Since Glen missed the square root analogy, I'd like to repeat it.
Nick and Eric seem to be saying that there is no such thing as subjective
experience since only things that can be seen and touched are real.
I said that such a position seems to deny the existence of the square root
of two. One ca
03, 2016 10:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots
Since Glen missed the square root analogy, I'd like to repeat it.
Nick and Eric seem to be saying that there is no such thing as subjective
experience since
eritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:09 PM
> *To:* The F
On 03/03/2016 11:16 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
I find myself confused about what you mean when you say
they are "signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic, and extensively
confirmed way to ... mathematical relationships". A sign is not (in your
view) a thing (other than itself) is it? I would have t
I must have missed the message where you talked about the 3-tuple and don't
understand what you mean that a sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple and
why it matters. Nick talked about a sign; I was distinguishing a sign from
its referent -- which you do too. I also said the reference is often a
men
On 03/04/2016 10:27 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
I must have missed the message where you talked about the 3-tuple and don't
understand what you mean that a sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple and
why it matters. Nick talked about a sign; I was distinguishing a sign from
its referent -- which you do
All that is much to sophisticated for me. I don't have a theory or a model
(e.g., in terms of interpreters) for how the mind works.
This all started as a discussion of subjective behavior. It has drifted
into a discussion of thinking more generally -- and in particular thinking
about mathematical
On 03/04/2016 11:17 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
All that is much to sophisticated for me. I don't have a theory or a model
(e.g., in terms of interpreters) for how the mind works.
Heh, you claim it's too sophisticated and that you don't have a theory or a
model for how the mind works, yet you _wri
nk.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 11:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots
On 03/03/2016 1
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Nick Thompson
wrote:
> a sign IS a thrupple .. or whatever that lovely word is
A 3-tuple? I believe "tuple" itself is just a generalisation of "double,
triple, quadruple, quintuple, [...]", with "singleton" being the odd one
(pun? intended) out. So the word you wa
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 3:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM
/
From:
Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Arlo
Barnes
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 3:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots
Fine with me. Reminds me of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thripple, and
for some reason marshmallows also (perhaps by way of "ripple"?).
-Arlo James Barnes
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. Joh
13 matches
Mail list logo