IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
Locked
IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
 
|
Glen,
If ever you wanted to explore what you meant by "useful" in your message below, I am your man. Such a discussion would get at the soul of pragmatism, the war between Peirce and his benefactor William James, and my war with Eric Charles concerning whether we should talk not about the practical consequences of our conceptions but about their "practicial" consequence, i.e., their consequences for practices of discovery. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:20 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] whackadoodles go mainstream! Re: the statistical wash -- yes, eventually. But for those of us who tend to over-react to everything and demand immediate access to knowledge that will only come a year or years later, it might help to think of COVID-19 as merely a complicating factor and retain the focus on your *current* diseases. And age isn't a disease. But diabetes is, COPD is, etc. If you have any of those, *they* are what you should focus on. Re: designing SARS-Cov-2 -- These arguments sound a lot like "intelligent design" arguments, to me. You see a pocket watch laying on the ground next to a wild flower and intuitively feel like there must be a God. Sure, is it *logically* possible that a God designed the wild flower? Yes. But is that the most useful explanation? No. The worst conspiracy theory I've seen is this TL;DR, which uses TL;DR as a *weapon* to blind the audience with "science": https://project-evidence.github.io/ https://github.com/Project-Evidence/project-evidence.github.io I'd be curious if anyone in this forum prioritizes that as something to slog through. 8^) It's pretty funny that, when their name "Project E.P.S.T.E.I.N." was too strong of a hint to demonstrate they were bullshitters, they changed their name to seem less conspiratorial. On 4/20/20 11:03 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > With HIV there are people that can control the virus and have immunity for practical purposes. [1] Whether or not there are co-morbidities, if one has a strong signal like B*5701 for HIV, it should come out in the statistical wash. Not everyone with a particular HLA will have the same co-morbidity. Anyway, back to the whackadoodle topic: If that is the case, and one had a detailed knowledge of the genetics (e.g. ethnicity) of a target population, one could design a virus to hurt some more than others. But if one is a fascist, it is very easy as you point out: You make everyone sick and the people with health care or he means to stay isolated will tend to survive. I'm not saying that is the case here, I'm just saying maybe it isn't actually impossible. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
Sure, I'll bite, since I'm waiting for criticism of a recent status report.
My naïve first attempt is to say that which is useful is that which *I* can use to make things do what I want them to do. E.g. program a computer to output data with a particular quality. In comparing 1) the attribution of qualities of the world to a mysterious god to 2) picking apart the features of the world and identifying ways to manipulate them, then it seems clear to me the latter helps me manipulate the world more than the former. Even *if* I were trying to be a cult leader, I think I'd find more success being a Dr. Oz (or Gwyneth Paltrow or Wim Hoff) than a Reverend Moon. Manipulating the world through the *mediation* of a huge swath of morons seems difficult *if* your targets are particular outcomes. Blanket, vague "burn it down" or "trend toward True" manipulation is *not* what I would deem useful. Making a metal duck that shits is the type of thing I'm after. Things that help me construct metal, shitting ducks are useful. On 4/20/20 11:51 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > If ever you wanted to explore what you meant by "useful" in your message below, I am your man. > > Such a discussion would get at the soul of pragmatism, the war between Peirce and his benefactor William James, and my war with Eric Charles concerning whether we should talk not about the practical consequences of our conceptions but about their "practicial" consequence, i.e., their consequences for practices of discovery. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
|
|
Glen, I would love to take this Things that help me construct metal, shitting ducks are useful. To the Pragmatism chat-site and watch it light up. But you have taught me that that would be trolling, and I believe that trolling is an unequivocally Bad Thing, so I won’t. Now, I am going to poke Eric Charles with it tho, by saying that THIS is what William James means by pragmatism. He will say that I am an idiot! (Stipulated) He may even begin his letter with, “Listen, Bucko!” (So I suppose I AM trolling Eric.) But what he will say will be interesting. This is part of argument, that has been going on for weeks in which I am trying to get Eric to alter the Pragmatic Maxim, a thesis about the meaning of concepts, as follows, Consider what effects, that might conceivably have Because it’s inventor, Peirce, would not have tolerated a definition of “useful” in terms of “making metal ducks that shit,” and William James would have. Peirce was concerned not with practical effects generally but with those effects that are heuristically practical, ie scientific practices, etc., in the broadest sense. (Hence my argument with Dave.) Nick Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- Sure, I'll bite, since I'm waiting for criticism of a recent status report. My naïve first attempt is to say that which is useful is that which *I* can use to make things do what I want them to do. E.g. program a computer to output data with a particular quality. In comparing 1) the attribution of qualities of the world to a mysterious god to 2) picking apart the features of the world and identifying ways to manipulate them, then it seems clear to me the latter helps me manipulate the world more than the former. Even *if* I were trying to be a cult leader, I think I'd find more success being a Dr. Oz (or Gwyneth Paltrow or Wim Hoff) than a Reverend Moon. Manipulating the world through the *mediation* of a huge swath of morons seems difficult *if* your targets are particular outcomes. Blanket, vague "burn it down" or "trend toward True" manipulation is *not* what I would deem useful. Making a metal duck that shits is the type of thing I'm after. Things that help me construct metal, shitting ducks are useful. On 4/20/20 11:51 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > If ever you wanted to explore what you meant by "useful" in your message below, I am your man. > > Such a discussion would get at the soul of pragmatism, the war between Peirce and his benefactor William James, and my war with Eric Charles concerning whether we should talk not about the practical consequences of our conceptions but about their "practicial" consequence, i.e., their consequences for practices of discovery. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
I think your Peirce simulation might deny it. But his very useful work in logic (at the very least) shows he was capable of realizing the same sense of what is useful that I have. You're not in love with Peirce, your in love with your idea of Peirce.
On 4/20/20 1:38 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > To the Pragmatism chat-site and watch it light up. But you have taught me that that would be trolling, and I believe that trolling is an unequivocally Bad Thing, so I won’t. > > [...] > Because it’s inventor, Peirce, would not have tolerated a definition of “useful” in terms of “making metal ducks that shit,” and William James would have. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
|
|
So, Peirce had many ideas of Peirce and we could be in love with different ones.
Do you have time to distinguish between your idea of Pierce and My idea of Peirce as regards the digestion of metal ducks? I am realizing the problem might be with my understanding of the metal duck example. I took at as a kind of cranky, idiosyncratic project, like my desire to take apart a 25 year old fm radio and get it working again. You might have meant it in a much more profound sense, a sense in which you use your study of the digestion of metal ducks as a part of a systematic inquiry into the nature of life. In that case, you are right, Peirce would definitely have approved and I have slandered you both. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:00 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream! I think your Peirce simulation might deny it. But his very useful work in logic (at the very least) shows he was capable of realizing the same sense of what is useful that I have. You're not in love with Peirce, your in love with your idea of Peirce. On 4/20/20 1:38 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > To the Pragmatism chat-site and watch it light up. But you have taught me that that would be trolling, and I believe that trolling is an unequivocally Bad Thing, so I won’t. > > [...] > Because it’s inventor, Peirce, would not have tolerated a definition of “useful” in terms of “making metal ducks that shit,” and William James would have. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
This is useful:
https://www.tor.com/2011/06/29/the-pooping-duck-marvel-of-18th-century-robotics/ > But what really fascinates me about all this is Wood’s suggestion for WHY a man of Vaucanson’s genius was so enthralled by mechanical duck defecation. In addition to proving both popular and lucrative (it scored him a gig designing looms for the King of France), Vaucanson was a man of troubled bowels. As for distinguishing between one ideal Peirce and another ideal Peirce, I have time, but regard that as a useless thing to do. Ideals are great time wasters. I'd rather choose 1 thing Peirce did and try to use it. I've long wanted to try to use existential graphs, for example. On 4/20/20 2:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > So, Peirce had many ideas of Peirce and we could be in love with different ones. > > Do you have time to distinguish between your idea of Pierce and My idea of Peirce as regards the digestion of metal ducks? > > I am realizing the problem might be with my understanding of the metal duck example. I took at as a kind of cranky, idiosyncratic project, like my desire to take apart a 25 year old fm radio and get it working again. You might have meant it in a much more profound sense, a sense in which you use your study of the digestion of metal ducks as a part of a systematic inquiry into the nature of life. In that case, you are right, Peirce would definitely have approved and I have slandered you both. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
|
|
I DID misunderstand the force of the duck.
