Friam

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Classic

List

Threaded

22 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Hi, Dave,

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what. And also, this business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever crazier than I usually am. I find myself typing a response on my new computer while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing is happening. So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the disjointedness of the conversation. Sorry for that.

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that smacks of “experience enhancement”. I can hear you all putting on your Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, “Sad!” But there it is. I am not one to be tempted by the giant roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall. To me, life is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps. Nor do I have a much of an interest in science fiction. I come from the Silent Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!) The sixties is the chasm across which you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one another. In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I am at pains to manage. I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death and starvation of millions. I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on the news every day. To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement. Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well … annoying. Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me with wonder. If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil it shatters into … well … flints. Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like that. Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me ANYTHING about the Universe. Good LORD. Why would it?

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in …

I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. …

Do I dare to eat a peach?

I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.

I have heard the mermaids singing each to each.

I do not think that they will sing for me.

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving. Even though I was a little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity. And now you find joy and wisdom in madness?! I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s Dionysians.

Yes. I know. Sad!

Nick

PS: OK. It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand. Assign me something. Not too much, please. N.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof David West [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick said:

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt

[NST==>what is a covert sensory experience? <==nst]

sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, but Reality is dualist/pluralist.

[NST==>Well, to a monist there is, in your sense, no reality at all! Reality is an aspiration. Reality is what arises from the management of experience. Given our generational difference, I sometimes wonder if you don’t take for granted the reality that I am fighting for. <==nst]

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" of the functioning organism and hence are not "experienced." Is this not a case of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary

[NST==>What is extra-ordinary language? <==nst]

language? Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I deplore."

Sir! Them's fightin words!!!

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick,

I was a baby and then a toddler during WWII but I feel much the same as you do. I do like fast cars, however.

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 9:39 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Dave,

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what. And also, this business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever crazier than I usually am. I find myself typing a response on my new computer while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing is happening. So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the disjointedness of the conversation. Sorry for that.

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that smacks of “experience enhancement”. I can hear you all putting on your Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, “Sad!” But there it is. I am not one to be tempted by the giant roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall. To me, life is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps. Nor do I have a much of an interest in science fiction. I come from the Silent Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!) The sixties is the chasm across which you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one another. In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I am at pains to manage. I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death and starvation of millions.   I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on the news every day. To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement. Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well … annoying. Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me with wonder. If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil it shatters into … well … flints. Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like that. Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me ANYTHING about the Universe. Good LORD. Why would it?

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in …

                I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. …
                Do I dare to eat a peach?
                I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.
                I have heard the mermaids singing each to each.
                I do not think that they will sing for me.

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving. Even though I was a little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity. And now you find joy and wisdom in madness?! I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s Dionysians.

Yes. I know. Sad!

Nick

PS: OK. It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand. Assign me something. Not too much, please. N.


Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof David West [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick said:

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt
[NST==>what is a covert sensory experience? <==nst]
sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, but Reality is dualist/pluralist.
[NST==>Well, to a monist there is, in your sense, no reality at all! Reality is an aspiration. Reality is what arises from the management of experience. Given our generational difference, I sometimes wonder if you don’t take for granted the reality that I am fighting for. <==nst]

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" of the functioning organism and hence are not "experienced." Is this not a case of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary
[NST==>What is extra-ordinary language? <==nst]
language? Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I deplore."

Sir! Them's fightin words!!!

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick -

I'm suspect that my own habits around indentation, italicization, etc. are not explicit enough to make things clear enough as to who is speaking to whom. I also tend to trust/defer to my mailtool (thunderbird) which *seems* to add very limited HTML markup of included sections. I do this in deference to those here who might be using (rich?)text-only tools. I am wondering if YOUR mail tool of choice strips that?

I assume you might see both:

Indentation <tab>

Italics

and does the following inclusion of your text appear as significantly different text than my own?

On 11/19/19 9:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi, Dave,

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what. And also, this business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever crazier than I usually am. I find myself typing a response on my new computer while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing is happening. So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the disjointedness of the conversation. Sorry for that.

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that smacks of “experience enhancement”. I can hear you all putting on your Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, “Sad!” But there it is. I am not one to be tempted by the giant roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall. To me, life is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps. Nor do I have a much of an interest in science fiction. I come from the Silent Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!) The sixties is the chasm across which you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one another. In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I am at pains to manage. I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death and starvation of millions.   I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on the news every day. To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement. Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well … annoying. Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me with wonder. If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil it shatters into … well … flints. Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like that. Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me ANYTHING about the Universe. Good LORD. Why would it?

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in …

                I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. …

                Do I dare to eat a peach?

                I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.

                I have heard the mermaids singing each to each.

                I do not think that they will sing for me.

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving. Even though I was a little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity. And now you find joy and wisdom in madness?! I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s Dionysians.

Yes. I know. Sad!

Nick

PS: OK. It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand. Assign me something. Not too much, please. N.



Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof David West [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson [hidden email]
Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick said:

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt

[NST==>what is a covert sensory experience? <==nst]

sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, but Reality is dualist/pluralist.

[NST==>Well, to a monist there is, in your sense, no reality at all! Reality is an aspiration. Reality is what arises from the management of experience. Given our generational difference, I sometimes wonder if you don’t take for granted the reality that I am fighting for. <==nst]

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" of the functioning organism and hence are not "experienced." Is this not a case of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary

[NST==>What is extra-ordinary language? <==nst]

language? Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I deplore."

Sir! Them's fightin words!!!

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

No. Indeed, your message came through … as our president would say … perfect.

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:21 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick -

I assume you might see both:

Indentation <tab>

Italics

and does the following inclusion of your text appear as significantly different text than my own?

On 11/19/19 9:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi, Dave,

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what. And also, this business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever crazier than I usually am. I find myself typing a response on my new computer while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing is happening. So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the disjointedness of the conversation. Sorry for that.

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that smacks of “experience enhancement”. I can hear you all putting on your Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, “Sad!” But there it is. I am not one to be tempted by the giant roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall. To me, life is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps. Nor do I have a much of an interest in science fiction. I come from the Silent Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!) The sixties is the chasm across which you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one another. In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I am at pains to manage. I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death and starvation of millions.   I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on the news every day. To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement. Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well … annoying. Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me with wonder. If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil it shatters into … well … flints. Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like that. Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me ANYTHING about the Universe. Good LORD. Why would it?

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in …

                I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. …
                Do I dare to eat a peach?
                I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.
                I have heard the mermaids singing each to each.
                I do not think that they will sing for me.

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving. Even though I was a little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity. And now you find joy and wisdom in madness?! I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s Dionysians.
Yes. I know. Sad!

Nick

PS: OK. It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand. Assign me something. Not too much, please. N.


Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof David West [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson [hidden email]
Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick said:

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt
[NST==>what is a covert sensory experience? <==nst]
sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, but Reality is dualist/pluralist.
[NST==>Well, to a monist there is, in your sense, no reality at all! Reality is an aspiration. Reality is what arises from the management of experience. Given our generational difference, I sometimes wonder if you don’t take for granted the reality that I am fighting for. <==nst]

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" of the functioning organism and hence are not "experienced." Is this not a case of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary
[NST==>What is extra-ordinary language? <==nst]
language? Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I deplore."

Sir! Them's fightin words!!!

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick, and Frank,

Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes.

May I ask you a question: may I characterize you as a "experenci-ologist," a philosopher/scientist of experience? If yes, can you give a precise definition of experience? Perhaps more interesting; can you give me reasons for excluding data points that seem to me to be experiential (mystical, drug, meditation, quantum stimuli, a long list of others) from consideration.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, dear Nick, / Than appear to be dreamt of in your philosophy of experiential monism." Even if you are adverse to personal experience of them, why is it not reasonable to expect some account of them or rationale for their exclusion?

davew

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi, Dave,

I had seen your post below before, but because you computer woke-folk won’t use HTML, I can never tell who’s talking to whom about what. And also, this business of having two computers, neither of which work, is driving me ever crazier than I usually am. I find myself typing a response on my new computer while moving the mouse connected to my old computer and wondering why nothing is happening. So I stipulate that I have contributed more than my share to the disjointedness of the conversation. Sorry for that.

I will try and straighten things out a bit below.

In the meantime allow me to cop to my puritanism with respect to anything that smacks of “experience enhancement”. I can hear you all putting on your Trump-sincere-voice, shedding one crocodile tear each, and saying, in a chorus, “Sad!” But there it is. I am not one to be tempted by the giant roller-coaster at the fair, or by the vampire movie at the mall. To me, life is enough of a roller-coaster without introducing gratuitous bumps. Nor do I have a much of an interest in science fiction. I come from the Silent Generation (Remember, I am THAT old!) The sixties is the chasm across which you and I (and many of the other participants in this discussion) view one another. In my Peircean moments, I view life as a stream of experiences that I am at pains to manage. I grew up hearing about Hitler, killing camps, death and starvation of millions.   I didn’t have to imagine goblins; they were on the news every day. To me, a quiet life is a miraculous achievement. Anything that makes that stream of experience more difficult to manage is… well … annoying. Drug experiences, extreme experiences of any kind, do not fill me with wonder. If you take a large chunk of flint stone and bash it on an anvil it shatters into … well … flints. Hitting the human mind with a drug-hammer, or a starvation hammer, a near-death hammer, or even a sleep-hammer is like that. Yes, I suppose, it tells you something about the structure of the thing you are hitting, but I don’t suppose, with my Puritan mindset, that it tells me ANYTHING about the Universe. Good LORD. Why would it?

I know that Prufrock was Ironic, but I still take some odd perverse pleasure in …

                I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. …
                Do I dare to eat a peach?
                I shall wear white flannel trousers and walk upon the beach.
                I have heard the mermaids singing each to each.
                I do not think that they will sing for me.

Sometimes I feel like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving. Even though I was a little kid during WWII, I still feel like I fought for your sanity. And now you find joy and wisdom in madness?! I am a 50’s Apollonian in a nest of 70’s Dionysians.

Yes. I know. Sad!

Nick

PS: OK. It’s time I read some Geertz first-hand. Assign me something. Not too much, please. N.


Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof David West [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:14 AM
To: nick thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick said:

"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond experience. I never could convince them that that their belief in a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."

How about an assertion that there is A Reality beyond "ordinary" experience; with "ordinary experience" being the half-dozen or so overt
[NST==>what is a covert sensory experience? <==nst]
sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with experience.

Given a different set of inputs — e.g. emotions, hallucinations, visions, dreams — must we assume that we are still experiencing the same Reality as that experienced with overt sensory inputs; or, is the door open to an alternative Reality even if Reality-A and Reality-B have significant but not total congruence? We are still experiencing, so your experiential monism is intact, but Reality is dualist/pluralist.
[NST==>Well, to a monist there is, in your sense, no reality at all! Reality is an aspiration. Reality is what arises from the management of experience. Given our generational difference, I sometimes wonder if you don’t take for granted the reality that I am fighting for. <==nst]

Or, suppose there are a set of inputs, of the same Reality, that are not included in the overt set (sight, taste, et. al.). Previously it was noted that the eye can detect a single photon (and we can "sense" other quantum level phenomena). You asserted that such sensory inputs would be "lost in the noise" of the functioning organism and hence are not "experienced." Is this not a case of a detectable/sensible Reality beyond experience?

A corollary: can there be "experiences" — a set of stimulus-response pairs — not included in the overt senses, and not describable in ordinary
[NST==>What is extra-ordinary language? <==nst]
language? Obviously, I am talking about "mystical" experiences such as "being in the zone" or lower-case s, satori, or even upper-case s, Satori (aka enlightenment). It is important to note that these are stimulus-response events, not necessarily "experiences;" as experience, in ordinary language, necessarily implies an experience-r, and in the examples I am thinking about, there is no "I" and hence no experience-r.

AND,

"By the way, Geertz is probably the locus classicus of the relativism I deplore."

Sir! Them's fightin words!!!

But I forgive you, as you clearly misunderstand Geertz (one of my personal heroes). Nothing he says is "relativist." His observations and conclusions are, however, hermeneutic. Geertz merely points out a fact — there are no cross cultural universals (except one, that I will get to in just a moment), nor are there any "objective" criteria for asserting primacy or privilege of one culture over another. From this comes an indictment of ethnocentrism as one culture stating that "obviously" our values, our ways of doing things, our worldview, our customs ... are superior to yours, correct while yours are erroneous, etc.

Hermeneuticism is NOT relativism.

The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.

davew

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Dave,

I smoked hashish in 1969. I drank to excess as recently as 1970. I tried TM, apparently unsuccessfully. My dad used to say, "How do you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it?", referring to food he liked such as corned beef and cabbage.

Pretty Puritanical I guess.

Frank

Prof David West

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Frank,

A puritan in a fast car planning to smoke the vette in the next lane when the light turns green and then laughing out loud when he does so. Interesting, and not exactly Roger Williams.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Dave,

I smoked hashish in 1969. I drank to excess as recently as 1970. I tried TM, apparently unsuccessfully. My dad used to say, "How do you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it?", referring to food he liked such as corned beef and cabbage.

Pretty Puritanical I guess.

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Dave,

I don't laugh out loud; I cringe guiltily.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 7:34 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank,

A puritan in a fast car planning to smoke the vette in the next lane when the light turns green and then laughing out loud when he does so. Interesting, and not exactly Roger Williams.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Dave,

I smoked hashish in 1969. I drank to excess as recently as 1970. I tried TM, apparently unsuccessfully. My dad used to say, "How do you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it?", referring to food he liked such as corned beef and cabbage.

Pretty Puritanical I guess.

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

Marcus

Prof David West

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Marcus,

"puritanism" was mentioned only because Nick, and indirectly Frank, used the term as a self-descriptor. Obviously there are other reasons for self imposed limits other than puritanism.

You might not pour gasoline on your computer to improve it, but you might overclock it. For me, hallucinogens are closer to overclocking the brain/mind while cocaine, morphine, oxycodone, etc. are akin to gasoline. The latter are (bad) habit inducing but not the former.

Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect like overclocking — of generating excess heat.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

Marcus
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Can somebody explain “overclocking”

That’s a new one for me.

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 Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 5:09 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Marcus,

"puritanism" was mentioned only because Nick, and indirectly Frank, used the term as a self-descriptor. Obviously there are other reasons for self imposed limits other than puritanism.

Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect like overclocking — of generating excess heat.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

Marcus
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick writes:

< Can somebody explain “overclocking” >

A computer's processor (CPU) runs at a certain clock rate. These days it is around 3 billion cycles per second on average. A higher clock rate will generate more heat and increase the risk of a malfunction (or a meltdown). To mitigate this, manufacturers or enthusiasts will add cooling systems. That could be anything from a large heatsink to liquid nitrogen. My main computer has a closed-loop water-based system. The pump breaks down about once a year, and then I have to buy a new one. The cooling system is more useful to mitigate temperature variations in the ambient environment than it is to increase the clock rate. The degree to which a processor can be overclocked varies by processor design. Typically it isn't very much, but with a good cooling system a 30% increase in performance can be possible.

To really get high clock rates, there is the possibility of using superconductors. This engineering work is in its infancy.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 9:06 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Can somebody explain “overclocking”

That’s a new one for me.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Marcus,

"puritanism" was mentioned only because Nick, and indirectly Frank, used the term as a self-descriptor. Obviously there are other reasons for self imposed limits other than puritanism.

Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect like overclocking — of generating excess heat.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

Marcus

============================================================

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect like overclocking — of generating excess heat. >

It seems to me the body has a built-in mechanism for lowering the imposition of reality: REM sleep. To remember (some) dreams, all I have to do is sleep in a little.

As far as enhancement goes, this is worth the time IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI&feature=youtu.be

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 5:08 AM
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Marcus,

"puritanism" was mentioned only because Nick, and indirectly Frank, used the term as a self-descriptor. Obviously there are other reasons for self imposed limits other than puritanism.

Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect like overclocking — of generating excess heat.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

Marcus

============================================================

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Nick -

I think the "overclocking" analogy is not entirely fitting to the larger discussion of "altered states" because it merely invokes a quantitative increase, but might be a good starting point to continue the discussion. I *don't* find the appeal of a 30% faster CPU very compelling, so am not inclined to overclock my own systems nor invoke the extra maintenance of liquid-cooling, etc. Neither do I feel compelled to open up the aspiration of my car engines with tuned headers, custom cranks/cams, supercharging compressors to get a similar expansion of performance from them either. I believe it can be done, I respect those (to some extent) who do it, and by extension I have some appreciation for those who experiment (responsibly) with boosting their minds and bodies biochemically. Our former "friend of SFx/FriAM" Stephen Kotler has made a very dynamic career of such things, including elaborate documentation of same: https://www.stevenkotler.com/ .

My own roots/origins might be described as having "Puritanical" roots, though I'm more inclined to use the term "Calvanist" which I suppose is very related. I also have avoided significant excursions into drug experimentation. My own avoidance is roughly fourfold: 1) Puritanical/Calvinist upbringing/embedding; 2) Criminal embedding of drug-culture; 3) Legal implications (esp. security clearance); 4) Conflicted trust in "experts" in the domain.

In spite of above I have been strongly drawn to a larger domain of "altered states" of which mood/perception-altering drugs are most commonly considered. Starting with mood/perception altering drugs, the socially acceptable/legal subset we all know (and many indulge in) of alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and the less acknowledged carbohydrates and fats. Many of us are at least strongly habituated to one or more of the above if not literally biochemically dependent. Nicotine is perhaps the most overtly addictive, but alcoholism demonstrates the risk of alcohol, while many suffer significantly over the lack of or delay in caffeine consumption.

I am not acutely sensitive to blood-sugar levels myself but know many who become quite difficult if they don't get a hit of carbs regularly. I have experimented with ketogenic (ultra-low-carb) diets and thereby came to appreciate more of how my own body responds to carbs (and fats) over different time scales. One thing that ketogenic states are suggested to effect is brain function. The basic argument is that neural tissue predominately uses the ketone energy cycle rather than glucose and that a ketogenic diet can have significant implications for mental function. There are therapeutic applications of ketogenesis for things like childhood epilepsy and investigations into relief of the symptoms of dementia. I can't claim to observe any significant difference in my mental function while my metabolism is ketogenic with the exception that during the transition *into* that metabolic mode, what many call "carb flu" or "carb-induced brain fog" is familiar. My experience is less acute than others report but I can unequivocally report that for a short while (days) my mental function feels "disturbed"... it is very difficult to decide if *after* this period that my mental function is enhanced beyond baseline in any way. I have not done any controlled experiments. I can also report that when I *return* to carbs, that I don't feel any specific mental changes. I DO feel (during ketogenesis) a nearly complete loss of desire/hunger for carbs/sugar which returns in spades when I return to carbs, but much of this is obscured by simply enjoying some of my favorite foods with carbs (beer, popcorn, tortillas).

Having always been somewhat identified with my rational/intellectual self as well as an intuitive self (but not as much my emotional self), I have been tempted by various claims of mental enhancement through chemistry. I (from a distance) appreciate the draw of strong mood/energy enhancers (e.g. a suite of uppers) and the draw of mind expanders. Not having a significant attachment to religious modes, I have traditionally been less interested in (or put off by) entheogenic substances. This has somewhat changed as I move toward my twilight years, having been close to two men who slipped into (and ultimately died from) alzheimers-dementia, I find myself more aware of my own mental state/acuity/memory function. I am not one to be easily entranced by other's personal testimonies about the experience of "altered states" since it seems so very subjective. I *was* however, somewhat swayed by the work of Strassman while at UNM... his subsequent work seems a lot more hyperbolic and somewhat of the flavor that has turned me off with other Psy researchers.

Orthogonally to the question of chemically induced altered states, I also share your avoidance of extreme physical inducement of altered states. I *have* been exhausted and sleep-deprived in my life, but do not find either particularly appealing, though I *do* have some experiences of altered mental/emotional states in those conditions. More aptly, I am a vivid dreamer and go through phases of strong lucid dreaming starting as early as my late childhood. I can't be sure that lucid dreaming wasn't part of my early childhood experience as well, I suspect I held less distinction between my waking and sleeping awareness at that time. My professional arc which started out in investigations of objective reality (science/engineering) began to yield to investigations into human understanding in the context of objective observations... in particular in the area of first computer graphics, then scientific visualization, visual analytics and ultimately virtual reality. I have also been very interested in collective consciousness, both from a technological (global brain) and a mythopoetic (e.g. Jung/Campbell) perspective albeit without overt or strong "spiritual" perspectives. I DO think there is an emergent phenomena in the individual and the group which can be called "spirituality" which is somewhat different than the more common idea that there is some kind of objective spiritual realm which humans are more or less aware of.

Carry on!

- Steve

On 11/21/19 9:16 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Nick writes:

< Can somebody explain “overclocking” >

A computer's processor (CPU) runs at a certain clock rate. These days it is around 3 billion cycles per second on average. A higher clock rate will generate more heat and increase the risk of a malfunction (or a meltdown). To mitigate this, manufacturers or enthusiasts will add cooling systems. That could be anything from a large heatsink to liquid nitrogen. My main computer has a closed-loop water-based system. The pump breaks down about once a year, and then I have to buy a new one. The cooling system is more useful to mitigate temperature variations in the ambient environment than it is to increase the clock rate. The degree to which a processor can be overclocked varies by processor design. Typically it isn't very much, but with a good cooling system a 30% increase in performance can be possible.

To really get high clock rates, there is the possibility of using superconductors. This engineering work is in its infancy.

Marcus

From: Friam [hidden email] on behalf of Nick Thompson [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 9:06 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Can somebody explain “overclocking”

That’s a new one for me.

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 Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 5:09 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Marcus,

"puritanism" was mentioned only because Nick, and indirectly Frank, used the term as a self-descriptor. Obviously there are other reasons for self imposed limits other than puritanism.

You might not pour gasoline on your computer to improve it, but you might overclock it. For me, hallucinogens are closer to overclocking the brain/mind while cocaine, morphine, oxycodone, etc. are akin to gasoline. The latter are (bad) habit inducing but not the former.

Interestingly, most hallucinogens also have a side effect like overclocking — of generating excess heat.

davew

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Dave writes:

< Puritanism is one of those things that IS relative, in the sense that most everyone has a line that is not to be crossed, for no objective, rational, reason but just because "I don't want to." I won't use recreational drugs (e.g. cocaine), drink to excess, or read (well I have, but don't anymore) romance novels. We are all puritans sometimes. >

Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

Marcus

============================================================

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

And among the reasons I don't have a security clearance is to preserve the *option* of taking cocaine, at will. 8^) I agree with both you and Dave in that I would not choose to take cocaine. But I might choose to take other drugs. E.g. I've taken some THC since it's been legal, here. It's fun for a few hours, but then I almost always get a massive headache. So, I have a built-in Puritanifier ... well, Puritanical is mostly a word used to control *other people* ... So, we're definitely abusing the word, here.

The real question is about thrill-seeking. I can't imagine purposefully avoiding thrilling experiences. I may not seek them out like some do. But avoiding them seems like evidence of PTSD. Of course, given the violence of my childhood, maybe *not* avoiding them is evidence of PTSD. 8^) If so, then seeking it out would be something like psychosis. Regardless, I'm a firm believer in "resets". I enjoy moving, changing jobs, hanging out in unfamiliar places, traveling to foreign lands, etc. And that's how I view the psychedelics (both drugs and practices like meditation or even Cognitive Behavior Therapy), as ways to "reset". Anyone who purposefully avoids resets seems a bit strange to me. If you're simply too lazy to engage in resets, that's more reasonable than purposefully avoiding them.

On 11/20/19 10:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Glen, Marcus, Steve,

Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives. In a good "school", I should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other members such that I could, if necessary, fill in if one of you were absent. But I can't. I would like to do better.

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 glen?C
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:20 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

And among the reasons I don't have a security clearance is to preserve the *option* of taking cocaine, at will. 8^) I agree with both you and Dave in that I would not choose to take cocaine. But I might choose to take other drugs. E.g. I've taken some THC since it's been legal, here. It's fun for a few hours, but then I almost always get a massive headache. So, I have a built-in Puritanifier ... well, Puritanical is mostly a word used to control *other people* ... So, we're definitely abusing the word, here.

The real question is about thrill-seeking. I can't imagine purposefully avoiding thrilling experiences. I may not seek them out like some do. But avoiding them seems like evidence of PTSD. Of course, given the violence of my childhood, maybe *not* avoiding them is evidence of PTSD. 8^) If so, then seeking it out would be something like psychosis. Regardless, I'm a firm believer in "resets". I enjoy moving, changing jobs, hanging out in unfamiliar places, traveling to foreign lands, etc. And that's how I view the psychedelics (both drugs and practices like meditation or even Cognitive Behavior Therapy), as ways to "reset". Anyone who purposefully avoids resets seems a bit strange to me. If you're simply too lazy to engage in resets, that's more reasonable than purposefully avoiding them.

On 11/20/19 10:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Puritanism? Among the reasons I don’t take cocaine is that I held/hold a security clearance and I would have been caught within a few months if I had done that. For example, I also would not think of improving my computer by pouring gasoline on it. Why would I expect some ham-handed intervention like that to work on my brain? Why should I go out of my way to find more bad habits within unknown consequences?

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

The only way to fix this is to do what I'm trying to do with Steve in the "means of production" thread. He seemed to use "means of production" as if it's a meaningful concept. And because I can't make sense of the phrase, I've asked him why he finds it meaningful. Then when he explains himself, I *try* to say what I thought he said but in my own words.

Checking your rendition of what you think a person might say against that person is the only way to get better. You have to always ask "Did I restate your position right?"

I don't intend to harass you, here. And I'm probably wrong. But I don't recall you ever doing that on this mailing list. You seem to hold quite fast to your side of the discussion. I'm a hypocrite, of course, because I don't do it anywhere near as much as I should. It's a flaw in our (particularly we males) ways of interacting. We're more interested in talking than listening. You could try it, now, by repeating back to one of us what you *think* we're saying and hope that person takes the (often significant) time, effort, and good will to iterate.

Of course, that type of iteration is *nothing* like what we tend to get in "school".

On 11/21/19 10:05 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives. In a good "school", I should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other members such that I could, if necessary, fill in if one of you were absent. But I can't. I would like to do better.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick -

I'll second Glen's suggestion that you delineate as best you can,
specific things you don't understand and iterate with one or more of us
an those as best you can. As evidenced by my discussion with Glen on
"means of production", it can be rather grueling for both sides, but
since I have a lot of trust in Glen's good intentions and his commitment
to not just throw up his hands and give up on the discussion, we are
powering through it and I *think* getting somewhere. More on that on
that thread soon.

What I hear you saying is that our perspectives/experiences feel too
foreign to you to to know where to start? While my response was rather
wordy (as are all of my submissions), I think my perspective might be
closer to yours than Dave's for sure and perhaps others.

- Steve

On 11/21/19 5:08 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> The only way to fix this is to do what I'm trying to do with Steve in the "means of production" thread. He seemed to use "means of production" as if it's a meaningful concept. And because I can't make sense of the phrase, I've asked him why he finds it meaningful. Then when he explains himself, I *try* to say what I thought he said but in my own words.
>
> Checking your rendition of what you think a person might say against that person is the only way to get better. You have to always ask "Did I restate your position right?"
>
> I don't intend to harass you, here. And I'm probably wrong. But I don't recall you ever doing that on this mailing list. You seem to hold quite fast to your side of the discussion. I'm a hypocrite, of course, because I don't do it anywhere near as much as I should. It's a flaw in our (particularly we males) ways of interacting. We're more interested in talking than listening. You could try it, now, by repeating back to one of us what you *think* we're saying and hope that person takes the (often significant) time, effort, and good will to iterate.
>
> Of course, that type of iteration is *nothing* like what we tend to get in "school".
>
> On 11/21/19 10:05 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives. In a good "school", I should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other members such that I could, if necessary, fill in if one of you were absent. But I can't. I would like to do better.

Nick Thompson

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Thanks for these comments.

Sorry, I used the word "school" in a very idiosyncratic way -- to mean a group of people who, while they don't agree, necessarily, are so thoroughly familiar with one another's positions that they can state them to the owner's satisfaction and represent them in the owner's absence.

I am going to think about all of this. Now I have to get ready for the Weekly Service.

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 6:48 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick -

I'll second Glen's suggestion that you delineate as best you can, specific things you don't understand and iterate with one or more of us an those as best you can. As evidenced by my discussion with Glen on "means of production", it can be rather grueling for both sides, but since I have a lot of trust in Glen's good intentions and his commitment to not just throw up his hands and give up on the discussion, we are powering through it and I *think* getting somewhere. More on that on that thread soon.

What I hear you saying is that our perspectives/experiences feel too foreign to you to to know where to start? While my response was rather wordy (as are all of my submissions), I think my perspective might be closer to yours than Dave's for sure and perhaps others.

- Steve

On 11/21/19 5:08 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ 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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: post you seem to have missed from FRIAM

Nick,

After Service, you might pick up a copy of Clifford Gertz's The Interpretation of Culture and read
"Chapter 1 — Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture;"
"Chapter 8 — Ideology as a Cultural System;" and
"Chapter 3 — The Growth of Culture and the Evolution of Mind."

When you find that he is easy to read and yourself intrigued, go ahead and read the rest of the book.

In your spare time: please send me an accessible source by which I might come to understand "behavior" and "behavioralism" as you speak of them. I confess to finding the whole notion untenable and that means I must not understand it sufficiently.

Thanks,

dave west

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Thanks for these comments.
>
> Sorry, I used the word "school" in a very idiosyncratic way -- to mean
> a group of people who, while they don't agree, necessarily, are so
> thoroughly familiar with one another's positions that they can state
> them to the owner's satisfaction and represent them in the owner's
> absence.
>
> I am going to think about all of this. Now I have to get ready for the
> Weekly Service.
>
> 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 Steven A Smith
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 6:48 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] post you seem to have missed from FRIAM
>
> Nick -
>
> I'll second Glen's suggestion that you delineate as best you can,
> specific things you don't understand and iterate with one or more of us
> an those as best you can. As evidenced by my discussion with Glen on
> "means of production", it can be rather grueling for both sides, but
> since I have a lot of trust in Glen's good intentions and his
> commitment to not just throw up his hands and give up on the
> discussion, we are powering through it and I *think* getting somewhere.
> More on that on that thread soon.
>
> What I hear you saying is that our perspectives/experiences feel too
> foreign to you to to know where to start? While my response was
> rather wordy (as are all of my submissions), I think my perspective
> might be closer to yours than Dave's for sure and perhaps others.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 11/21/19 5:08 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > The only way to fix this is to do what I'm trying to do with Steve in the "means of production" thread. He seemed to use "means of production" as if it's a meaningful concept. And because I can't make sense of the phrase, I've asked him why he finds it meaningful. Then when he explains himself, I *try* to say what I thought he said but in my own words.
> >
> > Checking your rendition of what you think a person might say against that person is the only way to get better. You have to always ask "Did I restate your position right?"
> >
> > I don't intend to harass you, here. And I'm probably wrong. But I don't recall you ever doing that on this mailing list. You seem to hold quite fast to your side of the discussion. I'm a hypocrite, of course, because I don't do it anywhere near as much as I should. It's a flaw in our (particularly we males) ways of interacting. We're more interested in talking than listening. You could try it, now, by repeating back to one of us what you *think* we're saying and hope that person takes the (often significant) time, effort, and good will to iterate.
> >
> > Of course, that type of iteration is *nothing* like what we tend to get in "school".
> >
> > On 11/21/19 10:05 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> >> Your reactions to my "puritan" probe completely surprised me, and I realize that I don't have a good grip on your perspectives. In a good "school", I should be able to anticipate, or even channel, the reactions of other members such that I could, if necessary, fill in if one of you were absent. But I can't. I would like to do better.
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>