Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Is this substantially different from modal realism? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism

On 09/21/2017 03:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:44:51PM +, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it plausible that there are different psychological laws in
>> different bubbles of the multiverse?   


-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:44:51PM +, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 
> Isn't it plausible that there are different psychological laws in
> different bubbles of the multiverse?   


Obviously. Differences in "laws" means they're not laws, of course, but
geographical facts. 

> How would minds span these multiverses to find out if there are universal 
> laws?
> 

In much the same way as porcupines have sex - with difficulty! But I'm
an optimistic guy - I think it is doable. Ultimately, we probably
won't know for sure, though, without a decent theory of consciousness.

-- 


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Marcus Daniels]

Russell writes:

"One may categorise realism as the position that some things are and other 
things aren't. Roughly as a result of that, I argue in my book Theory of 
Nothing that Everythingism (ie everything exists in a Multiverse) entails 
anti-realism, ie that laws of physics must be grounded in psychological laws, 
and vice-versa. As a consequence, discussions of ontology (what might be the 
real fabric of our existence) are pointless, as no empirical observation can 
reveal anything about it."

Isn't it plausible that there are different psychological laws in different 
bubbles of the multiverse?   How would minds span these multiverses to find out 
if there are universal laws?

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 03:38:29AM +, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Nick wrote, "the idea of a real world outside experience is nonsense"
> 
> What does that say about areas of the universe or periods of the universe
> that have no experiencing beings?
> 
> Also, we synchronize our experiences so that we can communicate. (And we
> manage to do that reasonably well most of the time.) Is there any reason
> that's even possible if there is no real world outside each person's
> individual experience? (Or does this misrepresent what you have in mind?)
> 

My dear realist and anti-realist friends! I have been having a long
debate with another philosopher friend of mine who essentially argues
that Goedel's incompleteness theorem entails realism. For the purposes
of our discussion, we define realism as being properties independent
of observation, ie brute facts about the world, and anti-realism as
the position that there are no such properties - every observed
property must either come about through the process of observation, or
be effectively random eg I speak English here,but there are other
people who speak Chinese, and somewhere out in the Multiverse are
people speaking any conceivable language,

One may categorise realism as the position that some things are and
other things aren't. Roughly as a result of that, I argue in my book
Theory of Nothing that Everythingism (ie everything exists in a
Multiverse) entails anti-realism, ie that laws of physics must be
grounded in psychological laws, and vice-versa. As a consequence,
discussions of ontology (what might be the real fabric of our
existence) are pointless, as no empirical observation can reveal
anything about it.

Anyway, back to lurking...

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Russ Abbott]

Thanks, Glen, Simonds (?!) and all. This seems to have spiraled beyond my
comprehension.

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:11 PM gⅼеɳ ☣  wrote:

> Fantastic!  That would make a good bumper sticker:
>
>   Pareto Front Dempster-Shaffer
> Fuzzy Belief Plausibility
>
> I worry about too many glue words, with modified, implementing, and
> measures.  Reminds me why I like Clutch:
>
> > Ribonucleic acid freak out, the power of prayer.
> > Long halls of science and all the lunatics committed there.
> > Robot Lords of Tokyo, SMILE TASTE KITTENS!
> > Did you not know that the royal hunting grounds are always forbidden?
>
>
>
> On 09/20/2017 01:40 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > Having worked on problems roughly described as multivariate optimization
> decision support, I'm thinking, a high dimensional Pareto Frontier with
> modified Dempster-Shaffer methods implementing Fuzzy Belief and
> Plausability measures.   It maps well onto consciousness as wave-function
> collapse (for Quantum Consciousness Wonks) or at least (for CS majors) late
> binding.   For English Majors, I refer you back to Douglas Adams who
> describes all of this in very good, imagistic prose.
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Fantastic!  That would make a good bumper sticker:

  Pareto Front Dempster-Shaffer
Fuzzy Belief Plausibility

I worry about too many glue words, with modified, implementing, and measures.  
Reminds me why I like Clutch:

> Ribonucleic acid freak out, the power of prayer.
> Long halls of science and all the lunatics committed there.
> Robot Lords of Tokyo, SMILE TASTE KITTENS!
> Did you not know that the royal hunting grounds are always forbidden?