Sorry. I retire from the field in my usual disarray. N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:19 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream! This is useful: https://www.tor.com/2011/06/29/the-pooping-duck-marvel-of-18th-century-robotics/ > But what really fascinates me about all this is Wood’s suggestion for WHY a man of Vaucanson’s genius was so enthralled by mechanical duck defecation. In addition to proving both popular and lucrative (it scored him a gig designing looms for the King of France), Vaucanson was a man of troubled bowels. As for distinguishing between one ideal Peirce and another ideal Peirce, I have time, but regard that as a useless thing to do. Ideals are great time wasters. I'd rather choose 1 thing Peirce did and try to use it. I've long wanted to try to use existential graphs, for example. On 4/20/20 2:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > So, Peirce had many ideas of Peirce and we could be in love with different ones. > > Do you have time to distinguish between your idea of Pierce and My idea of Peirce as regards the digestion of metal ducks? > > I am realizing the problem might be with my understanding of the metal duck example. I took at as a kind of cranky, idiosyncratic project, like my desire to take apart a 25 year old fm radio and get it working again. You might have meant it in a much more profound sense, a sense in which you use your study of the digestion of metal ducks as a part of a systematic inquiry into the nature of life. In that case, you are right, Peirce would definitely have approved and I have slandered you both. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
> So, Peirce had many ideas of Peirce and we could be in love with different ones. "Pierce is who you think Pierce thinks he is?" > > > Do you have time to distinguish between your idea of Pierce and My idea of Peirce as regards the digestion of metal ducks? > > I am realizing the problem might be with my understanding of the metal duck example. I took at as a kind of cranky, idiosyncratic project, like my desire to take apart a 25 year old fm radio and get it working again. You might have meant it in a much more profound sense, a sense in which you use your study of the digestion of metal ducks as a part of a systematic inquiry into the nature of life. In that case, you are right, Peirce would definitely have approved and I have slandered you both. > > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [hidden email] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:00 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream! > > I think your Peirce simulation might deny it. But his very useful work in logic (at the very least) shows he was capable of realizing the same sense of what is useful that I have. You're not in love with Peirce, your in love with your idea of Peirce. > > On 4/20/20 1:38 PM, [hidden email] wrote: >> To the Pragmatism chat-site and watch it light up. But you have taught me that that would be trolling, and I believe that trolling is an unequivocally Bad Thing, so I won’t. >> >> [...] >> Because it’s inventor, Peirce, would not have tolerated a definition of “useful” in terms of “making metal ducks that shit,” and William James would have. > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream!
|
|
Steve,
Many things are stable about Peirce -- if only his ferocious dedication to inquiry. But for many of his later years, he was destitute and dependent on the kindness of others for his survival. So, he is this cantankerous guy, who, none the less, has to at least TRY to fit in in order to survive. So he keeps trying to explain himself to various audiences. I think he would have made an excellent FRIAM member. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 6:23 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream! > So, Peirce had many ideas of Peirce and we could be in love with different ones. "Pierce is who you think Pierce thinks he is?" > > > Do you have time to distinguish between your idea of Pierce and My idea of Peirce as regards the digestion of metal ducks? > > I am realizing the problem might be with my understanding of the metal duck example. I took at as a kind of cranky, idiosyncratic project, like my desire to take apart a 25 year old fm radio and get it working again. You might have meant it in a much more profound sense, a sense in which you use your study of the digestion of metal ducks as a part of a systematic inquiry into the nature of life. In that case, you are right, Peirce would definitely have approved and I have slandered you both. > > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:00 PM > To: FriAM <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: "...useful". WAS:: whackadoodles go mainstream! > > I think your Peirce simulation might deny it. But his very useful work in logic (at the very least) shows he was capable of realizing the same sense of what is useful that I have. You're not in love with Peirce, your in love with your idea of Peirce. > > On 4/20/20 1:38 PM, [hidden email] wrote: >> To the Pragmatism chat-site and watch it light up. But you have taught me that that would be trolling, and I believe that trolling is an unequivocally Bad Thing, so I won’t. >> >> [...] >> Because it’s inventor, Peirce, would not have tolerated a definition of “useful” in terms of “making metal ducks that shit,” and William James would have. > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn > GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |