I agree, here, that faking X is one organizational level above doing x. What tempts us to error is the notion that mental states are instantaneous, rather smeared over time and space.
I sometimes wonder what the relation is between how we think about cogntions …. Thoughts, feelings, motives, etc. …. And how we thing about velocity. Perhaps because of speedometers, we think that speed is a thing that can be true at an instant. But speed does not live in an instant, it LIVES in the domain of delta-T. I have wondered for years about the relation between our contemporary notions of mind and the calculus. The calculus allows us to squinch down things that live in the domain of Delta-t into instants. Similarly, our way of talking about feelings, motives, thoughts, etc., squinches these patterns of activity down into instants, when they themselves live in the domain of delta-t. Not to mention, the domain of delta[delta-t] and the domain of delta[delta[delta-t]], etc., ad nauseam. My history of modern philosophy is TERRIBLE but it seems to me that Descartes’s notion that a mind is the sort of thing that can be seen veridically only by the mind-holder leads to the calculus. Was my high school math teacher (who was also the football coach) correct to tell me that the Cartesian plane is where the calculus was born? Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:55 PM To: glen Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people Glen said: In [Sarbajit's example of cult indoctrination], there is still a missing piece between the social comfort brought by the increasing participation in various activities versus some belief ascribed to the cult members. I would posit that a mole/infiltrator could participate in a cult quite a long time, dancing, changing, murdering starlets in their homes, etc. _without_ actually believing the doctrines of the cult (much like most Catholics I've met). So, what we need is an idea of how we get to belief from these actions. How do we distinguish "lip service" or facetious dancing and chanting from the chanting and dancing of the true believers? ----- But Glen, when you talk about the infiltrator, or the person "paying lip-service", you are just appealing to a larger pattern of behavior. Agreeing with your assertion, "faking belief" looks different than "belief"... if you can see enough of the person's behavior and/or see a close enough level of detail. We distinguish the two exactly by determining which larger pattern of behavior exists. This is not proposing some radically new way of thinking about psychology... it is proposing that we deal with psychology the same way any other science deals with its special subject matter. Take Chemistry: There are many, many chemicals that look the same to the human eye, and which react the same under many conditions (for example, when a set volume is put on a scale), but which react differently under other conditions (for example, when put in a particular solution). The chemicals are distinguished by observing a variety of ways in which the chemicals interact with the world. Similarly, a person who believes X and a person faking belief in X are distinguished by observing a wide variety of ways in which the people interact with the world. Also, for the record, one of the problems with using "moles" is that it is very difficult to get people capable of participating in cultural practices of these sorts over extended periods without becoming believers. The practices become normal to you, the group becomes "your group", and even if you can still turn them in/report on them/whatever you are supposed to do, you become sympathetic.
============================================================ 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
