truth, reality, & narrative
Locked
 
|
Yes, I know. I'm a broken record. But playing off SteveS' recent post about QAnon being gamified "social reality", the recent exchange with EricS regarding the necessity but insufficiency of merely assuming a stable reality to be converged upon, I think I may have a way to listen to the election deniers with empathy. I'm only engaged in this *because* all the credible sources refuse to address the *arc* in all their debunking. It's akin to why arguing facts won't change the minds of the religious. Their debunking addresses the parts, but not the whole. If we are ever to build a logic that validates against human reasoning, we'll have to do both, treat the parts and the composition of the whole from the parts. Anyway, my remedial rhetorical trajectory goes like this:
Coming back to Walsh & Stepney's project: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319647128 Plus stories that predispose: • Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113–134. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Persuasive-Effects-of-Fictional-Narratives-Increase-Appel-Richter/bf1c7e56694d797444a16606d46f9d0910e60d3d • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_effect Plus analytical (Freudian & Jungian) vs. narrative (conspiracy theories and occult causation) persuasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology) Plus "social reality": https://undark.org/2021/01/01/book-excerpt-seven-and-a-half-lessons-about-the-brain/ Finally, trying to steelman Trump's Georgia call: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html Basically, since he believes the down-ballot R's won on his coattails, it's paradoxical that he didn't win. To resolve the paradox, by faulty inference to the best explanation: the race between him and Biden (but not the down-ballot races) was manipulated, by hook or crook. Occam's razor might suggest that he's simply *not* as popular as the down-ballot candidates. But that's faulty reductionism. There's overwhelming evidence that Trump's "advocacy" amplified R rhetoric. So Biden-Trump race manipulation remains. Shifting from steelmanning Trump to steelmanning his supporters: Of course, if Trump is the "discounting cue" ... that adds an interesting wrinkle. Everyone, even his ardent supporters, know he's incredible (!). But his incredibility both 1) makes the bullsh¡t he says more believable (by the sleeper effect) and 2) argues for keeping him around as the coal miners' canary. He "speaks truth" even if he's incredible and embarrassing. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
A good thing about Fox News, OAN, etc. is that they are entities with boundaries. At some point these organizations could become so radioactive that sponsors won't support them. Or they could be sued, broken up by the government, etc. as dangers to the population. They just aren't there yet. Similarly, one might ask: What is the upside of attempts by ISIS to establish a state? They have to establish a bureaucracy and mechanisms for public communication, fixed buildings for use, etc. Such people and buildings are the basis for a target list. They can put themselves in a position to take bigger losses per event.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:02 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] truth, reality, & narrative Yes, I know. I'm a broken record. But playing off SteveS' recent post about QAnon being gamified "social reality", the recent exchange with EricS regarding the necessity but insufficiency of merely assuming a stable reality to be converged upon, I think I may have a way to listen to the election deniers with empathy. I'm only engaged in this *because* all the credible sources refuse to address the *arc* in all their debunking. It's akin to why arguing facts won't change the minds of the religious. Their debunking addresses the parts, but not the whole. If we are ever to build a logic that validates against human reasoning, we'll have to do both, treat the parts and the composition of the whole from the parts. Anyway, my remedial rhetorical trajectory goes like this: Coming back to Walsh & Stepney's project: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319647128 Plus stories that predispose: • Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113–134. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Persuasive-Effects-of-Fictional-Narratives-Increase-Appel-Richter/bf1c7e56694d797444a16606d46f9d0910e60d3d • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_effect Plus analytical (Freudian & Jungian) vs. narrative (conspiracy theories and occult causation) persuasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology) Plus "social reality": https://undark.org/2021/01/01/book-excerpt-seven-and-a-half-lessons-about-the-brain/ Finally, trying to steelman Trump's Georgia call: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html Basically, since he believes the down-ballot R's won on his coattails, it's paradoxical that he didn't win. To resolve the paradox, by faulty inference to the best explanation: the race between him and Biden (but not the down-ballot races) was manipulated, by hook or crook. Occam's razor might suggest that he's simply *not* as popular as the down-ballot candidates. But that's faulty reductionism. There's overwhelming evidence that Trump's "advocacy" amplified R rhetoric. So Biden-Trump race manipulation remains. Shifting from steelmanning Trump to steelmanning his supporters: Of course, if Trump is the "discounting cue" ... that adds an interesting wrinkle. Everyone, even his ardent supporters, know he's incredible (!). But his incredibility both 1) makes the bullsh¡t he says more believable (by the sleeper effect) and 2) argues for keeping him around as the coal miners' canary. He "speaks truth" even if he's incredible and embarrassing. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen,
I love the grandiosity of your post and will try to slog through the links so I can fully understand it. If I were you and had had an idea as grandiose and timely as this one, I would be trying to get it to Harpers Mag or a Times op-ed. Mind you I wouldn't succeed and would waste a shit-load of time in the effort. One teensy clarification: Can you explicate " build a logic that validates against human reasoning " I think I am probably reading too much into "against". Thanks, Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 11:02 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] truth, reality, & narrative Yes, I know. I'm a broken record. But playing off SteveS' recent post about QAnon being gamified "social reality", the recent exchange with EricS regarding the necessity but insufficiency of merely assuming a stable reality to be converged upon, I think I may have a way to listen to the election deniers with empathy. I'm only engaged in this *because* all the credible sources refuse to address the *arc* in all their debunking. It's akin to why arguing facts won't change the minds of the religious. Their debunking addresses the parts, but not the whole. If we are ever to build a logic that validates against human reasoning, we'll have to do both, treat the parts and the composition of the whole from the parts. Anyway, my remedial rhetorical trajectory goes like this: Coming back to Walsh & Stepney's project: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319647128 Plus stories that predispose: • Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113–134. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Persuasive-Effects-of-Fictional-Narratives-Increase-Appel-Richter/bf1c7e56694d797444a16606d46f9d0910e60d3d • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_effect Plus analytical (Freudian & Jungian) vs. narrative (conspiracy theories and occult causation) persuasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology) Plus "social reality": https://undark.org/2021/01/01/book-excerpt-seven-and-a-half-lessons-about-the-brain/ Finally, trying to steelman Trump's Georgia call: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html Basically, since he believes the down-ballot R's won on his coattails, it's paradoxical that he didn't win. To resolve the paradox, by faulty inference to the best explanation: the race between him and Biden (but not the down-ballot races) was manipulated, by hook or crook. Occam's razor might suggest that he's simply *not* as popular as the down-ballot candidates. But that's faulty reductionism. There's overwhelming evidence that Trump's "advocacy" amplified R rhetoric. So Biden-Trump race manipulation remains. Shifting from steelmanning Trump to steelmanning his supporters: Of course, if Trump is the "discounting cue" ... that adds an interesting wrinkle. Everyone, even his ardent supporters, know he's incredible (!). But his incredibility both 1) makes the bullsh¡t he says more believable (by the sleeper effect) and 2) argues for keeping him around as the coal miners' canary. He "speaks truth" even if he's incredible and embarrassing. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
The book from Walsh & Stepney looks interesting. It reminds me of the recent article from Muthukrishna about "Psychology as a historical science" https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/historical_psychologyv20.pdf Susan Stepney has an interesting blog too where she recommends and reviews books, recently for instance "Elliptic Tales: curves, counting, and number theory" from Avner Ash and Robert Gross http://susan-stepney.blogspot.com/2020/05/rational-conics.html -J. -------- Original message -------- From: uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> Date: 1/5/21 18:02 (GMT+01:00) To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] truth, reality, & narrative Coming back to Walsh & Stepney's project: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319647128 Plus stories that predispose: • Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113–134. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Persuasive-Effects-of-Fictional-Narratives-Increase-Appel-Richter/bf1c7e56694d797444a16606d46f9d0910e60d3d • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_effect Plus analytical (Freudian & Jungian) vs. narrative (conspiracy theories and occult causation) persuasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology) Plus "social reality": https://undark.org/2021/01/01/book-excerpt-seven-and-a-half-lessons-about-the-brain/ Finally, trying to steelman Trump's Georgia call: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html Basically, since he believes the down-ballot R's won on his coattails, it's paradoxical that he didn't win. To resolve the paradox, by faulty inference to the best explanation: the race between him and Biden (but not the down-ballot races) was manipulated, by hook or crook. Occam's razor might suggest that he's simply *not* as popular as the down-ballot candidates. But that's faulty reductionism. There's overwhelming evidence that Trump's "advocacy" amplified R rhetoric. So Biden-Trump race manipulation remains. Shifting from steelmanning Trump to steelmanning his supporters: Of course, if Trump is the "discounting cue" ... that adds an interesting wrinkle. Everyone, even his ardent supporters, know he's incredible (!). But his incredibility both 1) makes the bullsh¡t he says more believable (by the sleeper effect) and 2) argues for keeping him around as the coal miners' canary. He "speaks truth" even if he's incredible and embarrassing. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
MGD -- Excellent point! That evokes the Citizens United ruling and incorporation, in general. With very liberal interpretation, we can imagine these organizations, like city-nests, as our (or some subset of us) extended mind. E.g. to the extent that an entrepreneurial enterprise succeeds or fails, it's a representation of how "real" that organization is as a model of the "truth". If manufactured wants ala persuasive advertising do a good job, then they socially construct the truth and the success of that enterprise is at least positively reinforced, if not self-fulfilling. And the extent to which we can get batsh¡t minds like Trumps or ISIS' to reify themselves, we can more effectively *criticize* them than we can by flapping our gums about ideas.
NST1 -- Re: composing for Harpers or Times, it's interesting that a curated, authored artifact like that would be your intention. In a way, I think my post can be viewed as a passive aggressive attempt on my part to demonstrate *that* such narrative-supporting media are part of the problem, *not* part of the solution. At the end of a bloviating Op-Ed or long-form article, I end up in the exact state I don't want to be in, predisposed to thinking in the terms laid out by the bloviation. The wisdom that story tellers arrive at, in order to tell a *good* story, you have to pull your reader along with you. And that applies for science popularizers as well as fiction writers. Nowhere is it more obvious than math. Those theorem-proof-theorem-proof books are nothing if not "pulling you along" ... gaslighting you with every proof. Socially, the most profound effect *I* see is how technologically optimistic, libertarian, and meritocratical sci-fi fanatics are. So, no, a long-form article for this argument would be self-contradictory. NST2 -- By "validate against", I intend some cognitive dissonance. To validate means interpolate and match observations from a referent. So if I said "validate with" or "validate to", I'd be targeting that confirmation. By saying "validate against", I'm hinting at falsification and extrapolation. I want the data to falsify my model, not confirm it. But, of course, the ultimate objective is to build a model that both [inter|extra]polates in good faith. JxF (I don't know Jochen's middle name) -- Thanks for that article! On 1/5/21 9:16 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > They have to establish a bureaucracy and mechanisms for public communication, fixed buildings for use, etc. Such people and buildings are the basis for a target list. They can put themselves in a position to take bigger losses per event. On 1/5/21 9:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > I love the grandiosity of your post and will try to slog through the links so I can fully understand it. If I were you and had had an idea as grandiose and timely as this one, I would be trying to get it to Harpers Mag or a Times op-ed. Mind you I wouldn't succeed and would waste a shit-load of time in the effort. > > One teensy clarification: Can you explicate " build a logic that validates against human reasoning " I think I am probably reading too much into "against". On 1/5/21 10:29 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > It reminds me of the recent article from Muthukrishna about "Psychology as a historical science" > https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/historical_psychologyv20.pdf -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
Glen writes:
< Those theorem-proof-theorem-proof books are nothing if not "pulling you along" ... gaslighting you with every proof. > I'm not sure what you are getting at here. For concreteness, suppose the books were Sage notebooks, and could export to Maxima or Mathematica. Couldn’t one be reasonably confident in the correctness of the calculations by reproducing them with two or more completely independent code bases, as well as by inspection? Or maybe you mean the books are taking the reader in some direction, where the reader mostly has to accept the story as one of many possible stories. And by the time they are to the end of it, they are committed to a way of thinking? Marcus - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen,
Re NST-2. Stipulated. What can I say? I am the product of a mating between a publisher and an editor. To put my ideas before the big world and thus get feedback on them from the world has always been my greatest ambition, silly as it may be. It's how ideas develop. That is why I so value friam. It's not the Big World, but it is a world and I do get feedback, and my ideas do -- you may not have noticed -- develop. You are right that that is a very conservative impulse and I need to be wary of it. But I think framing one's ideas for a world is a useful discipline as well as a dangerous concession. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 1:58 PM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] truth, reality, & narrative MGD -- Excellent point! That evokes the Citizens United ruling and incorporation, in general. With very liberal interpretation, we can imagine these organizations, like city-nests, as our (or some subset of us) extended mind. E.g. to the extent that an entrepreneurial enterprise succeeds or fails, it's a representation of how "real" that organization is as a model of the "truth". If manufactured wants ala persuasive advertising do a good job, then they socially construct the truth and the success of that enterprise is at least positively reinforced, if not self-fulfilling. And the extent to which we can get batsh¡t minds like Trumps or ISIS' to reify themselves, we can more effectively *criticize* them than we can by flapping our gums about ideas. NST1 -- Re: composing for Harpers or Times, it's interesting that a curated, authored artifact like that would be your intention. In a way, I think my post can be viewed as a passive aggressive attempt on my part to demonstrate *that* such narrative-supporting media are part of the problem, *not* part of the solution. At the end of a bloviating Op-Ed or long-form article, I end up in the exact state I don't want to be in, predisposed to thinking in the terms laid out by the bloviation. The wisdom that story tellers arrive at, in order to tell a *good* story, you have to pull your reader along with you. And that applies for science popularizers as well as fiction writers. Nowhere is it more obvious than math. Those theorem-proof-theorem-proof books are nothing if not "pulling you along" ... gaslighting you with every proof. Socially, the most profound effect *I* see is how technologically optimistic, libertarian, and meritocratical sci-fi fanatics are. So, no, a long-form article for this argument would be self-contradictory. NST2 -- By "validate against", I intend some cognitive dissonance. To validate means interpolate and match observations from a referent. So if I said "validate with" or "validate to", I'd be targeting that confirmation. By saying "validate against", I'm hinting at falsification and extrapolation. I want the data to falsify my model, not confirm it. But, of course, the ultimate objective is to build a model that both [inter|extra]polates in good faith. JxF (I don't know Jochen's middle name) -- Thanks for that article! On 1/5/21 9:16 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > They have to establish a bureaucracy and mechanisms for public communication, fixed buildings for use, etc. Such people and buildings are the basis for a target list. They can put themselves in a position to take bigger losses per event. On 1/5/21 9:18 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > I love the grandiosity of your post and will try to slog through the links so I can fully understand it. If I were you and had had an idea as grandiose and timely as this one, I would be trying to get it to Harpers Mag or a Times op-ed. Mind you I wouldn't succeed and would waste a shit-load of time in the effort. > > One teensy clarification: Can you explicate " build a logic that validates against human reasoning " I think I am probably reading too much into "against". On 1/5/21 10:29 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > It reminds me of the recent article from Muthukrishna about "Psychology as a historical science" > https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/historical_psychol > ogyv20.pdf -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
FWIW, I have always felt that math study requires a tremendous amount of
autosuggestion. Ok, so this proposition claims to be a theorem. Now, why is it true? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus, I take my life in my hands by trying to steel man Glen. But FRIWWMFTT. I think that Glen means that whatever nonsense a series of mathematical proofs might spew, any attempt to explicate those proofs through narrative spews a bit more. Adding to non-sense is a necessary feature of any explication. Or: All good explanations are also obfuscations. Heard it first from me! N Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- Glen writes: < Those theorem-proof-theorem-proof books are nothing if not "pulling you along" ... gaslighting you with every proof. > I'm not sure what you are getting at here. For concreteness, suppose the books were Sage notebooks, and could export to Maxima or Mathematica. Couldn’t one be reasonably confident in the correctness of the calculations by reproducing them with two or more completely independent code bases, as well as by inspection? Or maybe you mean the books are taking the reader in some direction, where the reader mostly has to accept the story as one of many possible stories. And by the time they are to the end of it, they are committed to a way of thinking? Marcus - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
I have always thought of math of any enterprise of the form, If I know or
assume that Px is true, and Logic X is correct, what other P's am I assured of the truth of without any further investigation of the world. Am I wrong about that? n Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 2:47 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] truth, reality, & narrative FWIW, I have always felt that math study requires a tremendous amount of autosuggestion. Ok, so this proposition claims to be a theorem. Now, why is it true? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
It's mostly the latter, that the *collection* of lemmas and theorems builds a scaffold (spatial metaphor) or takes the reader on a ride (time metaphor) from components to super-structure, from initial state to final state. Each brick/step in such composition is, *should be*, subject to doubt, as Jon argues. And, in practice, each brick/step is not only subject to doubt, but is also multivalent. A lemma in one argument may be a theorem in another argument. Ideally, mathematical reificationists will assert that the whole collection *must* hang together, for a True ride, or a perfectly solid foundation. And, my own personal view, is that math helps us *be* doubtful by honing disagreeing propositions into contradictions that we *want* (psychologically) to resolve ... It is the very (obsolete) definition of sophistry.
On 1/5/21 12:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I'm not sure what you are getting at here. For concreteness, suppose the books were Sage notebooks, and could export to Maxima or Mathematica. Couldn’t one be reasonably confident in the correctness of the calculations by reproducing them with two or more completely independent code bases, as well as by inspection? Or maybe you mean the books are taking the reader in some direction, where the reader mostly has to accept the story as one of many possible stories. And by the time they are to the end of it, they are committed to a way of thinking? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
It seems like you're implying that I disagree with you about "putting ideas before the big world". That's wrong. I completely agree with putting ideas to the big world. What I reject is the exogenous *narrative*. What you want is to show people the actual data from which you're working and *check* to see if they induce a similar idea.
I want to put before the big world my source material. If I'm the only one to induce a given idea, then I'm probably wak [⛧]. If others make the same induction, then maybe WE are on to something. Always, always, always distrust a story-teller. That's where we get the bad connotative meaning for "telling stories" ... i.e. lying. Similarly, a good illusionist gladly shows you the source material, but narratives her way into your mind, making you think something did or didn't happen that didn't or did happen. What we want are endogenous narratives. The reason I made that post in that way is because *that's* how conspiracy theororizing works ... taking lots of disparate little dots and drawing lines between them. The difference between a good inducer and a bad inducer is the extent to which you impose your model/narrative onto the dots versus inducing it from the dots. As SteveS' gamification of QAnon article pointed out, we're all "scientists" in this way. We all want to put our ideas out to the big world. We just need to be more FAIR about it. (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) To see the FAIR point, the analytic vs. narrative persuasion section of one of the wikipedia articles I posted is important, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology)#Differences_between_analytical_and_narrative_persuasion When/if your exogenous narrative published in Harpers resonates with a bunch of tweed-wearing Harpers readers, you are no different than Bob the QAnon researcher whose narrative resonates with other Q readers. What makes Harpers distinct from QAnon fora is the extent to which their source material is FAIR, the valence of any of their bricks/steps. [⛧] I'll repeat again that "whacko" need not be a bad thing. On 1/5/21 12:36 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Re NST-2. Stipulated. What can I say? I am the product of a mating between a publisher and an editor. To put my ideas before the big world and thus get feedback on them from the world has always been my greatest ambition, silly as it may be. It's how ideas develop. That is why I so value friam. It's not the Big World, but it is a world and I do get feedback, and my ideas do -- you may not have noticed -- develop. You are right that that is a very conservative impulse and I need to be wary of it. But I think framing one's ideas for a world is a useful discipline as well as a dangerous concession. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
To be clear, I was commenting on what math study feels like. The worst of it
being when I do not actually follow a proof (due to laziness, ill-preparedness, or any other lack of ability) and somehow come to rely on the theorem as fact. I suppose this is both unavoidable and an illustration of my own capacity to blindly follow a perceived authority. It sounds to me that you are speaking of an explorative mathematical practice, one with a fixed logic and a context. One where deductions act as a holonomic constraint for deriving further tautologies[1]. While there is something of this in any mathematical exploration, I feel that the characterization is a bit thin. In my experience, the acquisition of mathematical ideas come with a psychological/conceptual development on my part, and not simply *more of the same* as *tautology* would imply. This subjective experience I would not only hesitate to abstract away but possibly consider the meaningful content. The changes to my mind are what I seek in mathematical practice, and something like auto-suggestion appears to sit at its core. [1] to paraphrase Wittenstein -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Well said! Of course, my contrarian nature (and my laziness) forces me to cross-check a proposition from one narrative to another, which is what lead me to the Ramsey sentence concept and what I find intriguing about category theory. I'm completely incompetent to talk about anything Carnap did or any component of category theory, really. And I'm not a mathematician or philosopher. But I do grok reusable components, composition, and [ab]use.
Consuming any narrative *is* self-programming. You are what you eat, be it Rick and Morty or Quantum ElectroDynamics. For those of us who program themselves *toward* a (mythical) objective, the question becomes one of nature-nurture. Is self-programming built in or acquired? And what's the value of a liberal education (or travel as a kid)? Can self-programming be modified ... programmed-self-programming? Or are we doomed to be just like that old person, accidentally radicalized by the Fox News playing 24/7 in the nursing home? On 1/5/21 1:36 PM, jon zingale wrote: > To be clear, I was commenting on what math study feels like. The worst of it > being when I do not actually follow a proof (due to laziness, > ill-preparedness, or any other lack of ability) and somehow come to rely on > the theorem as fact. I suppose this is both unavoidable and an illustration > of my own capacity to blindly follow a perceived authority. > > It sounds to me that you are speaking of an explorative mathematical > practice, one with a fixed logic and a context. One where deductions act as > a holonomic constraint for deriving further tautologies[1]. While there is > something of this in any mathematical exploration, I feel that the > characterization is a bit thin. In my experience, the acquisition of > mathematical ideas come with a psychological/conceptual development on my > part, and not simply *more of the same* as *tautology* would imply. This > subjective experience I would not only hesitate to abstract away but > possibly consider the meaningful content. The changes to my mind are what I > seek in mathematical practice, and something like auto-suggestion appears to > sit at its core. > > [1] to paraphrase Wittenstein -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
Glen writes:
< For those of us who program themselves *toward* a (mythical) objective, the question becomes one of nature-nurture. Is self-programming built in or acquired? And what's the value of a liberal education (or travel as a kid)? Can self-programming be modified ... programmed-self-programming? Or are we doomed to be just like that old person, accidentally radicalized by the Fox News playing 24/7 in the nursing home? > After jumping from project to project for a couple decades, I'd describe my self-programming as the result of something akin to stochastic gradient descent. The effort to average over longer windows of time seems to gain no extra insight. On the other hand, I recall being at an offsite SFI meeting once next to a stranger who struck up a conversation after a talk had just completed. I had reason to think there were topics in the talk where the speaker was not telling the full story, and I said so to this person. Immediately, he proceeded to make various speculations about my childhood, which struck me as surprising but also kind of amusing. (As if I could possibly care that I had been judged unfavorably by this random person.) He wasn't entirely wrong, but his commitment to guessing at my personality development seemed a bit too emphatic. I guess I had unwittingly offended his sensibilities about his investments and that told him enough (apparently) to infer what my upbringing was like. I could only speculate that his upbringing involved getting hit with a stick when talking out of turn. This goes back to the episodic versus diachronic personality hypothesis, perhaps. A diachronic person might be inclined to have a stronger emotional attachment to their decisions, because they thought they were "going somewhere". Marcus - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Ha! Hilarious. I should start doing that at conferences. "I bet you were an only child ...". It's too bad smoking has such a bad rep these days; or I could carry around a pipe and stick it in my mouth after saying that.
Re: my own self-programming -- I finally asserted "I'm an atheist" to someone. I have and do maintain that I'm not an atheist, that agnosticism is fundamentally distinct. But the LDS mormons at the door the other day presented me with a fresh opportunity and I took a different path than I have in the past. I simply didn't want to have the conversation with them, maybe because of the virus and stay-at-home orders. They had masks on. But still. Fvck them for endangering people's lives to spread their idiocy. Even Renee' was surprised I "let them off" so easily [⛧]. I thought about showing them my worn Book of Mormon. But I simply wasn't into it at the time. For whatever reason, that story seems exemplar for my self-programming ephemeris. I spontaneously generate some tentative arc, just for rhetoric's sake and only later *may* think about what it might mean. Why did I subscribe to the Ethics journal as a freshman EE major in college? I have absolutely no idea. But I read every word of every issue until I could no longer afford the subscription price. Did that self-programming influence my bad grades in digital, good grades in analog, and subsequent switch to math? I have no idea. Now that I've reified my atheism by saying it out loud, albeit to delusional hostiles at my front door, how will that self-programming utterance influence future metaphysical claims I'll be willing to tolerate or mock? [⛧] The last missionaries to knock on my door sat in our living room with me discussing the deified status of Christ in the form of an old Korean lady and whether or not the New Testament is actually crypto-feminist. Renee' was not pleased and finally told them straight to their faces to get out of our house. >8^D I spent the next few hours flipping through my 3 different versions of the bible. I'm not proud of that. On 1/5/21 3:03 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > After jumping from project to project for a couple decades, I'd describe my self-programming as the result of something akin to stochastic gradient descent. The effort to average over longer windows of time seems to gain no extra insight. On the other hand, I recall being at an offsite SFI meeting once next to a stranger who struck up a conversation after a talk had just completed. I had reason to think there were topics in the talk where the speaker was not telling the full story, and I said so to this person. Immediately, he proceeded to make various speculations about my childhood, which struck me as surprising but also kind of amusing. (As if I could possibly care that I had been judged unfavorably by this random person.) He wasn't entirely wrong, but his commitment to guessing at my personality development seemed a bit too emphatic. I guess I had unwittingly offended his sensibilities about his investments and that told him enough (apparently) to infer what my upbringing was like. I could only speculate that his upbringing involved getting hit with a stick when talking out of turn. This goes back to the episodic versus diachronic personality hypothesis, perhaps. A diachronic person might be inclined to have a stronger emotional attachment to their decisions, because they thought they were "going somewhere". -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Back when we were talking about the adequacy of deposition systems as analog to the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will, I cross-checked definitions for the Markov property in 2 of my (old) control textbooks. Here they are:
from [Estimation Theory and Applications, NE Nahi] > "A stochastic sequence x(k) is Markov of first order, or simply Markov, if for every i the following relationship holds > > p{x(i)|x(i–1),…, x(1)} = p{x(i)|x(i–1)} (1.189) > > In other words, the conditional probability density function of x(i) conditioned on all its past (given) values is the same as using the value in the Equation (1.189) is to be satisfied for all i." from [Applied Optimal Control, Bryson & Ho] > "A random sequence, x(k), k=0,1,…,N is said to be markovian if > > p[x(k+1)/x(k),x(k–1),… ,x(0)] = p[x(k+1)/x(k)] (11.1.1) > > for all k; that is, the probability density function of x(k+1) depends only on knowledge of x(k) and not on x(k-l), l=1,2,…. The knowledge of x(k) that is required can be either deterministic [exact value of x(k) known] or probabilistic (p[x(k)] known). In words, the markov property implies that a knowledge of the present separates the past and the future." I think the difference is interesting, particularly the "in other words" and "in words" parts. The choice of "i-1" vs. "k+1" is also interesting, but much less than "[future] conditioned on its past" versus "separates past and future". If we read like a modernist, through the presentations to some Platonic object behind them, we get the same damned thing, as transformed through fairly standard transforms (from what you read to what you think). But if we read it as a postmodernist, we can ask *why* Nahi chose i and i-1 where B&H chose k+1,k,k-1? And how *might* that choice be related to the more nuanced phrase "separates past from future"? And there are other differences, like Nahi's choice of "Markov of first order, or simply Markov" vs. B&H taking license to avoid allusion to higher order memory. A skeptical reader simply has to ask what does this *actually* mean? How are these authors intending to use and reuse this definition later? How will it compose with other concepts? Etc. Maybe it's all accidental and merely a function of the authoring/editing processes in each case. Or maybe not. On 1/5/21 2:28 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > ... my contrarian nature (and my laziness) forces me to cross-check a proposition from one narrative to another, -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: truth, reality, & narrative
|
|
I haven't tried to prove it but I suspect those two definitions are equivalent. In our statistical causal reasoning work we used the causal Markov condition: every node in a Bayesian network is conditionally independent of its non-descendents, given its parents. This was an essential assumption in our causal reasoning algorithms. Famous philosopher Nancy Cartwright denies that it is universally true. But according to my equally esteemed boss, she is wrong. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 10:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: Back when we were talking about the adequacy of deposition systems as analog to the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will, I cross-checked definitions for the Markov property in 2 of my (old) control textbooks. Here they are: - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |