Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[Prof David West]

Eric, Nick, et.al.,

"Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."

My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to determine if 
there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner.

The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations, conjectures, 
metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or 
indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of consciousness. Examples of 
indirect would be reports from enlightened mystics or dream experiences (ala 
Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics.

Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the same value as 
the latest Marvel universe movie.

I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even "truth" be 
discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real assistance. Nor does any other 
school of epistemology I have encountered.

Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at minimum, 
enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his list. 
Would it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and focus on insights 
with the potential to "hold up pretty well."

Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered states are less 
reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the exact opposite. Especially with 
regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which perceive but never consciously 
"register" because our brain has filtered them out as being irrelevant. 
Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a microscope or a telescope and 
it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how to make effective use of it.

The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar hills, but 
don't have a means of mining and refining.

davew


On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being philosophers and 
> psychologists for a moment, there are far more interesting things to talk 
> about regarding "altered states" here are the some of the issues: 
> 
>  1. When someone claims to be responding to something, we should believe they 
> are responding to *something*. 
>  2. People generally suck at stating what they are responding to, even in 
> highly mundane situations. 
>  3. It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead fairly reliably 
> to other certain future experiences, because in such situations one has a 
> chance discover what it is people are *actually *responding to. 
>  4. As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is affected by all 
> sorts of things in non-obvious ways.
>  5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one experiences 
> under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a priori* reason to 
> give them special credence. 
>  6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about something is 
> not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing is to hold up in 
> the long run, unless many, many, many other assumptions are met.
>  7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of consciousness 
> are less reliable in general than "regular" states.
>  8. There are many examples that suggest certain 
> insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first experienced 
> when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been experienced without 
> that altered state. 
> Is that the type of stuff we were are poking at?
> 
> 
> ---
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
> American University - Adjunct Instructor
> 
 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:30 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>> Agreed
>> 
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly, PhD
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 12:25 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>>> Frank writes:

>>> __ __


>>> >> was correct in our years-ago argument when I said that gender defines an 
>>> equivalence relation on the set of people.>
>>> 

>>> Definitions. Notation. Argh, who cares. Where’s that neuralyzer, let me get 
>>> rid of them.

>>> (That should at least be evidence of continuity!)

>>> __ __

>>> Marcus

>>> 
>>>  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 App

Re: [FRIAM] Graal VM

[glen]

On February 22, 2020 4:31:21 PM PST, Marcus Daniels  
wrote:
>Hah, Glen "doesn't really believe in desensitization", but he sometimes
>opts for terms that are highly loaded terms in "normals" speak! 

I suppose the fault is mine for not *emphasizing* the inspiration for my use of 
the term. Here it is again if anyone might care.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps,
> trigger - The simple, specific sight/sound/smell/thought/feeling/etc. which 
> you hook a behaviour onto.

-- 
glen


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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[Frank Wimberly]

Here's a dream Dave I was in the University medical area of Pittsburgh
where there are about a dozen hospitals and University buildings including
dormitories as well as academic buildings I was in a hurry to get somewhere
my friend Jeff from Pittsburgh with me I had to my credit card wouldn't
work and I had to buy a new one that is a physical card and I was in line
at a cashier and some guy was in a hurry and wanted to let me wanted me to
let him in line in front of me but I was also in a hurry so I wouldn't let
him in then Jeff and I we're trying to decide how to get back to our car so
that we could get to the place we needed to go and on the way we ended up
in a room with a bunch of Jewish people doing a religious service that I
wasn't familiar with that Jeff is Jewish and so he was familiar with it so
we decided to stay for the duration because it was interesting they were
elderly Jewish people and they were very welcoming of course we're elderly
to at this point we finally left the service and had to figure out a way
back to our car which was an efficient way and at that point I woke up

now I have some ideas about what a Freudian would say about that dream but
I'm not sure what a union would say I apologize for the lack of punctuation
I don't have time to type all that in so I decided to dictate it and if
you're familiar with Android dictation it doesn't put in punctuation

---
Frank C. Wimberly, PhD
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 4:15 AM Prof David West  wrote:

