Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

But when you say "single entity", you're also implying a universe in which that 
single entity sits.  I think in one of your posts, you put off talking about 
where the inputs/outputs come from/go to.  We don't have to go all the way to 
multiple entities in order to continue the comparison of the 3 defns we have so 
far: 1) Nick's asymptote, 2) naive realist's "out there", and 3) your fatigue, 
lock, channelization.

We can go the route of comparing the sensor-web-effector's (SWE) structure as a 
*model* of the universe in which the entity sits, assuming there's only 1 SWE 
entity.

1) When the interactive/adaptive SWE settles on a stable pattern, that's true 
according to (1).
2) When the SWE's structure matches the universe's structure, that's true 
according to (2).
3) When the SWE's structure decouples from its universe in one of those 3 ways, 
that's a truth/failure according to (3).

If we can begin discussing in this way, we can address things like Marcus' 
recent post, and relations between (1), (2), and (3), as well as the 
distinction Frank raised awhile back about validity vs. soundness of a model 
(as well as all the other people/ideas we've mentioned).  I also think we can 
get to the ideas Steve wants to address without adding multiple SWEs.  At least 
in agent-based modeling, we distinguish one type of inter-agent communication 
as purely environment-mediated.  So, the model effectively reduces to only 1 
agent and its environment, regardless of the structure of that environment.


On 10/19/2017 11:34 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick's definition arises at the level of a group, while mine is restricted to 
> the condition of a single entity.


-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Frank, nothing is wrong with mentioning brains, except the number of
potential diversions the use of such vocabulary introduces, increasing
the scattering of conversational threads. my only hope was to establish
a kind of specific definition for truth, as requested by Nick.
Nick's definition was operational and involved a system of interacting
individuals and the possibility of (non)convergence while mine is at a
more fundamental level as a condition of a single system. Nick's
definition arises at the level of a group, while mine is restricted to
the condition of a single entity.



On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 06:50 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Something you say reminds me of the difference between grey matter and
> white matter in the brain.  What's wrong with mentioning brains?
> White matter influence increases with age as I recall.> 
> Frank
> 
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
> 
> On Oct 19, 2017 1:07 AM, "Prof David West"
> <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote:>> Nick,
>> 
>>  Yeah, the model is pretty obtuse - because I was trying to
>>  avoid using>>  terminology like mind, brain, etc. But it was probably a 
>> futile
>>  effort.>> 
>>  I define lower-case truth as a particular state of a mechanism, an
>>  impaired state. So my sensor-connection web - effector mechanism was>>  
>> designed/evolved to be absolutely dynamic and flexible so that
>>  it can>>  respond to any possible combination of inputs by activating any
>>  and all>>  appropriate outputs. If a sensor or an effector fails, the
>>  abilities of>>  the system are diminished. If a specific pathway through 
>> the web of>>  pathways becomes fixed and inflexible, the abilities of the
>>  system are>>  diminished.
>> 
>>  I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those
>>  capability>>  diminishing 'failures' of the system.
>> 
>>  Because the failure is within the system, it is local - hence 'local>>  
>> truth'.
>> 
>>  This is not a "belief" in the usual sense of that word, because
>>  the word>>  implies a "believer," and I speak of nothing except a mechanism 
>> and>>  particular states of that mechanism.
>> 
>>  Upper-case Truth simply does not exist.
>> 
>>  Now,application of  my model, use of my definition of 'truth', to
>>  understand the individual mechanism and its behavior in a large
>>  context>>  I need to take small steps. So let me say that my mechanism is 
>> what>>  underlies a human individual and look at one aspect of that
>>  individual's>>  behavior - the use of language.
>> 
>>  A language like English is extraordinarily fluid and dynamic. That
>>  fluidity and dynamism is diminished, significantly, when individuals>>  
>> increasingly rely on linguistic constructs of the form: A IS B.
>>  You have>>  heard me say, many times that the verb 'to be' is the root of 
>> all
>>  linguistic evil. I made that exact point in my model when
>>  asserting that>>  a channelized circuit equated to A (a set of inputs) = B 
>> (a set of
>>  outputs).
>> 
>>  At some point, the application of my model/definition to a system
>>  containing multiple individual systems would be in order, but I
>>  have not>>  approached that topic as yet. Primarily because my intent so 
>> far has>>  just to provide the definition of 'truth' that you said was
>>  missing from>>  the discussion.
>> 
>>  davew
>> 
>>  On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 01:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>  > David,
>>  >
>>  > Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail,
>>  > but it>>  > sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean 
>> by
>>  > "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".
>>  >
>>  > So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that
>>  > you say>>  > doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, 
>> T-with-a-capital
>>  > Truth>>  > Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond
>>  > what I>>  > would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people 
>> coalesces
>>  > around>>  > a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all
>>  > shared>>  > beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)
>>  >
>>  > Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point --
>>  > that as>>  > of the moment I have made no argum

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

glen,I should have been more specific - lower case truth is nothing more
than one of those three specific types of failure, i.e. sensor fatigue,
sensor or effector lock, or channelization of a circuit through the web.
My model is deliberately simple and not intended to say anything about
systems in general or failures of systems in general.

Although I did day in an earlier post that the only possible time that
upper-case Truth might exist is when the universe achieves heat death
and is completely ordered which is, of course simultaneously completely
disordered.

davew


On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 10:09 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:
> But, as Marcus indirectly points out, your defn of truth as a capability
> failure, then holds everywhere, all the time.  Any system with any
> temporal delay will exhibit it.  E.g. the inputs come at time t0 and the
> reaction comes at time t1, during that delay Δt, the system is failing
> ... adhering to some truth.  And any system with any sort of spatial
> extent will exhibit it.  E.g. an input comes in at position x0 and the
> output exits at position x1, the space in Δx will be failing, adhering to
> some truth as you define it.
> 
> The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme
> embedded/responsive constraints you've put in place for "non-failure"
> will be completely "ordered" in the sense of having no depth or
> structure, including faster than light communication.  This makes your
> definition a bit useless because it makes truth ubiquitous.
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2017 12:07 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
> > diminishing 'failures' of the system.
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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


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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

< The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme 
embedded/responsive constraints you've put in place for "non-failure" will be 
completely "ordered" in the sense of having no depth or structure, including 
faster than light communication.  This makes your definition a bit useless 
because it makes truth ubiquitous. >

If we change to using classical mechanics, instead of a set of momentary 
persistent states, to characterize a signal propagating through a network, 
can't that hold the place as the local `true' thing?   If so, it is just an 
approximation that doesn't hold given more context.   The reason the neuron and 
axons do what they do is only approximated by a model, that could involve stuff 
like apparent FTL communication through many body entanglement, or at least 
exhibit entanglement-like behavior (e.g. mirror neurons). 

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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

But hailing back to the "doubt" thread, we *all* "mail it in" all the time.  As 
Nick argues, when you get out of bed in the morning, you're "mailing it in" to 
some (or other) extent.  When a jazz musician relies on muscle memory to do its 
job ("mail it in") so that a more reflective neural pathway can synthesize 
higher-order patterns over those "mailed in" processes, we call that *not* 
"mailing it in".  But good jazz musicians, presumably, practice "not mailing it 
in" so that "not mailing it in" becomes easier and more like "mailing it in" 
over time.  So, "not mailing it in" becomes a higher order "mailing it in".

Unless we're willing to parse your defn of truth into things like "homeostatic 
truth", "memory truth", "attractor truth", vs "social truth" etc, it will be no 
more useful than the concepts we already have for those things.  And if we do 
that, and it turns out those don't reflect the way others (everyone else) uses 
the term, then it won't be very useful.

On 10/19/2017 07:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done 
> without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in because 
> everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same - it is Tom 
> Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.

-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

But, as Marcus indirectly points out, your defn of truth as a capability 
failure, then holds everywhere, all the time.  Any system with any temporal 
delay will exhibit it.  E.g. the inputs come at time t0 and the reaction comes 
at time t1, during that delay Δt, the system is failing ... adhering to some 
truth.  And any system with any sort of spatial extent will exhibit it.  E.g. 
an input comes in at position x0 and the output exits at position x1, the space 
in Δx will be failing, adhering to some truth as you define it.

The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme embedded/responsive 
constraints you've put in place for "non-failure" will be completely "ordered" 
in the sense of having no depth or structure, including faster than light 
communication.  This makes your definition a bit useless because it makes truth 
ubiquitous.


On 10/19/2017 12:07 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
> diminishing 'failures' of the system.