On 09/20/2017 01:40 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Having worked on problems roughly described as multivariate optimization 
> decision support, I'm thinking, a high dimensional Pareto Frontier with 
> modified Dempster-Shaffer methods implementing Fuzzy Belief and Plausability 
> measures.   It maps well onto consciousness as wave-function collapse (for 
> Quantum Consciousness Wonks) or at least (for CS majors) late binding.   For 
> English Majors, I refer you back to Douglas Adams who describes all of this 
> in very good, imagistic prose.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Steven A Smith]

REC/MD/GR/RA/et alii -

Having worked on problems roughly described as multivariate optimization 
decision support, I'm thinking, a high dimensional Pareto Frontier with 
modified Dempster-Shaffer methods implementing Fuzzy Belief and 
Plausability measures.   It maps well onto consciousness as 
wave-function collapse (for Quantum Consciousness Wonks) or at least 
(for CS majors) late binding. For English Majors, I refer you back to 
Douglas Adams who describes all of this in very good, imagistic prose.


- SASafrass

On 9/20/17 11:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


Roger writes:

“If we perceived things solely according to their fitness, then how do 
we perceive things which have multiple fitnesses, where different 
aspects of fitness vary to different schedules, where combinations of 
things have different fitnesses than the things met independently, 
where some things imitate other things, and so on.”


To select with regard to multiple fitnesses, it is necessary to have 
rank orderings for each and to retain the union of some fraction of 
the top performing ones.   That means more resources, having more 
special snowflakes *and* more *kinds* of special snowflakes.     But 
usually we just get frustrated and get some lunatic to create a giant 
extinction event and call it good.


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Nick Thompson]

 

 

Hi, Barry, Russ, et ceteri. 

 

According to a Very Wise Scholar (see link 

 ), Natural selection is just a co-relation among identifiable traits of 
organisms such that: 

 



 

Whether this is circular or not depends, of course, on what we mean by “better 
designed”.  If “better designed” means “having more offspring”, then natural 
selection reduces to an assertion that the offspring of organisms that have 
more offspring have more offspring”.  This is highly circular, but it is not 
tautological because it requires that fitness itself be heritable.  

 

I was confused on this point early in my career and had to be straightened out 
by a very good Philosopher of Science, who was not a physicist. 

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

I find most of what Hoffman says sort of over generalized from over 
simplifications.  If we perceived things solely according to their fitness, 
then how do we perceive things which have multiple fitnesses, where different 
aspects of fitness vary to different schedules, where combinations of things 
have different fitnesses than the things met independently, where some things 
imitate other things, and so on?  Perhaps it works better if we perceive 
objects by physical properties and then infer their fitness from context?  

 

Then again, isn't fitness a bit of a magic wand to apply to these discussions?  
Yes, the fitness of an organism is sufficient if the organism's descendants 
survive to reproductive age, but the steps in which this survival rate is 
traced through all the intermediate stages of causality to explain the exact 
mode of operation of all perceptual mechanisms, don't his hands get tired 
waving around like that?

 

Fitness in this context reminds me of utility in economic arguments.  What is 
it?  It's what is necessary to make these arguments work.

 

I did like the conscious agent algebra.  I was not impressed with the 
discussion of "quantum systems", but that was supplied by the interviewer's 
introduction.

 

-- rec --

 

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Russ Abbott  > wrote:

I'm disappointed. No one bothered to comment on or even notice my post on this 
subject.  Here it is again.

 

An easy way to agree with Hoffman and not get bent out of shape is to 
acknowledge that anything we think involves something being constructed in our 
heads. That construction is an idea -- or an emotion, or whatever other modes 
of awareness we have. That seems to me to be tautological: we can think or 
feel, etc. nothing but our thoughts, feelings, etc. As I said that's a 
tautology. After all, when we see something and say, that's a dog, we are 
converting whatever raw signals we encounter into an image and a concept. We 
aren't talking about the raw signals. It's impossible for us to be aware of the 
impact of, say, every photon on our retinas. (I'm assuming it is impossible. 
Perhaps some people can do something like it.) Also, I'm assuming there is a 
world that includes photons that we encounter. 

 

So this position doesn't deny a world "out there." At the same time it 
acknowledges that as living beings we have evolved means to make something more 
useful to us than awareness of raw signals. After all, why have eyes if all 
they do is give us the equivalent of a plane of pixels. That doesn't tell us 
anything about friend/foe, nourishment/poison, etc. If our senses weren't 
hooked up to internal processes that made something of them besides the raw 
signals, evolution wouldn't have kept and perfected them. 

 

So the simple answer is that Hoffman is right that we don't see "the world as 
it is" but that doesn't mean there isn't a world as it is.

 

 

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:49 PM Merle Lefkoff  > wrote:


  
Physicists Are Philosophers, Too - Scientific American


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/

 

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:

M.

 

M

I am sure they were smart people, but did they know anything about the history 
and contemporary practice of philosophy, or were they starting from scratch.   
I guess I think that it’s almost as 

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Marcus Daniels]

Roger writes:

“If we perceived things solely according to their fitness, then how do we 
perceive things which have multiple fitnesses, where different aspects of 
fitness vary to different schedules, where combinations of things have 
different fitnesses than the things met independently, where some things 
imitate other things, and so on.”

To select with regard to multiple fitnesses, it is necessary to have rank 
orderings for each and to retain the union of some fraction of the top 
performing ones.   That means more resources, having more special snowflakes 
and more kinds of special snowflakes. But usually we just get frustrated 
and get some lunatic to create a giant extinction event and call it good.

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Roger Critchlow]

I find most of what Hoffman says sort of over generalized from over
simplifications.  If we perceived things solely according to their fitness,
then how do we perceive things which have multiple fitnesses, where
different aspects of fitness vary to different schedules, where
combinations of things have different fitnesses than the things met
independently, where some things imitate other things, and so on?  Perhaps
it works better if we perceive objects by physical properties and then
infer their fitness from context?

Then again, isn't fitness a bit of a magic wand to apply to these
discussions?  Yes, the fitness of an organism is sufficient if the
organism's descendants survive to reproductive age, but the steps in which
this survival rate is traced through all the intermediate stages of
causality to explain the exact mode of operation of all perceptual
mechanisms, don't his hands get tired waving around like that?

Fitness in this context reminds me of utility in economic arguments.  What
is it?  It's what is necessary to make these arguments work.

I did like the conscious agent algebra.  I was not impressed with the
discussion of "quantum systems", but that was supplied by the interviewer's
introduction.

-- rec --

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> I'm disappointed. No one bothered to comment on or even notice my post on
> this subject.  Here it is again.
>
> An easy way to agree with Hoffman and not get bent out of shape is to
> acknowledge that anything we think involves something being constructed in
> our heads. That construction is an idea -- or an emotion, or whatever other
> modes of awareness we have. That seems to me to be tautological: we can
> think or feel, etc. nothing but our thoughts, feelings, etc. As I said
> that's a tautology. After all, when we see something and say, that's a dog,
> we are converting whatever raw signals we encounter into an image and a
> concept. We aren't talking about the raw signals. It's impossible for us to
> be aware of the impact of, say, every photon on our retinas. (I'm assuming
> it is impossible. Perhaps some people can do something like it.) Also, I'm
> assuming there is a world that includes photons that we encounter.
>
> So this position doesn't deny a world "out there." At the same time it
> acknowledges that as living beings we have evolved means to make something
> more useful to us than awareness of raw signals. After all, why have eyes
> if all they do is give us the equivalent of a plane of pixels. That doesn't
> tell us anything about friend/foe, nourishment/poison, etc. If our senses
> weren't hooked up to internal processes that made something of them besides
> the raw signals, evolution wouldn't have kept and perfected them.
>
> So the simple answer is that Hoffman is right that we don't see "the world
> as it is" but that doesn't mean there isn't a world as it is.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:49 PM Merle Lefkoff 
> wrote:
>
>> Physicists Are Philosophers, Too - Scientific American
>> 
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-
>> philosophers-too/
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> M.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> I am sure they were smart people, but did they know anything about the
>>> history and contemporary practice of philosophy, or were they starting from
>>> scratch.   I guess I think that it’s almost as preposterous to say that a
>>> physicist can do philosophy as to say that a philosopher can do physics.  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 *Merle
>>> Lefkoff
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 6:15 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely the latter.  They were a big help to me with my "Coexistence"
>>> modeling project.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nick Thompson <
>>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In what sense philosophers?  They liked to entertain lofty thoughts?
>>> Or, they were systematic thinkers in relation to things beyond the realm of
>>> physics?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 *Merle
>>> Lefkoff
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:19 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam@redfish.com>

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Perhaps you aren't reading the other thread or that the mailing list is 
misbehaving again and you didn't receive my response to your reified ideas 
argument?  My counter argument was along the same lines as Hoffman's idea that 
the decoupling from the environment (through interfaces) can lead to (and even 
select for) *false* ideas.  So, the (again, very slight) flaw in your argument 
is that it's what you're calling the raw signals that are paramount ... and 
probably what's being selected for, not the concepts or the ability to form 
concepts.

Just to restate a little more clearly, what's being selected for are fingers, 
toes, proprioception, nociception, etc.  That's what provides meaning, not the 
(perhaps entirely false) thoughts we mistakenly reify and pretend to talk about.

On 09/19/2017 08:58 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> I'm disappointed. No one bothered to comment on or even notice my post on 
> this subject.  Here it is again.
> 
> An easy way to agree with Hoffman and not get bent out of shape is to 
> acknowledge that anything we think involves something being constructed in 
> our heads. That construction is an idea -- or an emotion, or whatever other 
> modes of awareness we have. That seems to me to be tautological: we can think 
> or feel, etc. nothing but our thoughts, feelings, etc. As I said that's a 
> tautology. After all, when we see something and say, that's a dog, we are 
> converting whatever raw signals we encounter into an image and a concept. We 
> aren't talking about the raw signals. It's impossible for us to be aware of 
> the impact of, say, every photon on our retinas. (I'm assuming it is 
> impossible. Perhaps some people can do something like it.) Also, I'm assuming 
> there is a world that includes photons that we encounter. 
> 
> So this position doesn't deny a world "out there." At the same time it 
> acknowledges that as living beings we have evolved means to make something 
> more useful to us than awareness of raw signals. After all, why have eyes if 
> all they do is give us the equivalent of a plane of pixels. That doesn't tell 
> us anything about friend/foe, nourishment/poison, etc. If our senses weren't 
> hooked up to internal processes that made something of them besides the raw 
> signals, evolution wouldn't have kept and perfected them. 
> 
> So the simple answer is that Hoffman is right that we don't see "the world as 
> it is" but that doesn't mean there isn't a world as it is.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Russ Abbott]

I'm disappointed. No one bothered to comment on or even notice my post on
this subject.  Here it is again.

An easy way to agree with Hoffman and not get bent out of shape is to
acknowledge that anything we think involves something being constructed in
our heads. That construction is an idea -- or an emotion, or whatever other
modes of awareness we have. That seems to me to be tautological: we can
think or feel, etc. nothing but our thoughts, feelings, etc. As I said
that's a tautology. After all, when we see something and say, that's a dog,
we are converting whatever raw signals we encounter into an image and a
concept. We aren't talking about the raw signals. It's impossible for us to
be aware of the impact of, say, every photon on our retinas. (I'm assuming
it is impossible. Perhaps some people can do something like it.) Also, I'm
assuming there is a world that includes photons that we encounter.

So this position doesn't deny a world "out there." At the same time it
acknowledges that as living beings we have evolved means to make something
more useful to us than awareness of raw signals. After all, why have eyes
if all they do is give us the equivalent of a plane of pixels. That doesn't
tell us anything about friend/foe, nourishment/poison, etc. If our senses
weren't hooked up to internal processes that made something of them besides
the raw signals, evolution wouldn't have kept and perfected them.

So the simple answer is that Hoffman is right that we don't see "the world
as it is" but that doesn't mean there isn't a world as it is.


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:49 PM Merle Lefkoff 
wrote:

> Physicists Are Philosophers, Too - Scientific American
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:
>
>> M.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> I am sure they were smart people, but did they know anything about the
>> history and contemporary practice of philosophy, or were they starting from
>> scratch.   I guess I think that it’s almost as preposterous to say that a
>> physicist can do philosophy as to say that a philosopher can do physics.  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 *Merle
>> Lefkoff
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 6:15 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>>
>>
>>
>> Definitely the latter.  They were a big help to me with my "Coexistence"
>> modeling project.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> In what sense philosophers?  They liked to entertain lofty thoughts?  Or,
>> they were systematic thinkers in relation to things beyond the realm of
>> physics?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 *Merle
>> Lefkoff
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:19 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick, the quantum physicists that I worked with during my four years at
>> CNLS were very much also philosophers.  I think it kept them reasonably
>> sane.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Marcus,
>>
>>
>>
>> To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum
>> mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside
>> experience is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held
>> that all “objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the
>> community of inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the
>> very long run.  So it’s all experience, all the way down, except that
>> “reality” is a sort of future experience.  No dualism allowed.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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:* Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>>
>>
>>
>> "Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we
>> 

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Merle Lefkoff]

Physicists Are Philosophers, Too - Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> M.
>
>
>
> M
>
> I am sure they were smart people, but did they know anything about the
> history and contemporary practice of philosophy, or were they starting from
> scratch.   I guess I think that it’s almost as preposterous to say that a
> physicist can do philosophy as to say that a philosopher can do physics.  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 *Merle
> Lefkoff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 6:15 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> Definitely the latter.  They were a big help to me with my "Coexistence"
> modeling project.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
>
> M
>
>
>
> In what sense philosophers?  They liked to entertain lofty thoughts?  Or,
> they were systematic thinkers in relation to things beyond the realm of
> physics?
>
>
>
> 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 *Merle
> Lefkoff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:19 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> Nick, the quantum physicists that I worked with during my four years at
> CNLS were very much also philosophers.  I think it kept them reasonably
> sane.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
>
> Marcus,
>
>
>
> To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum
> mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside
> experience is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held
> that all “objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the
> community of inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the
> very long run.  So it’s all experience, all the way down, except that
> “reality” is a sort of future experience.  No dualism allowed.
>
>
>
> 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:* Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> "Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we
> assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective,
> observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central
> lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out
> there in some preexisting space."
>
> For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent
> observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that
> up, then things make more sense.
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimber...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area
> of interest to Nick.
>
>
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-
> illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
>
> Saint Paul University
>
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
>
>
> merlelefk...@gmail.com 
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>
>
> 
> 

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Nick Thompson]

M.

 

M

I am sure they were smart people, but did they know anything about the history 
and contemporary practice of philosophy, or were they starting from scratch.   
I guess I think that it’s almost as preposterous to say that a physicist can do 
philosophy as to say that a philosopher can do physics.  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 Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 6:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

Definitely the latter.  They were a big help to me with my "Coexistence" 
modeling project.

 

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:

M

 

In what sense philosophers?  They liked to entertain lofty thoughts?  Or, they 
were systematic thinkers in relation to things beyond the realm of physics?  

 

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 Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

Nick, the quantum physicists that I worked with during my four years at CNLS 
were very much also philosophers.  I think it kept them reasonably sane.

 

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:

Marcus, 

 

To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum 
mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside experience 
is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held that all 
“objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the community of 
inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the very long run.  So 
it’s all experience, all the way down, except that “reality” is a sort of 
future experience.  No dualism allowed. 

 

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: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

"Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume 
that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, 
observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of 
quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some 
preexisting space."

For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent 
observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that up, 
then things make more sense.

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam  > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly  >
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality" 

 

This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area of 
interest to Nick.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

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





 

-- 

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org  

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

 

merlelefk...@gmail.com  
mobile:  (303) 859-5609  
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Merle Lefkoff]

Definitely the latter.  They were a big help to me with my "Coexistence"
modeling project.

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> M
>
>
>
> In what sense philosophers?  They liked to entertain lofty thoughts?  Or,
> they were systematic thinkers in relation to things beyond the realm of
> physics?
>
>
>
> 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 *Merle
> Lefkoff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:19 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> Nick, the quantum physicists that I worked with during my four years at
> CNLS were very much also philosophers.  I think it kept them reasonably
> sane.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
>
> Marcus,
>
>
>
> To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum
> mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside
> experience is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held
> that all “objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the
> community of inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the
> very long run.  So it’s all experience, all the way down, except that
> “reality” is a sort of future experience.  No dualism allowed.
>
>
>
> 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:* Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> "Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we
> assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective,
> observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central
> lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out
> there in some preexisting space."
>
> For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent
> observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that
> up, then things make more sense.
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimber...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area
> of interest to Nick.
>
>
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-
> illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
>
> Saint Paul University
>
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
>
>
> merlelefk...@gmail.com 
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Nick Thompson]

M

 

In what sense philosophers?  They liked to entertain lofty thoughts?  Or, they 
were systematic thinkers in relation to things beyond the realm of physics?  

 

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 Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

Nick, the quantum physicists that I worked with during my four years at CNLS 
were very much also philosophers.  I think it kept them reasonably sane.

 

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:

Marcus, 

 

To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum 
mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside experience 
is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held that all 
“objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the community of 
inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the very long run.  So 
it’s all experience, all the way down, except that “reality” is a sort of 
future experience.  No dualism allowed. 

 

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: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

"Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume 
that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, 
observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of 
quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some 
preexisting space."

For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent 
observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that up, 
then things make more sense.

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam  > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly  >
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality" 

 

This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area of 
interest to Nick.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

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





 

-- 

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org  

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

 

merlelefk...@gmail.com  
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Russ Abbott]

An easy way to agree with Hoffman and not get bent out of shape is to
acknowledge that anything we think involves something being constructed in
our heads. That construction is an idea -- or an emotion, or whatever other
modes of awareness we have. That seems to me to be tautological: we can
think or feel, etc. nothing but our thoughts, feelings, etc. As I said
that's a tautology. After all, when we see something and say, that's a dog,
we are converting whatever raw signals we encounter into an image and a
concept. We aren't talking about the raw signals. It's impossible for us to
be aware of the impact of, say, every photon on our retinas. (I'm assuming
it is impossible. Perhaps some people can do something like it.) Also, I'm
assuming there is a world that includes photons that we encounter.

So this position doesn't deny a world "out there." At the same time it
acknowledges that as living beings we have evolved means to make something
more useful to us than awareness of raw signals. After all, why have eyes
if all they do is give us the equivalent of a plane of pixels. That doesn't
tell us anything about friend/foe, nourishment/poison, etc. If our senses
weren't hooked up to internal processes that made something of them besides
the raw signals, evolution wouldn't have kept and perfected them.

So the simple answer is that Hoffman is right that we don't see "the world
as it is" but that doesn't mean there isn't a world as it is.

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:17 AM gⅼеɳ ☣  wrote:

> On 09/18/2017 06:56 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> >
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
>
> We've discussed Hoffman's ideas before.  Lots of us played in that
> thread.  The FriAM archives are down, I think.  But here's the 1st post of
> the thread:
>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:05:05 -0800
> From: glen ☣ 
> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> To: friam@redfish.com
>
>
>   Natural selection and veridical perceptions
>   Justin T. Mark, Brian B. Marion, Donald D. Hoffman
>   http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/PerceptualEvolution.pdf
>
> > For the weak type, X ⊄ W in general, and g is a homomorphism. Perception
> need not faithfully mirror any subset of reality, but relationships among
> perceptions reflect relationships among aspects of reality. Thus, weak
> critical realists can bias their perceptions based on utility, so long as
> this homomorphism is maintained.
>
> To me, this evoked RRosen's "modeling relation", wherein he assumes the
> structure of inferential entailment must be similar to that of causal
> entailment (otherwise "there can be no science" -- Life Itself, pg. 58).
>
> > For the interface (or desktop) strategy, in general X ⊄ W and g need not
> be a homomorphism.
>
> This more closely resembles what I (contingently) believe to be true.
> Hoffman goes on to define and play some games, the results of which (he
> thinks) show that the interface strategy, under evolution, can demonstrate
> how fake news might dominate.  But my interest lies more in the idea that
> one's internal structure does matter with respect to whether or not one's
> likely to _believe_ false statements.  And I'm arguing that flattening that
> internal structure in a kind of holographic principle simply doesn't work
> with this sort of machine.
>
> An interesting potential contradiction in my own thought lies in:
>
> 1) I reject Rosen's assumption of the modeling relation (i.e. inference ≉
> cause), and
> 2) I still think intra-individual circularity is necessary for biomimicry.
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Merle Lefkoff]

Nick, the quantum physicists that I worked with during my four years at
CNLS were very much also philosophers.  I think it kept them reasonably
sane.

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Marcus,
>
>
>
> To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum
> mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside
> experience is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held
> that all “objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the
> community of inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the
> very long run.  So it’s all experience, all the way down, except that
> “reality” is a sort of future experience.  No dualism allowed.
>
>
>
> 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:* Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> "Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we
> assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective,
> observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central
> lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out
> there in some preexisting space."
>
> For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent
> observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that
> up, then things make more sense.
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimber...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area
> of interest to Nick.
>
>
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-
> illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

On 09/18/2017 06:56 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

We've discussed Hoffman's ideas before.  Lots of us played in that thread.  The 
FriAM archives are down, I think.  But here's the 1st post of the thread:

 Forwarded Message 
Subject: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:05:05 -0800
From: glen ☣ 
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
To: friam@redfish.com


  Natural selection and veridical perceptions
  Justin T. Mark, Brian B. Marion, Donald D. Hoffman
  http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/PerceptualEvolution.pdf

> For the weak type, X ⊄ W in general, and g is a homomorphism. Perception need 
> not faithfully mirror any subset of reality, but relationships among 
> perceptions reflect relationships among aspects of reality. Thus, weak 
> critical realists can bias their perceptions based on utility, so long as 
> this homomorphism is maintained. 

To me, this evoked RRosen's "modeling relation", wherein he assumes the 
structure of inferential entailment must be similar to that of causal 
entailment (otherwise "there can be no science" -- Life Itself, pg. 58).

