Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

One man's spam is another man's "valid content". For example, I learned this JavaScript trick from a ransomware attack I received awhile back: > this["eval"]("console.log(\'hello\')") hello Anyway, because you _personally_ recommend the book, I'll finally take a look. On 05/20/2016 10:52

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Yikes! I hope I didn't just add to your spam!  Also, I didn't realize how much more it sells for now! My introduction to Law was through a seminar I attended in Washington DC where I was a consultant. His book was the textbook used in an M class I took at George Mason University for my MS in

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

On 05/20/2016 10:11 AM, Robert Wall wrote: > Have you read Averill Law's /Simulation Modeling and Analysis/? Makes a good > reference too. Cheers. Not yet. I'm glad to hear you say that. I've been suspicious of Law's work because I get continual _spam_ from him (or his staff, or publishers

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

This is just kicking a dead scorpion ...  Thanks Glen for the follow-up. The whole curfuffle brings critical thinking to the forefront, and that ain't bad. To me, skepticism is a science-oriented version of mindfulness--being mindful of misgrounded or ungrounded, inculcated beliefs. Yes, it

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Dead horses notwithstanding, I found this comment chuckle-worthy: --- Mary Mangan • 2016-05-19 02:51 AM Heh. Yeah--imagine making evidence-free (aka "impressionistic") claims in front of a room full of people who value evidence. Who could have predicted that? --- That was a

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

On 05/18/2016 07:06 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > Yikes! Skeptic-on-skeptic fight! This linked article you bring Glen begs an > interesting question: When does a skeptic just become just a contrarian? I > mean, what do skeptics publish but skepticism and critiques contrary to the > topic at hand?

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Yikes! Skeptic-on-skeptic fight! This linked article you bring Glen begs an interesting question: When does a skeptic just become just a contrarian? I mean, what do skeptics publish but skepticism and critiques contrary to the topic at hand? Are they obliged, as Dr. Steven Novella insists, on

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

I'm that way, too. To wit, I really enjoyed this article: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics/ On 05/18/2016 05:13 PM, Robert Wall wrote: Personally, as an outside observer, I tend to learn more from a critical angle than from one that is

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Glen, I agree that there are some big science projects that would require government funding, especially--and perhaps only--when there is a verifiable public good as a possible potential outcome, IMHO. No, no Constitutional amendments as long as science remains science ... big or not ... but

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Whew! I'm a huge fan of Feyerabend. For a minute I was afraid you were allowing wackos like this guy: http://youtu.be/8XjR9f0DZJc I tend to think the way out of the trap is through citizen science (eg DIYBio and our own friends at GUTS). To some extent anything in big science must be gov

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Hi Glen, It took me a while to find where I read that argument. But, as it turns out, the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his *The End of Science *(1996) the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled "The End of Philosophy." There, Horgan was recounting the argument

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Is there any chance you might remember where you read that argument? I'll do some googling; but that can be pretty haphazard. On 05/17/2016 02:43 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > There was a thought-provoking argument I read somewhere recently about the > federal grants given to scientific research.

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

I don't feel hijacked. Thanks for the summary of Horgan's book. Don't have much to add at this point. On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:44 PM Robert Wall wrote: > Hi Russ, Steve, et al., > > I should tell you that I am reading John Horgan's *The End of Science: > Facing the

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Hi Russ, Steve, et al., I should tell you that I am reading John Horgan's *The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age* (2015 edition). Such an ominous title! I know. But here Horgan concludes for many scientific endeavors the job is finished [link

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

On 05/16/2016 07:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Pfft? Sorry. That's my attempt to write a raspberry ... I don't know the emoticon... =P maybe ... :-r ? Of course, pfft is a "dry" raspberry. To get the right effect, you have to stick your tongue out ... but you can't do that in polite

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

gns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:17 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on c

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

ffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness. What's missing are the methods for relating the patterns (including reachability - can you get there from here). It's fideistic to assert monism without giving some hypothetical method by which to resolve e

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

What's missing are the methods for relating the patterns (including reachability - can you get there from here). It's fideistic to assert monism without giving some hypothetical method by which to resolve even 2 (much less billions) into 1. Consciousness seems to me to be at least a 2nd

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

> > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ > Abbott > *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2016 11:48 AM > *To:* FRIAM <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness. > > > > An antidote f

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

ompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:48 AM To: FRIAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness. An antidote for Nick Thompsonism. I've summarized <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Ru

Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

Thanks. Russ. I've sympathetic to that perspective on matter. Somewhat relatedly to the consciousness research, here's John Horgan's skeptical observation "Dispatch from the Desert "

[FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

An antidote for Nick Thompsonism. I've summarized Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at