Strawson on consciousness.

[Russ Abbott]

An antidote for Nick Thompsonism.  I've summarized Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. 

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

[Stephen Guerin-5]

Thanks. Russ. I've sympathetic to that perspective on matter.

Somewhat relatedly to the consciousness research, here's John Horgan's skeptical observation "Dispatch from the Desert" covering the 2016 Consciousness Conference in Tucson in April. Stu was briefly mentioned.

As a reminder, Horgan 1995 wrote the SciAM skeptical article "From Complexity to Perplexity"

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

An antidote for Nick Thompsonism.  I've summarized Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Geez, Russ, who would have thought you were such a handsome old dog.

 

Anyway, not sure how the Strawson thing  is an antidote to “Thompsonism”.  And which, Thompson, by the way.  During the time we have been corresponding, you and I, I have gone from being a materialist monist a la E. B  Holt (“all that exists consists of matter and its relations”) to being neutral monist at la CS Peirce (“all that exists is experience, and all distinctions we make – mind, matter, your mind, my mind, past, present, future – arise as patterns in experience.”  )  There is not a lot of daylight between experience monism and any other kind, but the Peirce way feels just a tad more honest and radical in its monism.  On that view, there is nothing outside of experience-- talk of “experience of X” is all nonsense, unless, of course, X is another experience – nor is there any place for experience to be, no brain, no mind, unless these manifest themselves as patterns in experience.  Thus, our obligation as scientists is to describe the experiences  that anchor our references tomind, and brain, and anything else that we might claim to be outside, or beyond, experience.  So, how would one anchor in experience, such claims as “consciousness is nothing but brain activity”? 

 

Nick   

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:48 AM
To: FRIAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

 

An antidote for Nick Thompsonism.  I've summarized Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. 

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

[Russ Abbott]

That sounds a lot like what Strawson was saying.

Did becoming an experience monist change your life in any way?

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Geez, Russ, who would have thought you were such a handsome old dog.

 

Anyway, not sure how the Strawson thing  is an antidote to “Thompsonism”.  And which, Thompson, by the way.  During the time we have been corresponding, you and I, I have gone from being a materialist monist a la E. B  Holt (“all that exists consists of matter and its relations”) to being neutral monist at la CS Peirce (“all that exists is experience, and all distinctions we make – mind, matter, your mind, my mind, past, present, future – arise as patterns in experience.”  )  There is not a lot of daylight between experience monism and any other kind, but the Peirce way feels just a tad more honest and radical in its monism.  On that view, there is nothing outside of experience-- talk of “experience of X” is all nonsense, unless, of course, X is another experience – nor is there any place for experience to be, no brain, no mind, unless these manifest themselves as patterns in experience.  Thus, our obligation as scientists is to describe the experiences  that anchor our references tomind, and brain, and anything else that we might claim to be outside, or beyond, experience.  So, how would one anchor in experience, such claims as “consciousness is nothing but brain activity”? 

 

Nick   

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:48 AM
To: FRIAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

 

An antidote for Nick Thompsonism.  I've summarized Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

What's missing are the methods for relating the patterns (including reachability - can you get there from here).  It's fideistic to assert monism without giving some hypothetical method by which to resolve even 2 (much less billions) into 1.  Consciousness seems to me to be at least a 2nd order effect of experience, i.e. the ability to relate a prior experience to a present experience.  There are other higher order effects, too, over and above moment-to-moment continuity of an individual identity ... e.g. across individuals (see someone else grimace in disgust and you experience an empathetic sense of disgust) and across "what-if" scenarios (the ability to expect/anticipate what you might experience in counterfactual circumstances).

By saying an experience is nothing but brain activity, one is also saying that relations (e.g. continuity) between experiences is also brain activity.  But transitions between experiences, while still experiences, are of a different kind.  So even if (or especially if?) you're a monist, it's naive and wholly inadequate to flatten everything out and just call it all "experience" ... that would be tantamount to claiming hearing the roar of a lion is the same as taking a bubble bath. Pfft.


On 05/16/2016 11:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Anyway, not sure how the Strawson thing  is an antidote to “Thompsonism”.  And which, Thompson, by the way.  During the time we have been corresponding, you and I, I have gone from being a materialist monist a la E. B  Holt (“all that exists consists of matter and its relations”) to being neutral monist at la CS Peirce (“all that exists is experience, and all distinctions we make – mind, matter, your mind, my mind, past, present, future – arise as patterns in experience.”  )  There is not a lot of daylight between experience monism and any other kind, but the Peirce way feels just a tad more honest and radical in its monism.  On that view, there is nothing outside of experience-- talk of “experience of X” is all nonsense, unless, of course, X is another experience – nor is there any place for experience to be, no brain, no mind, unless these manifest themselves as patterns in experience.  Thus, our obligation as scientists is to describe the experiences  that a

nchor our references tomind, and brain, and anything else that we might claim to be outside, or beyond, experience.  So, how would one anchor in experience, such claims as “consciousness is nothing but brain activity”?