> For the interface (or desktop) strategy, in general X ⊄ W and g need not be a 
> homomorphism. 

This more closely resembles what I (contingently) believe to be true.  Hoffman 
goes on to define and play some games, the results of which (he thinks) show 
that the interface strategy, under evolution, can demonstrate how fake news 
might dominate.  But my interest lies more in the idea that one's internal 
structure does matter with respect to whether or not one's likely to _believe_ 
false statements.  And I'm arguing that flattening that internal structure in a 
kind of holographic principle simply doesn't work with this sort of machine.

An interesting potential contradiction in my own thought lies in:

1) I reject Rosen's assumption of the modeling relation (i.e. inference ≉ 
cause), and
2) I still think intra-individual circularity is necessary for biomimicry.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Rich Murray]

Within "awareness" forever, "each" of "us" has to be a unique evolving
facet of all of single creative hyperinfinity...


"As a matter of course, every soul citizen of Earth has a priority to
quickly find and positively share evidence for healthy and safe food,
drink, environment, and society."

within the fellowship of service,

Rich Murray,
MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964 history and physics,
1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932
rmfor...@gmail.com
505-819-7388 <(505)%20819-7388> cell
619-623-3468 <(619)%20623-3468> home
http://rmforall.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/rmforall
https://www.facebook.com/rmforallmethanol
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-murray/30/835/652
https://about.me/richmurray
rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat


"Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality" 1977 co-created by
Tarthang Tulku, Rinpoche, born 1934,  and Steven Tainer, born 1947 -- 307
pages, concise and profound, highly original sharing of DzogChen -- other
TSK teachers: Rich Murray 2014.11.28
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2014/11/time-space-and-knowledg
e-new-vision-of.html

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Knowledge-Reality-Psycholog
y/dp/0913546089#customerReviews

9 eloquent brilliant reviews, including an account of how "Time, Space, and
Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality" was co-created by Tarthang Tulku,
Rinpoche, born 1934, and a brilliant student, Steven Tainer, born 1947, at
Nyingma Institute in Berkeley, via many years of dialogue, resulting in
over 3,000 pages of transcripts, which were condensed into a 307 page text
by December 1977 -- essentially a practical pure modern innovation from
DzogChen, without any Buddhist trappings language and rituals.

[ http://www.odiyan.org/founder.html

http://www.odiyan.org/home.html  huge temple complex

http://www.janhenderson.com/self/how-i-connected-with-buddhism/

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/06/07/retreat-centers-expan
sion-plans-provoke-concern/

12 organizations have $ 60 million assets --

"Tarthang Tulku now lives in permanent retreat at the 1,000-acre Odiyan
Retreat Center near Gualala, about 12 miles from the Ratna Ling Retreat
Center.
He no longer communicates directly with the public."


[ aside, also, search "Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche" dzogchen

born 1938, now 76, still teaching at many world centers

http://tsegyalgar.org/localcenters/tsegyalgarwest/tsegyalgarwesteven/

3,000 acre Tsegyalgar West retreat center, Los Naranjos Baja Sur, in middle
of south Baja California, about 50 miles north of the south tip -- I found
it with Google Earth a few years ago ]


http://nyingmainstitute.com/page/time-space-knowledge-tsk

PROGRAMS IN TIME, SPACE, AND KNOWLEDGE (TSK)

The Time, Space, and Knowledge vision offers a path to the growth of
knowledge, using practices specifically tailored to meet the needs of
modern society.
The Institute has a long and close association with this liberating vision.
Tarthang Tulku introduced his theory of Time, Space, and Knowledge in
seminars held at the Institute in 1976–77, and more intensively, in a
four-week program offered in the summer of 1977.
Within two months after the book, Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision
of Reality,  was launched at an event at the Nyingma Institute in December,
1977, Tarthang Tulku had structured a TSK training program.

The Institute continued to present TSK seminars, workshops, and retreats
throughout the 1980s.
After Love of Knowledge was published in 1987, the Institute offered two
intensive ten-month programs between 1988 and 1990 devoted to its study.
After the third TSK book, Knowledge of Time and Space, was published in
1990, the Institute offered another intensive that drew on all three of the
TSK books.

>From 1991 to 1995, the Institute offered Time, Space, and Knowledge as
occasional weekend programs.
With the appearance of several new books in 1996, TSK gathered momentum and
workshops, classes, and retreats in TSK continue to be taught on a regular
basis.
At present, a regular series of eight classes is offered, providing a solid
introduction to the TSK vision and its practices.

 [  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlGL0RsQvaw

13:13 video Alan Watts in black and white, Time: Part 1/2 ]


http://www.creativeinquiry.org/develop/the-tsk-vision/tsk-overview/

Jack Petrankar, Center for Creative Inquiry, started 2000


View a video introduction to the Time-Space-Knowledge vision


In Dynamics of
Time and Space (1994), Tarthang Tulku helps clarify the
Time-Space-Knowledge vision by laying out what it is not; that is, how it
differs from other approaches to knowledge and being:

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Russ, 

 

Long time!  You do know that I am a completely different man from the shallow, 
narrow-minded, orthodox behaviorist you used to argue with.  I have had heart 
surgery.  

 

In what you quote below, I am channeling Peirce.  I guess I wouldn’t be 
channeling him if I weren’t besotted with his views, but it’s also true that I 
couldn’t represent these views as clearly if they were precisely my own.  

 

You may draw whatever conclusions you may from the fact that over time we are 
drawn to common conclusions on many matters.  One such conclusion might be that 
there is a world out there that is banging us into shape.  But that is mere 
metaphysics;  all we can speak to is consistencies in our experience.  

 

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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

Nick wrote, "the idea of a real world outside experience is nonsense"

 

What does that say about areas of the universe or periods of the universe that 
have no experiencing beings?  

 

Also, we synchronize our experiences so that we can communicate. (And we manage 
to do that reasonably well most of the time.) Is there any reason that's even 
possible if there is no real world outside each person's individual experience? 
(Or does this misrepresent what you have in mind?)

 

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:26 PM Nick Thompson  > wrote:

Marcus, 

 

To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum 
mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside experience 
is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held that all 
“objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the community of 
inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the very long run.  So 
it’s all experience, all the way down, except that “reality” is a sort of 
future experience.  No dualism allowed. 

 

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: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

"Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume 
that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, 
observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of 
quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some 
preexisting space."

For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent 
observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that up, 
then things make more sense.

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam  > on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly  >
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality" 

 

This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area of 
interest to Nick.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

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

-- 

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles


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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Russ Abbott]

Nick wrote, "the idea of a real world outside experience is nonsense"

What does that say about areas of the universe or periods of the universe
that have no experiencing beings?

Also, we synchronize our experiences so that we can communicate. (And we
manage to do that reasonably well most of the time.) Is there any reason
that's even possible if there is no real world outside each person's
individual experience? (Or does this misrepresent what you have in mind?)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:26 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Marcus,
>
>
>
> To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum
> mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside
> experience is nonsense but I don’t see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held
> that all “objective” observation consist of guesses at what we all, the
> community of inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the
> very long run.  So it’s all experience, all the way down, except that
> “reality” is a sort of future experience.  No dualism allowed.
>
>
>
> 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:* Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> "Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we
> assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective,
> observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central
> lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out
> there in some preexisting space."
>
> For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent
> observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that
> up, then things make more sense.
>
> Marcus
> --
>
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimber...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"
>
>
>
> This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area
> of interest to Nick.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

To be honest, I have never seen what philosophy has to do with quantum
mechanics.  I agree with you that the idea of a real world outside
experience is nonsense but I don't see how QM gets you there.  Peirce held
that all "objective" observation consist of guesses at what we all, the
community of inquiry, will agree is real, after much discussion, in the very
long run.  So it's all experience, all the way down, except that "reality"
is a sort of future experience.  No dualism allowed. 

 

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: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

 

"Experiment after experiment has shown-defying common sense-that if we
assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective,
observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson
of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there
in some preexisting space."

For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent
observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that
up, then things make more sense.

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam  >
on behalf of Frank Wimberly  >
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality" 

 

This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area of
interest to Nick.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/
479559/?utm_source=atlfb

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Marcus Daniels]

"Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume 
that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, 
observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of 
quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some 
preexisting space."

For some reason, many scientists seem to believe that they are independent 
observers and not part of the physics they measure.   If they can give that up, 
then things make more sense.

Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly 

Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:56:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area of 
interest to Nick.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Frank Wimberly]

Framework = Friam.  Is autocorrect onto something?

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sep 18, 2017 7:56 PM, "Frank Wimberly"  wrote:

> This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area
> of interest to Nick.
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-
> illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] The Atlantic article on "the illusion of reality"

[Frank Wimberly]

This resonates with various Framework discussions.  I think it's an area of
interest to Nick.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

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