In what sense did Nick leave? Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 On Sun, Nov 1, 2026, 6:27 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > I am still a bit speechless about this reply. My impression is that > behind the mockery there seems to be a feeling of outrage that someone > else may try to cut the line in which you and others have been waiting > patiently (to become Nick's successor as a psychology professor at an > university) by unfair means of cheating and stealing. This was and is > not my intention. > > My idea of solving is the hard problem is probably different than yours. > For me the hard problem can be solved by path dependence and the cinemas > I mentioned earlier. There remains an irreducible, biological residue. > This article which I wrote in the last days with the help of our new AI > friends should help to understand it (I like the saddle node > bifurcations in section 3.2). We could try to publish it together if it > looks interesting to you or you could you reuse some of the ideas and > write your own paper. Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > solves hard problem. How does this sound? Maybe it would help you to get > that academic position too. > > https://github.com/JochenFromm/PhilosophyBook/blob/main/GeometryOfActionReadiness.pdf > > Best wishes, > Jochen > > On 2026-10-04 16:40, Eric Charles wrote: > > As some of you know, I recently finished a draft of The Book (the one > > I have been writing for around 15 years now, with a foundation in > > Nick's writing, but extended beyond that). I have circulated drafts to > > some readers... so if any of you are interested.... > > > > This appears in the epilogue and speaks directly to the question here: > > > > > > Wittgenstein laid down a gauntlet to 21st century philosophers, > > “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen,” > > which is often translated to, “About what one can not speak, one > > must remain silent.” This has been broadly taken to indicate that we > > should shut the heck up about a wide range of topics regarding the > > mind, under the assumption that _all_ such talk is a prime example of > > that-about-which-we-cannot-speak. _If_ mind-body dualism is true, > > either in its classical form or its modern neural form, then your > > “feeling of anger” or “experience of blue” is something that > > exists only in your mental space, that only you could access, and my > > “feeling of anger” or “experience of blue” is something that > > exists only in my mental space, that only I could access. And _if_ > > that is how minds work, then we can try to talk about such things all > > we want, but ultimately it is _impossible_ for us to talk about them > > sensibly. Wittgenstein’s various thought experiments demonstrated > > this repeatedly. Understood in this fashion — understood in > > combination with a _separate_ commitment to dualism — many people > > have understood Wittgenstein to be one more philosopher offering proof > > that a science of psychology is impossible. > > > > However, given [William] James’s influence on Wittgenstein, we do > > not see his dictum as pointing to a fatal flaw. Instead, we understand > > his dictum as pointing out a dilemma faced by the field of psychology: > > Those interested in psychology must _decide_ whether the phenomena > > they are discussing are, inherently, an example of > > that-of-which-we-_cannot_-speak, or if the phenomena they are > > discussing might very well be the types of thing we _can_ speak about > > sensibly. > > > > We assume, if you got this far, that you are the type of person deeply > > interested in psychological happenings. If, after all the scrutinizing > > you can muster, you believe you are interested in something that > > cannot be talked about sensibly, then you should find a way to deal > > with the inevitable sadness and disappointment of that situation, and > > then you should try to find other things to be interested in. We, > > however, prefer the other option. We believe psychological phenomena > > are the types of things that _can_ be talked about sensibly, and we > > have endeavored to show that such a position can work, in practice. We > > believe there is nothing within our attempt to understand > > psychological terms that is fundamentally different than Lavoisier’s > > attempt to understand the elements. Like Lavoisier, we may be right or > > wrong about particular details, but only in the types of ways that can > > be readily corrected over time… because the things we are talking > > about can be investigated readily, with no magic or vital essence, or > > other mystical factors having been included. > > > > We believe that psychological phenomena are the types of things that > > _can_ evolve, that _can_ develop, and that _can_ be studied. They are > > aspects of behavioral design. And that design deserves to be > > recognized and accounted for, to be both described accurately and > > explained well. > > > > Best, > > Eric > > > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2026 at 4:40 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> If this is a polite way to say shut up then please ignore the rest. > >> What Wittgenstein wants to say by "whereof one cannot speak, thereof > >> one must remain silent" is apparently that things like anxiety, > >> pain, nothingness, religion, the meaning of life, subjective > >> experience or feelings lie outside the logical world and cannot be > >> meaningfully described in words. That is one way to see it. I see it > >> differently. The problem is if we remain silent we will never > >> understand it. I prefer Karl Popper's optimistic view to the > >> depressive pessimism of Wittgenstein. Popper argued that > >> substantial, real-world problems exist in philosophy, not just > >> linguistic puzzles as Wittgenstein claims. > >> > >> For me the things we cannot describe meaningful (yet) are the > >> interesting ones. We just need to find the right languages, > >> theories, perspectives or metaphors. One useful metaphor for pain is > >> as you said "an emergency organization of behavior in which the > >> agent deploys physical and social defenses of various sorts". If we > >> describe pain as a mechanism to protect a person it is personal by > >> definition. And yet we all can understand what it is like to feel > >> pain in general. If we watch the movie "Marley & Me" for instance we > >> can understand what it is like to lose a loved dog because most of > >> us have experienced such a loss of a cat or dog or hamster or horse > >> ourselves ( by the way we have a new horse now named Mack which > >> looks like this https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VDyNyTsMccg ). > >> > >> This is in my opinion the solution to the hard problem: the film > >> maker turns a 1st-person view in a 3rd-person view, the cinema > >> conveys the 3rd-person view to the persons in the audience, and they > >> are able to understand roughly what-it-is-like-to-be the lead actor > >> because they see and hear what it goes through and they know what it > >> feels like to experience pain, loss, and suffering. According to > >> Wittgenstein cinemas should not be allowed to exist ("one must > >> remain silent"). But people like them because they want to know > >> what-it-is-like-to-be someone else. Cinemas help to solve the hard > >> problem. > >> > >> -J. > >> > >> On 2026-10-04 03:35, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >>> You can say that. But you end by reasserting the privacy of pain. > >> And > >>> … > >>> > >>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen > >>> > >>> You just cannot have it both ways. > >>> > >>> N > >>> > >>> Sent from my Dumb Phone > >>> > >>> On Oct 3, 2026, at 2:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> Claude was not happy about the theorem proofs that Gemini > >> created. > >>> And Jon also mentioned that they are not waterproof. So I asked > >> Claude > >>> and Gemini if they could write a new proof. They could. I asked > >> them > >>> if we could use gauge theory to explain subjective experience - > >> gauge > >>> invariance to describe objectivity, and symmetry breaking for > >>> subjectivity. Both Claude and Gemini said yes, and Claude was able > >> to > >>> formulate a proof that both could agree on (combining two AIs > >> which > >>> have different personalities often gives better results than just > >>> using one). Gemini is curious and creative, Claude is accurate and > >>> precise. The result was a proof for a theorem of a new "field > >> theory > >>> of understanding". I understand only half of the mathematics, but > >> the > >>> physicist who use gauge theory for quantum field theories also > >>> understand only half of it. > >>> > >>> I have uploaded the new proofs here. The theorems are named the > >> same, > >>> only the proofs are different. If they are more convincing than > >> the > >>> old ones, then the idea is to replace the proofs in the appendix > >> with > >>> this version. In my opinion the solution to the hard problem looks > >>> similar to this - in combination with the other things written in > >> the > >>> rest of the book. > >>> https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/QualiaTheorems.pdf > >>> > >>> Paradoxically the qualia part that is most mysterious for some > >>> researchers is not a problem for others at all. Nick for example > >> wrote > >>> he does not believe in qualia and sees emotions as regulations. In > >> a > >>> post he argued "To me, pain is an emergency organization of my > >>> behavior in which I deploy physical and social defenses of various > >>> sorts.... To me, the question, “What is it like to be X?”, has > >>> been fully answered when you have said where X-like people can be > >>> found and what they will be doing there... for me, feeling is a > >> kind > >>> of doing, an exploring of the world". I would agree to most of it > >> but > >>> for me what an animal is doing alone gives us only a hint what it > >>> feels. If a horse for example is injured and feels pain, it does > >> not > >>> scream or cry, and you see no tears. Only if you know the animal > >> well > >>> you realize that the behavior is slightly different, for example > >> by > >>> the things it is not doing. I am certain animals feel pain just as > >>> intense as we do, but it is hard to recognize from th > >>> eir behavior alone. If it would be better visible, would we still > >> eat > >>> pigs and cows in large amounts (this reminds me of "Why We Love > >> Dogs, > >>> Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows" from Melanie Joy)? > >>> > >>> -J. > >>> > >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- > >> -. > >>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > >>> to (un)subscribe > >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present > >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- > >> -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > >>> to (un)subscribe > >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present > >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > >> > >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. > >> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > >> to (un)subscribe > >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > >> archives: 5/2017 thru present > >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. > > / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: 5/2017 thru present > > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
