Fwd: Complejidad en economía
Locked
 
|
Complexity Theory and Financial Regulation article.
============================================ Tom Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) Society of Professional Journalists - Region 9 Director Check out It's The People's Data ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alfredo Covaleda Vélez <[hidden email]> Date: Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:49 AM Subject: Complejidad en economía To: [hidden email] A ver que plantea el artículo Námastehttp://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/19_february_2016?sub_id=MPzHIP5tS5Fu&folio=818&pg=34#pg34 Sent with MailTrack  ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove subjectivity.
--John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Dear John and Russ, Well, you question is an example of it self. Who is best qualified to explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question about aetiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the published vsn at the moment. I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But then, I am old. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove subjectivity. --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 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 |
Old Realist 26 compat.doc (143K) |
|
Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
I think Russ is raising an important point. It seems that Nick is saying that consciousness is something that is external. But, assuming we accept that view, some of a person's consciousness may be out there to only a small group of close friends. Could this be what is called intimate knowledge of that consciousness? --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:32 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Dear John and Russ, Well, you question is an example of it self. Who is best qualified to explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question about aetiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the published vsn at the moment. I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But then, I am old. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove subjectivity. --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 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 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Interesting. I like this definition that intimacy is defined in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. Yes, there is a relationship between initimacy, privacy and subjectivity. The more private details we share with someone, the more close we feel to that person. It is a common phenomenon in social networks. The closest form of intimacy would be zero privacy and total match of subjectivity, if we could climb into skin of someone and walk around in it. As Harper Lee observed "you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it". There are actually places built for this purpose: cinemas, which contain dark rooms where humans go to watch humans pretending to be other humans. They are devices to solve the hard problem: they show us what it is like to be someone, let us say Martin Brody or Indiana Jones. -J. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------- From: Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> Date: 2/19/2016 21:27 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Kennison
John,
What I used to say, when you knew me back at Clark, is that MY consciousness is the slice that is cut through the world by MY behavior. This is the New Realist view, laid out by Holt in the early 20th century. A slightly different way of saying this is that I am just (= am exactly, and only) a point from which the world is seen. You remember "I am an extentionless dot." It's laid out in the paper I attached. Since coming to Santa Fe, I have come more under the influence of Peirce. For Peirce, everything that is real arises from the stream of human experience. Each of us parses that stream into subject and object through processes of inference. What is subjective, on this account, is just as much a cognitive achievement as what is objective. What we take to be "inner" is just features of our stream of experience that do not necessarily coincide with the reported experience of others or future experiences of our own. Dreams and hallucinations are experiences that don't, in the long run, pan out. My private world is just those parts of my experience that, in some sense, move with me. I am sorry. Those sentences only an author's mother could love. Best a toothache and hydrocodone would allow. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 2:26 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy I think Russ is raising an important point. It seems that Nick is saying that consciousness is something that is external. But, assuming we accept that view, some of a person's consciousness may be out there to only a small group of close friends. Could this be what is called intimate knowledge of that consciousness? --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:32 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Dear John and Russ, Well, you question is an example of it self. Who is best qualified to explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question about aetiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can't find cc of the published vsn at the moment. I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it's about having some others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it's a metaphor. But then, I am old. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove subjectivity. --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 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 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 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 |
|
|
> Dreams and hallucinations are experiences that don't, in the long run, pan
> out. Speak for yourself, man! ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Hi Nick,
Yes, I do, of course, remember this, but I keep on thinking that something is being overlooked. Your writing seems fine to me --but I'll have to parse it and think about it before I give a more thoughtful response. Cheers, John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Nick Thompson [[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 3:33 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy John, What I used to say, when you knew me back at Clark, is that MY consciousness is the slice that is cut through the world by MY behavior. This is the New Realist view, laid out by Holt in the early 20th century. A slightly different way of saying this is that I am just (= am exactly, and only) a point from which the world is seen. You remember "I am an extentionless dot." It's laid out in the paper I attached. Since coming to Santa Fe, I have come more under the influence of Peirce. For Peirce, everything that is real arises from the stream of human experience. Each of us parses that stream into subject and object through processes of inference. What is subjective, on this account, is just as much a cognitive achievement as what is objective. What we take to be "inner" is just features of our stream of experience that do not necessarily coincide with the reported experience of others or future experiences of our own. Dreams and hallucinations are experiences that don't, in the long run, pan out. My private world is just those parts of my experience that, in some sense, move with me. I am sorry. Those sentences only an author's mother could love. Best a toothache and hydrocodone would allow. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 2:26 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy I think Russ is raising an important point. It seems that Nick is saying that consciousness is something that is external. But, assuming we accept that view, some of a person's consciousness may be out there to only a small group of close friends. Could this be what is called intimate knowledge of that consciousness? --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 12:32 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Dear John and Russ, Well, you question is an example of it self. Who is best qualified to explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question about aetiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can't find cc of the published vsn at the moment. I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it's about having some others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it's a metaphor. But then, I am old. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove subjectivity. --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 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 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 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 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Hi, Russ, You wrote: Intimacy is … not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. Oh, I don’t have a lot of trouble agreeing with the first part of this statement. Some unknowns are inherently more intimate than others. But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask me about my experience, and I tell you? Do you have to trust my account? Well, if you ask me, I assert that I, for one, DON’T. One answer to this quandary is to simply assert that Russ Abbot has subjective experience and Nick Thompson does not! Perhaps ,N.T. is the victim of a form of autism that deprives him of that self-conscious that for you defines the human condition. And there’s an end to it, eh? At this point, one of my most dedicated opponents in this discussion, a former graduate student, always say, “So it’s OK to kill you eat you, right?” I am going to invoke the academic Scoundrel’s Defense here, and attach a link to another paper. “Ejective anthropomorphism” is the idea that we come to know animal mental states by seeing an isomorphism between some feature of an animals behavior and some behavior of our own and then, since we know infallibly the internal causes of our behavior, inferring the internal causes of the animal’s. The whole argument hangs, of course, on the notion that we know why we do things by some special direct knowledge… “privileged access”. The article is a bit of a slog, but if skim judiciously until you get to the section on “privileged access”, 67, then you might have enough energy to read the argument against that notion and be convinced. Russ, I think in our correspondence before you have perhaps taken the position that it simply is the case that each of us has a private consciousness. That is a position taken by another FRIAMMER and I find it, oddly, the most winning argument. “I choose to start here!” Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear John and Russ, Well, you question is an example of itself. Who is best qualified to explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question about etiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the published vsn at the moment. I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But then, I am old. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove subjectivity. --John ________________________________________ From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Russ Abbott [[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy? ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I raised the question. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Hi Nick, Thanks for the reply -- and sorry about the tooth. I wasn't intending to re-open the question of subjective experience in general -- and certainly not about whether we can be sure about understanding someone else's. It just struck me that intimacy as I understand that term depends on an assumption of subjective experience, and I wondered whether that ruled out intimacy in your view. Now that I read what you've written, I'm not even sure that I understood your position on subjective experience. I hope that the (subjective experience of) pain from the tooth recedes. -- Russ On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:11 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Ok. Let’s take this in baby steps. You wrote: “Intimacy has to do with …knowing about the subjective experience of another person. I asked: “But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ?” Best to start there. I made the mistake of presupposing your answer to that question, and may have got us off the track. If to be intimate with somebody I have to share their subjective experience, and subjective experiences is private, how exactly do I do that? I dunno. My pain is pretty public right now. I look like I am sucking on a tennis ball. Damned dentist has gone on a weekend skiing bender and left his phone off the hook. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Hi Nick, Thanks for the reply -- and sorry about the tooth. I wasn't intending to re-open the question of subjective experience in general -- and certainly not about whether we can be sure about understanding someone else's. It just struck me that intimacy as I understand that term depends on an assumption of subjective experience, and I wondered whether that ruled out intimacy in your view. Now that I read what you've written, I'm not even sure that I understood your position on subjective experience. I hope that the (subjective experience of) pain from the tooth recedes. -- Russ On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:11 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Re: your dental pain. Patsy had to have a tooth pulled a couple of weeks ago; her dentist,
instead of prescribing opioids, told her to take 2 ibuprofen and 2 acetominipehn (sp.?), together, every four hours. It worked great. No doubt not recommended for long term use or if you have liver problems, etc., etc. My father used to say, when I complained of pain, "What pain? I can't feel a thing." Ha, ha, ha. (This is presumably relevant to the FRIAM thread, come to think of it.) ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
As Lee's father used to imply, one can't know whether one's own pain is like someone else's. But if we assume we are all human, have similar experiences, etc. one can imagine what someone else's pain is like based on one's own experience. Certainly isn't the issue; one does the best one can with what one has. Pierce must have said something like that somewhere. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:21 AM <[hidden email]> wrote: Re: your dental pain. Patsy had to have a tooth pulled a couple of weeks ago; her dentist, ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Subjectivity and intimacy
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick, I hope I am the "other FRIAMMER" to which you referring. Frank Frank Wimberly On Feb 20, 2016 9:11 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Yep! I didn’t feel I should name names. How did the wedding go? There was a point around 4pm when I was kicking myself about bailing; and then another point, around 8 pm, when I was wolfing hydrocodone and thanking God that I had. Debby must be exhausted. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Nick, I hope I am the "other FRIAMMER" to which you referring. Frank Frank Wimberly On Feb 20, 2016 9:11 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
"But
what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask me
about my experience, and I tell you? Do you have to trust my account?"
Well.... the whole crux of psychology ("small p" psychology?) is that your account is suspect, and I would be a fool to accept it naively. Your ability to know yourself is suspect (what Henriques calls your "Freud Filter") and your ability to acknowledge what you know in an authentic fashion is suspect (what Henriques calls your "Rogerian Filter") and of course whatever you say encounters the same hurdles in "the mind" of the listener. We all recognize "sharing subjective experience" and "intimacy" as more than this. There are people who claim to tell us about their experience, but with whom we feel no sense of connection. "It just struck me that intimacy as I understand that term depends on an assumption of subjective experience" Well.... The question is, as Nick has said, what you mean by "subjective", right? If you mean that the world looks differently to different people, in the literal sense, of a physical body/mind experiencing certain things, then it is fine to talk about subjective experience and about coming to understand the subjective experience of another person. To be intimate with someone, as you present it, would be to understand, a person's quirky way of experiencing the world to such an extent that you could share in their view, i.e., you could come, at least from time to time, to find yourself with "their" quirks rather than "your own." If, on the other hand, when you talk about "subjective", you mean that there is a ghost-soul somewhere, experiencing a Cartesian theater in its own unique way, then you have a problem. (The problem isn't the one you might think, however! It matters not, for this discussion, whether such a thing exists.) The problem is that such a view rules out the intimacy you are thinking of in a much, much more dogmatic way than what you might worry about from Nick. If that is what you mean by "subjective experience" then it is by definition unsharable. You cannot possibly get yourself into another person's Cartesian theater, and you will never know if anything you experience bares even the slightest resemblance to what they experience. It is a deep rabbit hole. Eric ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Lab Manager Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 email: [hidden email] On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Eric, The question is whether you or Nick find the word "intimacy" to have a meaning -- and if so what is it. As I said to Nick in what was apparently a private message, I'll accept "No" in answer to the question: does "intimacy have a meaning?" What's your answer? On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:16 PM Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
Thanks, Eric. Precisely said. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Charles "But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask me about my experience, and I tell you? Do you have to trust my account?" Well.... the whole crux of psychology ("small p" psychology?) is that your account is suspect, and I would be a fool to accept it naively. Your ability to know yourself is suspect (what Henriques calls your "Freud Filter") and your ability to acknowledge what you know in an authentic fashion is suspect (what Henriques calls your "Rogerian Filter") and of course whatever you say encounters the same hurdles in "the mind" of the listener.
Well.... The question is, as Nick has said, what you mean by "subjective", right? If you mean that the world looks differently to different people, in the literal sense, of a physical body/mind experiencing certain things, then it is fine to talk about subjective experience and about coming to understand the subjective experience of another person. To be intimate with someone, as you present it, would be to understand, a person's quirky way of experiencing the world to such an extent that you could share in their view, i.e., you could come, at least from time to time, to find yourself with "their" quirks rather than "your own." Eric
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |