Friam

where are the "patriot hackers"?

Classic

List

Threaded

25 messages Options

gepr

where are the "patriot hackers"?

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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

Steve Smith

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ -

I'm not clear what the intended connection between these two topic you
raise is, but I share your curiosity/fascination with both:
> So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:
>
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

I have my own "pet theories" (a plethora of them I am sure) on many
topics, and some I hold more dear than others.   Many are mere
"placeholders" or heuristics of sort... a sort of knee-jerk go-to which
I may have had planted in me by my family/culture-of-origin or adopted
later in life from a subsequent subculture I installed myself in.
Access to books, libraries, and ultimately the internet has both
ameliorated and aggravated that problem.   I've been able to sand off
more of the rough edges of (or fill in the gaps between) those
pet-theories with the received experience/knowledge/?wisdom? of other
more efficiently than if I were to try to sort all of that by myself.
But one aphorism goes "the problem with having an open mind is that
other people with pour just about anything int

While I do have a minimal meditation practice and find various glimmers
of (fleeting) enlightenment through mild alcohol poisoning, sleep
deprivation, and fasting (all quite minimal), I don't have nearly as
strong of a fascination with seeking fundamental "truths" that way.   I
believe that my genotype and therefore phenotype is embued with the
"training" of hundreds of thousands of years of hominid, tens of
millions of years of primate and hundreds of millions as
mammal/vertebrate and that "listening" to that "wisdom" seems like a
worthwhile practice... so to get better at such listening, things which
distract or quiet the mind seem like a good help. Alternatively,
engaging my senses, my awareness with the "natural world" also seems to
be a good way to explore the resonances within me to recognize these
"inner truths". I'm a bit more aligned with the neo-pagan animists (if
that is the right term) or the anarcho-primitivists for these purposes
than I am with the various human-centric spiritual paths that involve
everything from angry old white men with flowing beards to angry brown
women with eight arms (and swords). When I am tempted to
anthropomorphise my god(desse)s I much prefer a whole pantheon. Not so
much for the choices a buffet gives as the opportunity to think in
(Jungianesque) Archetypes.

I suspect there is some serious neurochemistry involved in
conspiracy-theory folks... I know that *I* can get pretty hopped up on
one of my pet-theories if approached in just the right (wrong) way.   So
Chemtrailing, AntiVaxxing, JFK-assasinationg, Lizard-peopling,
Illuminati-izing, Masoning, Q-Anoning, Hillary-hating, Falun-Gonging,
Nationalizing, etc.   all seem to share some strange cocktail of
adrenals as the "reward" for belief.

I also think there is a higher-level complex going on which involves
herd/pack/tribe mentality... the need/drive to "follow a leader" or at
least the "centroid".   Strange how those who throw the term "sheeple"
around freely seem to be following a "shepherd" or at least some swarm
centroid of delusion.

> And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?
>
> What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I also wonder about this.   Is it merely a "delusion" of mine (ours?)
that some singular (or small group of) individual can come to town and
clean up the rabble? Too many Westerns or modern
military-action-revenge movies?   I do believe that systems are only
robust within the embedding space they emerged within or were designed
for.   This is the stuff of punctuated criticality...    Elements within
a dynamical system remain in their comfortable/familiar orbits, their
basins of attraction for long periods of time (relative) until they
excurd (is that a word?) outside those (dynamic) equilibria regions and
then (from the perspective of the rules-of-thumb characterizing those
regions) all hell breaks loose.

What does this have to do with Hacktivists/ism? If humans are loci of
consciousness with one or more qualities than the myriad other loci such
as animals, plants, other life, and perhaps seemingly less complex (or
more slowly evolving) systems such the geo/cryo/atmo/biosphere as a
whole, then perhaps this ability/propensity to build models of Life, the
Universe and Everything and attempt to play God(dess) with it, to muck
around with it, to engage in hypothesis testing and generation, to
attempt to control it, leads us to the inevitability to (try to) do so.

Whether Black/White/Grey or Green hatted, Hacktivists would seem to be
none other than aspiring alchemists, magi, shamans, warlocks who attempt
to transcend the mundane and bring actions which are disruptive
(disruptive of *what* seems to define the color of their hats?).

Is there a complex-adaptive-system formulation of the battle of good and
evil, the (illusory/delusory?) distinction between the light and the
dark?   If not to explain or side with one "side" or another, to
recognize how this symmetry arises, or is fundamental and how they play
off of one another.   We shall know our chirality?

> I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

Done,

- Steve

?? what is the difference between an opinion and insight ??

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

jon zingale

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by gepr

Falun Gong is an interesting case. Across from the University of Texas at
Austin was one of my all-time favorite vegetarian restaurants, Veggie
Heaven. The owners of VH were Falun Dafa practitioners from China. Images
about the restaurant portrayed meditators floating above lotuses with auras
of light. The last page of the menu included a heartfelt letter speaking
about the plight of practitioners in China, complete with images of beaten,
imprisoned and tortured practitioners. The prices at the restaurant were
very inexpensive (one could get a veggie bowl for $5) and yet they would
participate in a daily humanitarian effort. Homebums and traveler kids would
find their way to the door of VH, hold up a finger or two, and shortly a man
would step out of the door and bring them food. This would happen dozens of
times a day. One day, even I tried it and low-and-behold, hot food was given
to me.

Shortly after this introduction, I started looking into the qigong practices
and history of Falun Dafa. No doubt it appeared to be a questionably
bureaucratic organization, not unlike the Christian churches here in the
west. That said, the qigong practices seemed to do something for my base
stress level.

Through my continued interest, and access to the wonderfully extensive UT
library stacks, I came across the book "Breathing Spaces: qigong,
psychiatry, and healing in China" (a book which I believe I have mentioned
on Friam before). To my surprise, the book does not so much cover the health
benefits of qigong but rather chronicles mental health issues involving
qigong practices, persecution of qigong practitioners in Chinese psychiatric
hospitals, and the rise of belief in "superhuman abilities" via qigong in
China shortly after the Tiananmen Square incident.

The big take-home for me, and a possible connection to organizations like
qAnon, is that in times of hardship it is well documented that communities
have been observed incorporating "supernatural belief and abilities" into a
kind of warrior's narrative. For instance, historians like John Hope
Franklin [1] and anthropologist Wade Davis [2] have noted this tendency in
the transformation of Yoruba into Voudun by Africans brought as slaves to
the new world.

Once while playing go with my buddy Joe at St. Johns, I asked him about the
perception of Falun Gong in China (he is from Hefei). Joe's take was that it
was a largely fraudulent and criminal organization and that the Chinese
government was very much right to go after it. I didn't press him very hard,
in part so as to not strain our relationship (a potential weakness on my
part). Still, when I search the web even now, I am surprised by the amount
of literature that exists pointing to the potential mental health risks of
such a meditative practice. In the conclusion of Qigong-induced mental
disorders: a review[3], the authors state:

"Despite the widespread use of Qigong, there is a conspicuous lack of
controlled data regarding its effects on mental health. Qigong, when
practiced inappropriately, may induce abnormal psychosomatic responses and
even mental disorders."

Which, when I read it I cannot help but feel that this "peer-reviewed paper"
is somehow propaganda.

I am not always so sure what it could mean to "trust" nations or peer-review
in this post-enlightenment period. Yesterday, the United States
president-elect gave an address where he reports that "Many of the agencies
that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage. Many of
them have been hollowed out"[4]. If he is speaking truthfully, then I am
unsure what a network of trust can be. If he is not, then the same. My
takeaway here is that it is more than reasonable to have a lack of faith in
one another and in our institutions. I speculate, that without good cause to
restore trust, we ought to expect organizations like qAnon to become more
mainstream.

Meanwhile in the US: 300k dead from Covid, rampant unemployment, a K-shaped
economy, closings of small businesses, and a stock market decoupled from the
economy. Bipartisan politics has: given rise to climate change as a
political button, prevented many in need from receiving assistance, and a
political system decoupled from reasoning about issues. Those of us in the
upper part of the K-shape hold onto our stocks and jobs and hope that it
gets better. Those of us in the lower part prepare for what?

[1] From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans (at least I
think it was here?)
[2] The Serpent and the Rainbow: A Harvard Scientist's Astonishing Journey
into the Secret Societies of Haitian Voodoo, Zombies, and Magic
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10336217/
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mkRWc9yKIQ&ab_channel=GuardianNews

--
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/

gepr

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Just to be clear, the inner-truths context is way less important than the where-are-the-patriots part. I'll talk a bit more about it if I get time to respond to Jon's contribution.

In the current context of right-wingers' criticism of deplatforming and left-wingers' criticism of platforming, it seems like some kind of citation of "hacktivism" is warranted. Are, say, DDoS attacks on The Epoch Times morally justified? Is it right to dox fascists? To hack and publish their Discord chats?

As for insight vs. opinion, it depends on how well curated the opinion is. For instance, I regard one part of your post as truly insightful, the distinction between scientist and engineer and the "manipulative model of mechanism". When saying that hacktivists have an impulse to *manipulate* the world (modified from your "disrupt", though "perturb" might be a better choice), you're making a fairly clear statement about those people, about their tight coupling with the (machinery of the) world around them. I.e. they are engineers, not scientists. And science, for the most part, precedes engineering ... at least *responsible* engineering. How can you go about *making* the world if you have no idea what the world *is* to start with?

Hackers, as distinct from hacktivists, may well simply want to disrupt the world (or make money off it). But hacktivists seem to require some understanding of the world (even if false).

On 12/29/20 10:12 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

>
> uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ -
>
> I'm not clear what the intended connection between these two topic you
> raise is, but I share your curiosity/fascination with both:
>
>> And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?
>>
>> What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?
>
> I also wonder about this.   Is it merely a "delusion" of mine (ours?)
> that some singular (or small group of) individual can come to town and
> clean up the rabble? Too many Westerns or modern
> military-action-revenge movies?   I do believe that systems are only
> robust within the embedding space they emerged within or were designed
> for.   This is the stuff of punctuated criticality...    Elements within
> a dynamical system remain in their comfortable/familiar orbits, their
> basins of attraction for long periods of time (relative) until they
> excurd (is that a word?) outside those (dynamic) equilibria regions and
> then (from the perspective of the rules-of-thumb characterizing those
> regions) all hell breaks loose.
>
> What does this have to do with Hacktivists/ism? If humans are loci of
> consciousness with one or more qualities than the myriad other loci such
> as animals, plants, other life, and perhaps seemingly less complex (or
> more slowly evolving) systems such the geo/cryo/atmo/biosphere as a
> whole, then perhaps this ability/propensity to build models of Life, the
> Universe and Everything and attempt to play God(dess) with it, to muck
> around with it, to engage in hypothesis testing and generation, to
> attempt to control it, leads us to the inevitability to (try to) do so.
>
> Whether Black/White/Grey or Green hatted, Hacktivists would seem to be
> none other than aspiring alchemists, magi, shamans, warlocks who attempt
> to transcend the mundane and bring actions which are disruptive
> (disruptive of *what* seems to define the color of their hats?).
>
> Is there a complex-adaptive-system formulation of the battle of good and
> evil, the (illusory/delusory?) distinction between the light and the
> dark?   If not to explain or side with one "side" or another, to
> recognize how this symmetry arises, or is fundamental and how they play
> off of one another.   We shall know our chirality?
>
>> I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.
>
> Done,
>
> - Steve
>
> ?? what is the difference between an opinion and insight ??

--
↙↙↙ 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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by gepr

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

thompnickson2

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company. If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

gepr

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by jon zingale

So, as always, a discussion of composition is necessary. How can one go from "breatharianism" to disinformation-facilitated cults? The bureaucracy of Falun Gong provides the constructive ephemeris for outlets (like The Epoch Times).

Your mention of a co-occurrence of supernatural beliefs with times of hardship sounds a lot like a refocus onto exploration (away from exploitation) in times of ecological stress. The distrust in our institutions like the CDC or FDA could be a result of some serious inadequacy in those institutions. But unless we know what those institutions do *at all*, we can't modify them. We can only destroy them. And if those institutions grow naturally out of some substructure, in us, that remains, new institutions will accrete up that have the same, or similar, inadequacies. So, the *form* our distrust takes is important to whether or not we can build better, less inadequate, institutions.

Steve mentioned punctuated criticality, which is spot on, I think. If we opt to destroy the things we don't like and don't understand, then we lose any knowledge stored in those things. (I have in mind sickle cell anemia and malaria.) But if we can trace their construction, we can find branch structures within their accretion and deconstruct back to those branches (and take an alternate branch). Absent that careful deconstruction, any "distrust" in bureaucracy is just as misplaced as any trust in it. This is true for everything from peer-review to UFO abduction.

I've experimented some with breatharianism and meditation, too. And even though I think it all boils down to hyperventilation and hallucination (no Nick, I don't disagree with you in the large, only in the small), unless I can reconstruct or trace the composition from Falun Gong as an individually scoped practice to a disinformation outlet like The Epoch Times, I wouldn't be able to *justify* deplatforming it entirely. But I suppose it doesn't matter. The right-winger at the pub who literally responded with "So what?" when I told him our hospitals are overflowing, our medica staff exhausted, and refrigerated trailers are ready to hold the dead bodies, most people don't give a sh¡t about historical accretion or composition. They'll simply assert their value judgements and fumble along according to their hallucinations.

And if that's really the case, then Falun Gong (and animism, BTW) should be eradicated as the total bullsh¡t it is. As for the Chinese government, the enemy of my enemy is sometimes my friend. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... which is why military time is best! 8^D

On 12/29/20 10:24 AM, jon zingale wrote:

> Falun Gong is an interesting case. Across from the University of Texas at
> Austin was one of my all-time favorite vegetarian restaurants, Veggie
> Heaven. The owners of VH were Falun Dafa practitioners from China. Images
> about the restaurant portrayed meditators floating above lotuses with auras
> of light. The last page of the menu included a heartfelt letter speaking
> about the plight of practitioners in China, complete with images of beaten,
> imprisoned and tortured practitioners. The prices at the restaurant were
> very inexpensive (one could get a veggie bowl for $5) and yet they would
> participate in a daily humanitarian effort. Homebums and traveler kids would
> find their way to the door of VH, hold up a finger or two, and shortly a man
> would step out of the door and bring them food. This would happen dozens of
> times a day. One day, even I tried it and low-and-behold, hot food was given
> to me.
>
> Shortly after this introduction, I started looking into the qigong practices
> and history of Falun Dafa. No doubt it appeared to be a questionably
> bureaucratic organization, not unlike the Christian churches here in the
> west. That said, the qigong practices seemed to do something for my base
> stress level.
>
> Through my continued interest, and access to the wonderfully extensive UT
> library stacks, I came across the book "Breathing Spaces: qigong,
> psychiatry, and healing in China" (a book which I believe I have mentioned
> on Friam before). To my surprise, the book does not so much cover the health
> benefits of qigong but rather chronicles mental health issues involving
> qigong practices, persecution of qigong practitioners in Chinese psychiatric
> hospitals, and the rise of belief in "superhuman abilities" via qigong in
> China shortly after the Tiananmen Square incident.
>
> The big take-home for me, and a possible connection to organizations like
> qAnon, is that in times of hardship it is well documented that communities
> have been observed incorporating "supernatural belief and abilities" into a
> kind of warrior's narrative. For instance, historians like John Hope
> Franklin [1] and anthropologist Wade Davis [2] have noted this tendency in
> the transformation of Yoruba into Voudun by Africans brought as slaves to
> the new world.
>
> Once while playing go with my buddy Joe at St. Johns, I asked him about the
> perception of Falun Gong in China (he is from Hefei). Joe's take was that it
> was a largely fraudulent and criminal organization and that the Chinese
> government was very much right to go after it. I didn't press him very hard,
> in part so as to not strain our relationship (a potential weakness on my
> part). Still, when I search the web even now, I am surprised by the amount
> of literature that exists pointing to the potential mental health risks of
> such a meditative practice. In the conclusion of Qigong-induced mental
> disorders: a review[3], the authors state:
>
> "Despite the widespread use of Qigong, there is a conspicuous lack of
> controlled data regarding its effects on mental health. Qigong, when
> practiced inappropriately, may induce abnormal psychosomatic responses and
> even mental disorders."
>
> Which, when I read it I cannot help but feel that this "peer-reviewed paper"
> is somehow propaganda.
>
> I am not always so sure what it could mean to "trust" nations or peer-review
> in this post-enlightenment period. Yesterday, the United States
> president-elect gave an address where he reports that "Many of the agencies
> that are critical to our security have incurred enormous damage. Many of
> them have been hollowed out"[4]. If he is speaking truthfully, then I am
> unsure what a network of trust can be. If he is not, then the same. My
> takeaway here is that it is more than reasonable to have a lack of faith in
> one another and in our institutions. I speculate, that without good cause to
> restore trust, we ought to expect organizations like qAnon to become more
> mainstream.
>
> Meanwhile in the US: 300k dead from Covid, rampant unemployment, a K-shaped
> economy, closings of small businesses, and a stock market decoupled from the
> economy. Bipartisan politics has: given rise to climate change as a
> political button, prevented many in need from receiving assistance, and a
> political system decoupled from reasoning about issues. Those of us in the
> upper part of the K-shape hold onto our stocks and jobs and hope that it
> gets better. Those of us in the lower part prepare for what?
>
> [1] From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans (at least I
> think it was here?)
> [2] The Serpent and the Rainbow: A Harvard Scientist's Astonishing Journey
> into the Secret Societies of Haitian Voodoo, Zombies, and Magic
> [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10336217/
> [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mkRWc9yKIQ&ab_channel=GuardianNews

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

David Eric Smith

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I think the first time I listened to John Holland talk about some science project at SFI (as opposed to just being a returning celebrity), he was talking about the problem of credit propagation in the framework he called “classifier systems”. The issue being that you have a system with many components, all busy, each doing many things of many kinds. Then some outcomes happen, also in an incessant and heterogeneous stream. Many outcomes have many “aspects” — not sure what is the best word to use, e.g. my bacterial infection gets cleared but I find the hospital environment cold and unaesthetic, and the doctor is sort of a supercilious ass — and the connection of any outcome to any choice or belief can be cryptic and separated by long time intervals. How do we propagate credit so that beliefs will be maintained in a way that gives us “least regret” in the long term (to put forth one criterion among several that could be considered)? Part of that must mean having a sound notion of causation. Clinical trials are responsible for the bacterial infection’s being cleared; fetishizing wealth and power probably made the doctor more of an ass. These two are not fungible. It sounds like it should be a simple problem, but I think it isn’t.

I appreciate the considerable care that Nick put into the way he wrote the below, and also the ability to write at that level.

Eric

On Dec 29, 2020, at 2:39 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company. If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,NWzUJqQHkENbmOF5G-XonozspXP9V58eybCa8eIyKrHRaEamhedv4i1xHGpYE2r_ynEgymR8Tm7xloNpwuCcR1N61FctpUhUWOH0k3VsmS5A5Q,,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,EVeGVZmVaEJ1Dr9IKnUmb496jYPHP0xS51jftzL8DrR6zVDJuLh4SFw2jD34LXlYfapAVbgjWRJ-MsDESGO0eivq5I5Mf4acLOdLmX-Ue2VJ&typo=1

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

To me, a plausible future is one in which there is little convergence in inquiry because everyone is trained to study something novel and more of the research during a career is private. In this world, anything that works and is exploitable for profit is fair game. For example, one doesn’t need to get to the bottom of things to find a drug that works. There could be upsides to such a world because convergent inquiry can be mixed up with convergent belief, and we get arguments like “Because Fauci says so.” If people are in fear for their safety because there are no trust in public debate, perhaps they will try harder to investigate their world directly? Maybe things need to get worse before they get better?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 11:39 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

Stephen Guerin-5

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828

twitter: @simtable

z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company. If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

Wow, Karl is my guy, but I didn't know about this. Thank you Stephen.

To get to Nick's problem, we are at point in the history of our species on this planet where I think we must pay attention to the adjacent possible "truth" of an ecozoic vision (Thomas Berry) that involves an inter-species future. Someone recently said "science is a glass half filled" and that's because as practiced by most, science has become a system of thought closed to any but its own "truth." Doesn't the best science embrace methods that consider all assumptions and facts to be open to question? The division between what is "real" from what is "belief" cancels out the possibility of what emerges that is beyond the grasp of modern science.

Einstein famously said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The imaginary story is missing in science, colonized by a mind-set and methodology that demands proof of "existence." Physicist David Bohm, the godfather of the generative dialogue we teach and practice, understood this when he wrote that discussion (and by extension experimentation--not lived experience) uses only rational intelligence, while a full investigation of wicked problems demands additional perspectives perceived through our senses, emotions, self-awareness, and intuition. There is more than one Truth to be discovered, dear Nick, and that ain't bat-shit.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.
_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]
CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
twitter: @simtable
z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

I have heard scientists say, when confronted with certain experimental evidence, that don’t believe the evidence. It’s not just because they are arrogant, it is because they have experience with other evidence and highly-scrutinized models derived from that evidence – that there has to be another explanation. (One recent example that comes to mind is the Q-thruster / EmDrive.) It seems to me it ought to be possible to decouple clear thinking from how organizations work, and from personality.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

Wow, Karl is my guy, but I didn't know about this. Thank you Stephen.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828

twitter: @simtable

z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

David Eric Smith

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin-5

All points here good to know, Stephen, and many premises I agree with.

It seems to me that, if this conversation is ever to do more than have people talk past each other, all discussants need to find it valuable to use restricted scopes for words, to remain within each other’s scopes along the track of a discussion to figure out what premises are common and what follows from them, and to operate on however many tracks in parallel are needed to include the things people want to talk about.

Here is a concrete example. In the Rights of Nature article, I find:

“Christianity and science, the legitimising powers of the western society, have been in agreement on this fundamental tenet."

Well, that’s one thing the word “science” can stand for in a conversation: one of the two legitimizing powers of ’the western society’, together with Christianity (what lovely bedfellows).

When Nick uses the word science in the sense his original objection, I am willing to recast it in my language as a label for what many of us believe is a new domain of linguistic, behavioral, and social cognitive practice distinguished by the following premises (or tenets):

— there is some truth-notion characterized above and before all else by internal consistency, allowing it to be converged toward by a suitable body of practice which we aspire to build. One could even say that this premise of a stable truth-notion is put forth as the replacement for Descartes’s Cogito, as a starting point on which to build commitments, even if all subsequent steps are fluid and subject to update and overhaul

— the state of knowledge (so, recipes, propositions, lexicons, etc.) is something like a very elaborate sample estimator for the values that make up “what is true”. It’s very fluid, if every instance of the adoption of a term, the commitment to rules of language or logic, interpretations of experiments, and every other habit is considered potentially in error and subject to overhaul; so it is essential to what one means here by “science” that this premise of a stable truth-notion is its starting tenet

— all the methods traditionally invoked as constituting “scientific method” could be seen as some first finite components in an open-ended toolbox for trying to recursively find and identify errors by classes of family resemblances they have, in the expectation that correcting the error makes the state of knowledge a better reflection of whatever is true. So, intersubjectivity or rigorous rules of argument to overcome sample omissions, observation bias, deluded thinking, etc.; empiricism as a corrective to delusions that can persist in group levels of any size, etc. But unlike the Encyclopedists, the body of method for error discovery is just as open-ended as the state of knowledge it has produced at any given time. Since errors tend to propagate recursively, we probably have to assume that the tools to detect them can be expended indefinitely, else the premise that one can converge on true assertions would be implausible

(Apologies that these first three reiterate something I wrote here a couple of months ago. I don’t like repeating oneself either.)

— that the above criteria separate out some propositions at any given time from everything we might be capable of thinking or feeling at that time, making it not all equivalent. Thus the unhappiness of Tolstoy’s unhappy families, each according to its own fashion, is not really a pattern for what a “true assertion” looks like. Or more neurologically, synaesthesics may see the letters of the alphabet in colors. However, each synaesthesic may see a each of the letters in a different color than the other synaesthesics do. Do I deny that they experience the letters with colors? No, of course I don’t. However, do I expect science to arrive at a conclusion that it is in the nature of a printed letter to _have_ a particular color, or to have any color at all? Also No. And so on. If no state of belief a person can sincerely hold can ever be batshit crazy, then there can’t be category distinctions, and the true assertions don’t actually exist in the sense the scientific tenet supposes.

I would argue that any good-faith person has to recognize that these two operationalizations of the word “science” simply are not referring to the same thing. Having recognized it, what can one then do?

1. You can argue, like Richard Rorty, that it is the nature of people that they cannot possess the truth-version of “science” without having it coopted into the “legitimizing power” version, and therefore we should try to exterminate the truth-version in a kind of totalitarianistic PC, William James’s pragmatism-as-social-utilitarianism taken to its limit, which is the annihilation of Peirce’s pragmatism. To me this is only a stone’s throw from the Unabomber argument. One can make and then debate the quality of such arguments. They can be insightful about how the various aspects that are simultaneously present in human life and thought affect each other, and thus can contribute to solving problems and righting wrongs even if one doesn’t think the original arguments hang together as wholes.

2. One could, instead (also like Rorty), insist on changing the subject, but not acknowledge that that is what is being done. Whenever a discussant tries argues for keeping the truth-version, one can act as if the legitimizing-power version was intended, and then give the counterargument for dismantling the latter. That could be done, I guess, innocently, or obstinately, or maliciously. But it doesn’t seem like it resolves to anything.

Anyway,

Eric

On Dec 29, 2020, at 4:53 PM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.
_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]
CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
twitter: @simtable
z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,6R4bxW0p7AKsav3HSoIHweRsYXF3G3WxATHXMVRX4ODlIk-cFbKACXUodR4Itp1l-z146n-wT5gmeft1SGtd0ahZp_MihvANQ_LZHtvp-XkALVq2P06HH8Nr26s,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,QOc7w-V-KpwKnJIhWfYkipV-NTfbRqNLYYoaC5dGW2Ji3Z51E-Knkp6f-oMB_4k3B9EvsDgFiYw2uJrZBCgv7AqbSNiGEnoSSgPQtzlTnLkF_LW4ng,,&typo=1

David Eric Smith

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

There is another beautiful example of Marcus’s point below that has come up over the past 8 or 9 years, for which George Musser gave a very good write-up of the current state of play:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-black-hole-information-paradox-comes-to-an-end-20201029/

Not in regard to empirical evidence in this case, but in regard to mathematical arguments, entirely within the domain of the rules for theorizing.

Several years ago I happened to pass through IAS at Princeton — notably _not_ visiting the physicists there, who would not let me attempt to tie their shoes, and rightly so — and a young woman physicist who happened to be lodged in the same guest-house as me told me at breakfast that there was a great buzz from a paper that it turns out was written by my former advisor (Polchinski) and a fellow postdoc and friend whom I had met in his very early childhood (Marolf) in our same home-town.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123

I think we were talking about Don as a mutual acquaintance, and I remember the way she said it: “Did you hear? They just did something big.” She was still quite junior, and very straightforward about the effort it would take her to understand, but determined and eager in that good-faith unadorned way physics grad students can have.

Of course I knew nothing of any of this, and just as I had never been smart enough to understand either Joe or Don, cannot claim better than a tourist’s level of effort to understand this thread of work, though the broad ideas are ones I think I could characterize without distorting them.

Anyway, the original papers were written from a frame “We present this calculation. We are pretty sure it must be wrong, but we can’t find anything wrong with it, because it seems to be put together the way such calculations need to be. Can someone else see what is wrong with it?” The major red flag, like an exposed hydrophobic residue in a misfolded protein, was that high-energy phenomena were inescapable in observables where everything we think we understand about spacetime says there should only be low-energy phenomena. So the chaperone wants to grab and dispose of that protein, whether or not it understands how it should have folded instead of the way it is. There are many many dimensions in what we think constitutes an understanding of spacetime that it would do less violence to change, than would violating this phenomenology in which we think we know where there should be only low-energy phenomena and where there can be high-energy phenomena.

The Musser article is about how Marolf and Almheiri (two of the original authors still living; Polchinski died not long after this paper came out) and the other authors have a claim for what had been left out. The current form of the calculation, as Musser describes it, is really shoestrings-and-glue, but the elements in it all feel right, in the sense that all the constructs are low-energy where they should be low-energy, there is a demand for quantum superposition of two things that classically make no sense superposed, just where there should be for a quantum black hole problem, and so forth. It could be a few more years (or maybe many years) before the community can put together a version of this calculation that is considered sound and consistent across the board, but one can expect that the major elements in the current version will still be there in roughly the same places.

It’s really interesting how there can be sense in the ways these judgments are made, in a field where such a large part of what one is using is up in the air.

Eric

On Dec 30, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have heard scientists say, when confronted with certain experimental evidence, that don’t believe the evidence. It’s not just because they are arrogant, it is because they have experience with other evidence and highly-scrutinized models derived from that evidence – that there has to be another explanation.   (One recent example that comes to mind is the Q-thruster / EmDrive.) It seems to me it ought to be possible to decouple clear thinking from how organizations work, and from personality.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

Wow, Karl is my guy, but I didn't know about this. Thank you Stephen.

To get to Nick's problem, we are at point in the history of our species on this planet where I think we must pay attention to the adjacent possible "truth" of an ecozoic vision (Thomas Berry) that involves an inter-species future. Someone recently said "science is a glass half filled" and that's because as practiced by most, science has become a system of thought closed to any but its own "truth." Doesn't the best science embrace methods that consider all assumptions and facts to be open to question? The division between what is "real" from what is "belief" cancels out the possibility of what emerges that is beyond the grasp of modern science.

Einstein famously said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The imaginary story is missing in science, colonized by a mind-set and methodology that demands proof of "existence." Physicist David Bohm, the godfather of the generative dialogue we teach and practice, understood this when he wrote that discussion (and by extension experimentation--not lived experience) uses only rational intelligence, while a full investigation of wicked problems demands additional perspectives perceived through our senses, emotions, self-awareness, and intuition. There is more than one Truth to be discovered, dear Nick, and that ain't bat-shit.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.
_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]
CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
twitter: @simtable
z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,dA59yjvmu-baV4ePgYJuPBn9qympjgGdrwRnSAGELxS4vPTpT8PbXmx56FoEg7frYVNngzPbxiFUHowdsJG6eeSkIx4lSRS_5HlpwEuyKdc,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,AZfannilWHBBWWbO3lUW-ZWDm716mMIZNMjGenncPzi7cVsjAYIj413agaieesKbx_eU5SCjGrrPFucBmB-ZDGjMIJPBZyRZhgqNFToSq23Ch4g,&typo=1

gepr

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

Very cool story! It highlights nicely the point you made in the previous post about the reliance on ambiguity in the conception of science, whether accidental but in good faith or purposeful to serve an agenda.

My ongoing dispute with Nick and EricC that makes me *seem* as if I support subjective/reflective truths is about the inadequacy of *models* of human reasoning. E.g. one of the most difficult exemplars of the inadequacy, difficult for me to parse, is the Curry paradox: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/curry-paradox/

Regardless, the breadth of science and scientists is far, far larger than the way they're (unintentionally) misrepresented in Nick's, Dave's, and Merle's (and many other) narratives, for differing reasons. The flaw they all share is that they limit science to some conception of Scientific Method. There is no such thing. Don't get me wrong. We're not *all* scientists, as elementary school science teachers like to tell us. There are patterns of behavior by which we can distinguish a scientist from a non-scientist (and really good scientists from mediocre scientists). And those behaviors are trainable. But science is cultural, with all the openness of any other cultural thing like poetry or urban planning.

Where I agree with Merle's, Dave's, and Nick's narratives is that *some* patterns of behavior among some scientists can be short-sighted. And such patterns can, like in any cultural thing, accumulate to an unhealthy extent, e.g. pop music clap tracks. [ptouie] The solution isn't to malign "science". It's to take the time to tease it apart and target the unhealthy patterns. Like with Falun Gong, however, if the lion's share of us are unwilling/unable to do/tolerate such fine-grained teasing apart, then I'll choose the Scientism side [⛧] ... for the same reason I largely vote for Democrats these days, because even though the Democrats are just as batsh¡t as the Republicans, they engage in fewer unhealthy patterns.

[⛧] Medlife Crisis does a nice dance around the issue: https://youtu.be/CVPy25wQ07k I think I might have already posted this. But I'm too lazy to search Nabble.

On 12/30/20 4:15 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:

> There is another beautiful example of Marcus’s point below that has come up over the past 8 or 9 years, for which George Musser gave a very good write-up of the current state of play:
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-black-hole-information-paradox-comes-to-an-end-20201029/ <https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-black-hole-information-paradox-comes-to-an-end-20201029/>
> Not in regard to empirical evidence in this case, but in regard to mathematical arguments, entirely within the domain of the rules for theorizing.
>
> Several years ago I happened to pass through IAS at Princeton — notably _not_ visiting the physicists there, who would not let me attempt to tie their shoes, and rightly so — and a young woman physicist who happened to be lodged in the same guest-house as me told me at breakfast that there was a great buzz from a paper that it turns out was written by my former advisor (Polchinski) and a fellow postdoc and friend whom I had met in his very early childhood (Marolf) in our same home-town.
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123>
> I think we were talking about Don as a mutual acquaintance, and I remember the way she said it: “Did you hear? They just did something big.” She was still quite junior, and very straightforward about the effort it would take her to understand, but determined and eager in that good-faith unadorned way physics grad students can have.
> Of course I knew nothing of any of this, and just as I had never been smart enough to understand either Joe or Don, cannot claim better than a tourist’s level of effort to understand this thread of work, though the broad ideas are ones I think I could characterize without distorting them.
>
> Anyway, the original papers were written from a frame “We present this calculation. We are pretty sure it must be wrong, but we can’t find anything wrong with it, because it seems to be put together the way such calculations need to be. Can someone else see what is wrong with it?” The major red flag, like an exposed hydrophobic residue in a misfolded protein, was that high-energy phenomena were inescapable in observables where everything we think we understand about spacetime says there should only be low-energy phenomena. So the chaperone wants to grab and dispose of that protein, whether or not it understands how it should have folded instead of the way it is. There are many many dimensions in what we think constitutes an understanding of spacetime that it would do less violence to change, than would violating this phenomenology in which we think we know where there should be only low-energy phenomena and where there can be high-energy phenomena.
>
> The Musser article is about how Marolf and Almheiri (two of the original authors still living; Polchinski died not long after this paper came out) and the other authors have a claim for what had been left out. The current form of the calculation, as Musser describes it, is really shoestrings-and-glue, but the elements in it all feel right, in the sense that all the constructs are low-energy where they should be low-energy, there is a demand for quantum superposition of two things that classically make no sense superposed, just where there should be for a quantum black hole problem, and so forth. It could be a few more years (or maybe many years) before the community can put together a version of this calculation that is considered sound and consistent across the board, but one can expect that the major elements in the current version will still be there in roughly the same places.
>
> It’s really interesting how there can be sense in the ways these judgments are made, in a field where such a large part of what one is using is up in the air.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 30, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> I have heard scientists say, when confronted with certain experimental evidence, that don’t believe the evidence. It’s not just because they are arrogant, it is because they have experience with other evidence and highly-scrutinized models derived from that evidence – that there has to be another explanation. (One recent example that comes to mind is the Q-thruster / EmDrive.) It seems to me it ought to be possible to decouple clear thinking from how organizations work, and from personality.
>>
>> *From:* Friam <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> *On Behalf Of *Merle Lefkoff
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:24 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?
>>
>> Wow, Karl is my guy, but I didn't know about this. Thank you Stephen.
>>
>> To get to Nick's problem, we are at point in the history of our species on this planet where I think we must pay attention to the adjacent possible "truth" of an ecozoic vision (Thomas Berry) that involves an inter-species future. Someone recently said "science is a glass half filled" and that's because as practiced by most, science has become a system of thought closed to any but its own "truth." Doesn't the best science embrace methods that consider all assumptions and facts to be open to question? The division between what is "real" from what is "belief" cancels out the possibility of what emerges that is beyond the grasp of modern science.
>>
>> Einstein famously said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The imaginary story is missing in science, colonized by a mind-set and methodology that demands proof of "existence." Physicist David Bohm, the godfather of the generative dialogue we teach and practice, understood this when he wrote that discussion (and by extension experimentation--not lived experience) uses only rational intelligence, while a full investigation of wicked problems demands additional perspectives perceived through our senses, emotions, self-awareness, and intuition. There is more than one Truth to be discovered, dear Nick, and that ain't bat-shit.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

EricS,

What you wrote here is one of the most succinct, persuasive, and all around nifty explications of Peircean Pragmati[ci]sm I have ever read. Complete with the ricochet shot to the heart of Rorty. Thanks.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 5:13 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

All points here good to know, Stephen, and many premises I agree with.

Here is a concrete example. In the Rights of Nature article, I find:

“Christianity and science, the legitimising powers of the western society, have been in agreement on this fundamental tenet."

Well, that’s one thing the word “science” can stand for in a conversation: one of the two legitimizing powers of ’the western society’, together with Christianity (what lovely bedfellows).

(Apologies that these first three reiterate something I wrote here a couple of months ago. I don’t like repeating oneself either.)

Anyway,

Eric

On Dec 29, 2020, at 4:53 PM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.
_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]
CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
twitter: @simtable
z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,6R4bxW0p7AKsav3HSoIHweRsYXF3G3WxATHXMVRX4ODlIk-cFbKACXUodR4Itp1l-z146n-wT5gmeft1SGtd0ahZp_MihvANQ_LZHtvp-XkALVq2P06HH8Nr26s,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,QOc7w-V-KpwKnJIhWfYkipV-NTfbRqNLYYoaC5dGW2Ji3Z51E-Knkp6f-oMB_4k3B9EvsDgFiYw2uJrZBCgv7AqbSNiGEnoSSgPQtzlTnLkF_LW4ng,,&typo=1

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I'm sorry, Marcus. Define "clear thinking."

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:22 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have heard scientists say, when confronted with certain experimental evidence, that don’t believe the evidence. It’s not just because they are arrogant, it is because they have experience with other evidence and highly-scrutinized models derived from that evidence – that there has to be another explanation.   (One recent example that comes to mind is the Q-thruster / EmDrive.) It seems to me it ought to be possible to decouple clear thinking from how organizations work, and from personality.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

Wow, Karl is my guy, but I didn't know about this. Thank you Stephen.

To get to Nick's problem, we are at point in the history of our species on this planet where I think we must pay attention to the adjacent possible "truth" of an ecozoic vision (Thomas Berry) that involves an inter-species future. Someone recently said "science is a glass half filled" and that's because as practiced by most, science has become a system of thought closed to any but its own "truth." Doesn't the best science embrace methods that consider all assumptions and facts to be open to question? The division between what is "real" from what is "belief" cancels out the possibility of what emerges that is beyond the grasp of modern science.

Einstein famously said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The imaginary story is missing in science, colonized by a mind-set and methodology that demands proof of "existence." Physicist David Bohm, the godfather of the generative dialogue we teach and practice, understood this when he wrote that discussion (and by extension experimentation--not lived experience) uses only rational intelligence, while a full investigation of wicked problems demands additional perspectives perceived through our senses, emotions, self-awareness, and intuition. There is more than one Truth to be discovered, dear Nick, and that ain't bat-shit.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828

twitter: @simtable

z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

There are situations in which one may take a provisional hypothesis and then run down the logical consequences that should occur as a result. This can be done recursively to form a tenuous path from observables to outcomes. These are imaginary stories. Some of them are elaborate, like string theory. That’s fine for a detective or a scientist provided they recognize the path is tenuous and can be made stronger or weaker with specific information. For the detective it may be useful to do this fast and loose reasoning in order to get a search warrant – to get more evidence. It’s not fine if they don’t seek to get evidence or quantify just how tenuous the path is, or at least recognize what they have is an arbitrary belief (or an elegant theoretical framework). Conversely, if one has quantified how probable a chain of reasoning is, in light of the evidence, if someone else comes along and says they have another way to interpret the evidence, then they can do the work to argue each link in the chain and how likely their overall conclusion is.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 9:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

I'm sorry, Marcus. Define "clear thinking."

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:22 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have heard scientists say, when confronted with certain experimental evidence, that don’t believe the evidence. It’s not just because they are arrogant, it is because they have experience with other evidence and highly-scrutinized models derived from that evidence – that there has to be another explanation.   (One recent example that comes to mind is the Q-thruster / EmDrive.) It seems to me it ought to be possible to decouple clear thinking from how organizations work, and from personality.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 8:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

Wow, Karl is my guy, but I didn't know about this. Thank you Stephen.

To get to Nick's problem, we are at point in the history of our species on this planet where I think we must pay attention to the adjacent possible "truth" of an ecozoic vision (Thomas Berry) that involves an inter-species future. Someone recently said "science is a glass half filled" and that's because as practiced by most, science has become a system of thought closed to any but its own "truth." Doesn't the best science embrace methods that consider all assumptions and facts to be open to question? The division between what is "real" from what is "belief" cancels out the possibility of what emerges that is beyond the grasp of modern science.

Einstein famously said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The imaginary story is missing in science, colonized by a mind-set and methodology that demands proof of "existence." Physicist David Bohm, the godfather of the generative dialogue we teach and practice, understood this when he wrote that discussion (and by extension experimentation--not lived experience) uses only rational intelligence, while a full investigation of wicked problems demands additional perspectives perceived through our senses, emotions, self-awareness, and intuition. There is more than one Truth to be discovered, dear Nick, and that ain't bat-shit.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 2:54 PM Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick writes:
> But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, Ecocide Law, etc, it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms (Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit crazy.

Provably batshit crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic sovereignty" * as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.

This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift from which the Guano Islands Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on my mind.

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828

twitter: @simtable

z oom.simtable.com

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think I disagree, Merle. If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. When we speak as poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint. But what defines science for me is that there are truths to be found. I am pretty sure Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry. The first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of political correctness and purges that destroyed the field. Sure we have to respect people equally. Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on a par with our own. But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the ramp into the space ship, so far as I am concerned. I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures. They are only "beliefs" in ours, but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always present in the dialogue.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say "true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

gepr

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

That seems a bit strange. EricS seems to *assume* there is a truth (consistent network of things that hang together) to be converged upon. But I thought Peirce was not metaphysically committed to the idea that a final opinion was inevitably possible, only that *if* it's there, it can be converged upon.

And given Peirce's work in alternative logics, it seems completely reasonable that he would allow for different types of consistency and, perhaps even, multiple sets of different networks, each of which may be self-consistent, but perhaps not connected to other networks. And if *that's* right, then there could be >2 final opinions converged upon by >2 collections of seekers, yet who disagree about what is real/true.

And even further, because the real and the extant might be somewhat decoupled, the >2 truths might be able to interact (exist) without requiring them to merge into 1 truth.

So it seems odd that you'd say EricS' description is Peircian. Maybe it's only part of it (weaker)? Maybe it's stronger? But is it really the same?

Thanks in advance for any corrections.

On 12/30/20 8:53 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> What you wrote here is one of the most succinct, persuasive, and all around nifty explications of Peircean Pragmati[ci]sm I have ever read. Complete with the ricochet shot to the heart of Rorty. Thanks.

> On 12/30/20 3:12 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> All points here good to know, Stephen, and many premises I agree with.
>>
>> It seems to me that, if this conversation is ever to do more than have people talk past each other, all discussants need to find it valuable to use restricted scopes for words, to remain within each other’s scopes along the track of a discussion to figure out what premises are common and what follows from them, and to operate on however many tracks in parallel are needed to include the things people want to talk about.
>>
>> Here is a concrete example. In the Rights of Nature article, I find:
>>
>> “Christianity and science, the legitimising powers of the western society, have been in agreement on this fundamental tenet."
>>
>> Well, that’s one thing the word “science” can stand for in a conversation: one of the two legitimizing powers of ’the western society’, together with Christianity (what lovely bedfellows).
>>
>>
>> When Nick uses the word science in the sense his original objection, I am willing to recast it in my language as a label for what many of us believe is a new domain of linguistic, behavioral, and social cognitive practice distinguished by the following premises (or tenets):
>>
>> — there is some truth-notion characterized above and before all else by internal consistency, allowing it to be converged toward by a suitable body of practice which we aspire to build. One could even say that this premise of a stable truth-notion is put forth as the replacement for Descartes’s Cogito, as a starting point on which to build commitments, even if all subsequent steps are fluid and subject to update and overhaul
>>
>> — the state of knowledge (so, recipes, propositions, lexicons, etc.) is something like a very elaborate sample estimator for the values that make up “what is true”. It’s very fluid, if every instance of the adoption of a term, the commitment to rules of language or logic, interpretations of experiments, and every other habit is considered potentially in error and subject to overhaul; so it is essential to what one means here by “science” that this premise of a stable truth-notion is its starting tenet
>>
>> — all the methods traditionally invoked as constituting “scientific method” could be seen as some first finite components in an open-ended toolbox for trying to recursively find and identify errors by classes of family resemblances they have, in the expectation that correcting the error makes the state of knowledge a better reflection of whatever is true. So, intersubjectivity or rigorous rules of argument to overcome sample omissions, observation bias, deluded thinking, etc.; empiricism as a corrective to delusions that can persist in group levels of any size, etc. But unlike the Encyclopedists, the body of method for error discovery is just as open-ended as the state of knowledge it has produced at any given time. Since errors tend to propagate recursively, we probably have to assume that the tools to detect them can be expended indefinitely, else the premise that one can converge on true assertions would be implausible
>>
>> (Apologies that these first three reiterate something I wrote here a couple of months ago. I don’t like repeating oneself either.)
>>
>> — that the above criteria separate out some propositions at any given time from everything we might be capable of thinking or feeling at that time, making it not all equivalent. Thus the unhappiness of Tolstoy’s unhappy families, each according to its own fashion, is not really a pattern for what a “true assertion” looks like. Or more neurologically, synaesthesics may see the letters of the alphabet in colors. However, each synaesthesic may see a each of the letters in a different color than the other synaesthesics do. Do I deny that they experience the letters with colors? No, of course I don’t. However, do I expect science to arrive at a conclusion that it is in the nature of a printed letter to _have_ a particular color, or to have any color at all? Also No. And so on. If no state of belief a person can sincerely hold can ever be batshit crazy, then there can’t be category distinctions, and the true assertions don’t actually exist in the sense the scientific tenet
>> supposes.
>>
>>
>> I would argue that any good-faith person has to recognize that these two operationalizations of the word “science” simply are not referring to the same thing. Having recognized it, what can one then do?
>>
>> 1. You can argue, like Richard Rorty, that it is the nature of people that they cannot possess the truth-version of “science” without having it coopted into the “legitimizing power” version, and therefore we should try to exterminate the truth-version in a kind of totalitarianistic PC, William James’s pragmatism-as-social-utilitarianism taken to its limit, which is the annihilation of Peirce’s pragmatism. To me this is only a stone’s throw from the Unabomber argument. One can make and then debate the quality of such arguments. They can be insightful about how the various aspects that are simultaneously present in human life and thought affect each other, and thus can contribute to solving problems and righting wrongs even if one doesn’t think the original arguments hang together as wholes.
>>
>> 2. One could, instead (also like Rorty), insist on changing the subject, but not acknowledge that that is what is being done. Whenever a discussant tries argues for keeping the truth-version, one can act as if the legitimizing-power version was intended, and then give the counterargument for dismantling the latter. That could be done, I guess, innocently, or obstinately, or maliciously. But it doesn’t seem like it resolves to anything.
>>
>> Anyway,
>>
>> Eric

--
↙↙↙ 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

David Eric Smith

Re: where are the "patriot hackers"?

These are good corrections, Glen, thank you, w.r.t to trying to speak carefully.

> On Dec 30, 2020, at 1:18 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That seems a bit strange. EricS seems to *assume* there is a truth (consistent network of things that hang together) to be converged upon. But I thought Peirce was not metaphysically committed to the idea that a final opinion was inevitably possible, only that *if* it's there, it can be converged upon.

Yes, it’s in danger of getting so meta or vague, that one can object there isn’t anything real to talk about.

Here I should speak only for the position I am trying to form, and let Nick or EricC speak for how Peirce would have handled these problems. The way you put the question also makes sense to me in relation to ways they have described his position on the list.

I don’t think I want to assume as a foundation tenet that there is a true position w.r.t. any particular hypothesis or proposition. That would be committing the error of supposing that a premise is well-formed, after we have said that the ways we form premises could be part of an erroneous way of cognizing.

The “too-meta” position I want to take, in the best way I can figure to say it, is that we suppose there is a “truth-notion”, or a referent for the word “truth”, characterized by its consistency in the face of the most extended system of tests we can bring to it, and that the collective of “what is true” will be non-empty as a set of targets toward which assertions can converge.

It seems to me that to say “a final opinion” entails the proposition about which the opinion is cast. Agreeing with you on the point that any given proposition might be judged as consistent with truth, in any given state of knowledge, or might be found to be “not even wrong” (meaning, not really resolvable to a meaning), I would not want to cast the proposition itself as part of the truth-notion.

That is why, more in the earlier version of this harangue than in the one thisAM, I wanted to argue that, as mental models, “truth” and “state of knowledge” are concepts of two different kinds, roughly in analogy to the “actual” state of a coin w.r.t. flipping bias, versus sample estimators for the bias computed from sets of flips. I want a way to think about truth versus states of knowledge that makes it natural to envision them as things of distinct types. Probably I am motivated by an analogy to the shift from classical to quantum mechanics, in which the hard move was to go from thinking of observables and states as the same types of concept, one just being a set of the other (in classical), versus conceiving states and observables as quite distinctly formalized in math (in quantum), so it would be non-problematic for them to have the disconnects they must to be empirically valid, while remaining thinkable.

Of course, if a state of knowledge is fairly good, we would hope that its structure is somehow a good model for “what is true”, perceived through some frame. Over time we can hope to progressively shed older “questions” that turn out to be “unanswerable”, meaning that they weren’t actually questions and we just didn’t know that.

> And given Peirce's work in alternative logics, it seems completely reasonable that he would allow for different types of consistency and, perhaps even, multiple sets of different networks, each of which may be self-consistent, but perhaps not connected to other networks. And if *that's* right, then there could be >2 final opinions converged upon by >2 collections of seekers, yet who disagree about what is real/true.

Yes. I would hope that these mutually-incompatible positions are features of a state of knowledge, and not the refutation that there is any possible referent-notion for the term “truth”.

Again, I have mental images that to me make this comfortable, but they aren’t good models in any literal sense. I think of stochastic processes with multiple basins of attraction, which on the short term can lead to distributions of fluctuations entirely within one basin or another, with the basin determined by initial conditions. On the longer term, however, the process has an ergodic distribution, within which either of the former distributions can be contextualized as a conditional distribution, relative to the ergodic which is unconditioned.

The generator for the underlying process would stand in analogy to what I am looking for as the truth to be represented, and the various conditioned or unconditioned distributions would be outputs from sample estimators in any state of investigation or characterization. As we build up more and more ways to situate the conditioned distributions within the unconditional, our state of knowledge reflects more of the properties of the underlying generator, and leaves fewer opportunities for incommensurate distributions or unexplained differences in moments. But all these states of knowledge (the various distributions) remain different kinds of things from the underlying generator (the true generator of the process), and the states of knowledge are of the same type as each other even as the knowledge is refined.

> And even further, because the real and the extant might be somewhat decoupled, the >2 truths might be able to interact (exist) without requiring them to merge into 1 truth.
>
> So it seems odd that you'd say EricS' description is Peircian. Maybe it's only part of it (weaker)? Maybe it's stronger? But is it really the same?
>
> Thanks in advance for any corrections.

Yes, from me too. Careful people have probably thought through how much of this one can do before it all just evaporates into a fog.

Eric

>
>
> On 12/30/20 8:53 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> What you wrote here is one of the most succinct, persuasive, and all around nifty explications of Peircean Pragmati[ci]sm I have ever read. Complete with the ricochet shot to the heart of Rorty. Thanks.
>
>> On 12/30/20 3:12 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>>> All points here good to know, Stephen, and many premises I agree with.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that, if this conversation is ever to do more than have people talk past each other, all discussants need to find it valuable to use restricted scopes for words, to remain within each other’s scopes along the track of a discussion to figure out what premises are common and what follows from them, and to operate on however many tracks in parallel are needed to include the things people want to talk about.
>>>
>>> Here is a concrete example. In the Rights of Nature article, I find:
>>>
>>> “Christianity and science, the legitimising powers of the western society, have been in agreement on this fundamental tenet."
>>>
>>> Well, that’s one thing the word “science” can stand for in a conversation: one of the two legitimizing powers of ’the western society’, together with Christianity (what lovely bedfellows).
>>>
>>>
>>> When Nick uses the word science in the sense his original objection, I am willing to recast it in my language as a label for what many of us believe is a new domain of linguistic, behavioral, and social cognitive practice distinguished by the following premises (or tenets):
>>>
>>> — there is some truth-notion characterized above and before all else by internal consistency, allowing it to be converged toward by a suitable body of practice which we aspire to build. One could even say that this premise of a stable truth-notion is put forth as the replacement for Descartes’s Cogito, as a starting point on which to build commitments, even if all subsequent steps are fluid and subject to update and overhaul
>>>
>>> — the state of knowledge (so, recipes, propositions, lexicons, etc.) is something like a very elaborate sample estimator for the values that make up “what is true”. It’s very fluid, if every instance of the adoption of a term, the commitment to rules of language or logic, interpretations of experiments, and every other habit is considered potentially in error and subject to overhaul; so it is essential to what one means here by “science” that this premise of a stable truth-notion is its starting tenet
>>>
>>> — all the methods traditionally invoked as constituting “scientific method” could be seen as some first finite components in an open-ended toolbox for trying to recursively find and identify errors by classes of family resemblances they have, in the expectation that correcting the error makes the state of knowledge a better reflection of whatever is true. So, intersubjectivity or rigorous rules of argument to overcome sample omissions, observation bias, deluded thinking, etc.; empiricism as a corrective to delusions that can persist in group levels of any size, etc. But unlike the Encyclopedists, the body of method for error discovery is just as open-ended as the state of knowledge it has produced at any given time. Since errors tend to propagate recursively, we probably have to assume that the tools to detect them can be expended indefinitely, else the premise that one can converge on true assertions would be implausible
>>>
>>> (Apologies that these first three reiterate something I wrote here a couple of months ago. I don’t like repeating oneself either.)
>>>
>>> — that the above criteria separate out some propositions at any given time from everything we might be capable of thinking or feeling at that time, making it not all equivalent. Thus the unhappiness of Tolstoy’s unhappy families, each according to its own fashion, is not really a pattern for what a “true assertion” looks like. Or more neurologically, synaesthesics may see the letters of the alphabet in colors. However, each synaesthesic may see a each of the letters in a different color than the other synaesthesics do. Do I deny that they experience the letters with colors? No, of course I don’t. However, do I expect science to arrive at a conclusion that it is in the nature of a printed letter to _have_ a particular color, or to have any color at all? Also No. And so on. If no state of belief a person can sincerely hold can ever be batshit crazy, then there can’t be category distinctions, and the true assertions don’t actually exist in the sense the scientific tenet
>>> supposes.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would argue that any good-faith person has to recognize that these two operationalizations of the word “science” simply are not referring to the same thing. Having recognized it, what can one then do?
>>>
>>> 1. You can argue, like Richard Rorty, that it is the nature of people that they cannot possess the truth-version of “science” without having it coopted into the “legitimizing power” version, and therefore we should try to exterminate the truth-version in a kind of totalitarianistic PC, William James’s pragmatism-as-social-utilitarianism taken to its limit, which is the annihilation of Peirce’s pragmatism. To me this is only a stone’s throw from the Unabomber argument. One can make and then debate the quality of such arguments. They can be insightful about how the various aspects that are simultaneously present in human life and thought affect each other, and thus can contribute to solving problems and righting wrongs even if one doesn’t think the original arguments hang together as wholes.
>>>
>>> 2. One could, instead (also like Rorty), insist on changing the subject, but not acknowledge that that is what is being done. Whenever a discussant tries argues for keeping the truth-version, one can act as if the legitimizing-power version was intended, and then give the counterargument for dismantling the latter. That could be done, I guess, innocently, or obstinately, or maliciously. But it doesn’t seem like it resolves to anything.
>>>
>>> Anyway,
>>>
>>> Eric
>
>
>
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,_qB3kel-SxTSWDDXqwSnQ_YrEPadAQ0oRmf4n0JcZ4zTL4IG50PUtNg4QN5LcOKMOAKma92P-oepwGAV2J_MPJQi7Q7xh86MQvQcIXx1lZb45xqrUzeBavH7O8g,&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,5bzWMk49PNKFoPuBe0bjZ9T4d516N1NINwvibTZ3QhkhcXQSZuEhZ9JK7QmLUREa_LYkEApnjXKkVvsm9ab7ABV6MvApyRgpip94XbTIDdLTymyPWZr9XfI,&typo=1