--
⛧ glen

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

[Nick Thompson]

I agree, glen, that defining structures of experience to which we advert when we speak is the task.  I don't think I have to believe that these structures are "flat".  At the very least, I get first order, second order, and third order experiences.  

Pfft?

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 ?
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 6:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.


What's missing are the methods for relating the patterns (including reachability - can you get there from here).  It's fideistic to assert monism without giving some hypothetical method by which to resolve even 2 (much less billions) into 1.  Consciousness seems to me to be at least a 2nd order effect of experience, i.e. the ability to relate a prior experience to a present experience.  There are other higher order effects, too, over and above moment-to-moment continuity of an individual identity ... e.g. across individuals (see someone else grimace in disgust and you experience an empathetic sense of disgust) and across "what-if" scenarios (the ability to expect/anticipate what you might experience in counterfactual circumstances).

By saying an experience is nothing but brain activity, one is also saying that relations (e.g. continuity) between experiences is also brain activity.  But transitions between experiences, while still experiences, are of a different kind.  So even if (or especially if?) you're a monist, it's naive and wholly inadequate to flatten everything out and just call it all "experience" ... that would be tantamount to claiming hearing the roar of a lion is the same as taking a bubble bath. Pfft.


On 05/16/2016 11:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Anyway, not sure how the Strawson thing  is an antidote to
> “Thompsonism”.  And which, Thompson, by the way.  During the time we
> have been corresponding, you and I, I have gone from being a
> materialist monist a la E. B  Holt (“all that exists consists of
> matter and its relations”) to being neutral monist at la CS Peirce
> (“all that exists is experience, and all distinctions we make – mind,
> matter, your mind, my mind, past, present, future – arise as patterns
> in experience.”  )  There is not a lot of daylight between experience
> monism and any other kind, but the Peirce way feels just a tad more
> honest and radical in its monism.  On that view, there is nothing
> outside of experience-- talk of “experience of X” is all nonsense,
> unless, of course, X is another experience – nor is there any place
> for experience to be, no brain, no mind, unless these manifest
> themselves as patterns in experience.  Thus, our obligation as
> scientists is to describe the experiences  that a

nchor our references tomind, and brain, and anything else that we might claim to be outside, or beyond, experience.  So, how would one anchor in experience, such claims as “consciousness is nothing but brain activity”?

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Russ,

 

You asked:  Did becoming an experience monist change your life in any way?

 

Exactly the right question to ask a pragmatist.  If there is one thing a pragmatist should not be caught asserting is a distinction that does not make a difference.

 

I don’t think, as I said, there is a lot of difference in what follows from different sorts of monism.  What I will argue is that being a monist rather than a dualist  makes a difference.  But I won’t argue it now, because I am frantically getting ready to return to New England.  You and I have had our most useful arguments in June, when I am stuck in the clammy fogs that can sometimes press in from the Atlantic.  When the wind goes NE, you will hear from 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 Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

 

That sounds a lot like what Strawson was saying.

 

Did becoming an experience monist change your life in any way?

 

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Geez, Russ, who would have thought you were such a handsome old dog.

 

Anyway, not sure how the Strawson thing  is an antidote to “Thompsonism”.  And which, Thompson, by the way.  During the time we have been corresponding, you and I, I have gone from being a materialist monist a la E. B  Holt (“all that exists consists of matter and its relations”) to being neutral monist at la CS Peirce (“all that exists is experience, and all distinctions we make – mind, matter, your mind, my mind, past, present, future – arise as patterns in experience.”  )  There is not a lot of daylight between experience monism and any other kind, but the Peirce way feels just a tad more honest and radical in its monism.  On that view, there is nothing outside of experience-- talk of “experience of X” is all nonsense, unless, of course, X is another experience – nor is there any place for experience to be, no brain, no mind, unless these manifest themselves as patterns in experience.  Thus, our obligation as scientists is to describe the experiences  that anchor our references tomind, and brain, and anything else that we might claim to be outside, or beyond, experience.  So, how would one anchor in experience, such claims as “consciousness is nothing but brain activity”? 

 

Nick   

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:48 AM
To: FRIAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness.

 

An antidote for Nick Thompsonism.  I've summarized Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

On 05/16/2016 07:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Pfft?

Sorry.  That's my attempt to write a raspberry ... I don't know the emoticon... =P  maybe ... :-r ?  Of course, pfft is a "dry" raspberry.  To get the right effect, you have to stick your tongue out ... but you can't do that in polite company.  Plus, a dry raspberry is like throwing up your hands or shrugging.  "Pfft, I don't know where to go from here."  A wet raspberry is more playful, more context- and less content-driven.

--
⛧ glen

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

[Russ Abbott]

Steve,

Thanks for the pointer to the John Horgan posts about the Consciousness conference in Arizona. (I can't find your post to reply to. I thought it was in this thread.)

