Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
Locked
Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
 
|
Yeah. See. That's just the point. About 20 years ago, I decided that dreaming was a waste of time and I wouldn't do it anymore. So I don't.
Dionysians and Apollonians are very different people. 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 Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 10:08 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction There's also this thing one can do called `sleeping in', which tends to increase the probability of dream memory and/or lucid dreaming, at least for me. A built-in neuroplasticity mechanism complete with psychedelic phenomena and a safety mechanism of motor system deactivation. ( On 1/2/19, 10:03 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: For instance, I have never dreamed about what mushrooms might do for me. Is that a fair statement of a difference between us? ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
It's a false dichotomy. An Apollonian can recognize that he or she needs food, just as well as they could recognize they need intellectual or spiritual sustenance. And of course your brain will do the dreaming that is needed to keep you alive, even if you don't know about it or recognize its value. I guess you are just being absurd?
Did you ever see the movie Strange Days? Why should I jump out of an airplane if I could just pump the same signals into my brain? There's nothing real, after all. Marcus On 1/2/19, 10:19 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yeah. See. That's just the point. About 20 years ago, I decided that dreaming was a waste of time and I wouldn't do it anymore. So I don't. Dionysians and Apollonians are very different people. 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 Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 10:08 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction There's also this thing one can do called `sleeping in', which tends to increase the probability of dream memory and/or lucid dreaming, at least for me. A built-in neuroplasticity mechanism complete with psychedelic phenomena and a safety mechanism of motor system deactivation. ( On 1/2/19, 10:03 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: For instance, I have never dreamed about what mushrooms might do for me. Is that a fair statement of a difference between us? ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
Marcus,
Well, if nothing is real, then dreams aren't real either, right. So, that's a non-starter. I don't think I am being absurd, but that's for others to judge. I assume my brain does rem sleep like everybody else's, but one sure as hell can minimize or maximize the experience of dreaming. I know people who build their lives around dreaming, wake themselves up at night to write down their dreams, etc., etc. They have a lot more experience of dreaming than I do. By the way: how can a dichotomy be false? I can see that it might be "narrowly useful" or "not useful for the following purposes <please state>". But False. What means "false" in this context? 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 Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 10:41 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives It's a false dichotomy. An Apollonian can recognize that he or she needs food, just as well as they could recognize they need intellectual or spiritual sustenance. And of course your brain will do the dreaming that is needed to keep you alive, even if you don't know about it or recognize its value. I guess you are just being absurd? Did you ever see the movie Strange Days? Why should I jump out of an airplane if I could just pump the same signals into my brain? There's nothing real, after all. Marcus On 1/2/19, 10:19 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: Yeah. See. That's just the point. About 20 years ago, I decided that dreaming was a waste of time and I wouldn't do it anymore. So I don't. Dionysians and Apollonians are very different people. 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 Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 10:08 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abduction There's also this thing one can do called `sleeping in', which tends to increase the probability of dream memory and/or lucid dreaming, at least for me. A built-in neuroplasticity mechanism complete with psychedelic phenomena and a safety mechanism of motor system deactivation. ( On 1/2/19, 10:03 AM, "Friam on behalf of Nick Thompson" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote: For instance, I have never dreamed about what mushrooms might do for me. Is that a fair statement of a difference between us? ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
Perhaps Marcus already said this or something like it. You do dream you just want to ignore that fact because it's inconsistent with your assertion that minds don't exist. Also, a dichotomy can be true if you exclude the law of the excluded middle which constructivist mathematicians do and still derive the integers and the rational numbers. I am skeptical that Dave is Appolonian. 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 Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 11:15 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email] wrote: 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 |
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick,
I don't think the dichotomy is useful to understand or categorize why people seek experiences. Some seek them to feel better about going in circles (opiates), others to help them to go in some direction (stimulants), and others to see more possible directions (psychedelics). One can understand in a completely left-brain way the need for a source of entropy to get out of local minima. It seems to me implausible that chemicals alone could ever be an sufficient way to gain access to entropy. Glen writes: < like my mom used to say about going to church on Sunday ... it's like a "shot in the arm" > Exactly. 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 |
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
p.s. Dropping the law of the excluded middle required giving up proof by contradiction. ----------------------------------- 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 Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 11:23 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email] wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
Since one of my dead horses is artificial discretization, I've always wondered what it's like to work in many-valued logics. So, proof by contradiction would change from [not-true => false] to [not-0 => {1,2,..,n}], assuming a discretized set of values {0..n}. But is there a continuous "many valued" logic, where any proposition can be evaluated to take on some sub-region of a continuous set? So, proof by contradiction would become something like [not∈{-∞,0} => ∈{0+ε,∞}]?
On 1/2/19 11:23 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > p.s. Dropping the law of the excluded middle required giving up proof by > contradiction. -- ☣ 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
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're buying with your move to "continuous" rather than
(merely) "infinite-valued". I mean, though your discretized values {0..n} are integers, they are (in my small experience of many-valued logics, which does not include any actually *working* with them as logics) merely nominal labels--the order, and the arithmetic for that matter, are irrelevant semantically: the flavors 1, 2, 3 of not-true aren't such that 2 is more not-true than 1 but less not-true than 3, and certainly aren't such that 2 is exactly half-way from 1 to 3 in not-trueness. And, from another point of view, contrary to most people's "intuition" (as formed by what turns out to be bad pedagogy, not anything in the foundation of either physics or mathematics), "continuity" doesn't require infinitude. Way back in the early 1960 a couple of mathematicians independently (Bob Stong was one of them, I forget the other) noticed that all the algebraic topology that can be done with (finite) "simplicial complexes" (e.g., polyhedra) in Euclidean space (so, in particular, all the algebraic topology of compact differentiable manifolds) can be faithfully rephrased in terms of *finite* topological spaces (I mean, literally finite: only finitely many points, where in particular a one-element set does not have to be closed), if you don't insist that the topology be Hausdorff (but do impose one very weak "separation property" which I'm currently blanking on). Much more recently, a pair of Argentinians, J. Barmak & E. Minian, have published a series of papers (all available at the arXiv) extending and clarifying that. Logics with *that* kind of a continuum of values has, I think, already be done (the finite topological spaces in question can be reinterpreted as finite posets / finite lattices / etc., and at least "lattice-valued logics" has a familiar sound to me; but, again, I'm blanking on any details). > Since one of my dead horses is artificial discretization, I've always > wondered what it's like to work in many-valued logics. So, proof by > contradiction would change from [not-true => false] to [not-0 => > {1,2,..,n}], assuming a discretized set of values {0..n}. But is there a > continuous "many valued" logic, where any proposition can be evaluated to > take on some sub-region of a continuous set? So, proof by contradiction > would become something like [notâ{-â,0} => â{0+ε,â}]? ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
Lee, I think you got your threads seriously tangled.
N 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 [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 2:14 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives I'm not sure what you're buying with your move to "continuous" rather than (merely) "infinite-valued". I mean, though your discretized values {0..n} are integers, they are (in my small experience of many-valued logics, which does not include any actually *working* with them as logics) merely nominal labels--the order, and the arithmetic for that matter, are irrelevant semantically: the flavors 1, 2, 3 of not-true aren't such that 2 is more not-true than 1 but less not-true than 3, and certainly aren't such that 2 is exactly half-way from 1 to 3 in not-trueness. And, from another point of view, contrary to most people's "intuition" (as formed by what turns out to be bad pedagogy, not anything in the foundation of either physics or mathematics), "continuity" doesn't require infinitude. Way back in the early 1960 a couple of mathematicians independently (Bob Stong was one of them, I forget the other) noticed that all the algebraic topology that can be done with (finite) "simplicial complexes" (e.g., polyhedra) in Euclidean space (so, in particular, all the algebraic topology of compact differentiable manifolds) can be faithfully rephrased in terms of *finite* topological spaces (I mean, literally finite: only finitely many points, where in particular a one-element set does not have to be closed), if you don't insist that the topology be Hausdorff (but do impose one very weak "separation property" which I'm currently blanking on). Much more recently, a pair of Argentinians, J. Barmak & E. Minian, have published a series of papers (all available at the arXiv) extending and clarifying that. Logics with *that* kind of a continuum of values has, I think, already be done (the finite topological spaces in question can be reinterpreted as finite posets / finite lattices / etc., and at least "lattice-valued logics" has a familiar sound to me; but, again, I'm blanking on any details). > Since one of my dead horses is artificial discretization, I've always > wondered what it's like to work in many-valued logics. So, proof by > contradiction would change from [not-true => false] to [not-0 => > {1,2,..,n}], assuming a discretized set of values {0..n}. But is > there a continuous "many valued" logic, where any proposition can be > evaluated to take on some sub-region of a continuous set? So, proof > by contradiction would become something like [not∈{-∞,0} => ∈{0+ε,∞}]? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Blame Frank! 8^) Or blame yourself for artificially discretizing humans into Dionysian vs. Apollonian.
Thanks, Lee. I doubt I have the ability to parse the Barmak and Minian work. But I appreciate your skepticism. My intention was to vaguely hand-wafe at something about closed and open topologies and, perhaps, imply something about analytical balls of radius epsilon as the truth that's preserved by deduction. I still think there's something that could be said about the rational numbers as possible truth values, as opposed to a dense infinity. But like my worry that all directed cyclic graphs can be reduced to DAGs, you've made me just as worried about the necessity of dense sets. On 1/2/19 1:18 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Lee, I think you got your threads seriously tangled. -- ☣ 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
|
Re: Was: Abduction; Is Now: Dionysian and Apollonian Lives
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
But is there a continuous "many valued" logic, where any proposition can be evaluated to take on some sub-region of a continuous set? Yes! See Wikipedia for a good discussion: ----------------------------------- 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 Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 12:36 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email] wrote: Since one of my dead horses is artificial discretization, I've always wondered what it's like to work in many-valued logics. So, proof by contradiction would change from [not-true => false] to [not-0 => {1,2,..,n}], assuming a discretized set of values {0..n}. But is there a continuous "many valued" logic, where any proposition can be evaluated to take on some sub-region of a continuous set? So, proof by contradiction would become something like [not∈{-∞,0} => ∈{0+ε,∞}]? ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |