Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence)
Locked
123456
123456
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
 
|
I didn't say I had a definition. In fact, I said that I was having a very hard time putting words to it. But does that mean that one should give up on it? We can't do much with consciousness (or the term I prefer, subjective experience) either, but I'm not willing to dismiss it as virtually meaningless.
Please remember that my participation in the discussion came after Eric, Miles, and Glen [one 'n'], seemed very dismissive of reality. That seemed quite strange to me. Our current inability to get our arms/head/words around something isn't automatically grounds to dismiss it. Most of what we have figured out about the world started out as very poorly formulated. -- Russ_A On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:14 AM, russell standish <[hidden email]> wrote: You tell me. Just what is the notion? Reality could mean: ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
Perhaps an even better example is emergence. As Nick's reading group is in the process of finding out, there have been (and in some circles still are) lots of often incompatible and virtually meaningless definitions of that term . But we didn't give up and it, and we now know what it means -- or what we should use it to mean. What had been a mystery has been solved.
-- Russ_A On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: I didn't say I had a definition. In fact, I said that I was having a very hard time putting words to it. But does that mean that one should give up on it? We can't do much with consciousness (or the term I prefer, subjective experience) either, but I'm not willing to dismiss it as virtually meaningless. ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Non-Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
BTW, I was wondering how faith popped into the subject line above. I'm not sure what faith has to do with any of this...? On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > Please remember that my participation in the discussion came after > Eric, Miles, and Glen [one 'n'], seemed very dismissive of reality. > That seemed quite strange to me. Our current inability to get our > arms/head/words around something isn't automatically grounds to > dismiss it. Most of what we have figured out about the world started > out as very poorly formulated. This is the heart of the issue. One of the key doctrines of the "faith of science", i.e. scientism, is that everything is reducible. I'm (not alone in) claiming that nothing is ultimately reducible, therefore explaining systematically and then communicating the true nature of reality is simply not possible. I believe we can demonstrate that this is the case in a positive sense, in the same way that we can demonstrate incompleteness. It doesn't really make sense to say that we might discover our way out of this. To me the key aspect goes beyond the inability to conjure a shared or consistent version of reality, to the understanding that *any* conception of reality is demonstrably impossible. Here is the mind twister -- this includes "our" theory of reality. Any basis you can think of to show that you exist, or indeed that any internal or external phenomenon exist, is false. On the other hand, there does seem to be self-awareness of some kind, so that we cannot say that we don't exist. If we then simply say, "reality is whatever context this self-awareness occurs in" then that is self-referential, but I don't have a particular problem with it. On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:14 AM, russell standish wrote: > You tell me. Just what is the notion? Reality could mean: > > 1) What kicks back. Johnson's stone, or Doug's hammered thumb > 2) Elementary particles > 3) Force Fields ... > The truth is that the word reality has been debased so much it is > virtually meaningless, unless very carefully qualified. I'm curious what such a qualification would look like? -Miles > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:55:10PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: >> Just because someone uses a word nonsensically, does that make the >> word >> nonsense? >> >> I still don't get it. Why are so many people so anxious to dismiss >> the word >> *reality *-- and with it the corresponding notion? >> >> -- Russ_A >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM, russell standish <[hidden email] >> >wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: >>>> >>>> And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't >>>> understand >>> the >>>> connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous >>>> sentence.) God, >>> if >>>> there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of >>>> what is. >>> And >>>> I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who >>>> are >>>> sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from >>>> any sort >>> of >>>> empirical investigation or verification. >>>> >>>> -- RussA >>>> >>> >>> The only connection is analogical. There's probably almost as many >>> conceptions of god as there are people on the planet. Similarly, >>> there >>> seems to be about as many conceptions of reality. Consequently, both >>> terms are really superfluous to doing science. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >>> Mathematics >>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] >>> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >> ============================================================ >> 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 > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > 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 |
Re: Non-Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:28:39AM -0700, Miles Parker wrote:
> > On the other hand, there does seem to be self-awareness of some kind, so > that we cannot say that we don't exist. If we then simply say, "reality is > whatever context this self-awareness occurs in" then that is > self-referential, but I don't have a particular problem with it. > > On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:14 AM, russell standish wrote: > >> You tell me. Just what is the notion? Reality could mean: >> >> 1) What kicks back. Johnson's stone, or Doug's hammered thumb >> 2) Elementary particles >> 3) Force Fields > ... >> The truth is that the word reality has been debased so much it is >> virtually meaningless, unless very carefully qualified. > > I'm curious what such a qualification would look like? > RITSIAR is one such qualification. And it is rather similar to what you were talking about in the previous para. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Miles Parker
Trying to reply in a single inquiry to all emails in the
thread:
Actually, I thought I was defending the real! Miles had suggested that scientists should know better than to believe in the real, and I was saying "quite the opposite". I argued that it serves scientists well to believe that what they are studying is real (hence the reference to faith). For example: People who study personality believe that the word "personality" refers to a real phenomenon, a real happening in the world. At the least, they routinely convince me that they think it is real. This is the standard, lay use of the word "real", which conforms reasonably well to many (but not all) philosophical specifications of the term. Now I do not believe in "personality", at least not in the way those researchers do, but most of them don't believe in "perception" the way I think perception works. What goes on at the higher levels is a war over what is "real". In Science (with a capital S), we like to think that will be decided on the merits of empirical evidence (which again necessitates belief in the real). I get the impression that if any researchers, in psychology, chemistry, physics, art, history of Europe, etc., stopped believing they were studying something real, the whole enterprise would fall apart. Given that many of these endeavors do, in the long run, produce useful things, it would be sad to see them go. Thus, there is good reason for scientists to have faith in the reality of what they are studying. I remember old-timers (heh, heh, heh) telling me stories about the initial release of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. My understanding is that a reasonable percentage (say 5-15%) of scientists simply could not go about their business after reading Kuhn. This because the book, on some level, shattered their ability to believe what they were doing was real. Eric ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
Eric, your message confused me. You start out by saying that you thought you were "defending the real." Yet as I read it your message is entirely about what people believe -- their "faith" as you say. How would your position apply, for example, to the "scientific" study of astrology by "scientists" who had faith in astrology? How would it distinguish between astrology and astronomy -- or would it distinguish between the two? I don't understand where you are coming from.
-- Russ_A On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:55 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote: Trying to reply in a single inquiry to all emails in the thread: ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
...
I have heard anecdotes of the same result among Mathematicians when Godel's Incompleteness theorem came out... up to that time, many mathematicians were quite happy to spend their entire lives trying to prove (or disprove) this or that with the conviction that this or that actually could be proven (or disproven). But apparently, when faced with the *proven* possibility that the problem they had dedicated thier lives (or just a decade or two) to might not be amenable to mathematical proof, some of them lost heart. I was trained as a Mathematician and Physicist but never really practiced as either, though the skills and perspectives of both disciplines proved hugely useful. I personally remember the huge seduction in Physics of believing that the things we might model and test by experiment were *real*... that somehow because I could measure a specific quantity to a certain degree of accuracy and that I could set up a given set of conditions and with an uncanny degree of predictability, specific phenomena could be observed, that this *defined* an objective reality. Until Maxwell, *Aether* was real... and not long before that *Phlogiston* and the Absolutes of *Space and Time* didn't dissolve (at least become Relative) until Einstein and even he rolled his eyes at the accepted (God and his Dice) implications of Quantum Theory. I'm not sure where to weigh in on the word game of whether "Reality" has any meaning. Like the ultra-rational-villian character in The Princess Bride who kept uttering "Inconceivable!" at every turn who was finally corrected by his sidekick with "boss, I don't think that word means what you think it means!"... I suspect that we (subtly?) misuse the term "reality" all of the time. I came to embrace this wonderful paradox in science... but it may be another facet of my general "morbid fascination" with the human condition: Science offers the most obvious/best hope for measuring/defining an objective reality, yet its very methods are defined to *not* ever be able to yield conclusive, unquestionable, will-hold-forever, cannot-be-questioned results. All scientific results are, by definition, contingent. Various other approaches to defining or apprehending "reality" do not have this problem... they are quite capable of (seem to be defined around) making unequivocal, conclusive statements that need never be rescinded or revised. While they may reference factual observations and logical chains of reasoning, they are not bound by them. Just read any creationist or intelligent design literature and you will see this odd split. Mysticism and its variants (sadly, most commonly encountered in our culture through "newage" or "westernized eastern philosophy") may offer a useful complement to the variations of logical positivism associated with western scientific thought, but I'm still at a loss to find the bridge. There may be no bridge, but something more like a juxtaposition or complex orbit. Popular culture (in this era) seems quite enamored with mathematics, science, etc... such things have become quite popular (perhaps nearly as much as during the age of Enlightenment (at least among gentlemen). But that does not mean that the average person actually invests themselves in the scientific perspective beyond a superficial level. They may want to associate themselves with it and enjoy the fruits of its utility, but not engage in it's practice. I do not know the numbers but most here recognize that they were in the minority in grammar school and even in college... that only a small fraction of our peers were interested in the disciplines of mathematics and science. How many times have we heard "I don't do math" or "I'm not good at Science"> We could, dismissively, say that "we the elite" were the few with the intelligence and/or dedication to master these disciplines and all others are merely lazy or stupid. Or we could acknowledge that there might be something more fundamental going on. But I'm not sure what that is. And I'm not sure this group is going to discuss it... because it is somewhat confrontational to our own identities. We identify at different levels with rational thought and objective reality... and it is hard to contemplate anything that confronts these two very much. I think the current squabble over the use of the term "reality" shows how hard this is to think about. I am forever thankful to Paul Feyerabend's work in the Philosophy of Science (Scientific Anarchism) for providing the question of whether or how Scientific Thought (and Method) can resolve itself with Humanitarian perspectives and his questioning of some of the self-serving mythos that Science applies to itself (see Against Method, 1975). In direct confrontation to many of the personalities on this list (some whom I consider personal friends), Feyerabend lamented the lack of philosophical grounding of the new crop of post WWII Physicists (including notably, Richard Feynman). I myself suffer from a significant lack of such grounding, despite actually being interested in and often in pursuit of the same. I appreciate those others on this list who seem to share their own variations of this awareness, starting with those who speak up against the collective but extending to those who remain quiet in their reservations and questions. The fact that like the iconic arcade game "Whack-a-Mole" , these "philosophical questions" keep raising their unkempt heads on this list gives me hope. I know it often feels like so much unnecessary noise, but I think there are legitimate reasons that it doesn't go away. While I cannot participate in most/many of the discussions (notably, Nick's Emergence Salon) for practical reasons, I am very happy to be within earshot of all the happy babble (I mean this fondly and respectfully, not dismissively). - Steve - Steve ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
Administrator
|
Out of curiosity: have you read any of the Emergence book?
Out of a naive desire to see if there was anything to the philosophic side of things, I started in on it (there is a digital copy if you'd like .. and we posted the first chapter earlier). I'm not moved by the first chapter. 23 more to go. I find myself puzzled by the philosophic approach .. at least until it achieves its goal of posing an interesting question that we poor mechanical constructive folks can tackle. (This is from Glen's great post a while back which contains: Because philosophy is a frontier, wilderness activity, where prior work is less important than solving some case specific, imminent, problem. See: http://n2.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-td3235494.html) So I now look at the philosophic approach being one of mining for great questions. A distortion, I realize, but at least functional/ constructive for me. Does Feyerabend's work satisfy? -- Owen On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > ... >> >> I remember old-timers (heh, heh, heh) telling me stories about the >> initial release of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. My >> understanding is that a reasonable percentage (say 5-15%) of >> scientists simply could not go about their business after reading >> Kuhn. This because the book, on some level, shattered their ability >> to believe what they were doing was real. >> >> Eric > I have heard anecdotes of the same result among Mathematicians when > Godel's Incompleteness theorem came out... up to that time, many > mathematicians were quite happy to spend their entire lives trying > to prove (or disprove) this or that with the conviction that this or > that actually could be proven (or disproven). But apparently, when > faced with the *proven* possibility that the problem they had > dedicated thier lives (or just a decade or two) to might not be > amenable to mathematical proof, some of them lost heart. > > I was trained as a Mathematician and Physicist but never really > practiced as either, though the skills and perspectives of both > disciplines proved hugely useful. I personally remember the huge > seduction in Physics of believing that the things we might model and > test by experiment were *real*... that somehow because I could > measure a specific quantity to a certain degree of accuracy and that > I could set up a given set of conditions and with an uncanny degree > of predictability, specific phenomena could be observed, that this > *defined* an objective reality. > > Until Maxwell, *Aether* was real... and not long before that > *Phlogiston* and the Absolutes of *Space and Time* didn't dissolve > (at least become Relative) until Einstein and even he rolled his > eyes at the accepted (God and his Dice) implications of Quantum > Theory. > > I'm not sure where to weigh in on the word game of whether "Reality" > has any meaning. Like the ultra-rational-villian character in The > Princess Bride who kept uttering "Inconceivable!" at every turn who > was finally corrected by his sidekick with "boss, I don't think that > word means what you think it means!"... I suspect that we (subtly?) > misuse the term "reality" all of the time. > > I came to embrace this wonderful paradox in science... but it may be > another facet of my general "morbid fascination" with the human > condition: > > Science offers the most obvious/best hope for measuring/defining an > objective reality, yet its very methods are defined to *not* ever be > able to yield conclusive, unquestionable, will-hold-forever, cannot- > be-questioned results. All scientific results are, by definition, > contingent. > > Various other approaches to defining or apprehending "reality" do > not have this problem... they are quite capable of (seem to be > defined around) making unequivocal, conclusive statements that need > never be rescinded or revised. While they may reference factual > observations and logical chains of reasoning, they are not bound by > them. Just read any creationist or intelligent design literature > and you will see this odd split. > > Mysticism and its variants (sadly, most commonly encountered in our > culture through "newage" or "westernized eastern philosophy") may > offer a useful complement to the variations of logical positivism > associated with western scientific thought, but I'm still at a loss > to find the bridge. There may be no bridge, but something more like > a juxtaposition or complex orbit. > > Popular culture (in this era) seems quite enamored with mathematics, > science, etc... such things have become quite popular (perhaps > nearly as much as during the age of Enlightenment (at least among > gentlemen). But that does not mean that the average person > actually invests themselves in the scientific perspective beyond a > superficial level. They may want to associate themselves with it > and enjoy the fruits of its utility, but not engage in it's > practice. I do not know the numbers but most here recognize that > they were in the minority in grammar school and even in college... > that only a small fraction of our peers were interested in the > disciplines of mathematics and science. How many times have we > heard "I don't do math" or "I'm not good at Science"> > > We could, dismissively, say that "we the elite" were the few with > the intelligence and/or dedication to master these disciplines and > all others are merely lazy or stupid. Or we could acknowledge that > there might be something more fundamental going on. But I'm not > sure what that is. And I'm not sure this group is going to discuss > it... because it is somewhat confrontational to our own identities. > We identify at different levels with rational thought and objective > reality... and it is hard to contemplate anything that confronts > these two very much. I think the current squabble over the use of > the term "reality" shows how hard this is to think about. > > I am forever thankful to Paul Feyerabend's work in the Philosophy of > Science (Scientific Anarchism) for providing the question of > whether or how Scientific Thought (and Method) can resolve itself > with Humanitarian perspectives and his questioning of some of the > self-serving mythos that Science applies to itself (see Against > Method, 1975). > > In direct confrontation to many of the personalities on this list > (some whom I consider personal friends), Feyerabend lamented the > lack of philosophical grounding of the new crop of post WWII > Physicists (including notably, Richard Feynman). I myself suffer > from a significant lack of such grounding, despite actually being > interested in and often in pursuit of the same. I appreciate > those others on this list who seem to share their own variations of > this awareness, starting with those who speak up against the > collective but extending to those who remain quiet in their > reservations and questions. > > The fact that like the iconic arcade game "Whack-a-Mole" , these > "philosophical questions" keep raising their unkempt heads on this > list gives me hope. I know it often feels like so much unnecessary > noise, but I think there are legitimate reasons that it doesn't go > away. While I cannot participate in most/many of the discussions > (notably, Nick's Emergence Salon) for practical reasons, I am very > happy to be within earshot of all the happy babble (I mean this > fondly and respectfully, not dismissively). > > - Steve > > > - Steve > ============================================================ > 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Thus spake Steve Smith circa 09-09-17 10:52 AM:
> Science offers the most obvious/best hope for measuring/defining an > objective reality, yet its very methods are defined to *not* ever be > able to yield conclusive, unquestionable, will-hold-forever, > cannot-be-questioned results. All scientific results are, by > definition, contingent. _Very_ well said, Steve. Thanks for that little essay. And in light of that well-stated position, I'll go back to this: Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-16 06:36 PM: > I find it hard to believe that GlenR (one "n". Sorry) doesn't "care > whether there's a 'reality' out there or not." But even that > statement implies there is an "in here and an out there" which again > is my point, namely there is. It just does not _matter_ to my behavior that there _be_ an objective reality. That such a thing _exists_ is totally irrelevant to what I do or don't do. What matters is the constraints on or extents of my behavior. We speak about an objective reality as a convenient fictional _medium_ for reconciling (making consistent) all the various behavior constraints and extents. But that's all we use that fictional construct ("reality") for. It's just a linguistic or cognitive _hook_ onto which we hang the consistency between various, otherwise independent, behaviors. If you want to phrase it another way, we can say "existence is not a property". It doesn't matter (which is why I don't care) whether something _exists_ or not. What matters is the constraints and allowances that "thing" provides for our behavior. And in that context, the statement "I don't care whether or not there is a 'reality' out there or not" does NOT imply there _is_ an "in here and an out there". It only implies that I don't treat existence as an ontological property. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
All, I have stayed out of this so far because it just seems so NUTTY.
(Look who's talking! When Thompson think's you're nutty you have a real problem.). But it seems to me that every attack on realism I ever read presumes a reality, including those I have been reading here. As Holt points out, you have to start somewhere and the simplest least contorted beginning is to assume realism. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: russell standish <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/17/2009 9:14:29 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith and Science (was comm.) > > You tell me. Just what is the notion? Reality could mean: > > 1) What kicks back. Johnson's stone, or Doug's hammered thumb > 2) Elementary particles > 3) Force Fields > 4) A universal dovetailer (Schmidhuber's Great Programmer) > 5) Platonia of mathematical forms > 6) Kant's noumenon > 7) Standish's Nothing (aka Library of Babel) > 8) Real in the sense I am real (RITSIAR) > ... > > > and that's just what I pulled out of my head in a brief moment. The > ... indicates that there are many, many, more subtle variants. Most of > these versions of reality are incompatible with each other. > > The truth is that the word reality has been debased so much it is > virtually meaningless, unless very carefully qualified. > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:55:10PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > > Just because someone uses a word nonsensically, does that make the word > > nonsense? > > > > I still don't get it. Why are so many people so anxious to dismiss the > > *reality *-- and with it the corresponding notion? > > > > -- Russ_A > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM, russell standish <[hidden email]>wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:36:18PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > > > > > > > > And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand > > > the > > > > connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God, > > > if > > > > there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is. > > > And > > > > I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who are > > > > sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from any sort > > > of > > > > empirical investigation or verification. > > > > > > > > -- RussA > > > > > > > > > > The only connection is analogical. There's probably almost as many > > > conceptions of god as there are people on the planet. Similarly, there > > > seems to be about as many conceptions of reality. Consequently, both > > > terms are really superfluous to doing science. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > Mathematics > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > -- > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
On Sep 17, 2009, at 8:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Even mine? ;(
I'm not sure I understand -- why not simply start from experience and awareness? ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:02:00PM -0700, Miles Parker wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand -- why not simply start from experience and > awareness? Exactly. But then some people call that reality. Others call it delusion. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Wait a minute! They cannot call it a dilusion because "dilusion"
presupposes a state of affairs that IS -- i.e., a reality. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: russell standish <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/18/2009 6:40:23 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith and Science (was comm.) > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:02:00PM -0700, Miles Parker wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I understand -- why not simply start from experience and > > awareness? > > Exactly. But then some people call that reality. Others call it > delusion. > > Cheers > > -- > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Well, I think so (emoticon for nervous smile).
How can you even write to me without presupposing my existence. And as Holt points out, the route to pointing out that I am just a figment of your imagination requires the reality of something called an imagination. Holt argued "Mind here" was a more complex statement than "world there" because the former presupposes the latter but not the reverse. Contra Descartes, I am not aware of a mind, I am aware of a world. Only after some heavy lifting can I separate a mind out from the rest of the world. I mean, which do you think a baby discovers first: his world or his mind?
Nick
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Oh. Sorry. I got confused which side you are on. so you agree that
Idealism is incoherent. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: russell standish <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/18/2009 7:46:06 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith and Science (was comm.) > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:53:19PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Wait a minute! They cannot call it a dilusion because "dilusion" > > presupposes a state of affairs that IS -- i.e., a reality. > > Yes, I would imagine that the people shouting illusion or delusion do assume > some different sort of reality. That was mostly my point - the term is > ill defined, and not of much practical use AFAICS, except for fueling > endless philosophical debates like this one. > > > > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([hidden email]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: russell standish <[hidden email]> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Date: 9/18/2009 6:40:23 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith and Science (was comm.) > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:02:00PM -0700, Miles Parker wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand -- why not simply start from experience and > > > > awareness? > > > > > > Exactly. But then some people call that reality. Others call it > > > delusion. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > Mathematics > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > -- > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:53:19PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Wait a minute! They cannot call it a dilusion because "dilusion" > presupposes a state of affairs that IS -- i.e., a reality. Yes, I would imagine that the people shouting illusion or delusion do assume some different sort of reality. That was mostly my point - the term is ill defined, and not of much practical use AFAICS, except for fueling endless philosophical debates like this one. > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: russell standish <[hidden email]> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > > Date: 9/18/2009 6:40:23 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith and Science (was comm.) > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 09:02:00PM -0700, Miles Parker wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand -- why not simply start from experience and > > > awareness? > > > > Exactly. But then some people call that reality. Others call it > > delusion. > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 10:06 PM:
> How can you even write to me without presupposing my existence. Because that is what we _do_. We talk to each other. And we've been talking to each other long _before_ we ever had the biologically based ability to _presuppose_ your existence. Thought is a consequence of action, not vice versa. I don't have to presuppose _anything_ in order to eat or walk or write to you. This whole paradigm you and other "realists" push about how important _thinking_ is to life is just nonsense. Thought is not required for life. And as such, I do not require a belief in the existence of reality in order to live, which includes making a living, drinking beer, yapping with yahoos on mailing lists, etc. Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 08:32 PM: > But it seems to me that every attack on realism I ever read presumes > a reality, including those I have been reading here. The problem you have, here, is that nobody is _attacking_ realism. You believe in it? Fine. Believe in it. I certainly don't care. You believe in whatever you want to believe in. It doesn't matter. We'll all keep DOING what we DO regardless of what you believe. What we believe is irrelevant. It's what we DO that matters.* And that's the point. As for me, personally, I laid out my apathy towards the fictional concept of the existence of an external reality because RussA ASKED us to lay it out. He then goes on to claim he has trouble believing my answer ... as if I have some reason to lie or as if I'm too stupid to know myself ... or as if it matters whether he believes me. [grin] Who's attacking what, here? I'm certainly not attacking realism. If it makes you happy and allows you to DO what you DO, then fine. Believe in it. Believe in a flying spaghetti monster for all I care. (I also fully support my mom's conviction to Catholicism.) What matters is that you continue to ACT ... to DO. It doesn't matter what you believe. > As Holt points out, you have to start somewhere and the simplest > least contorted beginning is to assume realism. No. The _simplest_ least contorted beginning is to accept the observations that life lives regardless of belief. No intention need be imputed. Pond scum swims around. Do we have to impute that they believe in the existence of external reality in order to swim around? Ha! Of course not. You'll probably, like so many others, claim that we're so very different from pond scum. But when pressed, you won't be able to clarify precisely and accurately the mechanisms that make us so very different. (You may even invoke the useless term "emergence" in the process. ;-) You can bluster and preach about how we're different just like the way my mom believes dogs don't have souls; but in the end, we're not different. We swim around, eat, mate, and e-mail each other because we're _alive_, not because we believe in flying spaghetti monsters. * This is true in science as well as law. We don't make scientific discoveries based on what we believe; we make them based on what we DO. We don't throw people in jail for what they believe; we throw them in jail based on what they DO. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:46 PM, russell standish wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:53:19PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> Wait a minute! They cannot call it a dilusion because "dilusion" >> presupposes a state of affairs that IS -- i.e., a reality. > > Yes, I would imagine that the people shouting illusion or delusion > do assume > some different sort of reality. That was mostly my point - the term is > ill defined, and not of much practical use AFAICS, except for fueling > endless philosophical debates like this one. Right. I realized that as Glen points out this discussion -- as so many do -- got side-tracked into the narrow alley of defending or "attacking" a single rather silly claim "reality exists". Here is how I would put my claim: "Reality is not -- and cannot be -- what people take to be real." On Sep 17, 2009, at 10:06 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Well, I think so (emoticon for nervous smile). > > How can you even write to me without presupposing my existence. And > as Holt points out, the route to pointing out that I am just a > figment of your imagination requires the reality of something called > an imagination. Holt argued "Mind here" was a more complex > statement than "world there" because the former presupposes the > latter but not the reverse. Contra Descartes, I am not aware of a > mind, I am aware of a world. Only after some heavy lifting can I > separate a mind out from the rest of the world. I mean, which do > you think a baby discovers first: his world or his mind? This all seems like so much dualistic flabber-jabber to me. i.e. these folks presuppose an objective material world and then count it as an argument in their favor that "you" can't have an disagreement with "them" without entering into such a world. As the baby example reveals. What does it say about the underlying point of view that one presumes that it is possible for one to be discovered before the other. In fact, interdependence -- characterized as dependent arising -- is the only explanation that makes any sense at all to me. On Sep 17, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > Well, you already know my position on reducibility, namely that it's > a mistaken quest. Everything -- other than whatever turns out to be > primitive, if indeed anything turns out to be primitive -- is > explainable. That is, we will eventually figure out how it is > implemented. How can you explain something without taking into account everything that might affect it? And as things are affected (cause happens) across scales and types, how could you hope to isolate "anything"? The only way that this reading could be correct is if there indeed did turn out to be a primitive, which is impossible. So, we'll never figure any of this out to complete satisfaction-- thank god. -Miles ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Glen, You and Nick (and I) actually agree that thought is not necessary for us to eat, walk, etc. We do it whether or not we think that we do it. It seems to me that you are supposing that Nick (and I) are saying something different. We're not. What I'm saying (and what I imagine Nick is saying) is that once one starts to think about it, it makes no sense to deny reality, not that our thought is necessary for reality.
Furthermore, I would add (and I don't know what Nick thinks about this), that we are thiking beings and that we almost can't help ourselves from thinking. Consequently (in my view), we can't honestly say that we have no opinion about reality. We can hardly help ourselves. It's part of human nature to look around, observe, and conclude. That's one way in which we are different from pond scum. So since (again in my view) one can't help but have an opinion about reality (at least once someone poses the question), it makes no sense to me to then deny it -- or even to deny having an opinion. We just aren't built that way. Admittedly that's a somewhat different question, and it's possible that we can not have an opinion about issues like that. But I doubt it. It's like looking at the sky (with no clouds) and denying that one has an opinion about its color. It's hard for me to believe that one can do that. But as I said, perhaps it's possible. -- Russ A On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote: Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 10:06 PM: ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)
|
|
And by the way, when I say one can't help but have an opinion about the color of the sky I'm really saying that one can't help but have an opinion about one's experience of seeing the sky. Certainly one can ask whether it even makes sense to say that the sky has a color, and if so how would one measure it, etc. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that one can hardly help but have an opinion about having experienced the sky having a blue color when one looks at it. I don't know whether that clarifies things or not.
-- Russ On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: Glen, You and Nick (and I) actually agree that thought is not necessary for us to eat, walk, etc. We do it whether or not we think that we do it. It seems to me that you are supposing that Nick (and I) are saying something different. We're not. What I'm saying (and what I imagine Nick is saying) is that once one starts to think about it, it makes no sense to deny reality, not that our thought is necessary for reality. ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |