Friam

query and observation

Classic

List

Threaded

29 messages Options

Prof David West

Re: query and observation

So far, Amsterdam looks like a 2-4 year deal. Hope to be in US in October and Santa Fe at least one Friday that month.

1- unmediated perception. Only metaphor possible: remember old CRT televisions not on channel - the fuzz or snow, random pixels of black or white or greyscale. The organism desperately tries to perceive patterns, to make sense of, the input. No remove the perceived - or more accurately the perceived and the perceived are one and the same. Ego is tough and keeps trying to re-assert itself such that there is a “a perceiver (yourself) and the perceived. Toggle back and forth to the presence/absence of ego and conclude that which is sensed - no longer perceived or experienced - is unmediated and all else is mediated, even if by organismic habit.

Gadamer was Heidegger’s “best” student and extended the philosophy - Heidegger Time and Being, Gadamer Truth and Method are main works.

”you dualists” - Moi? Au Contraire - I am an absolute Monist. One, all inclinations to the contrary are false. All you lower-case monistic are just pretenders trapped in dualist language with that damned verb “to be.”

Sheldrake posited the idea of morphogenetic field - a kind of awkward metaphor that he could use to account for phenomena like the 100th monkey syndrome - i.e. knowledge “transmitted” among those of the same morphology even absent any kind of standard communication channels. Considered nuts, but with lots of interesting empirical data.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

Please see larding below!

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 Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,
[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous. When ARE you coming back? <==nst]

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and interesting.
[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind. Does direct knowledge come with little “d” icons attached? So, not only do you have direct knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad finitum. Just checking. <==nst]

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.
[NST==>Yes, I agree. Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst]

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.
[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice. Either we must assert a truth beyond experience, or deny any truth at all. By why not a truth IN experience. Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience. That upon which human experience converges. Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we grope around in the dark. <==nst]

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same thing as Interface or Interpretation.
[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth. Some methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only that talk of events beyond experience was scientifically nugatory. Philosophical behaviorists [Wittgenstein??] assert that talk of events beyond experience is MEANINGLESS. <==nst]

Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the same spot in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly, Interface made me think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields.
[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are talking about the manner in which development channels us into common paths, the fact that even though there is tremendous randomness in epigenetic processes, yet we all end up looking [pretty much] the same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is excellent. <==nst]

It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my
> defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting.
> But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think
> the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.
>
> To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my
> day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about
> any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why*
> they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever,
> Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the
> *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the
> green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red,
> then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent
> hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made
> their decision, then my judgment is negative.
>
> Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic.
> Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of
> attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like
> "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year
> old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's
> not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try
> to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the
> control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more
> understandable.
>
> I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to
> put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on
> how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively,
> I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for
> Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse*
> to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to
> "what I thought at the time".
>
> To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished.
> The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's
> "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life.
> It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the
> idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of
> what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the
> interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^)
>
> On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip
> > my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what"
> > and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument.
> >
> > My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument:   The utility
> > of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or
> > actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of one or
> > more fixed
> > domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being
> > involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?)
> > relationship formulized by GmM/r^2.   This "utility landscape" IS
> > the fitness landscape for evolution.    Obviously there must be
> > "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this
> > landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to
> > predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g. eclipses).
> >
> > I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important
> > or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes
> > how I live my everyday life for the most part.   I am *literally*
> > trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly
> > aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to
> > reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been
> > put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly?
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Prof David West

Re: query and observation

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

”truth beyond experience.” “Truth other than experience” “truth IN experience” all equally dualist.

Can’t help but be so as all are legal expressions in a dualist language.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

Please see larding below!

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 Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,
[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous. When ARE you coming back? <==nst]

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and interesting.
[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind. Does direct knowledge come with little “d” icons attached? So, not only do you have direct knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad finitum. Just checking. <==nst]

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.
[NST==>Yes, I agree. Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst]

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.
[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice. Either we must assert a truth beyond experience, or deny any truth at all. By why not a truth IN experience. Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience. That upon which human experience converges. Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we grope around in the dark. <==nst]

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same thing as Interface or Interpretation.
[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth. Some methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only that talk of events beyond experience was scientifically nugatory. Philosophical behaviorists [Wittgenstein??] assert that talk of events beyond experience is MEANINGLESS. <==nst]

Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the same spot in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly, Interface made me think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields.
[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are talking about the manner in which development channels us into common paths, the fact that even though there is tremendous randomness in epigenetic processes, yet we all end up looking [pretty much] the same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is excellent. <==nst]

It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my
> defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting.
> But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think
> the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.
>
> To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my
> day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about
> any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why*
> they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever,
> Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the
> *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the
> green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red,
> then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent
> hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made
> their decision, then my judgment is negative.
>
> Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic.
> Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of
> attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like
> "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year
> old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's
> not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try
> to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the
> control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more
> understandable.
>
> I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to
> put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on
> how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively,
> I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for
> Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse*
> to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to
> "what I thought at the time".
>
> To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished.
> The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's
> "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life.
> It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the
> idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of
> what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the
> interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^)
>
> On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip
> > my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what"
> > and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument.
> >
> > My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument:   The utility
> > of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or
> > actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of one or
> > more fixed
> > domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being
> > involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?)
> > relationship formulized by GmM/r^2.   This "utility landscape" IS
> > the fitness landscape for evolution.    Obviously there must be
> > "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this
> > landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to
> > predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g. eclipses).
> >
> > I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important
> > or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes
> > how I live my everyday life for the most part.   I am *literally*
> > trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly
> > aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to
> > reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been
> > put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly?
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Nick Thompson

Re: query and observation

No, Dave. Truth IN experience only means that as a matter of fact some experiences converge. So truth is that upon which a pattern of experiences converges and when I assert that something is true, I predict such a convergence. If, for instance, I assert that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum I assert that that is the opinion upon which we will converge in the very long run. I make no assertion about anything outside experience. Not a dualist.* Nyaah. Nyahh.

You’re the dualist. Dualist! Dualist! Dualist!

You might be a zeroist. “Nothing IS!” A zeroist would assert that not only are there no enduring patterns in experience, there is no experience. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHM.

Nick

*I suppose you might claim that I am a levels of analysis dualist, I.e there are (1) experiences and (2) patterns of experience. But if that is how you want to take me, then you must think of me as pluralist, because all experiences are just patterns of experiences of patterns of experiences of patterns of experiences ….. etc….. of patterns of experiences. Experiences are like fleas, per Jonathan Swift via Augustus deMorgan via http://wiki.c2.com/?FleasAdInfinitum.

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,

And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;

While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 2:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

”truth beyond experience.” “Truth other than experience” “truth IN experience” all equally dualist.

Can’t help but be so as all are legal expressions in a dualist language.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

Please see larding below!

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,
[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous. When ARE you coming back? <==nst]

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and interesting.
[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind. Does direct knowledge come with little “d” icons attached? So, not only do you have direct knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad finitum. Just checking. <==nst]

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.
[NST==>Yes, I agree. Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst]

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.
[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice. Either we must assert a truth beyond experience, or deny any truth at all. By why not a truth IN experience. Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience. That upon which human experience converges. Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we grope around in the dark. <==nst]

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same thing as Interface or Interpretation.
[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth. Some methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only that talk of events beyond experience was scientifically nugatory. Philosophical behaviorists [Wittgenstein??] assert that talk of events beyond experience is MEANINGLESS. <==nst]

Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the same spot in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly, Interface made me think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields.
[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are talking about the manner in which development channels us into common paths, the fact that even though there is tremendous randomness in epigenetic processes, yet we all end up looking [pretty much] the same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is excellent. <==nst]

It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my
> defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting.
> But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think
> the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.
>
> To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my
> day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about
> any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why*
> they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever,
> Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the
> *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the
> green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red,
> then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent
> hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made
> their decision, then my judgment is negative.
>
> Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic.
> Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of
> attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like
> "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year
> old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's
> not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try
> to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the
> control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more
> understandable.
>
> I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to
> put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on
> how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively,
> I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for
> Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse*
> to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to
> "what I thought at the time".
>
> To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished.
> The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's
> "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life.
> It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the
> idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of
> what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the
> interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^)
>
> On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip
> > my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what"
> > and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument.
> >
> > My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument:   The utility
> > of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or
> > actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of one or
> > more fixed
> > domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being
> > involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?)
> > relationship formulized by GmM/r^2.   This "utility landscape" IS
> > the fitness landscape for evolution.    Obviously there must be
> > "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this
> > landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to
> > predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g. eclipses).
> >
> > I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important
> > or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes
> > how I live my everyday life for the most part.   I am *literally*
> > trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly
> > aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to
> > reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been
> > put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly?
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: query and observation

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Didn't you get the names interchanged? I thought Nick was the one who thought that the only thing you can know about an individual is his/her observable behavior.

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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 4:48 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, you are late meeting the train to Albuquerque. As you drive into the station, you see a train sitting at the platform, absolutely motionless. You rush up to the conductor and demand to know, “Is this train going to Albuquerque?” “No!” the Frank, conductor replies. As you can plainly see, it is sitting here not going anywhere.” Confused, you rush down to the other end of the car where there is another conductor, Nick and you ask the same question. “Yes,” Nick replies. “Given what this train has been doing all day and how it is standing in the station, and the time of day, there is every reason to believe that this train is going to Albuquerque. C’mon aboard!” “Shouldn’t I ask the engineer first?” you ask. “Well, you might. He has a lot of experience with this train. But the answer is so obvious that he might pull your leg, and you’ld miss the train. Are you getting on, or not?.

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Straw man:

Nick: People don't think, they only behave.

Frank: You reached that conclusion by thinking.

Nick: You presume to have observed my reaching the conclusion.

Frank: I am certain your mind works like mine.

Nick: How could you know that? You are a Cartesian.

Frank: And proud of it.

Nick: People don't feel; they infer their feelings from their behavior. They recognize hunger from eating or food seeking behavior.

Frank: I know I'm hungry from feeling hungry. I could feel hungry while totally still, with no observable behavior.

Nick: No because...

Etc., etc....

No resolution to date.

-----------------------------------
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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:17 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
We love our "flocking" models but FRIAM is less of a 'birds-of-a-feather' group than something much harder to similize. It feels to me that some of our conversations are a bit flocky or schooly (rarely herdy) but others are more geophysical like flares or eruptions... a good schoolyard "pileon" occasionally happens as well... and then there are... as we are now contemplating, the long dark-tea-times of our collective-soul.
On 9/12/19 10:04 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
FRIAM is such a strange beast. At times full of philosophical discourse that flies far above my head, other times full of irreverent inanities that defy categorization, and occasionally even with something to do with complexity. And then the periodic deafening silence that makes me realize just how much I would miss it if it were to go away. Long live FRIAM.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank, Dave,

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close attention, but …

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August on.

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a classical “symposium”, more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and quality of the conversation. He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … agitated? I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same way, as a beneficent god should. I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just go missing for a while. So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving FRIAM correspondence in late August. I just assumed that the All Powerful Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.

Thank you APF-O. We love you and worship you.

Nick

Ps. Let me know if you don’t get this message. (};-\)

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Dave,

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle. I posted a couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al. Glen did comment insightfully. Nick will be back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello All,

Traffic on the FRIAM list seems to have ground to a halt, from my reception point in Amsterdam - i.e. I have seen nothing for some time. Not in spam filter, so question is has the list trickled to a stop or just not making it across the Atlantic.?

Observation: an interesting coincidence arising from reading a new book, The Case Against Reality, How evolution hid the truth from our eyes, by Donald D. Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at UC Irvine. Main thesis is that what we perceive is but a constructed, via evolution, "interface" and not a veridical perception of "Reality."

Not a new idea but the evolution / survival / fittest being the ones that see the optimal interface instead of what is behind the interface is interesting.

Coincidence comes from simultaneously rereading Heidegger and Gadamer, and even some Peirce, and seeing apparent parallels between "interface,: "interpretation," and "experience." Feels like a lot of Nick's Monism convictions might be illuminated by looking at these works in juxtaposition.

dave west

============================================================
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
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: query and observation

But Frank,

The pattern of behavior of that train IS a behavior. Conductor Frank insists that we not take that into account at the instant and that we defer to the engineer concerning where the train is going; Conductor Nick includes it within the behavioral analysis, and insists that the engineer is not in principle any more knowledgeable than the rest of us concerning the destination of the train.

Signed,

Conductor 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: Friday, September 13, 2019 9:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Didn't you get the names interchanged? I thought Nick was the one who thought that the only thing you can know about an individual is his/her observable behavior.

Frank

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 4:48 PM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, you are late meeting the train to Albuquerque. As you drive into the station, you see a train sitting at the platform, absolutely motionless. You rush up to the conductor and demand to know, “Is this train going to Albuquerque?” “No!” the Frank, conductor replies. As you can plainly see, it is sitting here not going anywhere.” Confused, you rush down to the other end of the car where there is another conductor, Nick and you ask the same question. “Yes,” Nick replies. “Given what this train has been doing all day and how it is standing in the station, and the time of day, there is every reason to believe that this train is going to Albuquerque. C’mon aboard!” “Shouldn’t I ask the engineer first?” you ask. “Well, you might. He has a lot of experience with this train. But the answer is so obvious that he might pull your leg, and you’ld miss the train. Are you getting on, or not?.

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Straw man:

Nick: People don't think, they only behave.

Frank: You reached that conclusion by thinking.

Nick: You presume to have observed my reaching the conclusion.

Frank: I am certain your mind works like mine.

Nick: How could you know that? You are a Cartesian.

Frank: And proud of it.

Nick: People don't feel; they infer their feelings from their behavior. They recognize hunger from eating or food seeking behavior.

Frank: I know I'm hungry from feeling hungry. I could feel hungry while totally still, with no observable behavior.

Nick: No because...

Etc., etc....

No resolution to date.

-----------------------------------
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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:17 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
We love our "flocking" models but FRIAM is less of a 'birds-of-a-feather' group than something much harder to similize. It feels to me that some of our conversations are a bit flocky or schooly (rarely herdy) but others are more geophysical like flares or eruptions... a good schoolyard "pileon" occasionally happens as well... and then there are... as we are now contemplating, the long dark-tea-times of our collective-soul.
On 9/12/19 10:04 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
FRIAM is such a strange beast. At times full of philosophical discourse that flies far above my head, other times full of irreverent inanities that defy categorization, and occasionally even with something to do with complexity. And then the periodic deafening silence that makes me realize just how much I would miss it if it were to go away. Long live FRIAM.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank, Dave,

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close attention, but …

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August on.

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a classical “symposium”, more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and quality of the conversation. He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … agitated? I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same way, as a beneficent god should. I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just go missing for a while. So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving FRIAM correspondence in late August. I just assumed that the All Powerful Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.

Thank you APF-O. We love you and worship you.

Nick

Ps. Let me know if you don’t get this message. (};-\)

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Dave,

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle. I posted a couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al. Glen did comment insightfully. Nick will be back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello All,

Traffic on the FRIAM list seems to have ground to a halt, from my reception point in Amsterdam - i.e. I have seen nothing for some time. Not in spam filter, so question is has the list trickled to a stop or just not making it across the Atlantic.?

Observation: an interesting coincidence arising from reading a new book, The Case Against Reality, How evolution hid the truth from our eyes, by Donald D. Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at UC Irvine. Main thesis is that what we perceive is but a constructed, via evolution, "interface" and not a veridical perception of "Reality."

Not a new idea but the evolution / survival / fittest being the ones that see the optimal interface instead of what is behind the interface is interesting.

Coincidence comes from simultaneously rereading Heidegger and Gadamer, and even some Peirce, and seeing apparent parallels between "interface,: "interpretation," and "experience." Feels like a lot of Nick's Monism convictions might be illuminated by looking at these works in juxtaposition.

dave west

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

Stephen Guerin

FRIAM email delivery and reliability (was: Re: query and observation)

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

As we speak, Dr. Strangelove may be painting the image of the Symposiarch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium#Drinking) regulating the flow. Or a kind of immanent Maxwellian Demon actively operating the email gate so that intellectual work can be extracted. Or as we're running on Majordomo listserv I think the acequia metaphor is best -- An all powerful Majordomo organizing annual fatiga parties to remove the neo-darwinist logic clogging up the acequia ;-p

Alas, we might employ Hanlon's Razor to explain your lack of observed traffic. It may be a failing FRIAM listserv running on the back of a discount weary server we've been riding for 17+ plus years. Before switching mid stream, I'd ask Glen, Russell, Owen, Marcus, Josh, Frank and Gary to look at their email client history and see if there's missing emails since August when compared to the archives listed in the FRIAM signature. If there's a significant discrepancy, we can start tracking down the cause. Email delivery has many other places in the chain that can fail. If it's the server we can start looking for alternatives. FWIW, I haven't seen a disruption on my gmail client.

Somewhat related: if folks post with an email that they didn't subscribe with, it automatically gets rejected. The listserv gets hit with 100's of spam addresses a day that aren't in the subscriber list. I stopped manually monitoring the rejection list 10 years ago. Many of you have given me alternative email addresses to put on the whitelist so you can post from different accounts. Email me offline if you want to add one.

- IAmWhoAm (AKA APF-O)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:45 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank, Dave,

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close attention, but …

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August on.

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a classical “symposium”, more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and quality of the conversation. He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … agitated? I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same way, as a beneficent god should. I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just go missing for a while. So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving FRIAM correspondence in late August. I just assumed that the All Powerful Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.

Thank you APF-O. We love you and worship you.

Nick

Ps. Let me know if you don’t get this message. (};-\)

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Dave,

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle. I posted a couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al. Glen did comment insightfully. Nick will be back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello All,

Traffic on the FRIAM list seems to have ground to a halt, from my reception point in Amsterdam - i.e. I have seen nothing for some time. Not in spam filter, so question is has the list trickled to a stop or just not making it across the Atlantic.?

Observation: an interesting coincidence arising from reading a new book, The Case Against Reality, How evolution hid the truth from our eyes, by Donald D. Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at UC Irvine. Main thesis is that what we perceive is but a constructed, via evolution, "interface" and not a veridical perception of "Reality."

Not a new idea but the evolution / survival / fittest being the ones that see the optimal interface instead of what is behind the interface is interesting.

Coincidence comes from simultaneously rereading Heidegger and Gadamer, and even some Peirce, and seeing apparent parallels between "interface,: "interpretation," and "experience." Feels like a lot of Nick's Monism convictions might be illuminated by looking at these works in juxtaposition.

dave west

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: FRIAM email delivery and reliability (was: Re: query and observation)

Touche' APF-O standin McGuerin!

I know that ole Doc Strangelove has been very quiet for some time.

Your Symposiarch would seem to be a good stand in for a D&D master and the threads on this list not unlike Zingale's aforementioned D&D campaigns.

I do sense burps in the list myself (usually as a response to a quote of a post I haven't seen). Sometimes posts come in (mildly) out of order. With the archives at fingertip I never worry much about it, and to the extent FriAM is much more sport than anything I don't worry much anyway! I get the distinct impression that others experience a different sieve than I do, but perhaps not a much more ambitious one.

I would accuse Nick of being the Maxwell Demon (more appropriately Daemon?) based on the description as trying to extract intellectual work.

On 9/14/19 12:25 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

As we speak, Dr. Strangelove may be painting the image of the Symposiarch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium#Drinking) regulating the flow. Or a kind of immanent Maxwellian Demon actively operating the email gate so that intellectual work can be extracted. Or as we're running on Majordomo listserv I think the acequia metaphor is best -- An all powerful Majordomo organizing annual fatiga parties to remove the neo-darwinist logic clogging up the acequia ;-p

Alas, we might employ Hanlon's Razor to explain your lack of observed traffic. It may be a failing FRIAM listserv running on the back of a discount weary server we've been riding for 17+ plus years. Before switching mid stream, I'd ask Glen, Russell, Owen, Marcus, Josh, Frank and Gary to look at their email client history and see if there's missing emails since August when compared to the archives listed in the FRIAM signature. If there's a significant discrepancy, we can start tracking down the cause. Email delivery has many other places in the chain that can fail. If it's the server we can start looking for alternatives. FWIW, I haven't seen a disruption on my gmail client.

Somewhat related: if folks post with an email that they didn't subscribe with, it automatically gets rejected. The listserv gets hit with 100's of spam addresses a day that aren't in the subscriber list. I stopped manually monitoring the rejection list 10 years ago. Many of you have given me alternative email addresses to put on the whitelist so you can post from different accounts. Email me offline if you want to add one.

- IAmWhoAm (AKA APF-O)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:45 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank, Dave,

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close attention, but …

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August on.

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a classical “symposium”, more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and quality of the conversation. He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … agitated? I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same way, as a beneficent god should. I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just go missing for a while. So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving FRIAM correspondence in late August. I just assumed that the All Powerful Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.

Thank you APF-O. We love you and worship you.

Nick

Ps. Let me know if you don’t get this message. (};-\)

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Dave,

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle. I posted a couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al. Glen did comment insightfully. Nick will be back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello All,

Traffic on the FRIAM list seems to have ground to a halt, from my reception point in Amsterdam - i.e. I have seen nothing for some time. Not in spam filter, so question is has the list trickled to a stop or just not making it across the Atlantic.?

Observation: an interesting coincidence arising from reading a new book, The Case Against Reality, How evolution hid the truth from our eyes, by Donald D. Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at UC Irvine. Main thesis is that what we perceive is but a constructed, via evolution, "interface" and not a veridical perception of "Reality."

Not a new idea but the evolution / survival / fittest being the ones that see the optimal interface instead of what is behind the interface is interesting.

Coincidence comes from simultaneously rereading Heidegger and Gadamer, and even some Peirce, and seeing apparent parallels between "interface,: "interpretation," and "experience." Feels like a lot of Nick's Monism convictions might be illuminated by looking at these works in juxtaposition.

dave west

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

Nick Thompson

Re: FRIAM email delivery and reliability (was: Re: query and observation)

In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin

All,

I told you He would deny it.

But still, Almighy Guerin, I continue to believe in you. When my mouth runneth over,

Thou whilst shut me up. Praised be the Guerin.

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 Stephen Guerin
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 2:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] FRIAM email delivery and reliability (was: Re: query and observation)

- IAmWhoAm (AKA APF-O)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:45 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank, Dave,

Well I AM tied up with relocation issues, so haven’t been paying close attention, but …

I just did a search in my inbox and there is nothing from FRIAM from 24 August on.

I have always understood that the Friam-Owner. is like the wine pourer at a classical “symposium”, more or less watering the wine to maintain the flow and quality of the conversation. He won’t admit to it of course, but every once in a while He “shuts me off” from friam when He thinks I have become too … agitated? I assume He is also gently modulating your contributions in the same way, as a beneficent god should. I don’t know how He gets the time to do it, but nothing else could possibly explain the fact that sometimes our emails just go missing for a while. So, I didn’t get alarmed when I stopped receiving FRIAM correspondence in late August. I just assumed that the All Powerful Friam-Owner was giving me a rest.

Thank you APF-O. We love you and worship you.

Nick

Ps. Let me know if you don’t get this message. (};-\)

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: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

Dave,

The Friam list remains as you can see but is sort of a trickle. I posted a couple of items about the Cooper/Colbert interview and something I can't remember but they weren't up to the high intellectual standard which engages you, Glen, Marcus, Nick, et al. Glen did comment insightfully. Nick will be back in Santa Fe soon; maybe the change in location will stimulate him.

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 Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 12:42 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello All,

Traffic on the FRIAM list seems to have ground to a halt, from my reception point in Amsterdam - i.e. I have seen nothing for some time. Not in spam filter, so question is has the list trickled to a stop or just not making it across the Atlantic.?

Observation: an interesting coincidence arising from reading a new book, The Case Against Reality, How evolution hid the truth from our eyes, by Donald D. Hoffman, professor of cognitive science at UC Irvine. Main thesis is that what we perceive is but a constructed, via evolution, "interface" and not a veridical perception of "Reality."

Not a new idea but the evolution / survival / fittest being the ones that see the optimal interface instead of what is behind the interface is interesting.

Coincidence comes from simultaneously rereading Heidegger and Gadamer, and even some Peirce, and seeing apparent parallels between "interface,: "interpretation," and "experience." Feels like a lot of Nick's Monism convictions might be illuminated by looking at these works in juxtaposition.

dave west

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: query and observation

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi, Dave,

Sorry not to have responded to you interesting probes. I finally walked my new computer over to Capitol Computer and left it, like a pet for euthanasia. Two weeks of my life burned. For mere 200 dollars they promise to return it to me in functioning condition. I hope that’s where the pet metaphor breaks down.

About what you write below, I just have to say I don’t follow. Dualisms presuppose more than one kind of “stuff”. I think I presuppose only one kind, which I call, for want of a better label, experience. All other stuff consists of organizations of experience. Now, if “organizations of stuff” is to you another kind of stuff, then, by god, I AM a dualist. But I think stuff of stuff is no less or no more than stuff. So, unless you talk me out of that, I still think I am a good monist. I kinda thought you were a monist, too, so are you just jerking my chain?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 12:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

”truth beyond experience.” “Truth other than experience” “truth IN experience” all equally dualist.

Can’t help but be so as all are legal expressions in a dualist language.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave,

Please see larding below!

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation

this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,
[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous. When ARE you coming back? <==nst]

As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated, perception of that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments are not surprising. Blaming the existence of the interface on evolution was kind of new and interesting.
[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it deserves, but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias, so I am going to allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know, though, how you tell the difference between your direct knowledge, and the other kind. Does direct knowledge come with little “d” icons attached? So, not only do you have direct knowledge but you also have direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and direct knowledge that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad finitum. Just checking. <==nst]

It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with Heidegger, Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy that caused the greatest amount of thinking. Although not a hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.
[NST==>Yes, I agree. Although, in my present demented state, I wouldn’t know a Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst]

The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only thing we can know is the interface and whatever is behind that interface is not what everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛— seems to parallel the hermeneutic position that all we can know is the interpretation and whatever is behind the interpretation is not what every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.
[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice. Either we must assert a truth beyond experience, or deny any truth at all. By why not a truth IN experience. Truth is a [mathematical] property of experience. That upon which human experience converges. Truth is just what keeps banging us on the head as we grope around in the dark. <==nst]

Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less the same thing as Interface or Interpretation.
[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth. Some methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists, asserting only that talk of events beyond experience was scientifically nugatory. Philosophical behaviorists [Wittgenstein??] assert that talk of events beyond experience is MEANINGLESS. <==nst]

Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the same spot in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly, Interface made me think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and morphogenetic fields.
[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are talking about the manner in which development channels us into common paths, the fact that even though there is tremendous randomness in epigenetic processes, yet we all end up looking [pretty much] the same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is excellent. <==nst]

It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating.

davew

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my
> defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting.
> But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think
> the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.
>
> To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my
> day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about
> any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why*
> they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever,
> Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the
> *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the
> green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red,
> then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent
> hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made
> their decision, then my judgment is negative.
>
> Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic.
> Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of
> attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like
> "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year
> old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's
> not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try
> to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the
> control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more
> understandable.
>
> I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to
> put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on
> how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively,
> I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for
> Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse*
> to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to
> "what I thought at the time".
>
> To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished.
> The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's
> "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life.
> It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the
> idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of
> what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the
> interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^)
>
> On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip
> > my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what"
> > and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument.
> >
> > My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument:   The utility
> > of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or
> > actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of one or
> > more fixed
> > domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being
> > involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?)
> > relationship formulized by GmM/r^2.   This "utility landscape" IS
> > the fitness landscape for evolution.    Obviously there must be
> > "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this
> > landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to
> > predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g. eclipses).
> >
> > I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important
> > or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes
> > how I live my everyday life for the most part.   I am *literally*
> > trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly
> > aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to
> > reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been
> > put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly?
>
> ============================================================
> 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