUGH the many layers of the retina because the 
>>> light sensitive elements ... the rods and cones ... are at the back 
>>> of the retina.  So all that sensitivity of light sensing elements is 
>>> rudely cast away in the organization of the retina.  It's like we 
>>> are a football players who wear our jerseys inside out but boast about the
>&

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

Dave West  Wrot:

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the 
external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs 
within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and 
predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to 
conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, 
karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum 
and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

 

The Monist replyeth, 

 

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world.  All I care for is experience.  
I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such 
constructions help me to regulate my experience.  But the Monist still wonders 
why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the 
prediction and control of my experience.  Why go to all the trouble to have a 
quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

 

re: "deep philosophical questions:

 

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school 
answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" 
comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of 
course to the odd butterfly or two.

 

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some 
Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both 
model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at 
least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is 
more akin to a kind of momentum. 

 

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the 
process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter 
opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of 
dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, 
wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a 
process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in 
the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - 
constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) 
with memories.

 

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but 
messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage. 

 

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the 
external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs 
within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and 
predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to 
conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, 
karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum 
and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

 

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

 

davew

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Deep philosophical question:  I don't think the nervous system is 

> interested in accuracy, per se.  It is interested in prediction.  So, 

> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events 

> would be favored overran accurate one.  The deep question, which I 

> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what 

> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input.  Now the

> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the 

> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the 

> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which

> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of 

> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting 

> the model right.

> 

> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's 

> backwards.  Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any 

> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a 

> disadvantage?

> 

> Nick

> 

> 

> Nicholas S. Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 

>  <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> 

> 

> -Original

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

Deep philosophical question:  I don't think the nervous system is interested in 
accuracy, per se.  It is interested in prediction.  So, an "inaccurate" system 
that give a better prediction of future events would be favored overran 
accurate one.  The deep question, which I suspect you Wise Guys are in a 
position to answer for me is: to what degree is predictive accuracy dependent 
on accuracy of input.  Now the first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, 
they talk about the "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were 
the measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which they 
based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of tradesoff exist 
between getting the original points right and getting the model right.  

But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's backwards.  
Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any world in which messy 
input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a disadvantage? 

Nick 


Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Ah Nick,

because they finely tune the carrier wave (that which you perceive as neural 
noise) in such a way that my quantum signal, being the delicate creature it is, 
can survive multiple synaptic shocks as it moves from neuron to neuron — the 
way you would want a well padded barrel when going over Niagara Falls.

davew

(I assume you are wearing your hip boots as standard gear in the MIB.)



On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
> 
> I will see your "bushwash" and raise you a hornswaggle.
> 
> Why, my feathered friend, if quantum accuracy is so important, do you 
> wear your retina backwards?  Why do you see through your ganglion 
> cells.
> 
> Nick
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David 
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
> 
> Nick said:
>  "I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT 
> long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea,
>  etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that. 
>  
>  So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the 
> elements  are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole 
> system cannot  resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near."
> 
> Not to impugn your professors, but bushwah!
> 
> To make an analogy: the "neural noise" is akin to "junk DNA" just 
> because they had not figured out what signals existed within the noise 
> and how they were transmitted and received does not mean lost signal.
> 
> While "the system" seldom makes the effort to resolve at quanta scale 
> does not mean that it cannot. (Why it seldom does is whole 'nuther
> thread.)
> 
> But, assuming your professors were correct, would it be permissible to 
> ask why the organism evolved the sensitivity only to evolve  the 
> blockade? Or, having evolved the blockade why then evolve the 
> sensitivity? Where is the competitive advantage in having either the 
> sensitivity or the blockade? Or, do such questions tend not to 
> edification?
> 
> I have seen the angels dancing on the head of the pin, so I know it 
> can be done. Have also consorted with others, directly or 
> intermediated by words, who can say, and demonstrate, the same.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > David,
> > 
> > Can somebody forward this on to Mike Daly, whose email I can NEVER recover?
> > 
> > I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT 
> > long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina 
> > (cochlea,
> > etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.  
> > So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the 
> > elements are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system 
> > cannot
> > resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near.   To do what it does, it 
> > needs to weed out its own noise.  So accuracy in vision is not a 
> > question of accuracy of the elements, but of the ingenuity of 
> > construction.  Note,

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

David, 

I will see your "bushwash" and raise you a hornswaggle.

Why, my feathered friend, if quantum accuracy is so important, do you wear your 
retina backwards?  Why do you see through your ganglion cells.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Nick said:
 "I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT  long 
ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea,
 etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.  
 So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the elements  are 
sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system cannot  resolve 
stimuli that small ... anywhere near."

Not to impugn your professors, but bushwah!

To make an analogy: the "neural noise" is akin to "junk DNA" just because they 
had not figured out what signals existed within the noise and how they were 
transmitted and received does not mean lost signal.

While "the system" seldom makes the effort to resolve at quanta scale does not 
mean that it cannot. (Why it seldom does is whole 'nuther thread.)

But, assuming your professors were correct, would it be permissible to ask why 
the organism evolved the sensitivity only to evolve  the blockade? Or, having 
evolved the blockade why then evolve the sensitivity? Where is the competitive 
advantage in having either the sensitivity or the blockade? Or, do such 
questions tend not to edification?

I have seen the angels dancing on the head of the pin, so I know it can be 
done. Have also consorted with others, directly or intermediated by words, who 
can say, and demonstrate, the same.

davew


On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
> 
> Can somebody forward this on to Mike Daly, whose email I can NEVER recover?
> 
> I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT 
> long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea,
> etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.  
> So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the elements 
> are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system cannot
> resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near.   To do what it does, it 
> needs to weed out its own noise.  So accuracy in vision is not a 
> question of accuracy of the elements, but of the ingenuity of 
> construction.  Note, for instance that we wear our retinas "backwards":
> we actually see THOUGH the many layers of the retina because the light 
> sensitive elements ... the rods and cones ... are at the back of the 
> retina.  So all that sensitivity of light sensing elements is rudely 
> cast away in the organization of the retina.  It's like we are a 
> football players who wear our jerseys inside out but boast about the
> precision, detail, and color of our logos.
> 
> 
> Hope you are well.  Where are you well?  
> 
> All my Peirce books were lost in the mail coming here, so I have been 
> focusing on my garden.  Mild, calm June.  May be the best garden ever.
> But my mind?  Not so sure about that. 
> 
> Nick
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David 
> West
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
> 
> Doing some reading on quantum consciousness and embodied mind and came 
> across these items:
> 
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-te
> st-quantum-mechanics/
> 
> https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282
> 
> (A Rebecca Holmes from Los Alamos Natl. Labs is part of the Scientific 
> American reported research.)
> 
> not only can the human eye perceive individual photons (and perhaps 
> quanta level phenomena) "The healthy human cochlea is so sensitive 
> that it can detect vibration with amplitude less than the diameter of 
> an atom, and it can resolve time intervals down to 10µs [i.e., 
> microseconds, or millionths of a second]. It has been calculated that 
> the human ear detects energy levels 10- fold lower than the energy of 
> a single photon in the green wavelength…” Regarding human tactile and 
> related senses (haptic, proprioceptive), it has recently b

Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Nick Thompson]

David, 

Can somebody forward this on to Mike Daly, whose email I can NEVER recover?

I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT long ago.  
There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea, etc.) is that 
sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.  So ... I think this 
is the right language ... even though the elements are sensitive to the 
smallest stimuli possible, the whole system cannot resolve stimuli that small 
... anywhere near.   To do what it does, it needs to weed out its own noise.  
So accuracy in vision is not a question of accuracy of the elements, but of the 
ingenuity of construction.  Note, for instance that we wear our retinas 
"backwards": we actually see THOUGH the many layers of the retina because the 
light sensitive elements ... the rods and cones ... are at the back of the 
retina.  So all that sensitivity of light sensing elements is rudely cast away 
in the organization of the retina.  It's like we are a football players who 
wear our jerseys inside out but boast about the precision, detail, and color of 
our logos.


Hope you are well.  Where are you well?  

All my Peirce books were lost in the mail coming here, so I have been focusing 
on my garden.  Mild, calm June.  May be the best garden ever.  But my mind?  
Not so sure about that. 

Nick  

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Doing some reading on quantum consciousness and embodied mind and came across 
these items:


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282

(A Rebecca Holmes from Los Alamos Natl. Labs is part of the Scientific American 
reported research.)

not only can the human eye perceive individual photons (and perhaps quanta 
level phenomena) "The healthy human cochlea is so sensitive that it can detect 
vibration with amplitude less than the diameter of an atom, and it can resolve 
time intervals down to 10µs [i.e., microseconds, or millionths of a second]. It 
has been calculated that the human ear detects energy levels 10- fold lower 
than the energy of a single photon in the green wavelength…” Regarding human 
tactile and related senses (haptic, proprioceptive), it has recently been 
determined that “human tactile discrimination extends to the nanoscale [ie, 
within billionths of a meter],” this research having been published in the 
journal, Scientific Reports (Skedung et al 2013)"

interesting stuff
dave west




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Cosmos, Quantum, and Consciousness: Is Science Doomed to Leave Some Questions Unanswered?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Owen, 

 

Is “Medium” something I should subscribe to? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 11:47 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Cosmos, Quantum, and Consciousness: Is Science Doomed to Leave 
Some Questions Unanswered?

 

Nick, thought you'd be interested. This is not a troll, of course science 
cannot answer everything .. but it was interesting to see the narrative. 

 

https://medium.com/scientific-american/cosmos-quantum-and-consciousness-is-science-doomed-to-leave-some-questions-unanswered-d68f1feb7e45

 

   -- Owen

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the hospital.

[Nick Thompson]

Where’s the Frankmobile?  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 7:58 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the 
hospital.

 

FWIW MRI shows no findings.

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] What was on my screen when you called.

[Nick Thompson]

Isn’t that very good news?

 

Are you still languishing in the hospital?  

 

Shall I figure out a way for us to play distance chess? 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 7:58 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the 
hospital.

 

FWIW MRI shows no findings.

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the hospital.

[Nick Thompson]

But you’re not aphasic now, right?  I guess that’s a silly question.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 10:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the 
hospital.

 


Not in the new wing and no view.  Private room with tv and bathroom, however.

 

Aphasia is very frustrating.

 

I think and hope I'll be discharged tomorrow morning.

 

Frank

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 7:41 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Geez, Frank!  Sounds scary as hell.. 

 

I, of course, went on the web to see what you should do.  It suggests you go 
off your birth control pills.  

 

Meanwhile, are you in the new wing?  Do you have a view?  

 

PLEASE, please keep me posted. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 9:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the 
hospital. My aphasia was almost gone within an hour. It was very strange to 
know what I wanted to say without being able to find the words or being able to 
say them.

 

 

They are keeping me overnight to monitor certain variables.

 

 

In gratitude,. 

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the hospital. My aphasia was almost gone within an hour. It was very strange to know what I wanted to say without being able to find the w

[Nick Thompson]

Geez, Frank!  Sounds scary as hell.. 

 

I, of course, went on the web to see what you should do.  It suggests you go 
off your birth control pills.  

 

Meanwhile, are you in the new wing?  Do you have a view?  

 

PLEASE, please keep me posted. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 9:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Thank you George, Dan, and Dean. For taking me to the 
hospital. My aphasia was almost gone within an hour. It was very strange to 
know what I wanted to say without being able to find the words or being able to 
say them.

 

 

They are keeping me overnight to monitor certain variables.

 

 

In gratitude,. 

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

[Nick Thompson]

Skype?  What’s Skype?  We’re in the Mosquito Infested Bog, here.  It’s a 
miracle that sunlight gets in here, let alone any RF.  I would prefer that the 
stimulating dialogue be sent to me as pony express dispatches.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2019 4:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

 

I just pull my oversized tinfoil lined hoodie around my face while I yell 
loudly into my bluetooth earbuds...  otherwise those with AR glasses watching 
me can see tagclouds of my conversation coalescing and dissipating around my 
head as the conversation (d)evolves.

I know, they have meds for this... I'm just not having any, thank you very much!

On 6/2/19 2:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

The one use I can see for in-person meetings is to prevent doing just that.   
Put your mobile device in an RF-shielded box and then speak freely.

 

From: Friam  <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>  on 
behalf of Steven A Smith  <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> 
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 12:18 PM
To:  <mailto:friam@redfish.com> "friam@redfish.com"  <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

 

 

 

I can't believe you guys don't just Skype (FaceTime, GoogleHangout, Video IRC, 
... ) Nick in on Fridays?  You can set the color balance on your screen so the 
green in the background doesn't hurt your eyes if you need to.

Oh, and then run the audio through an utterance recognition filter and generate 
a tag cloud so the rest of us can imagine the level of boisterousness for each 
topic that was generated.   A weighting could be added for intensifiers 
(primarily curse words) precluding each Subject or Object recognized?

 

On 6/1/19 9:44 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Trump, tariffs, Bayesian decision theory, some other stuff.  I forgot to take 
notes. 

 

Frank 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019, 9:20 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Wow!  That photo should make the diaspora weep for the homeland.  Look ma no 
clouds!  I am glad you finally got your day, Frank.  

 

What was the conversation about? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 2:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

 

For Nick

 

 

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:00 AM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Fri, May 31, 2019, 8:38 AM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Fri, May 31, 2019, 8:24 AM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

Nick -

My father who grew up in the east but spent his adult life in the west used to 
say whenever he visited the east: "So green it hurts your eyes!"

Perhaps your ticks will eventually fill the niche our desert tortoises do out 
here?  Well, except with Lyme Disease instead of Salmonella.

- Steve

On 5/31/19 8:18 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Just to say … I am missing you all, already, and you haven’t even started to 
meet yet.  

Please take good notes.  Chilly and damp in the mosquito-infected bog.  You can 
walk across the lawn without getting your feet wet by stepping on the backs of 
the Lyme – ticks, big as paving stones.  Very …. VERY green. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St.

Re: [FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

[Nick Thompson]

Wow!  That photo should make the diaspora weep for the homeland.  Look ma no 
clouds!  I am glad you finally got your day, Frank.  

 

What was the conversation about? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 2:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

 

For Nick

 

 

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:00 AM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Fri, May 31, 2019, 8:38 AM Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Fri, May 31, 2019, 8:24 AM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

Nick -

My father who grew up in the east but spent his adult life in the west used to 
say whenever he visited the east: "So green it hurts your eyes!"

Perhaps your ticks will eventually fill the niche our desert tortoises do out 
here?  Well, except with Lyme Disease instead of Salmonella.

- Steve

On 5/31/19 8:18 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Just to say … I am missing you all, already, and you haven’t even started to 
meet yet.  

Please take good notes.  Chilly and damp in the mosquito-infected bog.  You can 
walk across the lawn without getting your feet wet by stepping on the backs of 
the Lyme – ticks, big as paving stones.  Very …. VERY green. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



-- 

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Meeting of the Mother Church

[Nick Thompson]

Just to say . I am missing you all, already, and you haven't even started to
meet yet.  

Please take good notes.  Chilly and damp in the mosquito-infected bog.  You
can walk across the lawn without getting your feet wet by stepping on the
backs of the Lyme - ticks, big as paving stones.  Very .. VERY green. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Frank, 

 

Mike knows a fair bit about all this stuff.  I think what he says is that, for 
a person who has never been able to hear, cochlear implants are a revelation, 
but for someone who has had normal hearing all his life and now has geriatric 
deficit, they aren’t worth it.  

 

Ask him.  He has a lot of interesting things to say about hearing, some of 
which I understood. 

 

We just had our “cleaning out the refrigerator” fight.  It must be about 24 
hours before flight time.  Time to confirm our reservations. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:56 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 
1-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf

 

Nick,

 

Have you read about cochlear implant surgery?  When I worked at Eye and Ear 
Hospital of Pittsburgh, the lab I worked in was doing early research in the 
area.  These are pieces of hardware that transform sound into electrical 
signals meaningful to the brain.

 

Have you seen the videos of people who have been deaf since birth who get such 
a device.  They inevitably sob when they hear sound for the first time.

 

Frank

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 11:23 AM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Hi, Everybody, 

 

In the home congregation, we have had many interesting conversations about 
hearing in difficult environments, a conversation not only of intense interest 
to people interested in computer analysis and representation of sounds but also 
to a bunch of old guys shouting at each other in a crowded college dining area 
surrounded by hard surfaces.  Recently, we have been trying to assemble our 
limited knowledge of the cochlea and to grasp the fact that it is not a bank of 
discrete resonators doing a Fourier Transform, but an innervated sliver of meat 
with liquid on both sides coiled up in a tiny snail shell.   We are eager for 
any signs that a hearing aid company has started to reach beyond differential 
amplification by means of FFT to actually focusing on the cues that really 
matter for speech comprehension.

 

Anyway, …. Anyway….. .  I skimmed through the “white paper” below and thought 
that, even though it is “captive” research, it had some interesting features.  
Consequently, I thought I would pass it around to the list before I lost track 
of it.  My friend Jon Zingale accuses me of crowd sourcing my reading and that 
is EXACTLY what I am doing.  So, beware. 

 

https://wdh.azureedge.net/-/media/oticon-us/main/download-center/white-papers/1-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf?la=en
 
<https://wdh.azureedge.net/-/media/oticon-us/main/download-center/white-papers/1-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf?la=en=0FC7=B7D7D58F75093770CA7E148F72520C1D6BE28CB1>
 =0FC7=B7D7D58F75093770CA7E148F72520C1D6BE28CB1

If anybody on the list knows of somebody doing advanced research on how the 
cochlea passes sound on to the brain and how the brain analyses it, we would 
love to hear from that person.  

 

And has for you young folks who think this will never happen to you:  have you 
noticed that your students and young associates and your daughter’s boyfriends 
MUMBLE.  The moment you find yourself saying, “Curse these millennials, why 
don’t they speak up like normal people,” you should be taking an interest in 
hearing technology. 

 

Just sayin’

 

N 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] "I have no idea what's going on." -- Towelie

[Nick Thompson]

Hopefully, I'll try again soon ... maybe on an airplane flight when I have 
nothing to distract me. 8^)

 

Well, except nothing perhaps but  hurtling at 60 percent of the speed of sound, 
at ten percent of normal oxygen levels, at 30 degrees below zero packed in with 
a 160 other sardines in zorris and hawaian shirts, a third of whom are 
presumably infected with measles. 

 

You can read on airplanes???! 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:02 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "I have no idea what's going on." -- Towelie

 

OK. Well, I thought I could've digested the two papers by this time. But I've 
failed and will probably give up for now. It's still entirely unclear to me how 
the 3 level system's dark states facilitate the finer-than-diffraction-limited 
resolution. So, I can't place the OR gate example into the context of the laser 
lattice and my 1st basic question about energy state transitions via different 
energy photons.

 

I believe I grok your point about any given "degenerate" state being "computed 
over" as if it is or could be real[ized], just so that the solutions are 
meaningful. But in the context of microscopy, distinguishing things below the 
resolution allowed by the drive beam, I remain completely lost.

 

Hopefully, I'll try again soon ... maybe on an airplane flight when I have 
nothing to distract me. 8^)

 

On 5/18/19 8:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Glen writes:

> 

> "What evidence is there of degenerate ground states?"

> 

> The Hamiltonians for a logical operator like an OR gate need ground-state 
> degeneracies for non-trivial applications.

> 

> Configuration Input0 Input1 -> Output

> A 0 0 -> 0

> B 0 1 -> 1

> C 1 0 -> 1

> D 1 1 -> 1

> 

> P(A) = P(B) = P(C) = P(D) = 0.25

> 

> If the probabilities (thus energies) were not balanced, then the OR gate 
> could not be inverted in a fair way.   Excited eigenstates typically exist, 
> but they would give configurations that were wrong like "D 0 0 -> 1".  
> Suppose one wanted to find the key for a complex encryption circuit.  A gate 
> encoding that completely favored one gate, P(X) = 1, would not enable search. 

 

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:   
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC   
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Words RE: Words - Narrative Bending - Emergence, oh my!

[Nick Thompson]

Steve, 

 

Due to a couple of sabbaticals, I had a few of those cross-pond, 
cross-generational conversations.  Nothing better.  Carry on, lad! 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

  
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 8:49 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Words RE: Words - Narrative Bending - Emergence, oh my!

 

 

I've been hosting my colleagues (Matt and Janire, who some may remember from 
SFx) from Wales/Spain this last week.   Janire is doing a book signing at 
PhotoEye Gallery this afternoon at 4PM for her book on Ed Grothus and the Black 
Hole - "Atomic Ed" .

https://calendar.sfreporter.com/cal/1628254

https://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?Catalog=DT496



The relevance to this braided thread is that I've been following the 
discussion(s) here but have not had an opportunity to engage with them until 
now while instead engaging in a lot of across-the-pond/across-a-generation 
parallax discussions woven around the theme of recognizing/weaving narratives 
with non-linguistic tools (immersive photography/videography/VR/etc.).

Looking for something entirely different, I tripped over the following article 
on the topic of Narrative and Complexity Science:

https://woods.stanford.edu/news/stranger-fiction

With a quote from James Holland Jones:

Jones: The human brain evolved to learn from stories. Stories encode the 
fundamental information that people need to know about the worlds – physical, 
biological, social – in which they live. We retain and retrieve information 
better when it is given in narrative form. I think that written fiction 
provides powerful tools for modeling complex systems, not that different from 
what we use in studying them in science. When you tweak some element in a 
complex system, there will be both cascading and ramifying consequences.

I think this theme ties in with Nick's fascination with the "magic" he 
attributes to programmers (in general, or just those modeling complex systems?) 
and "emergence".   I would claim that writing narrative (or even more acutely 
so, poetry) is an even more magical act.   

When I think of the brevity of forms such as flash-fiction (dribble, drabble, 
twittiture, etc.) or a Haiku (5/7/5) or Zen Koan, I am reminded of the (useful) 
ambiguity in mathematics/physics/information-theory  regarding 
data-compression, entropy, and cryptography. I am also reminded of the 
varied and recent use of the term "compression" here.

A superficial analysis of what makes these forms work suggests that skillful 
use of allusion is one key.   This appears to me to be sort of a bootstrap or 
meta-cryptography technique.   By pointing broadly toward (alluding) a large 
existing body of cultural understanding, a sort of code-book is invoked such 
that each line or even word taps into entire complex backstories.  

Consider Hemingway's famous 6 word short-story: 

"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

or Masahide's famous line: 
Barn's burnt down --
now
I can see the moon. 

 

Mumble,

 - Steve


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Narrative bending

[Nick Thompson]

Glen, 

 

I am ambivalent about AA.  There are many people I know whom I feel it has 
saved from death, but, at the same time, it doesn't seem to be able to move 
them beyond being "Alcoholics".  It's like you’re put on some crazy cruise from 
Hell to Bliss, which, three days out, you discover is only circling aimlessly 
in the Atlantic.  You're glad you're no longer in Hell, but you're getting 
awfully tired of Shuffleboard and Whist, and wouldn't be nice to actually get 
somewhere?  

 

I think there is a lot to be said for self-help groups, much though they make 
my skin crawl.  I think, for instance, the hearing aid industry could make more 
use of them.  However, that industry profits from treating each deaf person as 
a totally new phenomenon entirely disconnected from all other human beings, 
each of whom can only be cured by the purchase of $5,000 miniturized 
differential amplifiers.  Sharing the banalities of being deaf and the 
ingenuities of others dealing with it cannot be a bad thing.  Here's a heads-up 
for those of you who still hear well:  in my kultcha, one of the ways to bond 
with others is to slip sly comments back and forth under a conversation.  All 
that goes away when you're deaf.  "who is that guy over there who looks like a 
pickeled frog?" "PICKLED FROG?" "'PICKLED FROG', YOU SAY?  LOUDER, FRIEND, I 
CAN'T QUITE HEAR YOU!"* just doesn't work in polite company.   I imagine that 
some lightly organized group settings for exchanging strategies for dealing 
with deafness might be useful.  

 

Nick 

*in larger font, for those of you not in html. 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 11:03 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: [FRIAM] Narrative bending

 

In light of the news from Denver:  

 
https://ballotpedia.org/Denver,_Colorado,_Initiated_Ordinance_301,_Psilocybin_Mushroom_Initiative_(May_2019)

 

And coming off our recent discussions of phase transitions, narrativity, 
experts' tendency to dig in under failure, etc, I found this essay interesting:

 

 

 
https://aeon.co/ideas/how-jungs-collective-unconscious-inspired-alcoholics-anonymous

 

> Wilson (who was receiving the ‘Belladonna Cure’ at Towns) reported that the 
> room lit up with a great white light and he experienced a frightening 
> ecstasy. He described ‘a new world of consciousness’ and of ‘God and His 
> world’. Following discharge from the hospital, he never drank again.

 

Of course, at least here in Oregon, our liberalism is being exploited by 
hucksters posing as alcoholism treatment specialists. If you're arrested for 
DUI, the court forces you to pay $$ to a treatment program, which seems chock 
full of sleazy people making money off others' misfortune. Many of these 
victims are low income and *must* have a car in order to keep their job. The 
sleazy huckster "counselors" then foist Alcoholics Anonymous on these people, 
relying on the heartfelt anecdotes of the ex-alcoholics who comprise the 
majority of the staff. 

 

My favorite mathematician (Raymond Smullyan) has a good argument that 
Christianity, absent all the sleazy stuff associated with it, is a defensibly 
spiritual conception (if you subtract Hell from the mythology). And I buy his 
interpretation. So I'm not a fan of trashing Christianity. However, if these 
sleazy court-appointed ... [ahem] ... therapists would ... were competent 
enough to ... talk about the deep psychological changes that have been 
(scientifically) demonstrated to change one's behavior, and presented AA as one 
(questionable) method by which to achieve a spiritual experience capable of 
such deep changes, then I'd be OK with it.

 

But they do not, for the most part.

 

Luckily, more reasonable voices are getting louder:   
https://psi-2020.org/

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:   
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC   
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC 

Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

[Nick Thompson]

Ok, so, Lee.  I keep getting my ears boxed for misinterpreting people. So.
If my understanding of your metaphor is wrong, what is yours?  

And to your earlier post, is emergence (or phase change) anything more than
the failure of induction?  If I asked Conway or Wolfram why does this thing,
which has been doing X for generations suddenly do Y, what would be their
answer?  If I rig a bomb with a clock so that it goes off on the ten
thousandth "tick", have I created an emergent phenomenon?  I think not, but
why not?  

But answer the first question, first.  I really want to know what you meant
by your analogical aphorism.

Nick


Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
lrudo...@meganet.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 3:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

Nick thinks:

> As I think Lee would say (dammit, Lee, where are you?), don't ask a 
> fish about water; he knows nothing of it.

I would not say that; I have always thought it was a particularly silly
thing to say.  Since there are approximately 30 more messages to work
through, I won't expand on why I think it's silly unless necessary, and in
any case later.  (But I was quite serious in my earlier four-term analogy to
the effect that "water" is to "fish" as whatever it was--emergence?--is to
whatever they were--coders?)



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

[Nick Thompson]

Lee, 

 

I am perfectly happy that an argument cannot embrace every extreme case.
Reductio ad absurdum has never seemed to me a conclusive form of argument.

 

I looked up "phase transition", which one wise source defined as "a
transition ... in phase."  Wikipedia was a little wiser.

 

During a phase transition of a given medium, certain properties of the
medium change, often discontinuously, as a result of the change of external
conditions, such as temperature, pressure, or others.

 

Or perhaps more broadly: a situation in which small changes in an
independent variable make a tremendous difference in dependent ones; Or:
small changes at one level of organization produce a reorganization at the
next, higher, level.  If so, there are some wonderful descriptions of phase
transitions in Bill Buford's Among the Thugs, which documents how skillful
organizers catalyze violence in football mobs.  

 

But these definitions seem also to be perfectly applicable to "emergence".
In other words, "phase transition" is another name for the phenomenon we
call "emergence."  But to say that emergence and phase transitions are the
same thing does not tell us why they occur?  

 

So, we come back to the question, is "emergence" "merely" a psychological
phenomenon, a situation in which human expectations are violated, in which
case emergence can be eliminated by understanding.  Or is it more than that?
Here's an example.  As you bring the temperature of water down from 40
degrees, at 37 degrees F, the density curve reverses and water starts become
less dense.  It still pours like water.  It's still wet like water.  Not
until a few degrees cooler does it begin to congeal.  Now, where is the
phase transition, here?  Or are there two.  

 

Now the person who asked me, essentially, to explain why I need an
explanation for "phase changes" in cellular automata, or anything else,
asked a fair question.  Why the hell shouldn't water increase decrease in
density in both directions from 37 degrees F?  Water can do whatever the
hell it wants, right?  My desire to call that an "emergent" is just another
name for the failure of my imagination, and doesn't refer to anything
inherently physical.  I hate that conclusion, but I keep being forced back
to it. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
lrudo...@meganet.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 6:22 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

> I only kinda like it because I would prefer something like: emergence 

> exists when the post-map language has a different expressibility than 

> the pre-map language.

 

Surely not *simply* "different"?  If the post-map language has strictly less
expressibility than the pre-map language, does "emergence exist"? 

Well, maybe.  What if (the extreme case) it has NO expressibility?

 

Either of those would fit under that other proposed description, "phase
transition", but (to me) the informal notion of "emergence" just can't
include the extreme case, and probably shouldn't include the "strictly less"
case (but maybe I could be argued out of that "shouldn't").

 

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003:  
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Frank, 

 

No.  I suppose not.  Here’s where we need Hywel. Could we predict it from the 
shape of the water molecule?

 

In general, I wish to avoid psychologizing concepts like “emergence”.  I don’t 
want them to be dependent on anybody’s knowledge, or lack thereof.  So, I don’t 
want to think (I may have to, eventually) that emergence is based on our 
ability to predict, because, then truly, “Knowedge Extinguishes Emergence.”

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 7:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

Emergent: hexagonality of snowflakes.  Can we predict that from water vapor and 
cold?

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Tue, May 7, 2019, 5:58 PM Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Marcus, 

 

Of course I see [now] why he was annoyed.   And I apologized.  And I won’t do 
it again.  And I have tried to explain (and I think Glen has more or less 
accepted) that my intent was not aggressive.  

 

Not sure how that relates to the question I asked you.  Are games instances in 
good standing of emergent phenomena?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 2:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

No, I meant that Glen is right and you are wrong, in spite of the superficial 
transactional evidence back and forth.Actual quotation marks, and you can’t 
see why is he annoyed?

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:53 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

Sorry, Marcus, do I misunderstand?  Or did I misunderstand Frank?  

 

A pingpong game is not a proper emergent?  

 

Cf tennis and chess: 

 

To call a social interaction a

dance is to stress the peraction of social agents. When agents peract,

they act through or by means of one another. Each has a state

of affairs toward which his or her behavior is directed, and that

state of affairs requires certain actions on the part of the social

partner. The behavior of each actor is therefore directed toward

using the other as a tool to produce a particular desirable result.

The dialectic between their peractions is the dance. From an observer’s

standpoint, the best dances, like the best chess games and

the best tennis matches, are those in which neither peractant entirely

gets his or her own way.

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 2:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

No, not really.   

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:43 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

To the outside observer, a ping pong game has emerged.

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Tue, May 7, 2019, 1:38 PM uǝlƃ ☣ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote:

No. Again, I would never say that. Why are you interacting this way? What are 
you trying to achieve by attributing things to me that I didn't write?

On 5/7/19 12:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> "Emergence is in the eye of the beholder." G. Ropella, 2019

-- 

Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

Of course I see [now] why he was annoyed.   And I apologized.  And I won’t do 
it again.  And I have tried to explain (and I think Glen has more or less 
accepted) that my intent was not aggressive.  

 

Not sure how that relates to the question I asked you.  Are games instances in 
good standing of emergent phenomena?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 2:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

No, I meant that Glen is right and you are wrong, in spite of the superficial 
transactional evidence back and forth.Actual quotation marks, and you can’t 
see why is he annoyed?

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:53 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

Sorry, Marcus, do I misunderstand?  Or did I misunderstand Frank?  

 

A pingpong game is not a proper emergent?  

 

Cf tennis and chess: 

 

To call a social interaction a

dance is to stress the peraction of social agents. When agents peract,

they act through or by means of one another. Each has a state

of affairs toward which his or her behavior is directed, and that

state of affairs requires certain actions on the part of the social

partner. The behavior of each actor is therefore directed toward

using the other as a tool to produce a particular desirable result.

The dialectic between their peractions is the dance. From an observer’s

standpoint, the best dances, like the best chess games and

the best tennis matches, are those in which neither peractant entirely

gets his or her own way.

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 2:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

No, not really.   

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:43 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words RE: words

 

To the outside observer, a ping pong game has emerged.

---
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Tue, May 7, 2019, 1:38 PM uǝlƃ ☣ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote:

No. Again, I would never say that. Why are you interacting this way? What are 
you trying to achieve by attributing things to me that I didn't write?

On 5/7/19 12:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> "Emergence is in the eye of the beholder." G. Ropella, 2019

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove