Marcus,
In trying to explicate Peirce’s definition of truth, I am not talking about short term group think.. Remember, if convergence, in the very long run of time, never occurs, then there is no Truth of the matter, by definition, and Dave is right. My sense is that Dave is trying to turn a Pragmati[ci]st definition into a Cartesian one and then hang it around my neck like a road-killed skunk. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:39 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” Dave writes: > Specifically that a program was > the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed > it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans > engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to > documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other > minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and > simultaneously, empathy.) I often wear the hat of reverse engineer regarding large programs. While it may not be the case that a theory can be inferred from the artifact alone, one can write unit or system level tests that are objective about the behavior of the program. One can learn from other sources about the body of theory in the community, and one can establish good and bad practices in the structure and interpretation of computer programs as artifacts. After years of working on such programs, I'd go so far as to say I could some infer things about the author's personality, and I can say I've been right after meeting them too. It is important to note what is not done as much as what is done. If something is illusory, it is the consensual theory that supposedly arises when people cooperate. Because of different levels of attention and literacy, a group of people in the same room can have very different ideas about what they are doing and why. The only thing that really holds them together are consequential logical constraints in their work products. Marcus _____ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on behalf of Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank. The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First, you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the conversational table. see you in December On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > David, > > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to. Please > come back so I can administer cold compresses. > > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I > have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge > I don't think I ever would have given it. Try this: Imagine that you > have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space. > Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal. Now, I say, > the signal can either be random or systematic. Let's say that the last > ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz. Now, > it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be > produced by a random signal. But now let us double the number of > readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements > has also diminished by the square root of two. Now double again, and > diminish the variation once again by root 2. And so on. While we both > would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not > random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is > drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz. It's that > way with truth. It's quite possible that our experience is random, and > no amount of consistency can ever convince a rational man that the > randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random. > However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man > will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be > confirmed in the very long run of human experiences. On Peirce,s > account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth" It > is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of > will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience. > > Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at > all that is True. I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth > would be if there ever were any. > > Come back. We miss you. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David > West > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” > > Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with > Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past > few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot > of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions > and assertions are, at minimum, ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no > such claim, as will be explained later. > > There can be no Truth. > n Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated > - ‘truths’ are possible. > n Until the Universe achieves ‘heat death’ (at which time there > might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral > ‘truths’ are possible. > n All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally > illusory. > > There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed. > n To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded > privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, > scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?” > > There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or > sharing, Truth; were It to exist. > n Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the > Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.” > n More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said > about software and software development. Specifically that a program was > the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed > it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans > engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to > documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other > minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and > simultaneously, empathy.) > > As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an > intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing > orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the > ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every > living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of > the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this > belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are > those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion. > This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above. > > A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse: > “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be > their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within > them.” Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to > epistemology and metaphysics. > > None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same > essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
