Friam

What's so bad about Scientism?

Classic

List

Threaded

45 messages Options

123

gepr

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Sorry for the extra post. But it occurred to me you might be asking whether *my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these measurements. If so, I can give a full-throated "No." My doubt comes from listening to my S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how they're used in clinical settings as well as my own experience as a patient. "Assessing the patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) seems to have much more utility than any given particular (linearized) measurement of a subsystem. The utility of, say, the heart rate, is waaaaayyy below my threshold for belief.

On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.
>
> But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.) After such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and what impact any particular part may have had. For example, perhaps heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and reinstall the new program. Hence, she might doubt the utility of heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.
>
> Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold. I can imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on". And I can imagine yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it. I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of course.
>
>
> On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.?
>>
>> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
>

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism. We were discussing probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based on past observations. He basically said just because the probability of an event has always been P, how do you know it still is? Is that a fair characterization of what you said, Nick?

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sorry for the extra post. But it occurred to me you might be asking whether *my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these measurements. If so, I can give a full-throated "No." My doubt comes from listening to my S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how they're used in clinical settings as well as my own experience as a patient. "Assessing the patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) seems to have much more utility than any given particular (linearized) measurement of a subsystem. The utility of, say, the heart rate, is waaaaayyy below my threshold for belief.

On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.
>
> But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.) After such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and what impact any particular part may have had. For example, perhaps heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and reinstall the new program. Hence, she might doubt the utility of heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.
>
> Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold. I can imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on". And I can imagine yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it. I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of course.
>
>
> On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.?
>>
>> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
>

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

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

p.s. I also said that the probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5. Of course, that's a definition but since he was denying the reality of probability I think that cut some ice.

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:50 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism. We were discussing probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based on past observations. He basically said just because the probability of an event has always been P, how do you know it still is? Is that a fair characterization of what you said, Nick?

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry for the extra post. But it occurred to me you might be asking whether *my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these measurements. If so, I can give a full-throated "No." My doubt comes from listening to my S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how they're used in clinical settings as well as my own experience as a patient. "Assessing the patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) seems to have much more utility than any given particular (linearized) measurement of a subsystem. The utility of, say, the heart rate, is waaaaayyy below my threshold for belief.

On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.
>
> But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.) After such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and what impact any particular part may have had. For example, perhaps heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and reinstall the new program. Hence, she might doubt the utility of heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.
>
> Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold. I can imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on". And I can imagine yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it. I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of course.
>
>
> On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.?
>>
>> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
>

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

gepr

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Nick were even more doubting than I am, similar to how ex-smokers become the most vehement anti-smoking zealots or how militant atheists seem to have been reared steeped in some religious tradition. Most of us "live inside our own heads". The tendency for us to prefer *ideas* over realities has become obvious in recent years (e.g. filter bubbles). I suppose that's the trouble with interacting mostly via text/words/concepts/ideas, with very little or no meat-space-mediated interaction. And truly disjoint categories can only exist in the world of ideas. Out in meat space, there is no this or that, only a colloidal stew.

On 07/09/2018 11:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> p.s. I also said that the probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5. Of course, that's a definition but since he was denying the reality of probability I think that cut some ice.
>
> ----
> Frank Wimberly
>
> www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly <http://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:50 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism. We were discussing probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based on past observations. He basically said just because the probability of an event has always been P, how do you know it still is? Is that a fair characterization of what you said, Nick?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Wow, Frank! What you said is much clearer than what I probably said.

(}:-().

There’s a reason I do not speak this clearly. (};-)).

Seriously, the pragmat[ic]ist warrant for induction is if there is anything constant in an essentially random world, organisms (and knowledge systems in general) should be designed to track it. So, for instance, as we keep flipping heads, the probability that the flips are coming from a biased coin steadily increases. Of course, if the coin we are flipping is not, in any sense, the SAME coin, then all bets are off. Literally. Peirce’s notion of reality is thus statistical. And it is based on the assumption that only generals (eg, the coin) can be real; specifics (eg, the coin today, the coin tomorrow) cannot be real because there is no way to sample them.

In short, it is no longer clear to me that Peirce’s account of induction answers the grue/green quandary. Green is the property of being the color of grass. Grue is the property of being the color of grass until one samples it N times and the color of the sky thereafter. We never know for sure which kind of entity we are dealing with, a green-like entity or a grue-like entity. We can imagine a situation in which we are sample a chemical to see it is the d-form or the l-form. Let’s imagine also that each time we sample it, the “spoon” we use introduces a contaminant that, when it reaches a critical concentration, flips the solution from one isomer to the other. Peirce would say, well, I never said the world was uniform; I only said, if there are uniformities in the world, statistical inferential systems would be the only way to discover them. But I don’t still think this really solves the problem of induction. Alas.

Thus, if you tell me that the probability of the coin turning up heads on the next flip is 50 percent, the relative frequency of the flips has been fifty percent up till now AND you have no reason to believe that the coin has changed in the meantime because that, in fact, is the basis for your expectations about the coin. (Well, I suppose you could, being a mathematician, simply say you have lots of reasons to believe that the coin is the sort of thing that fits the binomial model, and let it go at that.)

I am still studying glen’s interesting comments on the relation between confidence and belief. As you can imagine, given that he has given me one more chance, I shall be cautious in my response.

All the best,

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 Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

p.s. I also said that the probability of heads for a fair coin is 0.5. Of course, that's a definition but since he was denying the reality of probability I think that cut some ice.

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:50 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually Nick is competitive with you for skepticism. We were discussing probabilities and he said you can't know the probability of an event based on past observations. He basically said just because the probability of an event has always been P, how do you know it still is? Is that a fair characterization of what you said, Nick?
----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 12:05 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry for the extra post. But it occurred to me you might be asking whether *my* autonomous nervous system believes in the utility of these measurements. If so, I can give a full-throated "No." My doubt comes from listening to my S.O. (Renee') talk about things like blood pressure and how they're used in clinical settings as well as my own experience as a patient. "Assessing the patient" by an intuitive, signal fusing, machine (nurse, doctor, anesthetist) seems to have much more utility than any given particular (linearized) measurement of a subsystem. The utility of, say, the heart rate, is waaaaayyy below my threshold for belief.

On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> Interesting insertion of "utility", a kind of meta-variable to be considered. To be clear, I'd say the organism believes in heartbeats, lung pumping, etc. But to ask whether the organism believes in the usability/utility of (subjective) measurements of such things smacks of a hidden assumption.
>
> But to answer as authentically as I can in spite of that hidden assumption, I'd answer that *after* the yogi did such a full cycle manipulation successfully at least *once*, then that yogi might believe that meta-variable. (By "full cycle manipulation", I mean taking conscious control and reinstalling the new behavior into the autonomous part.) After such success, the yogi organism has some experience with whether, how, and what impact any particular part may have had. For example, perhaps heartbeat plays no role in her ability to take conscious control and reinstall the new program. Hence, she might doubt the utility of heartbeats but believe the utility of lung pumping regulation.
>
> Again, though, whether the yogi organism believes in this meta-layer "utility of X" would depend on where they draw the threshold. I can imagine very process-based yogis who, like me, put little stock in belief and more in the process of doing, staying "hands on". And I can imagine yogis who idealize the process (perhaps similar to chi?) and may even write books about it. I have no experience with how yogis actually are, of course.
>
>
> On 07/09/2018 10:21 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> I think the answer may be in what you just wrote, but a bit of assistance please. If we were to anthropomorphize your autonomous nervous system would you say it 'believed' or 'doubted' the utility of heartbeats, lungs pumping, etc.?
>>
>> My interest arises from studies of Yoga adepts who "take conscious control of breathing" and upon achieving total conscious control, delegate the control back to the autonomous system which maintains the regularized, 'managed' breathing instead of the 'normal', somewhat chaotic/strange attracter-ish breathing regimen prior to the application of Yoga technique.
>

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

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Fascinating response, Marcus.

Does this mean you cannot imagine è rationalç paralyzing doubt? So, imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals that utilitarian’s are so fond of*, can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?

I suppose one could have a standard rule: in situations of grave consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

In some dire situations animals “freeze”. It’s rational for animals because many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion. Human decision paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.

Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts. (So don’t try to jam that switch in the middle, you wise guy!)

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.”

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy.

Marcus

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Of you kill Aunt Susie in order to save French poodles, you're going to prison.

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:21 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fascinating response, Marcus.

Does this mean you cannot imagine è rationalç paralyzing doubt? So, imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals that utilitarian’s are so fond of*, can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?

I suppose one could have a standard rule: in situations of grave consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

In some dire situations animals “freeze”. It’s rational for animals because many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion. Human decision paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.
Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts. (So don’t try to jam that switch in the middle, you wise guy!)

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.”

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy.

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

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Yes but! According to some Utilitarians you would deserve a pardon from Trump.

Ok. Remove Aunt Susie and put four nuns. Now you go scot free, right. But, as any Utilitarian would point out, this doesn’t make sense. You intentionally killed two people you could have saved. With premeditation, even.

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 Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 11:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Of you kill Aunt Susie in order to save French poodles, you're going to prison.

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:21 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Fascinating response, Marcus.

Does this mean you cannot imagine è rationalç paralyzing doubt? So, imagine yourself in some situation of grave consequence, Truman’s decision to use the bomb or Comey’s decision to restart the investigation (or to announce its conclusion in the first place), or one of those “two track” hypotheticals that utilitarian’s are so fond of*, can you imagine yourself, not anxious, not in need of therapy at all, but unable to act?

I suppose one could have a standard rule: in situations of grave consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

In some dire situations animals “freeze”. It’s rational for animals because many predators’ prey- catching systems work on motion. Human decision paralysis might just be an evolutionary hold over.
Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts. (So don’t try to jam that switch in the middle, you wise guy!)

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.”

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy.

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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

If one is ignorant and wants to learn if an action can change things, then flip the coin, take the action and take notes.

One should also look for a similar situation in which one does not take an action in order to compare and contrast. And repeat both as many times as is feasible to collect statistics.

In the two cases you mention, it is not really feasible to do that. So, one simulates: What if Russia does not see a demonstration of U.S. might? What if the Justice department or my [Comey’s] career takes a hit in credibility in order to save the country from a madman? The right answer is a function of the values of the person in that situation. So, a second order question then is, “What if people find out my values?”

There is inherent ambiguity in the information that inform most decisions and it is impossible to really foresee or quantify the consequences of action (e.g. chaos theory), so it is safe to say doubt ought to permeate every decision. It could be that all of these decisions are playing out in the multiverse or that there is precisely one path we are all on that is fully determined and that choice is just a ridiculous illusion anyway.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:21 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Fascinating response, Marcus.

I suppose one could have a standard rule: in situations of grave consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.”

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy.

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

“*You are the man in charge of a track switch beyond which tied to the tracks, on one side, four French Poodles and on the other side your beloved Aunt Susie. Incidentally, you should also know that the passenger cars on the train are loaded with a thousand pregnant girl scouts. (So don’t try to jam that switch in the middle, you wise guy!)”

Stab the experimenter with his pen, untie the beloved agents, and then attach the experimenter to the rail prior to the switch. Is this hard?

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

There’s another type of paralysis that does not involve doubt but computation cost in resolving or characterizing doubt:

A soon as it takes more time to compute the likely first-order consequences of various potential actions (even using coarse-graining or surrogate models or whatever simplification) than just waiting for time to pass, action is arbitrary. One could have precise information about all the aspects of a decision but putting it together into a recommendation for action could be too hard. One could probably even prove it is impossible in some cases.

Fascinating response, Marcus.

I suppose one could have a standard rule: in situations of grave consequence, I do nothing, or I flip a coin.

Does that make it neurotic or just ill-suited to modern circumstances.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

“By doubt, here, I don't mean entertained doubt. I mean doubt sufficiently profound that one cannot, when one needs to, pursue any course of action. REAL doubt. Paralyzing doubt.”

That’s a different thing, anxiety and/or depression. Treatable with exercise, medication, or therapy.

Marcus

gepr

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

This brings to mind the dimensionality of the space of possible actions. I don't play the Trolley Game Nick wants to play because the space is absurdly, artificially small ... presented by sophists who care little about the real world. The real world (usually) presents a very high dimensional space of possible actions. And those actions are (usually) not atomic, but composite. So, when presented with a situation where computing the likely first-order consequences is too expensive, rather than wait it out, one can chop up the potential (composite) actions into their first-executed action-lets, then sense and go again. Or, perhaps if you've done the pre-processing, you can take the action-lets that have been identified as "critical path". If some action will be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential actions and consequences, then do that.

This sort of agility is more common than pure rationalists/analyists/idealists would have us believe.

On 07/11/2018 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There’s another type of paralysis that does not involve doubt but computation cost in resolving or characterizing doubt:
>
> A soon as it takes more time to compute the likely first-order consequences of various potential actions (even using coarse-graining or surrogate models or whatever simplification) than just waiting for time to pass, action is arbitrary. One could have precise information about all the aspects of a decision but putting it together into a recommendation for action could be too hard. One could probably even prove it is impossible in some cases.

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Glen writes:

"If some action will be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential actions and consequences, then do that."

Another form would be "I'm lost, so I'll follow another car."
These kinds of damage-limiting default actions (when actions are *required*) need not be paralyzing and failing to take them when forced involves some other explanation, like a malfunction or lack of awareness of the available default actions, i.e. lack of awareness of the general properties of the current environment.

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

Steve Smith

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Re: Decision Paralysis. A sage friend of mine used to say "sometimes
the most you can do is nothing". I'm also lead to think of "Symmetry
Breaking" in dynamical systems.

Re: Gil's question of whether this list is dead or not... I certainly
have dialed back my participation in the psuedo philosophical banter,
roughly based on the above tactic. I DO, however, continue to read
these threads and take away useful morsels of insight from all participants.

Re: Gil's question about whether another list should be formed: I
believe WedTech provided a decent fork for two particular types of
threads: 1) announcements/discussions of the nitty gritty tech details
of programming languages (usually JS or a variant); 2) items primarily
(or exclusively) of interest to people living IN Santa Fe.

On 7/11/18 9:59 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Glen writes:
>
> "If some action will be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential actions and consequences, then do that."
>
> Another form would be "I'm lost, so I'll follow another car."
> These kinds of damage-limiting default actions (when actions are *required*) need not be paralyzing and failing to take them when forced involves some other explanation, like a malfunction or lack of awareness of the available default actions, i.e. lack of awareness of the general properties of the current environment.
>
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen, GLEN,

I was making FUN of the trolley game. I don't want to play it any more than you do!

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 11:50 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

This brings to mind the dimensionality of the space of possible actions. I don't play the Trolley Game Nick wants to play because the space is absurdly, artificially small ... presented by sophists who care little about the real world. The real world (usually) presents a very high dimensional space of possible actions. And those actions are (usually) not atomic, but composite. So, when presented with a situation where computing the likely first-order consequences is too expensive, rather than wait it out, one can chop up the potential (composite) actions into their first-executed action-lets, then sense and go again. Or, perhaps if you've done the pre-processing, you can take the action-lets that have been identified as "critical path". If some action will be required *anyway*, common to a wide array of potential actions and consequences, then do that.

This sort of agility is more common than pure rationalists/analyists/idealists would have us believe.

On 07/11/2018 08:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There’s another type of paralysis that does not involve doubt but computation cost in resolving or characterizing doubt:
>
> A soon as it takes more time to compute the likely first-order consequences of various potential actions (even using coarse-graining or surrogate models or whatever simplification) than just waiting for time to pass, action is arbitrary. One could have precise information about all the aspects of a decision but putting it together into a recommendation for action could be too hard. One could probably even prove it is impossible in some cases.

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

gepr

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha! That's good to know. Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply. I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game. I don't want to play it any more than you do!

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason about it's not a value.

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha! That's good to know. Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply. I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game. I don't want to play it any more than you do!

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

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

De gustibus non est disputandum

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason about it's not a value.

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha! That's good to know. Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply. I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game. I don't want to play it any more than you do!

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

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

It’s probably not a belief, either, come to think on it.

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 Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 10:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

De gustibus non est disputandum

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason about it's not a value.

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha! That's good to know. Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply. I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game. I don't want to play it any more than you do!

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

Nick Thompson

Re: What's so bad about Scientism?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Hmm!

Jones is in a gunfight

Jones Knows that his opponent has only a six shooter

Jones knows that his opponent has just fired six shots

Jones’s opponent aims his gun at Jones

Jones reasons that his opponent’s gun is empty

Yet he is afraid of being shot.

Does Jones believe that the gun is empty?

By the way, given the facts stipulated, you, as a mathematician, would say that the probability that the gun is empty is 1.0, right?

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

De gustibus non est disputandum

----
Frank Wimberly

www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:50 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

G

I think it was Quine who said, if it's the kind of thing you have to reason about it's not a value.

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 u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 3:14 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What's so bad about Scientism?

Aha! That's good to know. Like deeply parsing Liz Phair lyrics, you *cannot* rely on me to infer what you imply. I'm just not smart enough.

On 07/11/2018 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was making FUN of the trolley game. I don't want to play it any more than you do!

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

123