I object to the snarkiness of the term *Inner Sanctum*. But that aside, I now have 2 points.
- It struck me this morning that the position you attribute to Peirce (and that you accept yourself?) imports teleology into biology (or even physics if it applies to matter as well). If a biological organism B does act A *because *something C is the case that suggests that B expects that doing A when C is the case will produce some anticipated result R, i.e., that B is attempting to bring about R, i.e., that B is acting teleologically. But I thought that teleology had been banned from biology. The emphasis is on the *because*, which was the word you used. I'm assuming that Peirce is distinguishing between (a) belief and action in this sense and (b) traditional physics where, for example, a rock dropped from a height falls to the ground *because *of gravity. It would be useful if you would clarify what Peirce means by *because *if it isn't intended teleologically. - I hesitate to add this point because I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked onto a discussion of subjective experience. But since you brought it up, here goes. I don't see what Peirce accomplishes by calling feeling a relation to a relation. Is his claim that someone like me claims to have a subjective experience if and only if (Peirce can demonstrate that) I'm in a relation to a relation? Since I'm not sure what he means by a relation to a relation, I'd need clarification to see whether I agree or even if it's simply a tautology. *-- 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 Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net>wrote: > Nick, > > It's actually pretty simple. No surprise, there, what with me being an > engineer & all. There are only two requirements for getting me to believe > in something: > > 1. I have to be interested enough about the topic to even care if it > is worth believing in, and > 2. Sufficient evidence must exist to support whatever claim is > requiring my belief. > > Sadly, the topic of "induction" and all the intricacies involving the > philosophy of "induction" as a thought process does not meet requirement > number 1, above. > > --Doug > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 >
============================================================ 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