> Eric, Nick, et.al.,
>
> "Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."
>
> My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to determine
> if there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner.
>
> The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations, conjectures,
> metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or
> indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of consciousness. Examples
> of indirect would be reports from enlightened mystics or dream experiences
> (ala Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics.
>
> Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the same
> value as the latest Marvel universe movie.
>
> I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even "truth" be
> discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real assistance. Nor does any other
> school of epistemology I have encountered.
>
> Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at minimum,
> enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his
> list. Would it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and focus on
> insights with the potential to "hold up pretty well."
>
> Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered states are
> less reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the exact opposite.
> Especially with regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which perceive
> but never consciously "register" because our brain has filtered them out as
> being irrelevant. Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a
> microscope or a telescope and it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how
> to make effective use of it.
>
> The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar hills,
> but don't have a means of mining and refining.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
> If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being philosophers
> and psychologists for a moment, there are far more interesting things to
> talk about regarding "altered states" here are the some of the issues:
>
>
>1. When someone claims to be responding to something, we should
>believe they are responding to *something*.
>2. People generally suck at stating what they are responding to, even
>in highly mundane situations.
>3. It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead fairly
>reliably to other certain future experiences, because in such situations
>one has a chance discover what it is people are *actually *responding
>to.
>4. As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is affected by
>all sorts of things in non-obvious ways.
>5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one
>experiences under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a
>priori* reason to give them special credence.
>6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about
>something is not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing is
>to hold up in the long run, unless many, many, many other assumptions are
>met.
>7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of
>consciousness are less reliable in general than "regular" states.
>8. There are many examples that suggest certain
>insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first experienced
>when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been experienced without
>that altered st

Re: [FRIAM] Graal VM

[Marcus Daniels]

Yes.  Whether it is filtered or invented, the same kind of preferences apply.  
(At least that is my hypothesis.). It is really more like the metaprogramming 
approach than a reactive reoptimization.   I have to do similar things just to 
stay focused or avoid getting over-focused.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 23, 2020, at 5:37 AM, glen  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On February 22, 2020 4:31:21 PM PST, Marcus Daniels  
>> wrote:
>> Hah, Glen "doesn't really believe in desensitization", but he sometimes
>> opts for terms that are highly loaded terms in "normals" speak! 
> 
> I suppose the fault is mine for not *emphasizing* the inspiration for my use 
> of the term. Here it is again if anyone might care.
> 
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps,
>> trigger - The simple, specific sight/sound/smell/thought/feeling/etc. which 
>> you hook a behaviour onto.
> 
> -- 
> glen
> 
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[thompnickson2]

Dave, 

 

You have indulged me as much as any other human on earth, and so it distresses 
me to hear you say that I would dismiss experiences in extremis out of hand.  
Let it be the case that Archimedes solved the king’s crown problem while 
lolling in a hot bath.  Let it be the case that Kerkule solved the benzene 
problem while lolling in a hot bath.  Let it be the case that Watson and Crick 
were lolling in a hot bath (oh those Brits!) when they discovered the double 
helix.  I would say that, there was SOME grounds (however weak) to suspect that 
hot bathing led to scientific insight.  In fact, it is one of the great 
advantages of Peirce’s position that weak inductions and abduction have the 
same logical status as strong ones and worthy always to be entertained.  I 
DON’T believe, as I think many do, that extreme experiences have any special 
claim on wisdom.  Dying declarations are attended to NOT because a dying  
person necessarily has great wisdom, but because we are unlikely to hear from 
that person again in the future.   

 

I suppose you might ague that the reason to go to extreme states is the same as 
the reason to go the Antarctic or the moon.  There MIGHT be something 
interesting there, but until you have been there, you will never know, for 
sure, will you?  The crunch comes when you are deciding on how much resources 
to devote to the exploration of extremes, given that those resources will be 
subtracted from those devoted to the stuff such known realities as climate 
change.  If it’s a choice of exploring Mars or exploring climate change, you 
know where my  vote would go. 

 

But that has no bearing on whether I would encourage or discourage anyone to go 
with their individual curiosity.  One of our number here is interested in 
exploring a variant of ESP.  I say let’s go!  

 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 4:15 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

Eric, Nick, et.al.,

 

"Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."

 

My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to determine if 
there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner.

 

The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations, conjectures, 
metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or 
indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of consciousness. Examples of 
indirect would be reports from enlightened mystics or dream experiences (ala 
Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics.

 

Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the same value as 
the latest Marvel universe movie.

 

I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even "truth" be 
discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real assistance. Nor does any other 
school of epistemology I have encountered.

 

Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at minimum, 
enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his list. 
Would it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and focus on insights 
with the potential to "hold up pretty well."

 

Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered states are less 
reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the exact opposite. Especially with 
regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which perceive but never consciously 
"register" because our brain has filtered them out as being irrelevant. 
Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a microscope or a telescope and 
it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how to make effective use of it.

 

The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar hills, but 
don't have a means of mining and refining.

 

davew

 

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote:

If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being philosophers and 
psychologists for a moment, there are far more interesting things to talk about 
regarding "altered states" here are the some of the issues: 

 

1.  When someone claims to be responding to something, we should believe 
they are responding to something. 
2.  People generally suck at stating what they are responding to, even in 
highly mundane situations. 
3.  It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead fairly reliably 
to other certain future experiences, because in such situations one has a 
chance discover what it is people are actually responding to. 
4.  As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is affected by all 
sorts of things in non-obvious ways.
5.  There is no a priori reason to discount the insights one experiences 
under "altered states of conscious

Re: [FRIAM] Graal VM

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

> I suppose the fault is mine for not *emphasizing* the inspiration for my use 
> of the term. Here it is again if anyone might care.
>
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wJutA2czyFg6HbYoW/what-are-trigger-action-plans-taps,
>> trigger - The simple, specific sight/sound/smell/thought/feeling/etc. which 
>> you hook a behaviour onto.

Thanks for *re*emphasizing this.   It helps me catch up on your specific
use of terminology and/but illuminates the question of your earlier
suggestion of *installing more triggers*.   As already stated, I tend to
interpret the term "trigger" as what they call a trigger-action.   It is
the *action* that I usually experience (a strong emotional response from
others, or my own internal emotional response, not always evidenced to
others clearly).

I recognized (during the course of this discussion) that one of my
"triggers" is the use of pop-psych (my judgement) terms like
"triggers".   When you suggested *installing more* all I could think was
"there are already TOO MANY Trigger-Actions in this world, whyTF would
you want to pollute the social sphere with *yet more*"   But after
reading this article more thoroughly and reflecting on my understanding
of your nature as well as reflecting on my own navigation of the social
landscape I have co-created with those around me, I see the potential
value/point of this TAP business.

As a conflict-avoider, I learned to internalize the Action part of
Trigger-Action quite a bit early on.   While this has some short-term
value, it has some long-term costs.  Had I recognized my own triggers
more overtly and consciously changed my associated actions, my life
might have been more fulfilling.  In particular I wouldn't have wasted
so much of my own energy/volition/agency dancing through the landscape
*avoiding* everyone else's triggers (to varying degrees of success).

I had a friend with a brain injury who struggled even 25 years later
(and lots of therapy including ECGs) to keep on task and not get
flummoxed by various order-of-event sequencing in his plans.   With your
TAP reference, I now realize that he coped with that by building TA
chains to get through complex operations that you and I might handle
intuitively.   I was often frustrated by the granularity of these
chains, and when working with him would effectively disrupt his
"sequencing" by skipping a step or doing them out of order.

- Steve





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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[glen]

You used the word 'credence'. So maybe what I'm gonna say is irrelevant. But 
edge cases *do* present high value, low N, experimental opportunites. One set 
that comes to mind are the twins, where one went to space and the other didn't. 
The same could be said of rare *people* like the autistic, or those with other 
conditions that aren't squarely within 1 sigma of the mean.

To suggest, which you didn't quite do, that the rare is no *more* insightful 
than the common, would be a conflation of different *types* of insight.

In fact, I'd argue that a complete study of the edge cases is MORE important 
than yet another study of the normal cases. Taking massive doses of LSD is no 
different from flying your new plane at 6 G's. What you learn will probably be 
more significant than hanging with the old men at the Denny's or flying your 
737 on typical flight plans (if you don't die, of course).

On February 22, 2020 1:41:55 PM PST, Eric Charles 
 wrote:
>   5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one
>   experiences under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a
>   priori* reason to give them special credence.
>   6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about
>something is not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing
>is
>to hold up in the long run, unless many, many, many other assumptions
>are
>   met.
>   7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of
>   consciousness are less reliable in general than "regular" states.
>   8. There are many examples that suggest certain
>insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first
>experienced
>when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been experienced
>without
>   that altered state.
-- 
glen


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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[thompnickson2]

Glen, I really want to punt this to Eric, but I have one question for you.

What, a priori, constitutes an "edge".  How do we know where "edges" are?
To take an absurd example, imagine that we had a way of flying an airplane
above 1,000 mph and below 600 mph without ever passing through 740 mph.  So,
somebody says, "We've never tried 740; let's try that!"  Would that be an
edge?  So, "edginess" is defined only by paucity of data?  Or is there
something else to it?  

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 4:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

You used the word 'credence'. So maybe what I'm gonna say is irrelevant. But
edge cases *do* present high value, low N, experimental opportunites. One
set that comes to mind are the twins, where one went to space and the other
didn't. The same could be said of rare *people* like the autistic, or those
with other conditions that aren't squarely within 1 sigma of the mean.

To suggest, which you didn't quite do, 
[NST===>] But I did, so your comment is important to me, anyway. 
that the rare is no *more* insightful than the common, would be a conflation
of different *types* of insight.
[NST===>] I am interested in the notion of types of insight and why the
scare-asterisks, or are they emphasis-asterisks. Can you say more?  

In fact, I'd argue that a complete study of the edge cases is MORE important
than yet another study of the normal cases. Taking massive doses of LSD is
no different from flying your new plane at 6 G's. What you learn will
probably be more significant than hanging with the old men at the Denny's or
flying your 737 on typical flight plans (if you don't die, of course).

On February 22, 2020 1:41:55 PM PST, Eric Charles
 wrote:
>   5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one
>   experiences under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a
>   priori* reason to give them special credence.
>   6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about 
>something is not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing 
>is to hold up in the long run, unless many, many, many other 
>assumptions are
>   met.
>   7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of
>   consciousness are less reliable in general than "regular" states.
>   8. There are many examples that suggest certain 
>insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first 
>experienced when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been 
>experienced without
>   that altered state.
--
glen


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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[Sarbajit Roy]

Re : Kekule's alleged dream about gamboling atoms/snakes/monkeys ...
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/science/the-benzene-ring-dream-analysis.html

"*there is strong evidence that chemists other than Kekule deserve credit
for benzene. For example, Dr. Wotiz found an 1854 paper published in the
Paris journal Methode de Chemie by the French chemist Auguste Laurent, in
which an illustration clearly shows the carbon atoms of benzene arranged in
a hexagonal ring. Two other scientists, Archibald Scott Couper of Scotland
and Joseph Loschmidt of Austria also appear to have discovered the ring
before Kekule, Dr. Wotiz said. Doubts About the Dreams*

*By claiming to have made two major discoveries with the help of dreams,
Dr. Wotiz contends, Kekule shrewdly avoided sharing credit with deserving
foreign colleagues.*"

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:05 PM  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  *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 o

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[glen∈ℂ]

Re: your example, no. (600,1000) is a continuum, which means the conditions at 740 will 
be *a lot* like those at 640, 840, etc. [†] "Edge" isn't really jargon. As to 
how one knows where the edges are, there's only one answer, and that is to go over it. 
Until you *fall* off the edge, you won't really know that you've reached it ... same way 
you find the edge of a table, by panning your eyes from the surface to beyond the 
surface. Similarly, if you *don't* find the edge, you'll never really know how *big* the 
domain is ... or what that other domain on the other side of the edge is like.

In the case of the experiences we're talking about, here, nootropics -- basically 
performance enhancing drugs -- are distinguishable from psychedelics. Large doses of 
psychedelics are at or beyond most people's "edge", whereas a nootropic simply 
makes you feel a little more competent. So, micro-dosing would *not* be exploring the 
edge cases. But the kind of experiences Dave's talking about are.


[†] Of course, there are all sorts of different kinds of spaces. Continuum is just one kind. And, 
of course, there's dimensionality, where 1 dimension might have an edge, but another doesn't (e.g. 
walking near a cliff, with an edge in the up-down but no edge in the side-to-side). And, of course, 
there's got to be some "invariant" that provides the *operative* (operational) definition 
of the domain. In your example, speed isn't actually the important factor. It might be something 
like vibration, harmonics, turbulence, or whatever that makes the plane unstable at some particular 
speed. In my example, it's not speed but acceleration that defines the domain. But you don't really 
need all this sophistry to understand what "edge" means.

On 2/23/20 4:37 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

What, a priori, constitutes an "edge".  How do we know where "edges" are?
To take an absurd example, imagine that we had a way of flying an airplane
above 1,000 mph and below 600 mph without ever passing through 740 mph.  So,
somebody says, "We've never tried 740; let's try that!"  Would that be an
edge?  So, "edginess" is defined only by paucity of data?  Or is there
something else to it?



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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[thompnickson2]

KillJoy!

 

Why allow a nasty fact to destroy …. Etc.  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

Re : Kekule's alleged dream about gamboling atoms/snakes/monkeys ...

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/science/the-benzene-ring-dream-analysis.html

 

"there is strong evidence that chemists other than Kekule deserve credit for 
benzene. For example, Dr. Wotiz found an 1854 paper published in the Paris 
journal Methode de Chemie by the French chemist Auguste Laurent, in which an 
illustration clearly shows the carbon atoms of benzene arranged in a hexagonal 
ring. Two other scientists, Archibald Scott Couper of Scotland and Joseph 
Loschmidt of Austria also appear to have discovered the ring before Kekule, Dr. 
Wotiz said. Doubts About the Dreams

By claiming to have made two major discoveries with the help of dreams, Dr. 
Wotiz contends, Kekule shrewdly avoided sharing credit with deserving foreign 
colleagues."

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:05 PM mailto: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 ==>in 
principle<== 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 mailto: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 mailto: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 m

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[thompnickson2]

Glen,

Well, the plane falls apart if one approaches 740 from either direction (and 
the plane has not been suitably designed) right?  It may be a continuum for 
some aircraft frames, but for others, it's quite another story.  Or am I just 
wrong about this?  

If one is touring in Northern New Mexico and decides to drive directly from 
Ghost Ranch to Taos one crosses, about 20 miles out, a glorious, mostly flat, 
high plain that appears to slope ever-so-gently up to the ragged, snow-covered 
crags of the Sangres.  You think:  Oh boy!  This is a piece of cake!  I will be 
there for tea and back in Santa Fe for dinner.  About ten miles closer the 
mountains one suddenly encounters the Rio Grand Gorge, barely a mile wide but 
700 feet deep, which, depending on which road you are on, either passes under 
your wheels in 50 seconds or so, or requires 40 minutes or so of negotiating 
trick switchbacks to get beyond.  This example is only to emphasize the point 
that edginess is entirely observer dependent.  

Would I learn more about geology by driving over the bridge, carefully 
negotiating the switchbacks, or by driving off the cliff at 60 mph?

Clearly the last alternative sucks.  I can see some argument for negotiating 
the switchbacks, but if I was in a hurry to get to Taos, I would take the 
bridge. 

Seeing this metaphor written out, I now see that it's stupid.  But it's 
colorful, right? Makes some of you home-sick.  It stays.  

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen?C
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:44 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

Re: your example, no. (600,1000) is a continuum, which means the conditions at 
740 will be *a lot* like those at 640, 840, etc. [†] "Edge" isn't really 
jargon. As to how one knows where the edges are, there's only one answer, and 
that is to go over it. Until you *fall* off the edge, you won't really know 
that you've reached it ... same way you find the edge of a table, by panning 
your eyes from the surface to beyond the surface. Similarly, if you *don't* 
find the edge, you'll never really know how *big* the domain is ... or what 
that other domain on the other side of the edge is like.

In the case of the experiences we're talking about, here, nootropics -- 
basically performance enhancing drugs -- are distinguishable from psychedelics. 
Large doses of psychedelics are at or beyond most people's "edge", whereas a 
nootropic simply makes you feel a little more competent. So, micro-dosing would 
*not* be exploring the edge cases. But the kind of experiences Dave's talking 
about are.


[†] Of course, there are all sorts of different kinds of spaces. Continuum is 
just one kind. And, of course, there's dimensionality, where 1 dimension might 
have an edge, but another doesn't (e.g. walking near a cliff, with an edge in 
the up-down but no edge in the side-to-side). And, of course, there's got to be 
some "invariant" that provides the *operative* (operational) definition of the 
domain. In your example, speed isn't actually the important factor. It might be 
something like vibration, harmonics, turbulence, or whatever that makes the 
plane unstable at some particular speed. In my example, it's not speed but 
acceleration that defines the domain. But you don't really need all this 
sophistry to understand what "edge" means.

On 2/23/20 4:37 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> What, a priori, constitutes an "edge".  How do we know where "edges" are?
> To take an absurd example, imagine that we had a way of flying an 
> airplane above 1,000 mph and below 600 mph without ever passing 
> through 740 mph.  So, somebody says, "We've never tried 740; let's try 
> that!"  Would that be an edge?  So, "edginess" is defined only by 
> paucity of data?  Or is there something else to it?


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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[glen]

I have no idea what you're saying. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

On February 23, 2020 8:19:40 PM PST, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>  This example is only to emphasize the point
>that edginess is entirely observer dependent.  
>
-- 
glen


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

Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

< What, a priori, constitutes an "edge".  How do we know where "edges" are? >

Edge in this context could mean entities that have low betweenness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betweenness_centrality


From: Friam  on behalf of thompnicks...@gmail.com 

Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 5:37 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

Glen, I really want to punt this to Eric, but I have one question for you.

What, a priori, constitutes an "edge".  How do we know where "edges" are?
To take an absurd example, imagine that we had a way of flying an airplane
above 1,000 mph and below 600 mph without ever passing through 740 mph.  So,
somebody says, "We've never tried 740; let's try that!"  Would that be an
edge?  So, "edginess" is defined only by paucity of data?  Or is there
something else to it?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 4:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

You used the word 'credence'. So maybe what I'm gonna say is irrelevant. But
edge cases *do* present high value, low N, experimental opportunites. One
set that comes to mind are the twins, where one went to space and the other
didn't. The same could be said of rare *people* like the autistic, or those
with other conditions that aren't squarely within 1 sigma of the mean.

To suggest, which you didn't quite do,
[NST===>] But I did, so your comment is important to me, anyway.
that the rare is no *more* insightful than the common, would be a conflation
of different *types* of insight.
[NST===>] I am interested in the notion of types of insight and why the
scare-asterisks, or are they emphasis-asterisks. Can you say more?

In fact, I'd argue that a complete study of the edge cases is MORE important
than yet another study of the normal cases. Taking massive doses of LSD is
no different from flying your new plane at 6 G's. What you learn will
probably be more significant than hanging with the old men at the Denny's or
flying your 737 on typical flight plans (if you don't die, of course).

On February 22, 2020 1:41:55 PM PST, Eric Charles
 wrote:
>   5. There is no *a priori *reason to discount the insights one
>   experiences under "altered states of consciousness", but also no *a
>   priori* reason to give them special credence.
>   6. The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about
>something is not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing
>is to hold up in the long run, unless many, many, many other
>assumptions are
>   met.
>   7. There is likely good reason to think that altered states of
>   consciousness are less reliable in general than "regular" states.
>   8. There are many examples that suggest certain
>insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first
>experienced when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been
>experienced without
>   that altered state.
--
glen


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