subject:"\[FRIAM\] A longer response to Dave's question"

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

KillJoy!

 

Why allow a nasty fact to destroy …. Etc.  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
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, fi

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

2020-02-23 Thread 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

2020-02-23 Thread 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".

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

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

2020-02-23 Thread 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

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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
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-o

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

2020-02-23 Thread 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

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

2020-02-23 Thread 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

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

2020-02-22 Thread thompnickson2

I agree slavishly with everything that Eric wrote, except: 

 

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.  

 

I thought you were going to assert the opposite of this.  For instance, people 
think that hypnosis is a very special state which can only be arrived at 
through a hypnosis ritual or some sort or other.  They think they can do things 
under hypnosis that they cannot do otherwise.  But isn’t there an extensive 
literature on hypnosis simulation in which judges try to distinguish between 
subjects that been hypnotized and subjects that have been asked politely to do 
whatever it is the “hypnotized” subjects have been asked to do.  The judges 
can’t reliably do so.   I supposed one could assert that polite- asking induces 
an altered state, but I don’t know where that gets you pragmatically.  

 

Can you explain?  And why didn’t you flog me with your Jamesian noodle, like I 
expected you to? 

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 2:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

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 mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Agreed

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

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 12:25 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

Frank writes:

 



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 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

2020-02-22 Thread Eric Charles

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 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

2020-02-22 Thread Frank Wimberly

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

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

Frank writes:



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

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

< Did we actually meet meat?  I don’t remember when.  Rumor has it that you are 
in the BayArea now.   >

Back in the SF Complex days, I looked a little like Jesus.  Eric once likened 
me to Shaggy from Scooby Doo.   I do miss annoying LANL managers with this kind 
of presentation.   As if their expectations were lost on me.  My Catholic 
sister-in-law says my new look indicates I “grew up”.   There was a discussion 
the other day about how Catholics’ aspirations are more important to them than 
what they actually know or achieve.   Keeping up appearances – such social 
creatures.   Quaint.

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

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

2020-02-22 Thread Roger Critchlow

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  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 only in a
> tropical sense;

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

2020-02-22 Thread Frank Wimberly

It would constitute proof that Marcus exists if he were to admit that I was
correct in our years-ago argument when I said that gender defines an
equivalence relation on the set of people.

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

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 11:32 AM Steven A Smith  wrote:

> Nick -
>
> 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.
>
> I believe that  *experiences en extremis *might well offer some
> *perspective* or qualitatively different "truth" than more mundane
> experiences.   I also believe that once one is habituated/tuned/primed for
> this kind of perspective, that it can be somewhat persistent.
>
> When I went from watching clouds form/transform/dissipate entirely naively
> to having a sense of the higher dimensionality of pressure, temperature,
> and humidity wherein the dynamics evolve  it felt rather transcendent.
> Now I can watch clouds evolve (especially via timelapse) in a very
> different way.
>
> A. Square had a similar experience after A. Square gave him a guided tour
> of the third dimension...
>
> ?
>
>  - 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
>

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

2020-02-22 Thread Steven A Smith

Nick -

> 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. 
>
I believe that  /experiences en extremis /might well offer some
*perspective* or qualitatively different "truth" than more mundane
experiences.   I also believe that once one is habituated/tuned/primed
for this kind of perspective, that it can be somewhat persistent.  

When I went from watching clouds form/transform/dissipate entirely
naively to having a sense of the higher dimensionality of pressure,
temperature, and humidity wherein the dynamics evolve  it felt rather
transcendent.   Now I can watch clouds evolve (especially via timelapse)
in a very different way. 

A. Square had a similar experience after A. Square gave him a guided
tour of the third dimension...

?

 - 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

2020-02-22 Thread thompnickson2

Believe me, Marcus, in any pragmatic world, you dog feels.  That your aunt 
would ever doubt such a thing is part of Descartes’ poisonous legacy.  

 

Did we actually meet meat?  I don’t remember when.  Rumor has it that you are 
in the BayArea now.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 10:53 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

< 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.  >

 

My aunt witnessed my dog snuggling with me and then, with some disgust, likened 
it to a daughter.   Every time I leave my dog cries and desperately wants to go 
with me.   Yet my aunt accuses that the dog doesn’t really care about me, and 
that my priorities are strange for planning around my dog’s needs.  I wonder 
why my aunt would suggest that a human daughter would have more authentic 
feelings?   Are there authentic feelings at all?   If Marcus is a bot that 
responds to text having a certain structure in a formulaic way (and I surely 
do), what difference does it make if I exist in human form?   Why can’t 
Marcus-bot be said to exist?(Actually I have met Nick in meat space, and he 
simply denies my existence!) 

 

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

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

< 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.  >

My aunt witnessed my dog snuggling with me and then, with some disgust, likened 
it to a daughter.   Every time I leave my dog cries and desperately wants to go 
with me.   Yet my aunt accuses that the dog doesn’t really care about me, and 
that my priorities are strange for planning around my dog’s needs.  I wonder 
why my aunt would suggest that a human daughter would have more authentic 
feelings?   Are there authentic feelings at all?   If Marcus is a bot that 
responds to text having a certain structure in a formulaic way (and I surely 
do), what difference does it make if I exist in human form?   Why can’t 
Marcus-bot be said to exist?(Actually I have met Nick in meat space, and he 
simply denies my existence!)

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

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

2020-02-22 Thread thompnickson2

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

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
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 
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 
conce

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

2020-02-22 Thread Eric Charles

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  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

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

Our goon’s people will die-off soon enough.
Modi’s seem to be younger?

On Feb 21, 2020, at 9:09 PM, Sarbajit Roy  wrote:


India.

Being afraid is a good thing. It heightens our senses, causes us to be better 
prepared to react against threats (dictators) when they happen.
As of now our 2 mutual (respective ?) dictators are confabulating.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:23 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I suppose, as a behaviorist, I have to conclude that “being afraid” is a doing. 
 What else would you do?

Are you afraid of dictators where you are?  Where ARE you, by the way.  I am 
guessing UK or India, but I don’t want to presume.

Nick



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


From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

Hi Nick

To reply to your question,

a) I would not be living in the US if I could help it  In fact I have never 
come anywhere close to the USA for a variety of reasons.
b) If I were living in the US I would be very scared of dictators

Sarbajit



On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:58 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Enclosing every elephant in the room is a larger, more hideous, elephant in the 
room.  It’s elephants-in-the-room all the way down.

Sarbajit, human to human.  If you lived in the United States, what would you 
now be doing?

N



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


From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

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 
mailto: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 s

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

So, how do you understand the authoritarian pandemic.  

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

India.

 

Being afraid is a good thing. It heightens our senses, causes us to be better 
prepared to react against threats (dictators) when they happen.

As of now our 2 mutual (respective ?) dictators are confabulating. 

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:23 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I suppose, as a behaviorist, I have to conclude that “being afraid” is a doing. 
 What else would you do?  

 

Are you afraid of dictators where you are?  Where ARE you, by the way.  I am 
guessing UK or India, but I don’t want to presume. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

Hi Nick

 

To reply to your question,

 

a) I would not be living in the US if I could help it  In fact I have never 
come anywhere close to the USA for a variety of reasons.

b) If I were living in the US I would be very scared of dictators

 

Sarbajit

 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:58 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Enclosing every elephant in the room is a larger, more hideous, elephant in the 
room.  It’s elephants-in-the-room all the way down.  

 

Sarbajit, human to human.  If you lived in the United States, what would you 
now be doing?  

 

N

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

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  
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/taliban-afghanistan-war-haqqani.html>
 view of many non-Americans, 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 mailto: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 o

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

India.

Being afraid is a good thing. It heightens our senses, causes us to be
better prepared to react against threats (dictators) when they happen.
As of now our 2 mutual (respective ?) dictators are confabulating.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:23 AM  wrote:

> I suppose, as a behaviorist, I have to conclude that “being afraid” is a
> doing.  What else would you do?
>
>
>
> Are you afraid of dictators where you are?  Where ARE you, by the way.  I
> am guessing UK or India, but I don’t want to presume.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:* Friday, February 21, 2020 9:39 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
>
>
>
> Hi Nick
>
>
>
> To reply to your question,
>
>
>
> a) I would not be living in the US if I could help it  In fact I have
> never come anywhere close to the USA for a variety of reasons.
>
> b) If I were living in the US I would be very scared of dictators
>
>
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:58 AM  wrote:
>
> Enclosing every elephant in the room is a larger, more hideous, elephant
> in the room.  It’s elephants-in-the-room all the way down.
>
>
>
> Sarbajit, human to human.  If you lived in the United States, what would
> you now be doing?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:* Friday, February 21, 2020 8:20 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
>
>
>
> 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  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
>

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

2020-02-21 Thread Marcus Daniels

Sarbajit wrote:

< As a non-American, I ask - what happened to the USA's  "One nation under God 
?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance >

I don’t have a sense of how many schools still do this, in practice.   Yes, 
it’s wacky!My wife used to get in trouble in grade school for refusing to 
get up from her desk and say the pledge.   Her dad, a Jewish veteran of WWII, 
would bail her out from the principal’s office and they’d get ice cream.

I remember doing it a few times, and thinking, “Seriously?”

https://undergod.procon.org/additional-resources/state-requirements-on-pledge-of-allegiance-in-schools/#2

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

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

That was added to the Pledge during the McCarthy Era in the 50’s, no?  

 

I don’t think God is mentioned in the Constitution, and only comes into the 
Declaration in a theistic sort of way.  

 

I never said the words “under god’ when I said the pledge in school.  I just 
mumbled at that point. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

Marcus,

 

Thanks for your info. 

 

As a non-American, I ask - what happened to the USA's  "One nation under God ?"

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


Sarbajit

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:07 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

A Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association poll in 2017 
[1] found  that 39% of Americans are irreligious, and another study [2] 
estimates 26% are actually atheists.  Yes, the US does have long way to go to 
catch up with Sweden (73%) or the UK (69%) or Israel (58%).The targets of 
U.S. bombing are not in that category.  

 

*  Yugoslavia 1999  (21% irreligious)

*  Yemen 2002, 2009, 2011  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Yemen  
-- death penalty)

*  Iraq 1991-2003, 2003-2015 (US/UK on regular basis)(34% irreligious)

*  Afghanistan 2001-2015 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Afghanistan – death penalty)

*  Pakistan 2007-2015 (6%)

*  Somalia 2007-8, 2011 (2%)

*  Libya 2011, 2015 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists -- death penalty)

*  Syria 2014-2015 (1%) https://areyouforsyria.weebly.com/

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

[2] 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550617707015?journalCode=sppa

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on 
behalf of Sarbajit Roy mailto:sroy...@gmail.com> >
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 7:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

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  
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/taliban-afghanistan-war-haqqani.html>
 view of many non-Americans, 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 mailto: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 stu

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

I suppose, as a behaviorist, I have to conclude that “being afraid” is a doing. 
 What else would you do?  

 

Are you afraid of dictators where you are?  Where ARE you, by the way.  I am 
guessing UK or India, but I don’t want to presume. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

Hi Nick

 

To reply to your question,

 

a) I would not be living in the US if I could help it  In fact I have never 
come anywhere close to the USA for a variety of reasons.

b) If I were living in the US I would be very scared of dictators

 

Sarbajit

 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:58 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Enclosing every elephant in the room is a larger, more hideous, elephant in the 
room.  It’s elephants-in-the-room all the way down.  

 

Sarbajit, human to human.  If you lived in the United States, what would you 
now be doing?  

 

N

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

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  
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/taliban-afghanistan-war-haqqani.html>
 view of many non-Americans, 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 mailto: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

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

Marcus,

Thanks for your info.

As a non-American, I ask - what happened to the USA's  "One nation under
God ?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Sarbajit

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:07 AM Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> A Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association poll in
> 2017 [1] found  that 39% of Americans are irreligious, and another study
> [2] estimates 26% are actually atheists.  Yes, the US does have long way to
> go to catch up with Sweden (73%) or the UK (69%) or Israel (58%).The
> targets of U.S. bombing are not in that category.
>
>
>
>   Yugoslavia 1999  (21% irreligious)
>
>   Yemen 2002, 2009, 2011  (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Yemen  -- death penalty)
>
>   Iraq 1991-2003, 2003-2015 (US/UK on regular basis)(34% irreligious)
>
>   Afghanistan 2001-2015 (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Afghanistan – death penalty)
>
>   Pakistan 2007-2015 (6%)
>
>   Somalia 2007-8, 2011 (2%)
>
>   Libya 2011, 2015 (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists -- death
> penalty)
>
>   Syria 2014-2015 (1%) https://areyouforsyria.weebly.com/
>
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion
>
> [2]
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550617707015?journalCode=sppa
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Sarbajit Roy <
> sroy...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Date: *Friday, February 21, 2020 at 7:20 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
>
>
>
> 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  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 paus

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

Hi Nick

To reply to your question,

a) I would not be living in the US if I could help it  In fact I have never
come anywhere close to the USA for a variety of reasons.
b) If I were living in the US I would be very scared of dictators

Sarbajit



On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:58 AM  wrote:

> Enclosing every elephant in the room is a larger, more hideous, elephant
> in the room.  It’s elephants-in-the-room all the way down.
>
>
>
> Sarbajit, human to human.  If you lived in the United States, what would
> you now be doing?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:* Friday, February 21, 2020 8:20 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question
>
>
>
> 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  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

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

2020-02-21 Thread Marcus Daniels

A Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association poll in 2017 
[1] found  that 39% of Americans are irreligious, and another study [2] 
estimates 26% are actually atheists.  Yes, the US does have long way to go to 
catch up with Sweden (73%) or the UK (69%) or Israel (58%).The targets of 
U.S. bombing are not in that category.


•  Yugoslavia 1999  (21% irreligious)
•  Yemen 2002, 2009, 2011  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Yemen  
-- death penalty)
•  Iraq 1991-2003, 2003-2015 (US/UK on regular basis)(34% irreligious)
•  Afghanistan 2001-2015 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Afghanistan – death penalty)
•  Pakistan 2007-2015 (6%)
•  Somalia 2007-8, 2011 (2%)
•  Libya 2011, 2015 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists -- death penalty)
•  Syria 2014-2015 (1%) https://areyouforsyria.weebly.com/



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

[2] 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1948550617707015?journalCode=sppa
From: Friam  on behalf of Sarbajit Roy 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 7:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

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 
mailto: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 s

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

Enclosing every elephant in the room is a larger, more hideous, elephant in the 
room.  It’s elephants-in-the-room all the way down.  

 

Sarbajit, human to human.  If you lived in the United States, what would you 
now be doing?  

 

N

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question

 

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  
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/taliban-afghanistan-war-haqqani.html>
 view of many non-Americans, 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 mailto: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 ins

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

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*
,
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  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.
>
>

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