Friam

Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

I agree, here, that faking X is one organizational level above doing x. What tempts us to error is the notion that mental states are instantaneous, rather smeared over time and space.

I sometimes wonder what the relation is between how we think about cogntions …. Thoughts, feelings, motives, etc. …. And how we thing about velocity. Perhaps because of speedometers, we think that speed is a thing that can be true at an instant. But speed does not live in an instant, it LIVES in the domain of delta-T. I have wondered for years about the relation between our contemporary notions of mind and the calculus. The calculus allows us to squinch down things that live in the domain of Delta-t into instants. Similarly, our way of talking about feelings, motives, thoughts, etc., squinches these patterns of activity down into instants, when they themselves live in the domain of delta-t. Not to mention, the domain of delta[delta-t] and the domain of delta[delta[delta-t]], etc., ad nauseam. My history of modern philosophy is TERRIBLE but it seems to me that Descartes’s notion that a mind is the sort of thing that can be seen veridically only by the mind-holder leads to the calculus. Was my high school math teacher (who was also the football coach) correct to tell me that the Cartesian plane is where the calculus was born?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:55 PM
To: glen
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people

Glen said: In [Sarbajit's example of cult indoctrination], there is still a missing piece between the social comfort brought by the increasing participation in various activities versus some belief ascribed to the cult members. I would posit that a mole/infiltrator could participate in a cult quite a long time, dancing, changing, murdering starlets in their homes, etc. _without_ actually believing the doctrines of the cult (much like most Catholics I've met). So, what we need is an idea of how we get to belief from these actions. How do we distinguish "lip service" or facetious dancing and chanting from the chanting and dancing of the true believers?

-----

But Glen, when you talk about the infiltrator, or the person

"paying lip-service", you are just appealing to a larger pattern of

behavior.

Agreeing with your assertion, "faking belief" looks different

than "belief"... if you can see enough of the person's behavior and/or see a

close enough level of detail.

We distinguish the two exactly by

determining which larger pattern of behavior exists. This is not proposing some

radically new way of thinking about psychology... it is proposing that we deal

with psychology the same way any other science deals with its special subject

matter. Take Chemistry: 

There are many, many chemicals that look the

same to the human eye, and which react the same under

many conditions (for example, when a set volume is put on a scale), but which

react differently under other conditions (for example, when put in a particular

solution). The chemicals are distinguished by observing a variety of ways in

which the chemicals interact with the world. Similarly, a person who believes X

and a person faking belief in X are distinguished by observing a wide variety

of ways in which the people interact with the world.

Also, for the

record, one of the problems with using "moles" is that it is very difficult to

get people capable of participating in cultural practices of these sorts over

extended periods without becoming believers. The practices become normal to

you, the group becomes "your group", and even if you can still turn them

in/report on them/whatever you are supposed to do, you become sympathetic.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Arlo Barnes

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

So if you are saying that actions are the derivative of feelings, because feelings are [an interpretation of] a trend, does that mean all we have to do to perceive intent is to find the integral of an action function, indefinite as the result may be?

-Arlo James Barnes

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

I nominate this for the coveted (yet prestigious) award of FRIAM Sentence of the Year!

Seriously, this one sentence captures the essence of what it means to be on this list. If it were allowed, I'd award extra points for it having been delivered concisely, if not precisely.

Long-time members of this list will recognize the magnitude of the honor this award would represent.

I shall leave you all to ponder the the integral of my action function.

--Doug

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

So if you are saying that actions are the derivative of feelings, because feelings are [an interpretation of] a trend, does that mean all we have to do to perceive intent is to find the integral of an action function, indefinite as the result may be?
-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Steve Smith

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

A friend of mine gave me (at age 16) a placard which said:

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that what you heard is what I meant"

Anytime someone's sentences come packed a bit too tight for me to unpack easily or if I am confused or even offended by what appears to be a complex convolution, I remember that phrase.

I have come to trust Arlo to mean exactly what he says even if or when it is beyond my focus or context to parse it well...

In that spirit (being not completely sure how tightly in his cheek Doug's tongue was planted when he wrote this), I happily second Arlo's most excellent one-liner (are parenthetical inclusions allowed technically in one-liners?).

- Steve

I nominate this for the coveted (yet prestigious) award of FRIAM Sentence of the Year!

Seriously, this one sentence captures the essence of what it means to be on this list. If it were allowed, I'd award extra points for it having been delivered concisely, if not precisely.

Long-time members of this list will recognize the magnitude of the honor this award would represent.

I shall leave you all to ponder the the integral of my action function.

--Doug

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

So if you are saying that actions are the derivative of feelings, because feelings are [an interpretation of] a trend, does that mean all we have to do to perceive intent is to find the integral of an action function, indefinite as the result may be?
-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

Perhaps (or perhaps not).

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

A friend of mine gave me (at age 16) a placard which said:

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that what you heard is what I meant"

Anytime someone's sentences come packed a bit too tight for me to unpack easily or if I am confused or even offended by what appears to be a complex convolution, I remember that phrase.

I have come to trust Arlo to mean exactly what he says even if or when it is beyond my focus or context to parse it well...

In that spirit (being not completely sure how tightly in his cheek Doug's tongue was planted when he wrote this), I happily second Arlo's most excellent one-liner (are parenthetical inclusions allowed technically in one-liners?).

- Steve
I nominate this for the coveted (yet prestigious) award of FRIAM Sentence of the Year!

Seriously, this one sentence captures the essence of what it means to be on this list. If it were allowed, I'd award extra points for it having been delivered concisely, if not precisely.

Long-time members of this list will recognize the magnitude of the honor this award would represent.

I shall leave you all to ponder the the integral of my action function.

--Doug

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

So if you are saying that actions are the derivative of feelings, because feelings are [an interpretation of] a trend, does that mean all we have to do to perceive intent is to find the integral of an action function, indefinite as the result may be?
-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Nick Thompson

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

In reply to this post by Arlo Barnes

Arlo,

Well, I am not really man enough to say anything like that, but if I were, I think I would more likely say that feelings are the derivative of actions. When we speak of intentions we are actually “instantiating” actions. Velocity at an instant is a kind of non-sense which modern science has made good use of. Intention at an instant is a similar kind of nonsense, but I am not sure psychology has made good on it.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

-Arlo James Barnes

Eric Charles

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Arlo,
Yes and no. Yes, that is the general idea: When we start using psychological terms, we are talking about some pattern of action-relative-to-the-world. If that pattern is a function, then any given behavior akin to a point value and/or the derivative at that point depending on how we want to look at it. So, then, No: At least in that calculus-on-a-function is certainly not the only mathematics available to us, and I wouldn't want to commit hastily to that particular definition of 'feelings'.

Glen,
Yes, that is the book! It is not too surprising no one has it yet. You will note that the official publication date was 5 weeks ago. That is close enough that I couldn't even be sure if any copies have even shipped yet. Here is the link to the publisher http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415444828/

Eric

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 01:39 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

So if you are saying that actions are the derivative of feelings, because feelings are [an interpretation of] a trend, does that mean all we have to do to perceive intent is to find the integral of an action function, indefinite as the result may be?
-Arlo James Barnes
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Nick Thompson

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Steve,

As for the tongue in cheek, this is my best guess. Doug thought that Arlo’s statement was a reduction ad absurdum. In fact, it stated very clearly the kind of thing I had in mind. You will pardon the expression. Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

Perhaps (or perhaps not).

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

A friend of mine gave me (at age 16) a placard which said:

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure that what you heard is what I meant"

I nominate this for the coveted (yet prestigious) award of FRIAM Sentence of the Year!

Seriously, this one sentence captures the essence of what it means to be on this list. If it were allowed, I'd award extra points for it having been delivered concisely, if not precisely.

Long-time members of this list will recognize the magnitude of the honor this award would represent.

I shall leave you all to ponder the the integral of my action function.

--Doug
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
So if you are saying that actions are the derivative of feelings, because feelings are [an interpretation of] a trend, does that mean all we have to do to perceive intent is to find the integral of an action function, indefinite as the result may be?
-Arlo James Barnes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

wrt
> My history of modern philosophy is TERRIBLE but it seems to me that
> Descartes’s notion that a mind is the sort of thing that can be seen
> veridically only by the mind-holder leads to the calculus. Was my high
> school math teacher (who was also the football coach) correct to tell me
> that the Cartesian plane is where the calculus was born?

The Cartesian "plane" may (or may not) have been where calculus was born,
but Hamiltonian calculus was where it all came together for 3
dimensional "space"

When Hamilton asserts "The quotient of two vectors is GENERALLY a
quaternion" it opens up an infinity of possibly queer (hermaphroditic
???) non-quarternions. Previously he worked out that "The product of
two Right Quarternions is generally a Quaternion""

Now if we extend this to octonions we end up with Fano planes which
are ever so much more interesting than mere Cartesian planes

On 9/20/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree, here, that faking X is one organizational level above doing x.
> What tempts us to error is the notion that mental states are instantaneous,
> rather smeared over time and space.
>
>
>
> I sometimes wonder what the relation is between how we think about cogntions
> …. Thoughts, feelings, motives, etc. …. And how we thing about velocity.
> Perhaps because of speedometers, we think that speed is a thing that can be
> true at an instant. But speed does not live in an instant, it LIVES in the
> domain of delta-T. I have wondered for years about the relation between
> our contemporary notions of mind and the calculus. The calculus allows us
> to squinch down things that live in the domain of Delta-t into instants.
> Similarly, our way of talking about feelings, motives, thoughts, etc.,
> squinches these patterns of activity down into instants, when they
> themselves live in the domain of delta-t. Not to mention, the domain of
> delta[delta-t] and the domain of delta[delta[delta-t]], etc., ad nauseam.
> My history of modern philosophy is TERRIBLE but it seems to me that
> Descartes’s notion that a mind is the sort of thing that can be seen
> veridically only by the mind-holder leads to the calculus. Was my high
> school math teacher (who was also the football coach) correct to tell me
> that the Cartesian plane is where the calculus was born?
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick

Arlo Barnes

Re: Cognition and Calculus, WAS: faith, zombies, and crazy people

Well, this was an interesting thread, I will definitely have to follow some of the math concepts mentioned above. My response was at least partly flippant, as I do not think humans are quite that easy to model, but I do appreciate the fact that some people at least pretended to take it seriously for the sake of FriAm. It is a good cause.

Steve, sorry my sentence was not clear to you. It is something that I have experienced from both sides a lot recently, to the point that I wonder whether, in the few times it seems I have communicated well, whether it was all just a fantastic coincidence, where my perception that the other person understood me (or vice versa) was just another concept subject to misinterpretation. More likely, though, it is just an indicator that I need to pay more attention to listening and editing. For those who enjoy being more evasive with meaning, who like constructing unlikely sentences (as I and I suspect some of you do), I found an interesting site: quadrivialquandary.com

Doug, I gladly accept the honour of Sentence of the Year, although I have not paid sufficient attention for the past 9 months to confirm this, and there are still some months to go. Since this is the double distinction of apparently being the first to receive this award at least under that name, I would like to reciprocate by admiring the prodigious one-liner delivered not three emails after mine.

Thank you.

-Arlo James Barnes