I had dismissed Horgan after his posts saying something like science was dead. But this redeems him in my view.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:19 AM glen ⛧ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/16/2016 07:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Pfft?

Sorry.  That's my attempt to write a raspberry ... I don't know the emoticon... =P  maybe ... :-r ?  Of course, pfft is a "dry" raspberry.  To get the right effect, you have to stick your tongue out ... but you can't do that in polite company.  Plus, a dry raspberry is like throwing up your hands or shrugging.  "Pfft, I don't know where to go from here."  A wet raspberry is more playful, more context- and less content-driven.

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Robert Wall]

Hi Russ, Steve, et al.,

I should tell you that I am reading John Horgan's The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (2015 edition).  Such an ominous title!  I know.  But here Horgan concludes for many scientific endeavors the job is finished [link to a critique of the book] for all practical purposes. 

Horgan thinks that we aren't likely to see any new Kuhnian paradigm shifts like with quantum mechanics or general and special relativity anytime soon, if ever.  We will likely only see gap-filling activities, so to speak, like with the Higgs particle in helping to complete the standard model of particle physics.  But this is all good too.  It is just not new knowledge.  Eh?

In the meantime, Horgan coins the term ironic science to classify what we seem to be doing now in science like, for example, in physics and its close cousin cosmology, where science is becoming untestable.  Beauty [e.g., mathematical elegance] seems to be the current standard for verification--it begs the issue as to whether we are discovering or inventing Reality.  To falsify String Theory--the leading candidate for the Theory of Everything--we would need a super-conducting super collider the size of the galaxy ... well, larger than we could practically make or even afford at least--and that is becoming an issue as well.  What we would be looking for is something that is neither matter nor energy: a multi-dimensional string that gives rise to properties found in our universe depending on the frequency of the vibrations. So, is this a reasonable priority when the returns are ever diminishing, as Horgan contends?

I read this very clever analogy for these strings.  Imagine God as a Cosmic Rocker playing his ten- or eleven-string guitar as the cosmos unfolds from his Big Bang amplifier.  Here's the compelling question: Is God playing to a particular musical score?  One that ultimately gives rise to humans and substance for consciousness?  Strong anthropic principle anyone?

There was a thought-provoking argument I read somewhere recently about the federal grants given to scientific research. Given that science research like with Super-String Theory is and has been arguably bleeding over into metaphysics, philosophy, or even religion (e.g., Edward Witten), we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] for the separation between science and state.  This action would imply that any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own.  This might be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly emerging Center for Open Science--an institution that arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine found in science journals and reported by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade.

I still like John Horgan as a skeptic and science writer and I appreciated the link provided by Steve for the Science of Consciousness Conference that I could not attend and which Horgan describes as not having come very far since his first visit in 1994.  Ironic science?  It would seem so IMHO.  Oh.  Here is SciAm's From Complexity to Perplexity outside the paywall.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread, which seems to be more about consciousness and ... monism (?).  But, in that context, I have long been hoping that we could crank up the energy in the Large Hadron Collider to find the mind particle and prove folks like the recently turned panpsychistic and American neuroscientist Christof Koch correct.  😎

Cheers,

Robert

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the pointer to the John Horgan posts about the Consciousness conference in Arizona. (I can't find your post to reply to. I thought it was in this thread.)

I had dismissed Horgan after his posts saying something like science was dead. But this redeems him in my view.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:19 AM glen ⛧ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/16/2016 07:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Pfft?

Sorry.  That's my attempt to write a raspberry ... I don't know the emoticon... =P  maybe ... :-r ?  Of course, pfft is a "dry" raspberry.  To get the right effect, you have to stick your tongue out ... but you can't do that in polite company.  Plus, a dry raspberry is like throwing up your hands or shrugging.  "Pfft, I don't know where to go from here."  A wet raspberry is more playful, more context- and less content-driven.

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Russ Abbott]

I don't feel hijacked. Thanks for the summary of Horgan's book. Don't have much to add at this point.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:44 PM Robert Wall <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Russ, Steve, et al.,

I should tell you that I am reading John Horgan's The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (2015 edition).  Such an ominous title!  I know.  But here Horgan concludes for many scientific endeavors the job is finished [link to a critique of the book] for all practical purposes. 

Horgan thinks that we aren't likely to see any new Kuhnian paradigm shifts like with quantum mechanics or general and special relativity anytime soon, if ever.  We will likely only see gap-filling activities, so to speak, like with the Higgs particle in helping to complete the standard model of particle physics.  But this is all good too.  It is just not new knowledge.  Eh?

In the meantime, Horgan coins the term ironic science to classify what we seem to be doing now in science like, for example, in physics and its close cousin cosmology, where science is becoming untestable.  Beauty [e.g., mathematical elegance] seems to be the current standard for verification--it begs the issue as to whether we are discovering or inventing Reality.  To falsify String Theory--the leading candidate for the Theory of Everything--we would need a super-conducting super collider the size of the galaxy ... well, larger than we could practically make or even afford at least--and that is becoming an issue as well.  What we would be looking for is something that is neither matter nor energy: a multi-dimensional string that gives rise to properties found in our universe depending on the frequency of the vibrations. So, is this a reasonable priority when the returns are ever diminishing, as Horgan contends?

I read this very clever analogy for these strings.  Imagine God as a Cosmic Rocker playing his ten- or eleven-string guitar as the cosmos unfolds from his Big Bang amplifier.  Here's the compelling question: Is God playing to a particular musical score?  One that ultimately gives rise to humans and substance for consciousness?  Strong anthropic principle anyone?

There was a thought-provoking argument I read somewhere recently about the federal grants given to scientific research. Given that science research like with Super-String Theory is and has been arguably bleeding over into metaphysics, philosophy, or even religion (e.g., Edward Witten), we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] for the separation between science and state.  This action would imply that any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own.  This might be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly emerging Center for Open Science--an institution that arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine found in science journals and reported by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade.

I still like John Horgan as a skeptic and science writer and I appreciated the link provided by Steve for the Science of Consciousness Conference that I could not attend and which Horgan describes as not having come very far since his first visit in 1994.  Ironic science?  It would seem so IMHO.  Oh.  Here is SciAm's From Complexity to Perplexity outside the paywall.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread, which seems to be more about consciousness and ... monism (?).  But, in that context, I have long been hoping that we could crank up the energy in the Large Hadron Collider to find the mind particle and prove folks like the recently turned panpsychistic and American neuroscientist Christof Koch correct.  😎

Cheers,

Robert

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

Thanks for the pointer to the John Horgan posts about the Consciousness conference in Arizona. (I can't find your post to reply to. I thought it was in this thread.)

I had dismissed Horgan after his posts saying something like science was dead. But this redeems him in my view.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:19 AM glen ⛧ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/16/2016 07:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Pfft?

Sorry.  That's my attempt to write a raspberry ... I don't know the emoticon... =P  maybe ... :-r ?  Of course, pfft is a "dry" raspberry.  To get the right effect, you have to stick your tongue out ... but you can't do that in polite company.  Plus, a dry raspberry is like throwing up your hands or shrugging.  "Pfft, I don't know where to go from here."  A wet raspberry is more playful, more context- and less content-driven.

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

Is there any chance you might remember where you read that argument?  I'll do some googling; but that can be pretty haphazard.

On 05/17/2016 02:43 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> There was a thought-provoking argument I read somewhere recently about the federal grants given to scientific research. Given that science research like with Super-String Theory is and has been arguably bleeding over into metaphysics, philosophy, or even religion (e.g., Edward Witten), we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] for the separation between science and state.  This action would imply that any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own.  This might be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly emerging Center for Open Science <https://cos.io/>--an institution that arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/> found in science journals and reported
> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiM3e3rhuLMAhVX3mMKHZxNBE8QFgguMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.plos.org%2Fplosmedicine%2Farticle%3Fid%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&usg=AFQjCNGnlrRZK18zALFoV13bVKFpywymjg&sig2=erIO_WZ6jK3DgZsqfdLu2w&bvm=bv.122129774,d.cGc> by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade.

--
⛧ glen

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

[Robert Wall]

Hi Glen,

It took me a while to find where I read that argument.  But, as it turns out, the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his The End of Science (1996) the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled "The End of Philosophy."  There, Horgan was recounting the argument put forth by philosopher Paul Feyerabend who wrote in his Against Method [p 295]:

“The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.”

Horgan writes:

Feyerabend also objected to the claim that science is superior to other modes of knowledge.  He was particularly enraged at the tendency of Western states to foist the products of science--whether the theory of evolution, nuclear power plants, or gigantic particle accelerators--on people against their will.  "There is separation between state and church," he complained, "but none between state and church.

<a href="http://Paul Feyerabend, called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 Nature essay. ">Paul Feyerabend has been called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 Nature essay.  Maybe this is just one reason among many why it is perceived that scientists--especially physicists--dislike philosophers.  But no public funding for science research?!  What's not to like?  🤔

Robert

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:43 AM, glen ⛧ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is there any chance you might remember where you read that argument?  I'll do some googling; but that can be pretty haphazard.

On 05/17/2016 02:43 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> There was a thought-provoking argument I read somewhere recently about the federal grants given to scientific research. Given that science research like with Super-String Theory is and has been arguably bleeding over into metaphysics, philosophy, or even religion (e.g., Edward Witten), we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] for the separation between science and state.  This action would imply that any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own.  This might be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly emerging Center for Open Science <https://cos.io/>--an institution that arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/> found in science journals and reported
> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiM3e3rhuLMAhVX3mMKHZxNBE8QFgguMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.plos.org%2Fplosmedicine%2Farticle%3Fid%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&usg=AFQjCNGnlrRZK18zALFoV13bVKFpywymjg&sig2=erIO_WZ6jK3DgZsqfdLu2w&bvm=bv.122129774,d.cGc> by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade.

