Best to you as well, Nick. One point of clarification, though: I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought there was no value in picking at the scabs of of a person's fascinations/obsessions/interests. I did mean to convey that the person's motivations for being enamored of a certain point of view were generally of little interest to me. And, I am seldom dazzled by what others think.
--Doug On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Dear Doug, **** > > ** ** > > Thanks, Doug. No offence taken, but … none of this is a game to me. > Thinking about stuff, getting to the bottom of what I and others are > thinking, is everything for me. It’s way up the hierarchy from sex and > food. We have been talking long enough about enough things so I am sure > you know that. **** > > ** ** > > And I disagree that there is no value in looking below the surface of a > fascination. To be unwilling to look below the surface of a fascination is > just to be dazzled by it. **** > > ** ** > > By the way, “they said” you and I couldn’t have a conversation in which we > argued fair. I think we proved them wrong, don’t you? **** > > ** ** > > “False and foolish prophets they”**** > > ** ** > > All be best, **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:05 AM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** > > ** ** > > I guess I must have spoiled your game somewhat by turning out to be barely > lukewarm regarding the charms of induction, NIck.**** > > ** ** > > Well, what can I say, except that one person's fascination is, well, one > person's fascination.**** > > ** ** > > --Doug**** > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > Fantasy is the sharp edge of creative thought. Fantasy is proto-science. > No pejorative intended. **** > > **** > > My question is NOT argumentative … or not meant to be. In a way, I have > bet my whole career on such questions. **** > > **** > > Let me give you an example, which is sort of creepy, but, I think, > “interesting”. In the 70’s, everybody got sick of writing being taught in > English departments. After all, every faculty member in a university > writes for a living, more or less. So, shouldn’t every faculty member be > teaching writing. So, I taught this freshman seminar in which the students > could write on any subject they wanted, although, because they knew I was a > psychologist, they always took something psychological. I stubbornly > played the role of a resource person and an editor. I questioned them in > ways I took to deepen and broaden their enquiries in a way that would > attract a reader’s interest. But I scrupulously avoided the role of > “expert.” **** > > **** > > Every year, one or more of the students would want to do a paper on child > abuse. It seemed to me a really dark topic, and probably arose as an > interest for the student because they were toying with the idea that they > themselves had been abused as children. They were kind of hoping, perhaps, > that I would play the role of clinician, but I had no training or interest > in that. To the extent that their interest was self directed, I took it as > lacking universal interest, and therefore not a proper subject for a piece > of writing. But I did see that an interesting paper COULD be written > about child abuse because hidden in the concept is a very fundamental > confusion. We all would agree that having sex with a child or flogging a > child at random would be an AB-use of a child; but what, exactly, do we > agree is the proper USE of a child. What are children FOR? I never got a > student to open that door, let alone, walk through it. **** > > **** > > Now I have read some science fiction, over the years. Shirley Jackson’s > the lottery, ETOIN SHURLU, a story about a very hot summer in new York and > a termite invasion, whose last line was “pried from the jaws of the termite > a bright fleck of steel.” I was even addicted to late night startrek for a > year or so, although, I have to admit, I dosed through many of the > episodes. Every one of those stories was riveting but not because it was > the result of some idle curiosity, but because it explored some fundamental > question about who we are and why we are that way. Such questions are what > make psychology “interesting”, and are the beginning of scientific > inquiry. But to turn such an interest into science, we have to explore WHY > it is interesting. **** > > **** > > AS to Doug;s question, I guess I owe him an explanation of why I found the > discussion of induction so interesting. You will recall it began with > question of faith. I was interested in the paradox that those who are hard > on faith, often offer induction as an alternative. But induction requires > faith. And it also require us to join in a community of faith that shares > our belief in induction. Such communities resemble formal religions in > some uncomfortable ways. However, is that pragmatic faith in induction, > which helped us build bridges and fly at faster than the speed of sound, > and go to the moon, and provide cheap food for millions of people and, > brought us so many important American institutions, such as the > marketplace of ideas and the notion of settled legal opinion. All of this > now under attack, by, apparently, people to whom its benefits are not self > evident. I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith is > better than theirs, or be prepared to be beaten all the way back into the > Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction. **** > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Robert J. Cordingley > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:46 PM**** > > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** > > **** > > There's a long lost Star Trek episode ' Run In With The Kardashians' on > YouTube but I wouldn't go there - it should remain lost. The 'real' > Cardassians are mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian. > Their noses are gray. > > Now setting aside possible derogatory use of 'fantasies', I think > discovering possibly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is > interesting because of the subsequent cultural ramifications here on > Earth. All sorts of noses of all kinds of colors will be bent out of > shape. Will they have their own Hero's Journey myths, etc. etc. What will > their philosophies look like? Will contact of the x-kind change who I > consider to be my friends and the way I stir my coffee- absolutely! Purely > pragmatic and of self-interest. Perhaps they will tell us what the meaning > of INTERESTING is too. > > Robert C > > > > On 4/4/12 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: **** > > I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies > INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my > imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that > NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an > interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our > thinking that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason > these fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is > interesting. The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our > fighting off being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t > the Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where > THEIR noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming*** > * > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com > [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com<friam-boun...@redfish.com>] > *On Behalf Of *Arlo Barnes > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:05 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** > > **** > > Ah, one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. Well, in 2012 the von > Neumann machines were used to increase the density of Jupiter to fusion > point, creating Lucifer, the solar system's second star, in order that the > life on Europa might have a more stable source of heat to evolve in than > the mercurial hotspots on the ocean bottom created by Jupiter's tidal > forces. This is why human beings must ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE, so they do > not interfere with the process of advancement to civilisation as arranged > by the mysterious monolith-controlling aliens (who have energy bodies like > Dave Bowman has at the end of *2001* [who by the way becomes incorporated > with the energy body of HAL to become Halman after 2010] but who used to > have spaceship bodies like Rama in Clarke's *Rama* series). For those who > enjoyed the films, I highly recommend the book series, it is excellent.*** > * > > But perhaps a better literary comparison is Isaac Asimov's short story *The > Last Question*, the eponymous question being "Will we [humans] ever > reverse entropy?". In the story, we have a series of vignettes of a human > asking a computer the question, from engineers asking it of a huge > supercomputer on Earth (contemporary to the time of writing) to a family > asking it of a starship they are living on to a pair of transgalactic > (energy-body, again) conversers asking it of a mystical supercomputer > keeping it's vast mass in hyperspace. None of the computers can answer, and > prefer to wait for more data. Eventually the computers and humans merge > (that theme again) into a single being (I guess that is the Singularity?) > and slip into hyperspace just before the universe heat-dies (correct > usage?) and the HumPuter (my term, I forget what Asimov calls it) ponders > the Question, eventually deciding it has figured it out. Thus entropy is > reversed and the universe was created, with the implication that this is > what God is (the religion conversation sneaking back into this thread).*** > * > > -Arlo James Barnes**** > > > > **** > > ============================================================**** > > ** ** > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College**** > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** > > ** ** > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
