Ah, but is transcendence abduction? As in: "Take me away from all this practicial (google helpfully auto-corrected to practical) nit picking, for a while just show me how things might be."
When does the image of the snake biting its tail become the hypothesis that benzene is a cyclic molecule? When does it change from hallucinated bullpuckey into organic chemistry? -- rec -- On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:35 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Eric, ‘n all, > > > > Thanks for the citation. > > > > Here’s where I think we need you. I think Dave West and others in the > group are interested in the notion of truth beyond experience, or truth in > extraordinary experience, or truth found through drugs or pain, or through > intense meditations, or when dreaming or at the threshold of death or (as I > would put it) at other times when the system isn’t fully functioning. My > prejudices tell me that these folks, among them my dearest colleagues, are > descending down the Jamesian Rat Hole. We need you because you are both > more knowledgeable about William James than I am and more forgiving. I > suspect you may be able to … um … modulate the rather harsh sentiment > expressed below. > > > > First, let me stipulate that all experiences endured under extremis ARE > experiences and can (by abduction) be the origin of good hunches. I give > you, courtesy of my great wisdom AND Wikipedia, Kekule’s dream. > > > > Here is a wonderful example of an extreme experience that “proved out”. > “Proved out” means that when the chemist worked out all the practicial > implications of the abduction that benzene was a ring, and carried those > implications into laboratory practice, his expectations were confirmed. > > > > What I object to is the notion that such experiences in extremis are èin > principleç more likely to be true than ordinary ones, or, further, that > there is any way to confirm the implications of one experience except > through further experiences. > > > > Let me put this as clearly as I can. > > > > Transcendence = bullpucky > > > > > > Nick > > > > PS : Eric: Please stop using the word “practical” and adopt the more > accurate term, “practicial”. “Practical” was a mistake when Peirce used > it, and is a mistake everytime you use it. Peirce an you are both > referring to consequences to knowledge-gathering practices, broadly > conceived. The pragmatic maxim of meaning should be, > > > > Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practicial bearings, > we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of > these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. > > > > Pps: Do I have more or less evidence that Christ Existed than I do that > Marcus exists. I have never met either of them, but of both, I can say, “I > have read a lot of his writings and I know a lot of people who believe in > him and speak highly of him. “ What would constitute indoubitable proof of > the Existence of Marcus. > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles > *Sent:* Saturday, February 22, 2020 5:59 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question > > > > Assertion: > > 1. Since Christ has never been proved to have existed, it seems to me (as > a non-psychologist) those consuming his 'blood' religiously appear as > victims/participants of group mass delusions reinforced by their regular > shared consumption of a narcotic in a controlled environment replete with > symbols to reinforce their delusion. > > > > Reply: I mean.... transubstantiation is one of the first examples Peirce > uses to illuminate thinking that can be improved via the pragmatic maxim.... > > > > As Nick points out, for Peirce, Pragmatism is, first and foremost, a means > of figuring out what your ideas mean. Two important benefits of this are > figuring out when you have vacuous thoughts, and gaining the ability to > avoid what Orwell would label "doublethink". That is, being able to figure > out when your ideas are meaningless and when they contradict each other. > > > > ------ How to make your ideas clear, 1878 ----------- > > To see what this principle leads to, consider in the light of it such a > doctrine as that of transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally > hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a > tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would > our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally just meat > and blood; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafercakes > and diluted wine. But we can have no conception of wine except what may > enter into a belief, either -- > > 1. That this, that, or the other, is wine; or, > 2. That wine possesses certain properties. > Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon > occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according > to the qualities which we believe wine to possess. The occasion of such > action would be some sensible perception, the motive of it to produce some > sensible result. Thus our action has exclusive reference to what affects > the senses, our habit has the same bearing as our action, our belief the > same as our habit, our conception the same as our belief; and we can > consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or > indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the > sensible characters of wine, yet being in reality blood, is senseless > jargon. Now, it is not my object to pursue the theological question; and > having used it as a logical example I drop it, without caring to anticipate > the theologian's reply. I only desire to point out how impossible it is > that we should have an idea in our minds which relates to anything but > conceived sensible effects of things. Our idea of anything *is* our idea > of its sensible effects; and if we fancy that we have any other we deceive > ourselves, and mistake a mere sensation accompanying the thought for a part > of the thought itself. It is absurd to say that thought has any meaning > unrelated to its only function. It is foolish for Catholics and Protestants > to fancy themselves in disagreement about the elements of the sacrament, if > they agree in regard to all their sensible effects, here and hereafter. > > It appears, then, that the rule for attaining the third grade of clearness > of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, that might > conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our > conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of > our conception of the object. > > ------------ > > > > So, the first question is NOT "Did Jesus exist?" nor "Does wine transform > into his blood." The first question is "What does it *mean*, practically > speaking, to claim Jesus had existed?" and "What does it *mean, *practically > speaking, for the wine to be transformed into blood?" In both cases, by > "practically speaking" I mean, "what consequences would it have for > possible outcomes of our actions?" which could also be translated pretty > reasonably to "what could a scientist investigate based on that claim". > Nick is fond of asking questions like "If the wine *is *blood, can we use > it for a transfusion?" Where as I, a bit more petulant, prefer questions > like "Given that one can still get drunk off of communion wine, how far > over the DUI limit must He have been at all times, and what implications > does that have for the rest of His physiology?" > > > > After you have some idea what your ideas mean, Peirce has ideas about how > we (in the very long run) find out which of your clear-ideas are true, but > that is a separate conversation. > > > > > ----------- > > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist > > American University - Adjunct Instructor > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:20 PM Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nick > > > 1. Since Christ has never been proved to have existed, it seems to me (as > a non-psychologist) those consuming his 'blood' religiously appear as > victims/participants of group mass delusions reinforced by their regular > shared consumption of a narcotic in a controlled environment replete with > symbols to reinforce their delusion. > > > > 2. Now to your more important question for us outside the USA. "*Is > Trump a proto-dictator? What are the consequences in experience of > believing that he is? What does that belief cause us to expect in him. *" > > In my view, and in the *view of many non-Americans* > <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/taliban-afghanistan-war-haqqani.html>, > it is the nation of USA collectively which is the tyrannical dictatorship, > and it is quite irrelevant who heads it (symbolically), because all US > Presidents carry on the same acts of raining bombs from the sky on those > who disagree with US policies or the US' aforesaid mass delusion called > Christianity. > > > > Sarbajit Roy > > Brahma University > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:31 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Geez, Dave, > > There's an awful lot here. Do you mean to take the hardest case? A > person? And particularly a person who has been so much in all our faces > that it's hard for most of us to think of him rationally, if at all? > > Let's take a simpler example. An example that Peirce takes is > transubstantiation, the idea that in ritual of the mass the communion wine > becomes the blood of Christ. Once consecrated, is the communion "beverage" > wine or blood? Let's say we disagree on that point. We both see that it's > a red liquid in a chalice, on which basis we jump to different > conclusions. From the properties or redness and liquidness that the > substance in the chalice shares with both blood and wine, you abduce that > it is wine, I abduce that it is blood. So far, we stand equal. But now the > chalice is brought to our lips. For me, (forgive me, Catholics, for I know > not what I say) I feel momentarily cleansed of my sins, uplifted. Since > part of my conception of Christ's blood is that if I drank some of it I > would feel cleansed and uplifted, I conclude that it is indeed, Christs' > blood. You, on the other hand, experience the flat, sour taste of > inexpensive wine, feel no uplift whatsoever, and conclude that the chalice > contains wine. We are still on equal footing. > > But now the science begins. We whisk away the stuff in the chalice to > the laboratory. As a preliminary, each of us is asked to list in their > entirety all the effects of our conception. We are being asked to > *deduce* from the categories to which we have *abduced*, the consequences > of our abductions They are numerous, but to simply the discussion, lets > say each of us lists five. I say, if it is Christ's blood, then I should > feel transformed when drinking it, and then I pause. The scientists also > pause, pencils in hand, and I have to go on. Well, in addition to its > red-liquidity, I say, it should be slightly salty-sweet to taste, be thick > on the tongue, curdle when heated, sustain life of somebody in need of a > transfusion, etc. So we do the tests, and the results are yes, no, no, > no, no. The scientists now turn to you and you say, it should, as well as > red and liquid, be sour, thin on the tongue, intoxicating in large amounts, > produce a dark residue when heated, etc.. So, the tests come out yes, yes, > yes, yes, yes. > > So, is it really blood or really wine? Well, that of course depends on > one’s priorities. If the sole criterion for a red fluid being Christ’s > blood is that it produces in one person, Nick Thompson, a sense of > cleansing, then the fact that it doesn’t pass any of the other tests for > blood will make no difference. I can assert that that Christ’s blood is a > very special sort of blood that cleanses the spirit of Nick Thompson, but > does none of the other things that blood does. Indeed, I might assert that > anything the priest handed me in the chalice, once duly consecrated, would > be Christ’s blood. The idea that it “works for me” makes it “Christ’s > blood for me and that’s all that matters. And if I could bring a regiment > of Spanish soldiers with spears to friam, and have them insist that you > drink from the chalice and feel cleansed, many of you might begin to agree > with me. > > This is the view of pragmatism that James has been accused of, but it is > definitely NOT the view that Peirce held. If the position is, “whatever > the officiant says is christs blood is christ’s blood by definition”, then, > Piece would say the position is either > > Meaningless or false. It might be meaningless, because there is no > possible world in which it could be false. Or it might be false, because > our best guess as scientists is that in the very long run, in the > asymptote of scientific inquiry, our best scientific guess is that the > contents of the chalice will be agreed upon to be wine. > > Again, let me apologize for my ignorant rendition of Catholic ritual. It > IS the example that Peirce takes, but I now see that that is probably a > poor excuse. Peirce was, after all, a protestant, and one with many > prejudices, so it would not surprise me if he was anti-catholic and himself > chose the example in a mean-spirited way. So, be a little careful in how > you respond. > > Is Trump a proto-dictator? What are the consequences in experience of > believing that he is? What does that belief cause us to expect in him. > Tim Snyder, in his little book ON TYRANNY, does a very good job of laying > out the parallels between what is going on in our politics right now and > what goes on in the early stages of the establishment o a dictatorship. > Trump is fulfilling many of Snyder’s expectations. Whether Trump succeeds > in establishing a dictatorship or not, I think the long run of history will > conclude that he is making a stab at it. > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