-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Merle Lefkoff]

Thanks.  I'm quite relieved to read this, since I think it to be "true."
 And the term "mail in" is now part of my lexicon.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Prof David West 
wrote:

> Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized
> for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished by
> fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you listen to
> a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece (or playing
> it the first X number of times) everyone is doing 'improv' i.e. actively
> listening to each other and their instruments and making deliberative and
> intentional actions towards their own instrument - that is really great.
> But, the thousandth time the same piece is played in the same concert hall,
> much of that active/deliberative/intentional aspect is lost and the
> performers merely act by rote. They could be asleep and rely on muscle
> memory to produce the sounds, which, by the way, start to sound exactly
> like the notes on the sheet of paper, technically correct but without soul.
>
> Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done
> without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in
> because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same -
> it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise"
> that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not
> sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall
> performance."
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
> complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
> sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
> the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.
>
> I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
> the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
> system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
> to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.
>
> I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
> to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves
> my purpose for the moment.
>
> The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
> infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
> combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the
> near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
> pathways) number of routes (circuits).
>
> Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
> some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |
> pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine
> that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than
> and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with
> useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
> The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
> in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.
>
> Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
> over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
> the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
> input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
> System fault.
>
> Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
> often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
> channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
> of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
> if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
> the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.
>
> Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
> A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
> be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
> condition/state of the individual system.
>
> Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
> band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
> the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
> part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
> are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
> 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Frank Wimberly]

Something you say reminds me of the difference between grey matter and
white matter in the brain.  What's wrong with mentioning brains?  White
matter influence increases with age as I recall.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Oct 19, 2017 1:07 AM, "Prof David West" <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Nick,
>
> Yeah, the model is pretty obtuse - because I was trying to avoid using
> terminology like mind, brain, etc. But it was probably a futile effort.
>
> I define lower-case truth as a particular state of a mechanism, an
> impaired state. So my sensor-connection web - effector mechanism was
> designed/evolved to be absolutely dynamic and flexible so that it can
> respond to any possible combination of inputs by activating any and all
> appropriate outputs. If a sensor or an effector fails, the abilities of
> the system are diminished. If a specific pathway through the web of
> pathways becomes fixed and inflexible, the abilities of the system are
> diminished.
>
> I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
> diminishing 'failures' of the system.
>
> Because the failure is within the system, it is local - hence 'local
> truth'.
>
> This is not a "belief" in the usual sense of that word, because the word
> implies a "believer," and I speak of nothing except a mechanism and
> particular states of that mechanism.
>
> Upper-case Truth simply does not exist.
>
> Now,application of  my model, use of my definition of 'truth', to
> understand the individual mechanism and its behavior in a large context
> I need to take small steps. So let me say that my mechanism is what
> underlies a human individual and look at one aspect of that individual's
> behavior - the use of language.
>
> A language like English is extraordinarily fluid and dynamic. That
> fluidity and dynamism is diminished, significantly, when individuals
> increasingly rely on linguistic constructs of the form: A IS B. You have
> heard me say, many times that the verb 'to be' is the root of all
> linguistic evil. I made that exact point in my model when asserting that
> a channelized circuit equated to A (a set of inputs) = B (a set of
> outputs).
>
> At some point, the application of my model/definition to a system
> containing multiple individual systems would be in order, but I have not
> approached that topic as yet. Primarily because my intent so far has
> just to provide the definition of 'truth' that you said was missing from
> the discussion.
>
> davew
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 01:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it
> > sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by
> > "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".
> >
> > So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say
> > doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth
> > Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I
> > would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around
> > a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared
> > beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)
> >
> > Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as
> > of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything
> > beyond local truth.
> >
> > 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, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
> > To: friam@redfish.com
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> > Nothing!”
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
> > intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
> > external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
> > complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
> > sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
> > the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.
> >
> > I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
> > the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
> > system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
> 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized
for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished
by fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you
listen to a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece
(or playing it the first X number of times) everyone is doing 'improv'
i.e. actively listening to each other and their instruments and making
deliberative and intentional actions towards their own instrument - that
is really great. But, the thousandth time the same piece is played in
the same concert hall, much of that active/deliberative/intentional
aspect is lost and the performers merely act by rote. They could be
asleep and rely on muscle memory to produce the sounds, which, by the
way, start to sound exactly like the notes on the sheet of paper,
technically correct but without soul.
Actors use the term, 'mail it in' to describe performances that are done
without thought. Tom Cruise is an actor oft accused of mailing it in
because everything he does, regardless of film or character, is the same
- it is Tom Cruise, not the character he is supposed to be portraying.
davew



On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--
> "improvise" that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic
> system?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their
> part of the overall performance."> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West
>  wrote:>> Steve,
>> 
>>  My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not>>  
>> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything>>  
>> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained
>>  within a>>  complex system which is the source of the input signals detected
>>  by the>>  sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit
>>  signals to>>  the containing system but want to leave that aside for the 
>> moment.
>> 
>>  I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain
>>  within>>  the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply
>>  focus on my>>  system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things
>>  simple and>>  to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.
>> 
>>  I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such -
>>  again,>>  to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it
>>  serves>>  my purpose for the moment.
>> 
>>  The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
>>  infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
>>  combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the>>  
>> near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial
>>  explosion of>>  pathways) number of routes (circuits).
>> 
>>  Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the
>>  connection of>>  some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| 
>> set of |
>>  pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further
>>  imagine>>  that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to
>>  assure than>>  and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s 
>> (with
>>  useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival
>>  potential.>>  The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real
>>  time," i.e.>>  in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next 
>> inputs.>> 
>>  Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input
>>  over and>>  over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail
>>  to relay>>  the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the 
>> same>>  input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually
>>  sensed.>>  System fault.
>> 
>>  Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more>>  
>> often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those
>>  pathways>>  channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the
>>  ability>>  of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly
>>  evident>>  if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change
>>  enough that>>  the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.
>> 
>>  Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts
>>  behaving as if>>  A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use 
>> of the
>>  verb 'to>>  be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because
>>  it is a>>  condition/state of the individual system.
>> 
>>  Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your
>>  marching>>  band for example. For each member of the band as a single
>>  organism (of>>  the type discussed above) all the other members of the band 
>> are
>>  simply>>  part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual
>>  systems>>  are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
>>  'right' outputs the 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Nick,

Yeah, the model is pretty obtuse - because I was trying to avoid using
terminology like mind, brain, etc. But it was probably a futile effort.

I define lower-case truth as a particular state of a mechanism, an
impaired state. So my sensor-connection web - effector mechanism was
designed/evolved to be absolutely dynamic and flexible so that it can
respond to any possible combination of inputs by activating any and all
appropriate outputs. If a sensor or an effector fails, the abilities of
the system are diminished. If a specific pathway through the web of
pathways becomes fixed and inflexible, the abilities of the system are
diminished.

I define lower-case truth as nothing more than one of those capability
diminishing 'failures' of the system.

Because the failure is within the system, it is local - hence 'local
truth'.

This is not a "belief" in the usual sense of that word, because the word
implies a "believer," and I speak of nothing except a mechanism and
particular states of that mechanism.

Upper-case Truth simply does not exist.

Now,application of  my model, use of my definition of 'truth', to
understand the individual mechanism and its behavior in a large context
I need to take small steps. So let me say that my mechanism is what
underlies a human individual and look at one aspect of that individual's
behavior - the use of language.

A language like English is extraordinarily fluid and dynamic. That
fluidity and dynamism is diminished, significantly, when individuals
increasingly rely on linguistic constructs of the form: A IS B. You have
heard me say, many times that the verb 'to be' is the root of all
linguistic evil. I made that exact point in my model when asserting that
a channelized circuit equated to A (a set of inputs) = B (a set of
outputs).

At some point, the application of my model/definition to a system
containing multiple individual systems would be in order, but I have not
approached that topic as yet. Primarily because my intent so far has
just to provide the definition of 'truth' that you said was missing from
the discussion.

davew

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 01:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David, 
> 
> Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it
> sounds like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by
> "belief".  For me, a belief is a "local truth".  
> 
> So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say
> doesn't exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth  
> Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I
> would call, "individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around
> a belief, what would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared
> beliefs of the same quality? (Group think?)
> 
> Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as
> of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything
> beyond local truth.  
> 
> 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, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
> 
> Steve,
> 
> My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
> complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
> sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
> the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.
> 
> I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
> the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
> system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
> to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.
> 
> I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
> to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves my
> purpose for the moment.
> 
> The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
> infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
> combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the near
> INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
> pathways) number of routes (circuits).
> 
> Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
> some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of | patte

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:



It is not a system fault if the signal is irrelevant to survival.
It could be good to dispose of the need to keep the sensor running, and 
reallocate the axons for combining other, more relevant signals.

< Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not. >

Dedicated pathways, like for detecting visual orientation of an object, or for 
discriminating hot and cold, or narrow frequency ranges of sound, are surely 
valuable for detecting risks to survival.   (You should see my dog go nuts when 
the doorbell rings or a yapping coyote is nearby.)  Only in a lower risk 
environments would synesthesia be a good thing -- like if you are a recording 
artist like Lorde.   If one high-value pathway must have high fidelity for 
survival reasons, there are surely plenty of other pathways that could be 
allocated to deliver other more nuanced information.

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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Fans of Radiohead, for example, probably would not agree.

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise" that 
it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not sure I 
understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West 
<profw...@fastmail.fm<mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves
my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the
near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |
pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine
that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than
and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with
useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an
exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -
establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall
performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance
is bound to suffer.

davew



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave sez:
> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> >
> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,
> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to
> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than
> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they
> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a
> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a
> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Merle Lefkoff]

Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise"
that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system?  I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall
performance."

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West 
wrote:

> Steve,
>
> My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
> intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
> external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
> complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
> sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
> the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.
>
> I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
> the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
> system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
> to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.
>
> I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
> to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves
> my purpose for the moment.
>
> The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
> infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
> combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the
> near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
> pathways) number of routes (circuits).
>
> Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
> some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |
> pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine
> that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than
> and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with
> useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
> The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
> in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.
>
> Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
> over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
> the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
> input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed.
> System fault.
>
> Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
> often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
> channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
> of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
> if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
> the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.
>
> Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
> A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
> be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
> condition/state of the individual system.
>
> Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
> band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
> the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
> part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
> are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
> 'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an
> exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -
> establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall
> performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance
> is bound to suffer.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > Dave sez:
> > > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
> > > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
> > > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
> > > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> > >
> > It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking,
> > tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to
> > interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than
> > more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they
> > are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a
> > *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a
> > choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And
> > I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as
> > "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units
> > (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of
> > the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore
> > only *partially* 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

David, 

Just checking:  I have a hard time following the model in detail, but it sounds 
like what you mean by "truth" is very like what I mean by "belief".  For me, a 
belief is a "local truth".  

So, that being the case,  what is the name of the thing that you say doesn't 
exist, the thing that other people call, T-with-a-capital Truth   Are you 
asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond what I would call, 
"individual belief".  When a group of people coalesces around a belief, what 
would you call that?  (Shared belief?)  Are all shared beliefs of the same 
quality? (Group think?)

Now please remember -- nobody seems to understand this point -- that as of the 
moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything beyond local 
truth.  

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, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not intended 
to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything external to itself. 
I do assume that this system is contained within a complex system which is the 
source of the input signals detected by the sensors. I similarly assume that 
the effectors may transmit signals to the containing system but want to leave 
that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within the 
skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my system in 
a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and to avoid the 
potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again, to 
avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves my purpose 
for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near infinite 
number of pathways. More importantly it can route any combination of inputs to 
any combination of outputs along any of the near INFINITE (I yell only to point 
out the combinatorial explosion of
pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of some 
[input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of | pattern of] 
outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine that this system is 
highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than and and all input/s are 
conveyed to the most useful output/s (with useful being simply the increase or 
maintenance of survival potential.
The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and over 
again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay the input 
to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same input value to the 
web without regard to whatever was actually sensed. 
System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more often when 
receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways channelize, 
essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability of the system to 
adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident if the pattern of inputs 
begins to subtly change, but change enough that the pattern of outputs should 
be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if A (set 
of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to be' is my 
definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a condition/state 
of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching band for 
example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of the type 
discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply part of a 
containing complex system. When each of the individual systems are using their 
innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the 'right' outputs the outcome 
can be cacophony that morphs into an exquisite performance. But when individual 
systems start to fail - establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of 
the overall performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their 
performance is bound to suffer.

davew 



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave sez:
> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine 
> > to "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate 
> > the behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing 
> > more than 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Steve,

My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
sensors. I similarly assume that the effectors may transmit signals to
the containing system but want to leave that aside for the moment.

I could metaphorically equate my system to a neural network brain within
the skin of a human being — but again would prefer to simply focus on my
system in a non-anthropomorphized manner; just to keep things simple and
to avoid the potential for diversions into side conversations.

I am also using neural networks - without naming things as such - again,
to avoid distractions, this makes explanations clumsier, but it serves
my purpose for the moment.

The connecting web can route any input to any output, using a near
infinite number of pathways. More importantly it can route any
combination of inputs to any combination of outputs along any of the
near INFINITE (I yell only to point out the combinatorial explosion of
pathways) number of routes (circuits).

Now imagine that this system is an organism and that the connection of
some [input | set of inputs | pattern of inputs] to [an| set of |
pattern of] outputs increases its survival potential. Further imagine
that this system is highly dynamic and acutely optimized to assure than
and and all input/s are conveyed to the most useful output/s (with
useful being simply the increase or maintenance of survival potential.
The web of input-output connects can be 'rewired' in "real time," i.e.
in whatever unit of time exists between receipt of the next inputs.

Now imagine that a/some sensors seem to receive the same input over and
over again and, due to "fatigue" they either shut down and fail to relay
the input to the web, or they lock into constantly sending the same
input value to the web without regard to whatever was actually sensed. 
System fault.

Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often when receiving a particular pattern of inputs and those pathways
channelize, essentially become fixed. System fault because the ability
of the system to adapt is impaired. This would be particularly evident
if the pattern of inputs begins to subtly change, but change enough that
the pattern of outputs should be modified and they are not.

Whenever these faults occur, the system as a whole starts behaving as if
A (set of inputs) IS B (set of outputs). That simply use of the verb 'to
be' is my definition of "truth," and it is purely local  because it is a
condition/state of the individual system.

Very quickly - imagine several such systems interacting. Your marching
band for example. For each member of the band as a single organism (of
the type discussed above) all the other members of the band are simply
part of a containing complex system. When each of the individual systems
are using their innate ability to route the 'right' inputs to the
'right' outputs the outcome can be cacophony that morphs into an
exquisite performance. But when individual systems start to fail -
establish truthiness - start to "mail in" their part of the overall
performance, the band as a whole and your enjoyment of their performance
is bound to suffer.

davew 



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 04:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave sez:
> > It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
> > "infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
> > behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
> > than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
> >
> It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking, 
> tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to 
> interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than 
> more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they 
> are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a 
> *marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a 
> choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And 
> I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as 
> "defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units 
> (dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of 
> the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore 
> only *partially* defective/faulty?
> 
> I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a 
> shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in 
> dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical 
> expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not 
> mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly 
> circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One 
> *might* argue 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Steven A Smith]

Dave sez:

It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
"infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking, 
tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to 
interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than 
more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they 
are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a 
*marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a 
choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And 
I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as 
"defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units 
(dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of 
the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore 
only *partially* defective/faulty?


I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a 
shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in 
dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical 
expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not 
mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly 
circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One 
*might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect 
of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose 
dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??


I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers" 
and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".


This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a 
language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.


https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia

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

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Well, to be clear, I think the idea of your sensor-web-effector individuals 
squirming in a machine is perfectly consistent with Peirce's conception of 
reality.  The disconnect lies in the extent to which that machine (in which the 
sensor-web-effector individuals squirm) is "fixed once and for all", as 
Feferman puts it.  Peirce's conception of reality seems to rely on that 
fixation, that definiteness, the one, fixed, master structure in which we all 
swim.  Feferman's observation that working mathematicians are at once Platonic, 
yet don't limit themselves to any single formalism, seems to argue from your 
perspective: that reality is not fixed, definite, and if a sensor-web-effector 
individual becomes fixated AS IF the reality in which it swims were fixed, then 
that limited delusion is what it calls "truth" (a truth, the truth, etc.).  
Rosen would agree with you as well, by claiming that our mathematics, logic, 
and "inferential entailment" methods are impoverished when compared to reality 
("causal entailment").

But it's important to look at Peirce's synoptic understanding of logic and 
math.  A good example is his existential graphs, which encompassed more than 
first order logic, including higher-order and modal logic.  My guess is Peirce 
would readily entertain ideas like Feferman's schematic axiomatic systems as a 
way to enrich our logics so as to handle the dynamism of working 
mathematicians, and perhaps that pointed out by you or Rosen.


On 10/17/2017 01:18 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nothing about language or thought, but a hint of the truth-preserving
> machine in which people squirm that Glen described.


-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, 

Sounds like your definition of truth is a lot like Peirce's definition of 
"belief" -- "a believe is a conception upon which we are prepared to act".  So, 
Peirce's belief, like West's Truth, is presumably local.  Beliefs can be shared 
but they don't have to be to be beliefs.  

So, on your account, Truth is defined as local.  Can Truths be shared?  Or, for 
the purposes of your definition of truth, each truth is unique to the person 
who holds it.  Does a truth have to be unique to a person to be a truth?  

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, October 17, 2017 2:19 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

truth is — the persistence of a particular wiring path in an immensely 
complicated, and otherwise dynamic, web of connections among billions of 
sensors capturing input and hundreds of thousands of effectors generating 
output from one state of the sensors-web-effectors to
another.truth is a 'failure', a 'defect';  a means for avoiding
constant re-establishment of the entirety of the web in response to constantly 
changing inputs / values of inputs.

Truth isn't.

To anthropomorphize the definition: truth is behavior that persists because the 
individual fails to re-evaluate the totality of inputs/outputs/connections 
that, in some previous state of that individual, first established the 
particular behavior. Like cancer, these persistences can be relatively benign, 
sometimes fatal, but they are always a defect.

Nothing about language or thought, but a hint of the truth-preserving machine 
in which people squirm that Glen described.

It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to "infect" 
another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the behavior. If that 
happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more than collective 'fault'/ 
'defectiveness'.

As to dualism/ naive-realism - I give no more truck to Descartes than Nick. 
Perhaps, ala Vedism, once in the near infinite past there was 'mind-stuff' and 
'matter-stuff' and perhaps once again in the near infinite future that dualism 
will be re-established. But in the meantime issues of dualism tend not to 
edification.

dave


On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 12:54 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:
> Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can 
> ask him if his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with 
> respect to what you or I think"?  Dave?
> 
> FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion 
> that locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about 
> what one *thinks* and more about the 
> platform/context/truth-preserving-machine
> in which the people find themselves squirming around.  If such 
> truth-scope is defined in that way, then we're a lot closer to 
> Peirce's concept of reality being whatever consequences our language 
> *deduces* to ... whatever sentences are evaluated as true in that 
> language.  And, here Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, and 
> you change what evaluates to true in that language.
> 
> 
> On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
> > that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we 
> > get it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because 
> > there are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and 
> > the mind stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, 
> > there is a truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I 
> > think, as well as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we 
> > think is true of the world. 
> 
> --
> ☣ 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


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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

truth is — the persistence of a particular wiring path in an immensely
complicated, and otherwise dynamic, web of connections among billions of
sensors capturing input and hundreds of thousands of effectors
generating output from one state of the sensors-web-effectors to
another.truth is a 'failure', a 'defect';  a means for avoiding
constant re-establishment of the entirety of the web in response to
constantly changing inputs / values of inputs.

Truth isn't.

To anthropomorphize the definition: truth is behavior that persists
because the individual fails to re-evaluate the totality of
inputs/outputs/connections that, in some previous state of that
individual, first established the particular behavior. Like cancer,
these persistences can be relatively benign, sometimes fatal, but they
are always a defect.

Nothing about language or thought, but a hint of the truth-preserving
machine in which people squirm that Glen described.

It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
"infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

As to dualism/ naive-realism - I give no more truck to Descartes than
Nick. Perhaps, ala Vedism, once in the near infinite past there was
'mind-stuff' and 'matter-stuff' and perhaps once again in the near
infinite future that dualism will be re-established. But in the meantime
issues of dualism tend not to edification.

dave


On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 12:54 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:
> Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask
> him if his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect
> to what you or I think"?  Dave?
> 
> FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that
> locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about what
> one *thinks* and more about the platform/context/truth-preserving-machine
> in which the people find themselves squirming around.  If such
> truth-scope is defined in that way, then we're a lot closer to Peirce's
> concept of reality being whatever consequences our language *deduces* to
> ... whatever sentences are evaluated as true in that language.  And, here
> Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, and you change what
> evaluates to true in that language.
> 
> 
> On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
> > that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we 
> > get it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because 
> > there are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and 
> > the mind stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, 
> > there is a truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I 
> > think, as well as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we 
> > think is true of the world. 
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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


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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask him if 
his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect to what you 
or I think"?  Dave?

FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that 
locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about what one 
*thinks* and more about the platform/context/truth-preserving-machine in which 
the people find themselves squirming around.  If such truth-scope is defined in 
that way, then we're a lot closer to Peirce's concept of reality being whatever 
consequences our language *deduces* to ... whatever sentences are evaluated as 
true in that language.  And, here Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, 
and you change what evaluates to true in that language.


On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
> that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we get 
> it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because there 
> are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and the mind 
> stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, there is a 
> truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I think, as well 
> as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we think is true of the 
> world. 

-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Ach!  I don't mean to play a game.  I come by my deafness honestly, as anybody 
who has sat with me at FRIAM will attest. 

Is it really the case that people have said, "By truth I mean " and I have 
missed it.  If so, I do apologize.  

Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we get 
it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because there are 
two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and the mind stuff 
in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, there is a 
truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I think, as well as 
a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we think is true of the 
world. 

As for Hoffman, I don't know.   

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 g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:25 PM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

On 10/17/2017 10:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>  by asserting another definition of Truth, but so far nobody has done 
> that.

Heh, now you're playing a new game! 8^)  Plenty of us *have* provided other 
definitions of truth.  As in active listening exercises, perhaps you could make 
an attempt to describe a naive realist's definition of truth that differs from 
Peirce's?  Or perhaps you could describe Hoffman's interface perception theory 
(which I think is an alternative to what you're saying Peirce's 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



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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

On 10/17/2017 10:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>  by asserting another definition of Truth, but so far nobody has done that. 

Heh, now you're playing a new game! 8^)  Plenty of us *have* provided other 
definitions of truth.  As in active listening exercises, perhaps you could make 
an attempt to describe a naive realist's definition of truth that differs from 
Peirce's?  Or perhaps you could describe Hoffman's interface perception theory 
(which I think is an alternative to what you're saying Peirce's 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Perfectly stated, Marcus!

It might also be useful to note that drugs like LSD, whether Dave meant them 
this way or not, are VERY good belief demolishers.  This is, I think, the heart 
of why psilocybin helps some terminally ill finish their lives in a happier 
state.  I also think it's why cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is more 
successful than most other talk therapies, because a crucial component is to 
challenge one's absolutist and/or apocalyptic language.  (I.e. they encourage 
you to replace "I can't stand it when" with "I have trouble when" ... etc.)

The benefit of (at least methodological) pluralism is, precisely, to help 
"crack the cosmic egg" we often find ourselves trapped in ... one that we've 
often built for ourselves, even.

On 10/17/2017 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks 
> going after the Christian apologists.  But they were the ones gas lighting 
> the passers-by.   Being an anti- gas lighter – a demolisher of belief -- is 
> not being a gas lighter.   The complement of the gas-lighted message and it 
> is a bigger, freer space, not a manipulation of innocents.


-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen, for your generous and thoughtful post, but please be careful. 

 

...And Nick's idea that convergence within the universe's formal system, S, 
implies truth 

 

 

You actually misstate my position, as I understand it.  Nick's assertion so far 
implies no truth, anymore than his discussion of Unicorns implies the existence 
of Unicorns.  In some ways, Nick’s assertion is MORE ARROGANT than you suppose. 
 It is an assertion concerning what “WE” mean by truth.  It asserts only that 
If any Truth exists, that is what it would look like.  You (or anybody else, 
for that matter) can prove me wrong by asserting another definition of Truth, 
but so far nobody has done that.  

 

Or am I completely off the rails, here. 

 

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 g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:21 AM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Whew!  Fantastic thread!  I'm grateful to be able to witness it.

 

I'd like to point out that Peirce (and as Dave points out, many of us) are what 
I'd call "Grand Unified Modelers" (GUMmers): those who think there is, in R. 
Rosen's terms a "largest model" ... a penultimate language that if we could 
only learn and speak *that* language, what Nick's describing as Peirce's defn 
of "truth" would be accurate.

 

Solomon Feferman has worked on this problem and his (now old) initial 
submission is described here:

 

  Gödel, Nagel, minds and machines

   <https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf> 
https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf

 

It's probably important to read the whole thing.  But you could just jump to 
section "5. One way to straddle the mechanist and anti-mechanist positions."

 

It's also useful to note that Lee Rudolph submitted a relevant piece awhile 
back: "Logic in Modeling", wherein he cites Soare's definition of a 
"computation", which requires it be *definite* ... i.e. that all variables be 
bound, which would outlaw Feferman's "schematic axioms".  (... if I understand 
correctly ... I am not a logician, mathematician, or meta-mathematician... so 
your results may vary.)

 

Peirce's (and Nick's) insistence on the definiteness/fixedness of the 
universe's "formal system S", is what lies at the heart of the disagreement 
between Nick and Dave.  I think it's also important to point out that BOTH Nick 
and Dave COULD BE wrong.  Dave's idea that "mathematical logic" is impoverished 
may not be right if something like Feferman's solution could work.  And Nick's 
idea that convergence within the universe's formal system, S, implies truth may 
be wrong if something like the problem Feferman (and Dave) are trying to solve 
actually is the case.

 

--

☣ 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> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Roger writes:

“This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas 
lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other 
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to 
persuade each other of truths.”

We hear complaints here periodically about how annoying it is that people are 
`pithy’.  First of all, let’s separate situations in which autonomy is desired 
and attention is scarce, from willing participation in a discussion.   In the 
first circumstance, being pithy is a way of communicating “Please leave me the 
f*** alone.”, or  I have no time (or limited time) for this.”   It is 
deliberately to flow-regulate communication bandwidth because the utility seems 
to be low.

Then there is are situations as in this article, in which it is hard to exhibit 
skepticism because it is posed as horrible -- a dystopian misogynistic insight 
into the male brain that cannot be qualified or deconstructed.   The Trump 
Access Hollywood tape was similar because it was put out as if it was 
sufficient evidence and not just evidence – to me it was more the campaign’s 
immediate absence of shame or regret that made it clear it was true this is how 
he thinks, and of course evidence from other women that came later.   He used 
it to consolidate consensus amongst his ranks by normalizing it, which is 
shocking in how well that worked.

I think women are often thought to be the usual victims of gas lighting, but I 
would say the reverse happens under the guise of  hypothetical or anecdotal 
male motivations like in the article.   (As opposed to childish nervous humor 
that can arise in awkward or overwhelming situations.)   Is it surprising that 
some men are accused “You are bad, despicable, untrustworthy and mean”, that 
they just don’t respond very well?   There’s an appropriate amount of 
accusation, and it needs to be followed by consideration of counter-argument.  
(In this case, say, the possibility that husband had real terror over the 
degree of an apparent injury.)   When that back and forth doesn’t happen, then 
people just start gas lighting one another, and divisions deepen.

This also reminds me of the objection to safe spaces at universities and the 
(supposed) danger of protecting snowflakes who should protect themselves by 
engaging in argument.  But in that situation the real question is who has the 
power and whether it is being used to intimidate.   If there are minority 
groups of people that have no way to speak without being ganged-up on and 
humiliated, yes, they do deserve protection by university policy, or at least 
some edgy bodyguards.   But if they are just white guys spouting far-right 
garbage in a conservative, white-dominated community, no they do not need 
protection by policy.  They are already safe.

I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks 
going after the Christian apologists.  But they were the ones gas lighting the 
passers-by.   Being an anti- gas lighter – a demolisher of belief -- is not 
being a gas lighter.   The complement of the gas-lighted message and it is a 
bigger, freer space, not a manipulation of innocents.

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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Roger,

 

Your post revealed a stupid typo in my message to Robert which I now want to 
correct.

 

“IT will cause us to mull” 

 

I have found the conversation about “Truth”  baffling because  it seems that 
others want to have a conversation about whether any T exists without coming to 
any preliminary understanding of what “T” means.   Now, in insisting that we 
seek that preliminary conversation, I perhaps am validating Dave’s accusation 
that I am demanding that the conversation take a particular form that 
presupposes that it will reach my favored conclusion.  But here is where you 
might help:  Let it be the case that instead of first defining terms we just 
launch into a discussion of whether there is any T in the world, how would we 
know when we had an answer if we had NOT previously come to an agreement about 
the meaning of “T”?  So, OK.  Let’s say our discussion method is to drop acid.  
So after 12 hours of sweats and keenings we all agree that we have found T.  
What happens when we come off the drug?  And even knowing how often engineers 
screw up, would you rather cross a bridge designed by engineers or one designed 
by FRIAMMERS on LSD?  

 

>From my point of view, the conversation keeps misfiring.  I keep offering a 
>definition of T, a statement of what we have in mind when we say, “T”.  And 
>people keep disagreeing with me WITHOUT giving an alternative definition of 
>“T.”I get that they think that there is no such thing as “T”; what I don’t 
>get I what they mean when they say that.  

 

How is the boat?  It must be something, there in the harbor.  October light.  
When do the shrink-wrappers come?  I hope not too soon. 

 

Has Glen’s warning caused you to disconnect from the web?  If I don’t hear from 
you, I will assume that the answer is, “Yes!”

 

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: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

I looked at Dave's listicle of truths about truths and the semi-disclaimer 
that, despite their imperative statement, that they weren't to be taken as 
truth.  Then I ran into this essay, 
https://electricliterature.com/what-i-dont-tell-my-students-about-the-husband-stitch-690899157394,
 which is the second time one of Machado's stories has crossed my trail in the 
past weeks.

 

This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas 
lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other 
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to 
persuade each other of truths.   And we do this persuading by calling attention 
to or away from different aspects of our shared existence. Pay no attention to 
the man behind the curtain.

 

-- rec --

 

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net 
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.  

 

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 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Steven writes:

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Nick responds to Steven with:

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and 
molecular 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Whew!  Fantastic thread!  I'm grateful to be able to witness it.

I'd like to point out that Peirce (and as Dave points out, many of us) are what 
I'd call "Grand Unified Modelers" (GUMmers): those who think there is, in R. 
Rosen's terms a "largest model" ... a penultimate language that if we could 
only learn and speak *that* language, what Nick's describing as Peirce's defn 
of "truth" would be accurate.

Solomon Feferman has worked on this problem and his (now old) initial 
submission is described here:

  Gödel, Nagel, minds and machines
  https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf

It's probably important to read the whole thing.  But you could just jump to 
section "5. One way to straddle the mechanist and anti-mechanist positions."

It's also useful to note that Lee Rudolph submitted a relevant piece awhile 
back: "Logic in Modeling", wherein he cites Soare's definition of a 
"computation", which requires it be *definite* ... i.e. that all variables be 
bound, which would outlaw Feferman's "schematic axioms".  (... if I understand 
correctly ... I am not a logician, mathematician, or meta-mathematician... so 
your results may vary.)

Peirce's (and Nick's) insistence on the definiteness/fixedness of the 
universe's "formal system S", is what lies at the heart of the disagreement 
between Nick and Dave.  I think it's also important to point out that BOTH Nick 
and Dave COULD BE wrong.  Dave's idea that "mathematical logic" is impoverished 
may not be right if something like Feferman's solution could work.  And Nick's 
idea that convergence within the universe's formal system, S, implies truth may 
be wrong if something like the problem Feferman (and Dave) are trying to solve 
actually is the case.

-- 
☣ 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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:

“3- It is not a pose. My antipathy for rule, convention, certitude in almost 
any form is very real and very essential to my sense of self. You have no 
comprehension of the sense of alienation this conviction engenders.”

And yet the From line says “Prof David West”.  Back to anarchist school for you.

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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Roger Critchlow]

I looked at Dave's listicle of truths about truths and the semi-disclaimer
that, despite their imperative statement, that they weren't to be taken as
truth.  Then I ran into this essay, https://electricliterature.com/what-i-
dont-tell-my-students-about-the-husband-stitch-690899157394, which is the
second time one of Machado's stories has crossed my trail in the past weeks.

This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is
gas lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each
other crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually
trying to persuade each other of truths.   And we do this persuading by
calling attention to or away from different aspects of our shared
existence. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

-- rec --

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.
>
>
>
> Thank 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 *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
>
>
> Steven writes:
>
>
>
> What of examples of *convergent evolution* where similar structures (with
> similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not
> claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that anything
> "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions
> around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or
> "discovered" or "recognized".
>
>
>
> A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in
> cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example
> is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes
> from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble
> in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has
> apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...
>
>
>
> Nick responds to Steven with:
>
>
>
> Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic
> chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So,
> an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is
> that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and
> precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.
>
>
>
> I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and
> found this version of that "truth"--
>
>
>
> *National Geographic*: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar
> genetic building blocks
> <http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/16/jellyfish-and-human-eyes-assembled-using-similar-genetic-building-blocks/>
> (2008).
>
>
>
> The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important
> innovations, such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes
> are used, rather than adding new ones to the mix.
>
>
>
> This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent
> with Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and
> in addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot
> of time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to
> consider along with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like
> Marcus' programmer with a discernable personality:
>
>
>
> According to this analysis (*Nautilus *2016) concerning the Hox gene
> circuit
> <http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp>,
> there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping)
> to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.
>
>
>
> Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different
> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit,
> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don’t
> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of
> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two
> vertebrates there are around 4

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

al to listen to the other and
insisting that the only means for finding convergence is everyone
adopting one side's language and worldview and crafting the conversation
on that basis.
dmw

> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 01:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Hi, Dave,


>>  


>> See larding below.  I have to say, this still doesn't quite sound
>> like you.>>  


>> 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,
>> October 16, 2017 12:27 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
>> Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”>>  


>> Naw back at ya. I am not picking a fight or being contentious just to
>> be contentious. I am trying to be a little dog nipping at the heels
>> of assumptions and presuppositions.>>  


>> Because this list is not a scholarly forum where you spend an
>> exquisite amount of time picking your words and making your
>> statements as precise as possible I am assuming that your language
>> reveals said assumptions/presuppositions. So when you use rational
>> man, I think you really deep down mean exactly that. And when you shy
>> away from that as in the post I am responding to, you still cannot
>> get away from your core position.>> **[NST==> This I would characterize as 
>> an approach to discourse
>> roughly equivalent to “in vino veritas”.  It is the assumption that
>> the most accurate representation of a person’s view of the world is
>> its most unguarded presentation.  Notice that your sentence above
>> presumes a truth of some matter, “Thompson’s Real View”.  So far as
>> I am concerned, that presumption concedes the ONLY POINT I have
>> been arguing for in our discussion … so far.  It concedes the
>> MEANING of the word “truth”.  You will notice that unlike yourself,
>> I have not in this conversation EVER argued (yet) for the truth of
>> any matter, other than what we are referring to when we refer to
>> truth.  <==nst] **>>  


>> We have two people with two idiosyncratic opinions. Each communicates
>> his/her opinion to the other and they interact trying to discern what
>> each other means in order to see if their individual opinions are the
>> same, or somewhat the same, or substantially the same.  If the
>> conversation leads both parties to agreeing with each other that
>> their individual opinions are really the same, shared, opinion — even
>> if stated somewhat differently — voila, we have Truth. I think this
>> is a fair restatement of what you say (and say when channeling
>> Pierce).>> **[NST==>No, David.  It is absolutely Unfair, and I am surprised 
>> to
>> hear your say it.   When we speak of truth, we speak of something
>> beyond anything that you, or I, or any particular group of people
>> might believe.  But, contra Descartes, we do not speak of anything
>> outside of all possibility of human experience.  What we speak of is
>> that humans will converge on in the very long run, if indeed they
>> ever converge.  No convergence, no truth, because, on Peirce’s
>> account, that is what the term, truth, means.  Please, David, do not
>> continue beyond this point in this message without acknowledging that
>> my thesis is a thesis about the MEANING of the term, Truth.  And that
>> we have not yet begun the discussion concerning whether there exists
>> any such thing.  Until we see eye to eye on that, the discussion is
>> stupid.  It would be like a discussion in which I would say, “a
>> unicorn is a horse with a horn in the middle of it’s nose” and you
>> keep replying, “NO, NICK.  There ARE no unicorns.  Until we have
>> agreed on a definition of a unicorn, the question of its existence
>> cannot even come up.xx <==nst] **>>  


>> However ... the first imposition on the process focuses on the
>> language we use to communicate/interact. I believe that Pierce, you,
>> and all of the scientists and mathematicians and CS types on this
>> list are going to insist on using a very narrow set of languages and
>> would prefer just one>> - mathematical logic. Definitely one with well 
>> defined terms and
>>   formalized grammar, i.e. one that is "rational.">> **[NST==>You are posing 
>> here as the romantic outlier, a pose that
>> both Glen and Marcus, and many other

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Dave, 

 

See larding below.  I have to say, this still doesn't quite sound like you. 

 

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, October 16, 2017 12:27 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Naw back at ya. I am not picking a fight or being contentious just to be 
contentious. I am trying to be a little dog nipping at the heels of assumptions 
and presuppositions.

 

Because this list is not a scholarly forum where you spend an exquisite amount 
of time picking your words and making your statements as precise as possible I 
am assuming that your language reveals said assumptions/presuppositions. So 
when you use rational man, I think you really deep down mean exactly that. And 
when you shy away from that as in the post I am responding to, you still cannot 
get away from your core position.

[NST==> This I would characterize as an approach to discourse roughly 
equivalent to “in vino veritas”.  It is the assumption that the most accurate 
representation of a person’s view of the world is its most unguarded 
presentation.  Notice that your sentence above presumes a truth of some matter, 
“Thompson’s Real View”.  So far as I am concerned, that presumption concedes 
the ONLY POINT I have been arguing for in our discussion … so far.  It concedes 
the MEANING of the word “truth”.  You will notice that unlike yourself, I have 
not in this conversation EVER argued (yet) for the truth of any matter, other 
than what we are referring to when we refer to truth.  <==nst] 

 

We have two people with two idiosyncratic opinions. Each communicates his/her 
opinion to the other and they interact trying to discern what each other means 
in order to see if their individual opinions are the same, or somewhat the 
same, or substantially the same.  If the conversation leads both parties to 
agreeing with each other that their individual opinions are really the same, 
shared, opinion — even if stated somewhat differently — voila, we have Truth. I 
think this is a fair restatement of what you say (and say when channeling 
Pierce).

[NST==>No, David.  It is absolutely Unfair, and I am surprised to hear your say 
it.   When we speak of truth, we speak of something beyond anything that you, 
or I, or any particular group of people might believe.  But, contra Descartes, 
we do not speak of anything outside of all possibility of human experience.  
What we speak of is that humans will converge on in the very long run, if 
indeed they ever converge.  No convergence, no truth, because, on Peirce’s 
account, that is what the term, truth, means.  Please, David, do not continue 
beyond this point in this message without acknowledging that my thesis is a 
thesis about the MEANING of the term, Truth.  And that we have not yet begun 
the discussion concerning whether there exists any such thing.  Until we see 
eye to eye on that, the discussion is stupid.  It would be like a discussion in 
which I would say, “a unicorn is a horse with a horn in the middle of it’s 
nose” and you keep replying, “NO, NICK.  There ARE no unicorns.  Until we have 
agreed on a definition of a unicorn, the question of its existence cannot even 
come up.xx <==nst] 

 

However ... the first imposition on the process focuses on the language we use 
to communicate/interact. I believe that Pierce, you, and all of the scientists 
and mathematicians and CS types on this list are going to insist on using a 
very narrow set of languages and would prefer just one

- mathematical logic. Definitely one with well defined terms and formalized 
grammar, i.e. one that is "rational."

[NST==>You are posing here as the romantic outlier, a pose that both Glen and 
Marcus, and many others of us would like to contend you for.  All I can say is, 
if everybody on the list agrees with me, why am I arguing with them all.   
<==nst] 

 

Well of course you say; how else could we proceed?

 

Well, one possibility is that you come over and we drop acid together - or 
better yet the one hallucinogen derived from the Ariocarpus cactus that 
empirical evidence suggests yields consensual hallucinations - and we use that 
'language' to see if our opinions converge.

 

You are nuts, you say.

[NST==>It would be convenient for your argument if I said that, but I don’t.  I 
would say only that at 80 I have a hard enough time moving through my world 
without taking hallucinogens, and so I probably won’t do that.  Also, I can’t 
immediately think of any reason why accuracy of perception or happiness would 
arise from mucking with my cognitive capacities, such as they are.  It aint 
much, but it’s what I got.  <==nst] 

 

AHA! I s

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Naw back at ya. I am not picking a fight or being contentious just to be
contentious. I am trying to be a little dog nipping at the heels of
assumptions and presuppositions.

Because this list is not a scholarly forum where you spend an exquisite
amount of time picking your words and making your statements as precise
as possible I am assuming that your language reveals said
assumptions/presuppositions. So when you use rational man, I think you
really deep down mean exactly that. And when you shy away from that as
in the post I am responding to, you still cannot get away from your core
position.

We have two people with two idiosyncratic opinions. Each communicates
his/her opinion to the other and they interact trying to discern what
each other means in order to see if their individual opinions are the
same, or somewhat the same, or substantially the same.  If the
conversation leads both parties to agreeing with each other that their
individual opinions are really the same, shared, opinion — even if
stated somewhat differently — voila, we have Truth. I think this is a
fair restatement of what you say (and say when channeling Pierce).

However ... the first imposition on the process focuses on the language
we use to communicate/interact. I believe that Pierce, you, and all of
the scientists and mathematicians and CS types on this list are going to
insist on using a very narrow set of languages and would prefer just one
- mathematical logic. Definitely one with well defined terms and
formalized grammar, i.e. one that is "rational."

Well of course you say; how else could we proceed?

Well, one possibility is that you come over and we drop acid together -
or better yet the one hallucinogen derived from the Ariocarpus cactus
that empirical evidence suggests yields consensual hallucinations - and
we use that 'language' to see if our opinions converge.

You are nuts, you say.

AHA! I say. You are privileging YOUR means of communication and
simultaneously asserting that Truth can only be found within the set of
possible conversations conducted using YOUR language and YOUR rules of
conversation/interaction. 

Now, let us return to your signal. Imagine we have a thousand people
listening to it. 999 of them use your statistical/probability tests and
agree that is is simply noise - a random signal. I, on the other hand,
recognize that the signal is the voice of God, speaking the Language of
the Birds, and He is giving me clear and precise knowledge.

So what is True? Is the signal noise or is it knowledge?

And further suppose that I write some bad free verse that manages to
bypass the conscious and speak directly to the subconscious and the 999
slowly begin to agree with my position vis a vis the signal? At what
point does the Truth shift from noise to knowledge? (BTW, I would argue
that their simply agreeing with me based on what they understand of my
poetry, is insufficient - they must actually experience and directly
perceive the signal before we can be accord.)

The main point I made in my polemic, and continue to make: Pierce,
science, 'reasonable and rational' beings can never find more than local
Truth, for themselves, and it is immoral to impose that Truth on others.

Ceding a point - Pierce, and scientists, are not wrong when they assume
that their approach leads to truth as long as they restrict the domain
of application to things like Physics, Math, and Logic. I vehemently
react, negatively, when they blithely assert that the same approach is
appropriate for finding truth in epistemology, morality, social
conventions, public policy, governance, etc. etc. 

dmw

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Naw.  Come on Dave.  You're just picking a fight!  I don't meed the
> "rational man" at all.  All I need is that people either will, or will
> not, share an opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by
> definition, if shared, is what we mean by truth.  And the edge I am
> talking about here is emotional.  I  am not pressing this view with the
> ferocity that you take me for.  Persistence, perhaps, but not ferocity.  
> 
> 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, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
> 
> Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
> FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
> compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.
> 
> The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
> you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.  

 

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 Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Steven writes:

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Nick responds to Steven with:

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and 
molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative 
theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we 
earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an 
infinite number of better ones.   

 

I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and found 
this version of that "truth"-- 

 

National Geographic: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic 
building blocks 
<http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/06/16/jellyfish-and-human-eyes-assembled-using-similar-genetic-building-blocks/>
  (2008).

 

The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important innovations, 
such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes are used, rather 
than adding new ones to the mix.

 

This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent with 
Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and in 
addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot of 
time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to consider along 
with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like Marcus' programmer 
with a discernable personality: 

 

According to this analysis ( 
<http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp> 
Nautilus 2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit, there doesn't seem to be enough 
time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping) to be explanatory. The numbers tend 
to say this would be absurd. 

 

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary developmental 
biology that the different body plans of many complex organisms, including us, 
arise not from different genes but from different networks of gene interaction 
and expression in the same basic circuit, called the Hox gene circuit. To get 
from a snake to a human, you don’t need a bunch of completely different genes, 
but just a different pattern of wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene 
circuit. For these two vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If 
you take account of the different ways that these genes might regulate one 
another (for example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number 
of possible circuits is more than 10700. That’s a lot, lot more than the number 
of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are the 
chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or “human” 
traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did evolution 
manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?

 

So, it seems that nature's methodology seems more akin to design engineering 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_engineer>  than development from scratch 
(subgenomic?); that is, creating new applications (biological inventions) from 
a rearrangement of the parts (e.g., atoms, molecules, genes) of existing parts. 
 This also seems consistent with Nick (something is conserved|reused--genes, 
including regulatory ones that seem to quicken adaptation), Marcus (seeing this 
Hox gene circuit as the preference of the programmer), Dave [Heraclitus, Henri 
Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead] ("Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat 
death’ (at which time there might be a single Truth), everything changes and 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Robert Wall]

them to think more generally in terms of
> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the
> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,”
> ​  ---
> *Scientific America*: A New Physics Theory of Life
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/>
>  [2014]
> ​.​
>

This theory of England's seems to resonate with Dave's "Nothing IS except
in context and therefore only local – situated- ‘truths’ are possible."

But is there *any *"truth" to be found in physics, chemistry, or biology
then?  Is it all context dependent?  Postmodern like?  For example, we live
in this universe with these initial conditions and so these possible
resulting laws, so, all ultimate truth is to be reducible to physics ...

>From his books I have read, American theoretical physicist Lee Smolin
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin>, I think, would say that even
these laws are ephemeral.  Time (measured or psychological?) is the only
fundamental truth.  Everything else is emergent, even space.  With this
realization, Smolin asserts, physics takes on a new and interesting
paradigm that seem to converge to testable hypotheses with a more
conceptual economy--Occam's Razor.

But maybe this is why Nick says "For these reasons, I shy away for using
these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. "

Perhaps, observed physical phenomena and theories about those phenomena
based on those instrumented human observers converge only in human
consciousness ... and in statistical experiments ... allowing Nick's
"Philosopher Stone" to be so predictive the more we observe and
measure.   Surely, reality does not care what we think it is ... but we
have a desperate need to see consistency to at least feel in control. Our
axiom-borne theories and  models are monuments to this "affliction."

Dave writes:

That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in
> building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation
> and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds.
> (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously,
> empathy.)


Anyway, for what it is worth, I find this thread intriguing and will be
interested where it goes from here ...  I really do not think that this
will converge to a simple, single truth.  As Frank contributes:

Nick, David: you are both correct.


How can that be?!  What would pragmatic Peirce say ...? 

Cheers,

Robert


On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
>
>
> As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like
> your “eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over
> the long haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic
> chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So,
> an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is
> that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and
> precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.
>
>
>
> For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in
> these sorts of arguments.
>
>
>
> And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the
> facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite
> clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually
> matter.  He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the
> form of a convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long
> run.
>
>
>
> 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:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM
>
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
>
>
> Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this
> argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.
>
>
>
> What of examples of *convergent evolution* where similar structures (with
> similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not
> claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that anything
> "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstracti

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Steven, 

 

As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like your 
“eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over the long 
haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul. 

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and 
molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative 
theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of vision we 
earthly organisms use was hit upon early and precluded the development of an 
infinite number of better ones.   

 

For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in these 
sorts of arguments.  

 

And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the facts 
of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite clear that 
that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually matter.  He only 
asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the form of a 
convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long run.  

 

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: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument 
(as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of 
"Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a 
construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to 
consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures 
they describe/explain themselves.

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)


I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs. 

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam  <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on 
behalf of Prof David West  <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> <profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses th

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus, 

 

In trying to explicate Peirce’s definition of truth, I am not talking about  
short term group think..  Remember, if convergence, in the very long run of 
time, never occurs, then there is no Truth of the matter, by definition, and 
Dave is right.   My sense is that Dave is trying to turn a Pragmati[ci]st 
definition into a Cartesian one and then hang it around my neck like a 
road-killed skunk. 

 

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: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:39 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Dave writes:

 

> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)


I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs. 

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.

 

If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.

 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> >
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

 

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David, 
> 
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.  
> 
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Hi glen, 

This may be a late Peirce/Early Peirce thing.  I confess to not having much of 
a grip on the late Peirce, which seems to fade away into irrationalism, for me. 

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 gepr ?
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:08 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism. 
So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to 
focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like 
Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help clarify any 
disagreements. I think his conception of reality relies on a principle of 
plenitude where his conception of existence does not.  So I think it's a 
mistake to limit the conversation to truth/reality.


On October 14, 2017 11:59:08 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> 
wrote:
>
>You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he 
>is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have 
>your own `truths'.
>It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one 
>that can see and hear.

--
⛧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
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] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

The measurements, by different means, either will or will not converge on a 
common opinion.  Science does that all the time.  That’s how bridges get built, 
no?  The great majority of bridges actually carry weight.  And so we continue, 
never certain, but making a winning bet almost every time we get on an airplane 
to Vienna. 

 

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: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:59 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

 

Nick writes:

 

"Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a 
signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the 
signal."


You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he is deaf. 
 Communication may be challenging and so you may each have your own `truths'. 
It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one that can 
see and hear. 

Marcus

  _  

From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net 
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:50:17 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” 

 

David, 

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come 
back so I can administer cold compresses.  

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have 
said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't 
think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy 
antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are 
interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either 
be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal 
give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a 
sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.But now let us 
double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the 
measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, 
and diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both 
would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not 
random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from 
a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  
It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency 
 can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain 
of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, 
the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences 
will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s 
account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to 
bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be 
confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all 
that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be 
if there ever were any. 

Come back.  We miss 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/> 

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> Natural Designs - 
EarthLink

home.earthlink.net <http://home.earthlink.net> 

Natural Theologists were a group of scientist/christians who believed that the 
best way to know God was to study nature. If only I believed in God ...




-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick 
since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) 
use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; 
and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at 
minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Naw.  Come on Dave.  You're just picking a fight!  I don't meed the "rational 
man" at all.  All I need is that people either will, or will not, share an 
opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by definition, if shared, is 
what we mean by truth.  And the edge I am talking about here is emotional.  I  
am not pressing this view with the ferocity that you take me for.  Persistence, 
perhaps, but not ferocity.  

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, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at FRIAM for 
a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold compresses then, 
or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First, you 
propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the 'certainty' 
of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method privileged? I.e. what 
is it about Probability that merits using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More 
egregious is the use of the term "rational man" — this is what I meant about 
allowing only some individuals at the conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
> 
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  
> Please come back so I can administer cold compresses.
> 
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I 
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of 
> edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine 
> that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer 
> space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I 
> say, the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that 
> the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 
> hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the 
> measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double 
> again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is 
> not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample 
> is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's 
> that way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is 
> random, and no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man 
> that the randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man 
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be 
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s 
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  
> It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the 
> midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
> 
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything 
> at all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what 
> truth would be if there ever were any.
> 
> Come back.  We miss you. 
> 
> 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: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
> 
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with 
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the 
> past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in 
> a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of 
> assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I 
> am making no such claim, as will be explained later.
> 
> There can be no Truth.
>    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Steve writes:


..
So if we exclude the compelling argument that evolution has invented the same 
kinds of solutions over and over -- there are objective, universal constraints 
to optimize around and a relatively constrained solution space that would 
nonetheless take decades of engineering effort for skilled humans -- then, why 
should we take the alternative formal systems that humans use as evidence of 
the possibility different Truths and not just a bunch of psychobabble?   In 
some sense our meta-patterns we arrogantly upgrade to Theory aren't so 
impressive compared to the diversity of life on earth.


Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith 
<sasm...@swcp.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:41:52 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”


Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this argument 
(as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.


What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".


A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...


Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of 
"Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is entirely a 
construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is useful to 
consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to the structures 
they describe/explain themselves.


Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.


If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.


Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com><mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> on 
behalf of Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm><mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody ha

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:


"I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair 
of the world and how the program would deal with it."


I had a discussion with a manager the other day where the question was raised 
"What is the function of this project?"  (In other words, how does it change 
how the machine moves from state to state or how does it improve life for 
users.)   I replied, "It is to change how developers feel about the project."  
In fact, the project serves no other purpose but to address frustration and 
stated complaints (valid or not) about their daily work.  To make them feel 
that their theory of the world is valid, so that perhaps they will engage in 
the way that is needed.I suppose it also has a more subtle purpose too, to 
show these same managers, that once these individuals feel validated, they will 
soon find something else to complain about, such as, say, the resolution to 
their first set of complaints.   ;-)


Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West 
<profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:57:17 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Marcus, you are correct re: the program itself and the theory of how the 
program is supposed to work and even the personalities / style of the coders.

I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an affair 
of the world and how the program would deal with it. This is quite different 
from the idea of theory ala Brooks which was only of how the machine was 
operating and moving from state to state - i.e. the succession of states and 
the congruence of source code to executing compiled code.

davew




On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.


If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.


Marcus



From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West 
<profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”


Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the s

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Steven A Smith]

Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this 
argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.



What of examples of /convergent evolution/ where similar structures 
(with similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I 
would not claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that 
anything "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical 
abstractions around form/function and utility can be "reverse 
engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".



A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous 
example is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this 
example comes from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's 
dual-field/gradient babble in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast 
metabolic duality) which has apparently been "discovered" or "invented" 
tens of times...



Platonists might believe in fundamental reality being in the domain of 
"Abstract Theory" but I believe the opposite... that "Theory" is 
entirely a construct of consciousness and is a "meta-pattern" which is 
useful to consciousness for prediction and explanation but irrelevant to 
the structures they describe/explain themselves.




Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)


I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the 
artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are 
objective about the behavior of the program.  One can learn from other 
sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can 
establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation 
of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such 
programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the 
author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them 
too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.



If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly 
arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of 
attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have 
very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only 
thing that really holds them together are consequential logical 
constraints in their work products.



Marcus


*From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West 
<profw...@fastmail.fm>

*Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely 
Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this: Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer 
space.

>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double aga

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Marcus, you are correct re: the program itself and the theory of how
the program is supposed to work and even the personalities / style of
the coders.
I was not sufficiently clear about Naur. For him the 'theory' was of an
affair of the world and how the program would deal with it. This is
quite different from the idea of theory ala Brooks which was only of how
the machine was operating and moving from state to state - i.e. the
succession of states and the congruence of source code to executing
compiled code.
davew




On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Dave writes:


> 


> > Specifically that a program was
>  > the expression of a consensual theory share among those that
>  > developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of
>  > the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot
>  > be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be
>  > transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission
>  > would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)> 
> I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.
> While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the
> artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are
> objective about the behavior of the program.   One can learn from
> other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can
> establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation
> of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of working on such
> programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the
> author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting
> them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what
> is done.> 


> If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly
> arises when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of
> attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have
> very different ideas about what they are doing and why.   The only
> thing that really holds them together are consequential logical
> constraints in their work products.> 


> Marcus


> 
> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West
> <profw...@fastmail.fm> *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is
> it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”>  
> 
> Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
> FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply
> cold compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.
>
>  The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response.
>  First, you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery
>  of the 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that
>  method privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits
>  using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the
>  term "rational man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some
>  individuals at the conversational table.
>
>  see you in December
>
>
>  On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>  > David,
>  >
>  > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.
>  > Please  come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>  >
>  > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of
>  > things I have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has
>  > a kind of edge I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:
>  > Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a
>  > signal from outer space. Imagine you are interested in the
>  > frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either be
>  > random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the
>  > signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely
>  > possible that such a sample of measurements could be produced by a
>  > random signal.But now let us double the number of readings, and
>  > let us also notice that the variation of the measurements has also
>  > diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
>  > diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While
>  > we both would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the
>  > signal is not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that
>  > such a sample is drawn from a population of measurements with a
>  > mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  It's quite possible that
>  > our experience is random, and no amount of consistency  can ever
>  > convince a rational man th

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:


> Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)

I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs.

While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact 
alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the 
behavior of the program.   One can learn from other sources about the body of 
theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the 
structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts.  After years of 
working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things 
about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting 
them too.   It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done.


If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises 
when people cooperate.   Because of different levels of attention and literacy, 
a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what 
they are doing and why.   The only thing that really holds them together are 
consequential logical constraints in their work products.


Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West 
<profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
>

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Gary Schiltz]

And that's the God's Honest Truth :-)  Sorry, couldn't resist.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Nick, David: you are both correct.
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West"  wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
> FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
> compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.
>
> The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
> you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
> 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
> privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
> Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
> man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
> conversational table.
>
> see you in December
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> > come back so I can administer cold compresses.
> >
> > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> > have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> > I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> > have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
> >  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> > the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> > ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> > it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> > produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> > readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> > has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> > diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> > would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> > random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> > drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> > way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> > no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> > randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> > However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> > will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> > confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> > account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> > is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> > will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
> >
> > Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> > all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> > would be if there ever were any.
> >
> > Come back.  We miss you.
> >
> > 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: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > 
> > Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
> >
> > Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> > Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> > few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> > of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> > and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> > such claim, as will be explained later.
> >
> > There can be no Truth.
> >    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> > - ‘truths’ are possible.
> >    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> > might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> > ‘truths’ are possible.
> >    All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> > illusory.
> >
> > There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
> >    To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> > privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> > scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
> >
> > There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> > sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
> >    Trivially, this is merely an expression of the 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gepr ⛧]

Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism. 
So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to 
focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like 
Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help clarify any 
disagreements. I think his conception of reality relies on a principle of 
plenitude where his conception of existence does not.  So I think it's a 
mistake to limit the conversation to truth/reality.


On October 14, 2017 11:59:08 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  
wrote:
>
>You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he
>is deaf.  Communication may be challenging and so you may each have
>your own `truths'.
>It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one
>that can see and hear.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick, David: you are both correct.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West"  wrote:

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> 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: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>    All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>    To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>    Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>    More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:


"Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a 
signal from outer space.  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the 
signal."

You have the antenna, and he has a telescope, and you are blind and he is deaf. 
 Communication may be challenging and so you may each have your own `truths'.
It would be better to combine these measurements by finding some one that can 
see and hear.

Marcus


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 11:50:17 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

David,

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come 
back so I can administer cold compresses.

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have 
said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't 
think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy 
antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are 
interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either 
be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal 
give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a 
sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.But now let us 
double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the 
measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, 
and diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both 
would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not 
random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from 
a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  
It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency 
 can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain 
of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, 
the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences 
will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s 
account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to 
bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be 
confirmed in the very long run of human experience.

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all 
that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be 
if there ever were any.

Come back.  We miss you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
[http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/olddarwin.jpg]<http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>

Natural Designs - 
EarthLink<http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
home.earthlink.net
Natural Theologists were a group of scientist/christians who believed that the 
best way to know God was to study nature. If only I believed in God ...




-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick 
since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) 
use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; 
and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at 
minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be 
explained later.

There can be no Truth.
   Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
   Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral 
‘truths’ are possible.
   All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
   To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, scientific 
method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or 
sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
   Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
   More importantly it is a generalization o

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David, 
> 
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.  
> 
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random. 
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  
> 
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any. 
> 
> Come back.  We miss you. 
> 
> 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: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
> 
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
> 
> There can be no Truth.
>    Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>    Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>    All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
> 
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>    To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
> 
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>    Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>    More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

David, 

Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please come 
back so I can administer cold compresses.  

I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I have 
said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge I don't 
think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you have a fancy 
antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.  Imagine you are 
interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say, the signal can either 
be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last ten readings on the signal 
give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now, it's entirely possible that such a 
sample of measurements could be produced by a random signal.But now let us 
double the number of readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the 
measurements has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, 
and diminish the variation once again by root 2.And so on.  While we both 
would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not 
random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is drawn from 
a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that way with truth.  
It's quite possible that our experience is random, and no amount of consistency 
 can ever convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain 
of experiences is not random.  However, as experience increases in consistency, 
the same rational man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences 
will be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s 
account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It is to 
bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of will be 
confirmed in the very long run of human experience.  

Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at all 
that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth would be 
if there ever were any. 

Come back.  We miss you. 

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: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick 
since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) 
use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; 
and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at 
minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be 
explained later.

There can be no Truth.
   Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
   Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral 
‘truths’ are possible.
   All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
   To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, scientific 
method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or 
sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
   Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
   More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was the 
expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed it. That 
“theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building 
the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore 
cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission 
would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an 
intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing orthodoxy 
and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the ‘conversation’ 
espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every living person at once – 
and therefore can only result in a consensus of the few that that is to be 
imposed on all. A second reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed 
at the conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by 
specific rules of discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance 
expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:


"Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible."


This is why imperative programming is a bad idea.   Identify all possible 
dependencies, even if they don't seem relevant.   Those extra bits with name 
the different local situations.


Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Prof David West 

Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:01:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the
past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a
lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of
assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am
making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
   Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
   Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only
ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
   All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
   To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating
or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
   Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
   More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of
discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.



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