Russell Standish put it well. But let me try a further comment. You wrote, "C. S. Peirce would point out that if you truly behave AS IF something is the case, then you believe it to be the case. To Peirce, that’s just what belief IS. "
According to that would Peirce say that animals have beliefs? They act as if something is the case. What about plants that turn toward the sun? If Peirce wants to define belief in that way, it's not clear to me what good that does in clarifying anything. *-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ *_____________________________________________* On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hi, Russ, **** > > ** ** > > C. S. Peirce would point out that if you truly behave AS IF something is > the case, then you believe it to be the case. To Peirce, that’s just what > belief IS. **** > > ** ** > > He’s the one that calls Cartesian doubt a dilusion. **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Sunday, April 08, 2012 1:50 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** > > ** ** > > Nick,**** > > ** ** > > As far as I can see, the difference between (scientific and naive daily) > induction and faith is that induction is a statement of how we operate > whereas faith is an imported belief.**** > > ** ** > > You don't need to have faith in induction to operate as if it were the > case. That's simply how we evolved to be in the world. I don't use explicit > induction to conclude that one second from now the world will be pretty > much as it is now -- at least at the macro level, which is what I tend to > care most about. The principle of induction simply explicates that way of > behaving.**** > > ** ** > > In contrast, faith is an imported belief system that one appeals to > explicitly for answers. > **** > > **** > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________***** > > * Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * Google voice: 747-999-5105***** > > Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/**** > > * vita: > **http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/*<http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> > *_____________________________________________* **** > > > > **** > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > Hi doug, and Bruce**** > > **** > > I realize that the following was hundreds of words deep in a verbose email > message, and so it is understandable that you did not respond, but I am > curious about your response. **** > > **** > > *I think we either have to be prepared to say why our faith [in induction] > ***** > > *is better than their [faith in God], or be prepared to be beaten all the > way back ***** > > *into the Dark Ages. Hence my interest in the problem of induction.***** > > **** > > Also, I was curious about your comment that you were not all that keen on > induction. Can you describe how, if not by induction, you come to believe > things. **** > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:37 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** > > **** > > Yes, well; I'm not entirely sure it works that way, at least not for me. > It's either interesting, or it's not. Examining how other folks derive > their fascinations just doesn't, you know, get my hormones flowing.**** > > **** > > --Doug**** > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > **** > > **** > > Where we seem to disagree is on one of my most fundatmental ideas: if > somebody finds something interesting, there must be an underlying question > or issue to which the phenomenon has gotten attached in their mind that I > WOULD find interesting if I knew it. **** > > **** > > I was asking you to expand my experience. **** > > **** > > Or not. **** > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:09 PM**** > > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?**** > > **** > > <Lilke>**** > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Sherwood <bruce.sherw...@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > Uh, does there have to be a reason? I'm interested just because I am > -- a portion of trying to understand as much about the Universe we > inhabit as is possible. > > To put it another way: Why are you interested in the details of the > definition or use of induction? I found that discussion massively > uninteresting and irrelevant to the actual practice of science. There > are many variants of philistinism, and of engagement. > > Bruce**** > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson > <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> 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**** > > ============================================================ > 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**** > > > 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**** > > > > **** > > **** > > -- > Doug Roberts > drobe...@rti.org > d...@parrot-farm.net**** > > 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**** > > ** ** >
============================================================ 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