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Robert et. al. -

This is a very richly layered thread/message, the kind which keeps me coming back to this list!

 But here Horgan concludes for many scientific endeavors the job is finished [link to a critique of the book] for all practical purposes.

I think the best thing about declarations of "the end of science" is that as such declarations ramp up in frequency and stridency, it tends to portend a "Kuhnian paradigm shift" ala Godel vs Russell/Whitehead early last century.

I read this very clever analogy for these strings.  Imagine God as a Cosmic Rocker playing his ten- or eleven-string guitar as the cosmos unfolds from his Big Bang amplifier. 

Gratuitously thrown in here for those who watched the last Mad Max!

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/guitar.png

Here's the compelling question: Is God playing to a particular musical score?  One that ultimately gives rise to humans and substance for consciousness?  Strong anthropic principle anyone?

I do think this line of contemplation is interesting in a very abstract sense, but I'm afraid I have to remove/dismiss/ignore the anthropomorphization of "God" as a human-like creature/consciousness implied in this mode of discourse.

... we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] for the separation between science and state.  This action would imply that any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own.

This is a new thought to me and I find it vaguely compelling after a long mid-career stint in a national laboratory (LANL)...  and with my own daughter in the belly of the medical research (molecular biology) beast (OHSU) where the pharmaceutical companies tend to throw their weight around, even if only through the heavy shadow they caste over everything!

This might be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly emerging Center for Open Science

Fascinating reference... thanks for sending this... I know they are "new" yet, so I don't expect a lot of substance behind the interesting facade (yet).   I was shocked at the average age (guesstimated by portrait) of this crew...  it is refreshing...  my Molecular Biologist Daughter being 37 right now.

--an institution that arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine found in science journals and reported by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade.

I still like John Horgan as a skeptic and science writer and I appreciated the link provided by Steve for the Science of Consciousness Conference that I could not attend and which Horgan describes as not having come very far since his first visit in 1994.  Ironic science?

I'm fascinated and disturbed by this conference/movement.   My very first professional publication was a collaboration with Hameroff in 1984 and was excited when the whole subject came above the table with this conference.    I *do* think that the recent developments in Quantum Consciousness ala Kauffman and Hameroff/Penrose *is* interesting but far from ready for prime time.    I haven't visited one of these conferences, though I did attend the Decade of the Mind conference a few years back which is a little more "serious" by some measures, though still a bit on the speculative side.

  It would seem so IMHO.  Oh.  Here is SciAm's From Complexity to Perplexity outside the paywall.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread, which seems to be more about consciousness and ... monism (?).  But, in that context, I have long been hoping that we could crank up the energy in the Large Hadron Collider to find the mind particle and prove folks like the recently turned panpsychistic and American neuroscientist Christof Koch correct.

Panpsychistic is a new word (but not concept) to me... thanks for throwing that in here.   It would seem that whatever evidence for panpsychism that might be uncovered would represent a huge paradigm shift in physics/cosmology!   

 - Steve


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

[gepr]

Whew! I'm a huge fan of Feyerabend. For a minute I was afraid you were allowing wackos like this guy:

  http://youtu.be/8XjR9f0DZJc

I tend to think the way out of the trap is through citizen science (eg DIYBio and our own friends at GUTS). To some extent anything in big science must be gov funded. Even if you don't call it "government", it's still pooled resources with minority management, which implies a government of some sort. And anytime a minority make judgments for the majority, we'll hear cries of bias and for "separation". The real measure of progress is watching how scientific experiments that used to be only doable by big science are now doable by citizens in their garage.  As long as that happens, we have to admit there's an important role for government funded science.  If we don't get our own high energy colliders we can run on saw horses in our garage, _then_ we'll push for a Constitutional amendment.

Anyway, arguments like this are why so many scientists think little of Horgan. His arguments are rife with over simplification. Yahoos like Mike Adams <http://www.naturalnews.com/About.html> use similar rhetoric, which is unfortunate for relatively authentic people like Horgan.

On 05/18/2016 12:58 PM, Robert Wall wrote:

> It took me a while to find where I read that argument.  But, as it turns out, the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his /The End of Science /(1996) the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled "The End of Philosophy."  There, Horgan was recounting the argument put forth by philosopher Paul Feyerabend who wrote in his /Against Method/ [p 295]:
>
>     “The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.”
>
>
> Horgan writes:
>
>     Feyerabend also objected to the claim that science is superior to other modes of knowledge.  He was particularly enraged at the tendency of Western states to foist the products of science--whether the theory of evolution, nuclear power plants, or gigantic particle accelerators--on people against their will.  "There is separation between state and church," he complained, "but none between state and church.
>
>
> Paul Feyerabend has been called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 /Nature /essay.  Maybe this is justone reason among many <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-common-among-scientists-to-scorn-philosophy> why it is perceived that scientists--especially physicists--dislike philosophers.  But no public funding for science research?!  What's not to like?  🤔

--
⛧ glen

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

[Robert Wall]

Glen, I agree that there are some big science projects that would require government funding, especially--and perhaps only--when there is a verifiable public good as a possible potential outcome, IMHO. No, no Constitutional amendments as long as science remains science ... big or not ... but science may be in a process of being redefined in a much looser way.  Even theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss is a bit worried here.

With respect to John Horgan, and notwithstanding his reputation with some of the folks he interviews perhaps, I see him among other good science writers who keep a public eye on what is going on in science. We don't have to like or agree with him but Horgan is not shy about casting a critical light on otherwise very speculative (government and academic) institutional activities (e.g., his From Complexity to Perplexity).  Personally, as an outside observer, I tend to learn more from a critical angle than from one that is promoted from the inside by the promoters, who would be less critical of their own work of course.  His writings encourage me to look deeper.  Even Lawrence Krauss is a bit worried here.

Also, I do respect arguments like the one Feyerabend brings about public funding of science for the same reason.  These have the potential to create public conversations in important areas that otherwise many see as beyond comprehension. That's the job of a science writer.  For example, do we need or want to build our own national facility to rival LHC?  If so, why?  How will it improve our lives? Or, do we want to fund our own national project to rival Henry Markam's Blue Brain Project (now the Human Brain Project ... notably to rein it in)?  Is the premises of this project sound?  Many think not.  We do have our own national brain project--the White House Brain Initiative--but it is fundamentally different in terms of its mission.

Of course, there can be merit in speculative research.  This is how discoveries are made.  However, I think Horgan is urging us to be careful here going forward. as the cost of these potential discoveries is getting steep and there is the likelihood that we will learn nothing more.  The law of rapidly diminishing returns is setting in.  So how do we decide?

Niels Bohr once declared that the opposite of a profound truth is also a profound truth. This is the charmed predicament of the Blue Brain project. If the simulation is successful, if it can turn a stack of silicon microchips into a sentient being, then the epic problem of consciousness will have been solved. The soul will be stripped of its secrets; the mind will lose its mystery. However, if the project fails—if the software never generates a sense of self, or manages to solve the paradox of experience—then neuroscience may be forced to confront its stark limitations. Knowing everything about the brain will not be enough. The supercomputer will still be a mere machine. Nothing will have emerged from all of the information. We will remain what can’t be known.

I think that the question Horgan--and certainly Feyerabend-- is trying to raise is, "Should our government fund ironic science?"  Ironic science is science that ceases to be science methodologically.  This is where scientists cross the line into metaphysics or philosophy.  Feyerabend would say religion.

Cheers

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:02 PM, glen ⛧ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Whew! I'm a huge fan of Feyerabend. For a minute I was afraid you were allowing wackos like this guy:

  http://youtu.be/8XjR9f0DZJc

I tend to think the way out of the trap is through citizen science (eg DIYBio and our own friends at GUTS). To some extent anything in big science must be gov funded. Even if you don't call it "government", it's still pooled resources with minority management, which implies a government of some sort. And anytime a minority make judgments for the majority, we'll hear cries of bias and for "separation". The real measure of progress is watching how scientific experiments that used to be only doable by big science are now doable by citizens in their garage.  As long as that happens, we have to admit there's an important role for government funded science.  If we don't get our own high energy colliders we can run on saw horses in our garage, _then_ we'll push for a Constitutional amendment.

Anyway, arguments like this are why so many scientists think little of Horgan. His arguments are rife with over simplification. Yahoos like Mike Adams <http://www.naturalnews.com/About.html> use similar rhetoric, which is unfortunate for relatively authentic people like Horgan.

On 05/18/2016 12:58 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> It took me a while to find where I read that argument.  But, as it turns out, the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his /The End of Science /(1996) the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled "The End of Philosophy."  There, Horgan was recounting the argument put forth by philosopher Paul Feyerabend who wrote in his /Against Method/ [p 295]:
>
>     “The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.”
>
>
> Horgan writes:
>
>     Feyerabend also objected to the claim that science is superior to other modes of knowledge.  He was particularly enraged at the tendency of Western states to foist the products of science--whether the theory of evolution, nuclear power plants, or gigantic particle accelerators--on people against their will.  "There is separation between state and church," he complained, "but none between state and church.
>
>
> Paul Feyerabend has been called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 /Nature /essay.  Maybe this is justone reason among many <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-common-among-scientists-to-scorn-philosophy> why it is perceived that scientists--especially physicists--dislike philosophers.  But no public funding for science research?!  What's not to like?  🤔

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

I'm that way, too.  To wit, I really enjoyed this article:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics/

On 05/18/2016 05:13 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> Personally, as an outside observer, I tend to learn more from a critical angle than from one
> that is promoted from the inside by the promoters, who would be less
> critical of their own work of course.  His writings encourage me to look
> deeper.

--
⛧ glen

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

[Robert Wall]

Yikes!  Skeptic-on-skeptic fight!  This linked article you bring Glen begs an interesting question: When does a skeptic just become just a contrarian?  I mean, what do skeptics publish but skepticism and critiques contrary to the topic at hand? Are they obliged, as Dr. Steven Novella insists, on presenting a fair and balanced position ... like with Fox News?  Is that the nature of their craft?  Or is that left up to the reader?

So, what were they thinking when they invited Horgan to speak at their convention?!  It kind of reminds me of the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog [somethime the Snake Crossing the River]:

	The Scorpion and the Frog

  A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the 
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The 
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion 
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

  The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of 
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" 

		Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

Arguably, John Horgan is going to "rain on your parade" if you invite him to comment on it.  That is his nature.  We can count on him for that.  So he would make a terrible guest at a cocktail party or to speak at your daughter's graduation ceremony. 😕  "Daddy, it was just awful ..."

To be sure, "Criticizing ideas is well within the marketplace of ideas."  Eh?  

Yes, in some way--reading the range of associated comments--I think they were both hurt here ... but neither drowned.  Didn't  Dr. Steven Novella also boot Richard Dawkins out of the same convention for something he said?  Not sure, but remember something, as I follow Dawkins also.  Dawkins too can be somewhat overbearing in his criticisms--but some say that he became this way having to constantly defend his positions from the fringe lunatics.  But I always learn something, even in his diatribes, to be sure.  And that is what NeuroLogicablog is supposed to be all about.  Yes?

The NeuroLogicaBlog covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society.

In the context of this discussion of skepticism, I really miss the continued eloquence and prose of his friend Christopher Hichens. Dawkins always said that his biggest fear would be to be on the opposite side of a debate from Hitchens.  Hitchens on Horgan would be awesome!  But, somehow, I can.t see them on opposite sides ...

It would be interesting to hear others comment here too about Horgan and this incident.  What do you think?  I am not sure what to think, but I am not surprised at the outcome.  The linked article was, for me, thought-provoking.  Thanks!

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:34 PM, glen ⛧ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm that way, too.  To wit, I really enjoyed this article:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/john-horgan-is-skeptical-of-skeptics/

On 05/18/2016 05:13 PM, Robert Wall wrote:

Personally, as an outside observer, I tend to learn more from a critical angle than from one
that is promoted from the inside by the promoters, who would be less
critical of their own work of course.  His writings encourage me to look
deeper.

--
⛧ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Robert Wall]

Hi Steve,

I really enjoyed your comments and interpretations on what I wrote earlier.  Thanks.

Since Steven Guerin directed me to the FRIAM forum back in August, I too have enjoyed staying tuned to the discussions, which seem to cover so many interesting topics, many of which reside in my wheelhouse, especially some recent ones involving the pragmatists Charles Sanders Peirce and William James.  However, heretofore, I have been mostly a voyeur and not a participant, because this group is arguably quite erudite.  Well, that doesn't really need to be argued.  :-) Besides, I learn more from listening than otherwise.

With respect to your response, I would follow up on this particular point of yours, if only to clarify something I think you may find important or at least interesting:

Here's the compelling question: Is God playing to a particular musical score?  One that ultimately gives rise to humans and substance for consciousness?  Strong anthropic principle anyone?

I do think this line of contemplation is interesting in a very abstract sense, but I'm afraid I have to remove/dismiss/ignore the anthropomorphization of "God" as a human-like creature/consciousness implied in this mode of discourse.

The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) states that the fundamental parameters of the universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers--like us--within it at some stage.  It really doesn't admit the existence of a Creator of any kind, anthropomorphized or not.  So my reference, in terms of the SAP, was to the score that the player was playing and not the player--so, the music and not the musician.  

The compelling question then is about the score ... the fundamental parameters ... the physical constants.  Where did the score come from and what is the ultimate theme if there is a theme (i.e., a teleological one or, perhaps, just teleonomic)?  String Theory seems to beg this analogy for Moderns like the Music of the Spheres did for Pythagoras. 

These theoretical multidimensional strings are proposed to give rise to the properties of matter and energy in accordance with their oscillating frequencies and with the standard model of particle physics.  Since these properties are discrete, this would suggest something like chords being played on that guitar. Yes?  There are resonances implied in the Pythagorean notion as well.  Is there a melody?  Is there a song where the lyrics include us and consciousness.  Accident or an intended creation? ... Heraclitus's Logos?  We just don't know.

When you think like this it begs us to wonder whether String Theory will take us to such an intuitive place in a way that Genesis [or other Creation myths] took us to before.  I think that science--physics in particular--is piercing [not Peirceing] this now thinner veil between physics and metaphysics ... through theoretical mathematics. I am not at all against this discovery process, but it does sort of leave the domain of science behind.  Yes?

Okay. Enough.  I have already said more than I planned to [I get carried away], except to say that that image from Mad Max: Fury Road was spot on!  Thanks!

Cheers,

Robert 

P.S., I kind of like theoretical physicist Lee Smolin's idea about Cosmological Natural Selection and how it might relate to the score.  For another post, maybe. :-) 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert et. al. -

This is a very richly layered thread/message, the kind which keeps me coming back to this list!

 But here Horgan concludes for many scientific endeavors the job is finished [link to a critique of the book] for all practical purposes.

I think the best thing about declarations of "the end of science" is that as such declarations ramp up in frequency and stridency, it tends to portend a "Kuhnian paradigm shift" ala Godel vs Russell/Whitehead early last century.

I read this very clever analogy for these strings.  Imagine God as a Cosmic Rocker playing his ten- or eleven-string guitar as the cosmos unfolds from his Big Bang amplifier. 

Gratuitously thrown in here for those who watched the last Mad Max!

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/guitar.png

Here's the compelling question: Is God playing to a particular musical score?  One that ultimately gives rise to humans and substance for consciousness?  Strong anthropic principle anyone?

I do think this line of contemplation is interesting in a very abstract sense, but I'm afraid I have to remove/dismiss/ignore the anthropomorphization of "God" as a human-like creature/consciousness implied in this mode of discourse.

... we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] for the separation between science and state.  This action would imply that any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own.

This is a new thought to me and I find it vaguely compelling after a long mid-career stint in a national laboratory (LANL)...  and with my own daughter in the belly of the medical research (molecular biology) beast (OHSU) where the pharmaceutical companies tend to throw their weight around, even if only through the heavy shadow they caste over everything!

This might be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly emerging Center for Open Science

Fascinating reference... thanks for sending this... I know they are "new" yet, so I don't expect a lot of substance behind the interesting facade (yet).   I was shocked at the average age (guesstimated by portrait) of this crew...  it is refreshing...  my Molecular Biologist Daughter being 37 right now.

--an institution that arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine found in science journals and reported by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade.

I still like John Horgan as a skeptic and science writer and I appreciated the link provided by Steve for the Science of Consciousness Conference that I could not attend and which Horgan describes as not having come very far since his first visit in 1994.  Ironic science?

I'm fascinated and disturbed by this conference/movement.   My very first professional publication was a collaboration with Hameroff in 1984 and was excited when the whole subject came above the table with this conference.    I *do* think that the recent developments in Quantum Consciousness ala Kauffman and Hameroff/Penrose *is* interesting but far from ready for prime time.    I haven't visited one of these conferences, though I did attend the Decade of the Mind conference a few years back which is a little more "serious" by some measures, though still a bit on the speculative side.

  It would seem so IMHO.  Oh.  Here is SciAm's From Complexity to Perplexity outside the paywall.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread, which seems to be more about consciousness and ... monism (?).  But, in that context, I have long been hoping that we could crank up the energy in the Large Hadron Collider to find the mind particle and prove folks like the recently turned panpsychistic and American neuroscientist Christof Koch correct.

Panpsychistic is a new word (but not concept) to me... thanks for throwing that in here.   It would seem that whatever evidence for panpsychism that might be uncovered would represent a huge paradigm shift in physics/cosmology!   

 - Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

On 05/18/2016 07:06 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> Yikes!  Skeptic-on-skeptic fight!  This linked article you bring Glen begs an interesting question: When does a skeptic just become just a contrarian?  I mean, what do skeptics publish but skepticism and critiques contrary to the topic at hand? Are they obliged, as Dr. Steven Novella insists, on presenting a fair and balanced position ... like with /Fox News/?  Is that the nature of their craft?  Or is that left up to the reader?

Heh, Fox News' "fair and balanced" is an obvious lie.  So, definitely the answer to that trolling question is "No, not like Fox News." 8^)

But I'm on Novella's side in this case.  Skepticism is quite distinct from both denialism and contrarianism.  (And I am more contrarian than skeptic... so I'm allowed to disrespect contrarians.)  All 3 are useful.  I find denialism useful for short-circuiting ad infinitum or analysis paralysis.  Sometimes it's wiser to simply cut the line and call it a day.  Contrarianism is an extension of proof by contradiction.  Sometimes it's the only way to puncture a thick web of established reasoning.  This is especially true when examining my own actions.  But skepticism is a much more difficult, disciplined behavior.  The skeptic has to really learn the topic at hand in order to know where the weak parts are.  Skeptics often seem like they've completely bought in because their discipline dictates that they get deep into the subject.  If someone _begins_ a conversation by disagreeing with you, then that person is NOT a skeptic.  They're a contrarian.  It's not impossible for an outsider to be
a
skeptic.  But you have to be either brilliant or multi-talented to do that.  And most of all, you have to realize and admit you're ignorance ... which is difficult for anyone.

For me, I tend to be a skeptic in my own field (modeling & simulation) and a contrarian outside it.

--
⛧ glen

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