Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 11/03/2015 05:08 AM, John Kennison wrote:
> I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, but how does it relate to 
> severely autistic people with almost zero social skills who, nonetheless, can 
> prove deep mathematical theorems? 

Great point!  I think Lee treated this nicely, here:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2015-March/045634.html

> With usage histories in place, my proof of claim (E), that “The
> prevailing informal logic in the domain of mathematical practice
> is, in fact, eisegesis of the exoteric”, is simple.

I don't entirely agree with Lee's reasoning or conclusion.  But it provides a 
sophisticated model of the private vs. social elements of math practice.  And 
that model may well be analogous (at least) with scientific practice.

--
⊥ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[John Kennison]

I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, but how does it relate to 
severely autistic people with almost zero social skills who, nonetheless, can 
prove deep mathematical theorems? 

From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Nick Thompson 
[nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:33 AM
To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Hi Carl,

I like Steve's idea (Was it Steve's? I am having a hard time following!)
that as scientists we live in a network of other scientists, and our own
behavior is not so important as the constraints enforced on us as part of
the network.  So, my wonder at the fact that we make decisions in our
personal lives so unscientifically is really based on what Ryle would call a
category error ... an expectation that the behavior of an entity at once
level of organization (the scientist) should mirror the behavior of the
entity at the next level up (the science).  So, we shouldn't expect our
decision making processes with respect to hot dogs to be any more scientific
than the ordinary Joe's.

But then I get back to where I got started on this quest -- our Friday
morning discussions on global warming, or some of these other tricky issues
on which there is a scientific consensus, and yet there is a public debate.
Why do we not ALL -- as scientists -- agree that there exists a scientific
consensus on this matter and that that is the end of the discussion, until
further notice.  Not only do we not think scientifically with respect to
these issues, but we fail to accept the authority of the network of which we
are part.

Isn't that odd?

By the way, I think the heart disease thing is caused by sugar, not fat.
See, now I am doing it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:07 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved,
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed.   I am unsure as to
whether to be disappointed or elated.  Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.

This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I less so
to myself in the similar way that I  might be to others?

Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem.  I know
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them.   I like beets, and
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to
hear nice things about their benefits.   I believe most diagnoses of
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix
it most of the time.   Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by
those who have little regard for themselves or others.   I'm sorry if it
causes them cancer.   I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases  can cause.   However, I
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat in my
diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps not as
strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I read up on
these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a
single thing with unique causes per individual.   I live next to pigs
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm
fresh" in the grocery store means.   I am trying to make an organic
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of
defining the term.   Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model brought
on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.

There.   I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes
cancer" and I laugh.  Thanks for playing.   Two Martian potatoes out of
a possible five.

C


On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dear Friam members,
>
> As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been
> trying to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and
> how does it relate to a purported scientific consensus.  I assume that
> you are all, more or less, rational people.  How exactly, then, did
> each of you come to the conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not
> cause heart disease, smoking does or does not cause cancer, human
> activity does or does not cause global warming, that tick bites do (or
> do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme disease, that, say, beet
> powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric does or does 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 11/02/2015 06:34 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 
> Excellent point!  And I suppose by analogy or extension, (which is the 
> extension of which), Nick's original concept of "being rational" suffers the 
> same issue.

Yes, mosdef.

> I think it might be obvious that my point was that in anything but the most 
> dedicated circumstances can one even credibly *pretend* to have done enough 
> research to make a "scientific decision".  And if I understand your point, 
> even then, it is at best, "in the limit" good enough to make a 
> tentative/interim conclusion.   So to contradict your analysis of my 
> description, I would say that we are not in disagreement, that in fact what 
> you describe as "the reasoning by which I reached my conclusion" was a 
> mis-statement.  Your own description is more appropriate to what I meant, 
> rather than what I said.

Nice!  Now we're meta-arguing, arguing about whether we're arguing.  8^)  
You're right.  But we can extend it further.  It is the false belief in the 
existence of "scientific decisions" that is the delusion.  It _enables_ 
ordinarily rational people to believe/justify some wacky things.  So even if 
it's obvious to _some_, it's unwise to rely on it being obvious to anyone.  
You, I, one simply cannot make "scientific decisions" because such things don't 
exist.  I don't see a benefit to hemming and hawing about it, confusing victims 
of celebrities who want to hawk colon cleanses, skin lotions, and delusional 
spiritual principles http://www.celebrityloa.com/


> And even within oneself.   I believe that we often use "surrogate 
> reasoning"... we tell stories that are either easier to articulate or perhaps 
> just easier to agree with.   Perhaps in the vein of the Red Queen, I find 
> myself in this mode of analysis/description believing a continuous stream of 
> (logically?) impossible things... or more to the point, articulating them in 
> place of a deeper, more intuitive, possibly unstate-able understanding?

Well, again, if we keep in mind that thoughts are really just physiological 
states, then it's easier to imagine the triggers for some stories over others.  
Rich's posts about nonduality are a great example.  I haven't forrmulated a 
response yet because his post is "out of context" for me.  I have no 
physiological states from/to which I can make a continuous transition to 
talking about nonduality.  If you find yourself engaging in surrogate 
reasoning, then the best thing to do is examine what you ate that morning, 
where you are, what air you're breathing, whether you've got some alpha wolf 
huffing in your face, or whatever.


> I'd say "innovate" and I don't necessarily mean "technologically". I think my 
> "confidence" pivots around the diverstiy of our natures... our ability to 
> adapt physically (as warm blooded mammals) as well as socially (as complex 
> social creatures with an existing significant diversity in modes of living in 
> groups) and personally (put 50 bozos on 50 deserted islands and *some* of 
> them will survive in spite of being bozos).

Yeah, I probably agree with you about 1/2 the time.  But when I see the 
inextricability of our youngsters from their social fabric, I fall out of 
agreement.  Hell, most of them can't even drink regular tap water.  It has to 
be bottled by Nestle or they won't drink it.  (yes, I have the data! ... ok, 
not really ... get off my lawn!)


> You may misunderstand that *I* imagine that *I* (or my progeny) will survive 
> (well)...   I imagine that we (humans, first-worlders, caucasians, etc) will 
> NOT be as successful at surviving our own mistakes as, say, cockroaches, but 
> we may well do better than say, whales or gorillas.   I'm not sure that 
> first-world technologists will generally do better than say natives currently 
> living in semi-harsh, subsistence circumstances.

Yep.  You use "we" in the same way I use it, I think.


-- 
--
⊥ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Carl, 

I like Steve's idea (Was it Steve's? I am having a hard time following!)
that as scientists we live in a network of other scientists, and our own
behavior is not so important as the constraints enforced on us as part of
the network.  So, my wonder at the fact that we make decisions in our
personal lives so unscientifically is really based on what Ryle would call a
category error ... an expectation that the behavior of an entity at once
level of organization (the scientist) should mirror the behavior of the
entity at the next level up (the science).  So, we shouldn't expect our
decision making processes with respect to hot dogs to be any more scientific
than the ordinary Joe's.  

But then I get back to where I got started on this quest -- our Friday
morning discussions on global warming, or some of these other tricky issues
on which there is a scientific consensus, and yet there is a public debate.
Why do we not ALL -- as scientists -- agree that there exists a scientific
consensus on this matter and that that is the end of the discussion, until
further notice.  Not only do we not think scientifically with respect to
these issues, but we fail to accept the authority of the network of which we
are part.  

Isn't that odd?  

By the way, I think the heart disease thing is caused by sugar, not fat.
See, now I am doing it.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 10:07 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved, 
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed.   I am unsure as to 
whether to be disappointed or elated.  Certainly a caution to those of
cannibalistic bent.

This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I less so
to myself in the similar way that I  might be to others?

Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem.  I know 
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them.   I like beets, and 
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to 
hear nice things about their benefits.   I believe most diagnoses of 
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix 
it most of the time.   Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by 
those who have little regard for themselves or others.   I'm sorry if it 
causes them cancer.   I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular 
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first 
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases  can cause.   However, I 
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat in my
diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps not as
strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I read up on
these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a 
single thing with unique causes per individual.   I live next to pigs 
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm 
fresh" in the grocery store means.   I am trying to make an organic 
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of 
defining the term.   Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and 
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model brought
on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.

There.   I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes 
cancer" and I laugh.  Thanks for playing.   Two Martian potatoes out of 
a possible five.

C


On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dear Friam members,
>
> As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been 
> trying to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and 
> how does it relate to a purported scientific consensus.  I assume that 
> you are all, more or less, rational people.  How exactly, then, did 
> each of you come to the conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not 
> cause heart disease, smoking does or does not cause cancer, human 
> activity does or does not cause global warming, that tick bites do (or 
> do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme disease, that, say, beet 
> powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric does or does not 
> alleviate arthritis.  Or, perhaps more important, how did you decide to
act on these beliefs?  Or not?
>
> A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now 
> assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is 
> increasing my risk of cancer.  She includes in her email several links 
> that are designed to convince me.  I include those below.
>
> The question I 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Carl]

Speaking as a mammal, who has gone to some efforts to be well preserved, 
it now appears that I am carcinogenic if consumed.   I am unsure as to 
whether to be disappointed or elated.  Certainly a caution to those of 
cannibalistic bent.


This does raise the issue that if I am indeed carcinogenic, why am I 
less so to myself in the similar way that I  might be to others?


Ticks carry other nasty things, even without the Lyme problem.  I know 
people who have Lyme, it is unpleasant for them.   I like beets, and 
curry, irrespective of their supposed benefits, so am predisposed to 
hear nice things about their benefits.   I believe most diagnoses of 
arthritis are bogus because I don't wish to believe I am of an age 
susceptible to such and because I can with some attention to detail fix 
it most of the time.   Smoking is an obnoxious habit, perpetrated by 
those who have little regard for themselves or others.   I'm sorry if it 
causes them cancer.   I believed animal fats caused cardiovascular 
issues since some hyperlipidemia runs in my family and have seen first 
hand the devastation cardiovascular diseases  can cause.   However, I 
have become convinced that (a) I feel noticeably better with some meat 
in my diet and (b) my social group thinks that cholesterol is perhaps 
not as strong a factor in heart disease as other things and (c) as I 
read up on these things I see that the disease (like cancer) is not a 
single thing with unique causes per individual.   I live next to pigs 
and goats and chickens and am likely under no illusions about what "farm 
fresh" in the grocery store means.   I am trying to make an organic 
garden at my hut and am increasingly impressed with the difficulty of 
defining the term.   Generally, I try to follow a fish and rice and 
veggies Japanese diet; it feels "cleaner", which is an mental model 
brought on by my very long standing Japanophilia as much as anything else.


There.   I see statements to the effect of "statistically, meat causes 
cancer" and I laugh.  Thanks for playing.   Two Martian potatoes out of 
a possible five.


C


On 10/27/15 11:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dear Friam members,

As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus.  I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people.  How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis.  Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs?  Or not?

A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer.  She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me.  I include those below.

The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter.  I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will.  I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren.  In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"

Discuss.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: EMAIL
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Re: Meat

Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:

http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015_medium=email_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945_cid=34d0d95b1b
c_eid=3edf56d922

Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies.  That's a lot of
studies.  Is it a meta study?

R


On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


R

I always wait for the metastudy.

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: EMAIL
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Meat

Nick,

Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news?  Here's an article
that puts it in perspective:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/me
at-and

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.  It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior 
duality.  But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism.  You tend 
to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme 
postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds that 
social context is at least somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism 
<-> constructivism?  Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, 
deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian.  I ate meat once 
a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.  I admit I ate quite a 
bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week.  During chemo, I craved meat so 
much, it seemed crazy to avoid it and after eating it, I felt like a god 
(comparatively, anyway).  T rebuild after treatment, I started eating ~4-6 eggs 
per week.  Now that I've mostly recovered from the treatment, though, I've been 
lazy about returning to my low-animal diet.  Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical 
stimulus I need.  But it's not the climate impact that drives me so much as the 
water footprint.  If my math is right, this site: 
http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 
3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs.  The consistency of 
the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the 
movie and the website.


On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask.  I 
was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face 
conversation on tricky, intricate, issues.  WHY?  Face to face education is 
under a tremendous attack these days.  Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an 
objective test.  Save on dormitories.  Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ 
thing.  Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if 
it's not on OUR watch?  Higher ed could be so much more efficient.  Do we 
really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?


--
⇔ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Glen, 

 

Interesting response.  As I get older, I see the asymptote on which I am 
converging is that by the time I die I will know nothing.  Thus, it's quite 
possible that I am just being inconsistent.  But let's look into it.  See 
below. 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

 

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.

[NST==>I think this is my Deweyish upbringing asserting itself.  I can’t really 
defend it.  It just seems to me that if we don’t have ways to converge (other 
than raw power) we are doomed to live by the sword.  I am not very good at 
swordplay.<==nst] 

  It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality. 

[NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in terms of 
levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst] 

 But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism. 

[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. 
 And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in 
different hands. <==nst] 

 You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including 
the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, 
apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful.  
Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism?  Or is the 
rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with 
hard-line realism?

[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet 
see it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people 
is the best way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several methods, 
all of which make a contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?  <==nst] 

 

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian.  I ate meat once 
a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.

[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I recently 
read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker.  I 
think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their 
individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac 
and the You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in 
the ass.  But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like 
that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am 
completely humiliated.  Not much of philosophical interest in all of that.  
<==nst] 

  I admit I ate quite a bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week.  During 
chemo, I craved meat so much, it seemed crazy to avoid it and after eating 
it, I felt like a god (comparatively, anyway).  T rebuild after treatment, I 
started eating ~4-6 eggs per week.  Now that I've mostly recovered from the 
treatment, though, I've been lazy about returning to my low-animal diet.  
Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical stimulus I need.  But it's not the climate 
impact that drives me so much as the water footprint.  If my math is right, 
this site:  
<http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/> 
http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 
3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs.  The consistency of 
the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the 
movie and the website.

 

 

On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask.  
> I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face 
> conversation on tricky, intricate, issues.  WHY?  Face to face education is 
> under a tremendous attack these days.  Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an 
> objective test.  Save on dormitories.  Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ 
> thing.  Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if 
> it's not on OUR watch?  Higher ed could be so much more efficient.  Do we 
> really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

 

--

⇔ 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> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:

On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:



   It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.


[NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in terms of 
levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst]


So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation (obviously enough to make me an 
expert), shifting judgements of "good" arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening.  
It reminds me of considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative 
space" in an image.  In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality between things and activity, 
objects vs processes, state vs. behavior, nodes vs. edges.  I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass 
vs. energy.  Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments.  Switching to think more about the 
arguers is interesting in that same sense as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.



[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism.  
And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different 
hands. <==nst]


I'm not at all familiar!  So, now I have something else to learn about.


  You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more 
extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds 
that social context is at least somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power: 
realism <-> constructivism?  Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my 
lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?


[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see 
it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best 
way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a 
contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?  <==nst]


Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can have) perfectly 
accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more accurate opinions than individuals.  To me, 
though, this gives weight to things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private 
understanding of what "postmodernism" means).  Here is the reasoning:

One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing point 
(reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the abstraction layers 
between the target and the opinions.  The further removed you are from the 
banal, the crazier the navigation gets.  This is why we see so much symbol 
reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and lose entire (distinct) 
meanings along the way.  I.e. postmodernism is a reduction to absurdity, which 
can be used to argue _for_ (or against) realism.

So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between 2 
face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction layers.  
E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same thing said 
with disgust.  Something said with vocal fry can be very different than 
something said valley girl style. ... #whatever

Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical presence 
in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered abstraction used to 
make the Postmodernism Point(TM).

I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating, for example, the 
physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks, gesticulating arms, etc. and 
getting straight at the argument, focusing less and less on the arguers.  So, realists 
should LOVE the idea of a MOOC and dislike "virtue argumentation".


[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I recently 
read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker.  I think 
there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their 
individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the 
You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass.  But 
just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter 
somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated.  Not 
much of philosophical interest in all of that.  <==nst]


Yes, but there is a boon to such "narcissism".  I'm beginning to think 
differently about that.  All this selfie-taking, facebook-obsessed, soundbite culture, 
may well be the opposite of narcissism.  It may be a visible/measurable stage of the hive 
mind required for an earth with 15 billion people on it.  Perhaps we're evolving from 
herds to biofilms ... from cells to tissue?

--
⇔ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Steve Smith]

   there probably *IS* a real problem.   My current belief in
  anthropocentric climate change arises partly from the
  "entrainment" (I hear enough people I want to believe claiming it
  is true and I too start to act as if it is true) and partly from
  my general cynicism about human behaviour.  While I once thought
  it unlikely that humans could actually tilt the earth's
  climatological axis (metaphor, not literal), I now recognize that
  if there were to be any significant consequence of our outrageous
  (post?)industrial behaviour, it would be to bury ourselves in
  something of biblical proportions (think Great Flood, Plague and
  Pestilence, Tower of Babel, etc.)   So instead of resisting the
  not-so-humble idea that we could trash the planet's climate with
  our "petty" industrial behaviour, I now like believing that we are
  fouling our own watering hole.   To balance this, however, I
  believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our own greenhouse
  gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences,
  albeit after a huge period of adjustment.   It probably won't be
  clean nor easy, but it probably *will* be exciting for our
  children and grandchildren, one way or the other.  
  
  I figure I have another 20-30 years to watch all this unfold and
  will see some very significant events/changes in that time, but
  probably not a total wipeout, at least not of the industrialized
  world... I might see the island nation of Tuvalu be too drowned to
  be habitable, and maybe our coastal cities battered by high seas
  and hurricanes... and our produce and/or grain belts maybe go
  "dust bowl" and our rich fishing waters become too polluted by
  mercury or radioactive isotopes to be healthy to eat from... maybe
  wipe out all the large mammals we want to identify with
  (elephants, whales, gorillas, etc.)   but as a very resilient
  species, we will probably find a way to continue to increase our
  population and energy/pollution footprint.   
  
  
  
  - Steve


  
  
  
  
Hi, Glen, 
 
Interesting response.  As I get older, I
  see the asymptote on which I am converging is that by the time
  I die I will know nothing.  Thus, it's quite possible that I
  am just being inconsistent.  But let's look into it.  See
  below. 
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and
  Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
 
 
-Original Message-
      From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
  glen
  Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:45 AM
  To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
  <friam@redfish.com>
  Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat
 
 
I really like the idea of virtuous
  argumentation.
[NST==>I think this is my
  Deweyish upbringing asserting itself.  I can’t really
  defend it.  It just seems to me that if we don’t have ways
  to converge (other than raw power) we are doomed to live
  by the sword.  I am not very good at swordplay. 
    <==nst] 
  It seems to highlight the state vs.
  behavior duality. 
[NST==>Do I know that duality? 
  I am guessing that I think of them in terms of levels of
  organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst] 
 But, this seems right in line with my
  tendencies against (naive) realism. 
[NST==>Glen, how familiar are
  with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism.  And how
  it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism,
  in different hands. <==nst] 
 You tend to spend quite a bit of time
  trashing relativist positions (including the more extreme
  postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching,
  apparently on the grounds that social context is at least
  somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power:
  realism <-> constructivism?  Or is the rant against
  MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with
  hard-line realism?
[NST==>I
am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but
I don’t yet see it.  Couldn’t I believe that
conversation with other well-informed people is the best
way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several
methods, all of which make a contribution?  Could you
say  a bit more?  <==nst] 
 
RE: Cowspirac

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Rich Murray]

I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured
into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal
experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more
prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching,
crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google
"nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate
communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on
shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that
completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:48 PM, glen  wrote:

> On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.
>>>
>>> [NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in
>> terms of levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst]
>>
>
> So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation
> (obviously enough to make me an expert), shifting judgements of "good"
> arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening.  It reminds me of
> considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative
> space" in an image.  In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality
> between things and activity, objects vs processes, state vs. behavior,
> nodes vs. edges.  I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass vs.
> energy.  Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments.
> Switching to think more about the arguers is interesting in that same sense
> as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.
>
>
> [NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic]
>> realism.  And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy
>> postmodernism, in different hands. <==nst]
>>
>
> I'm not at all familiar!  So, now I have something else to learn about.
>
>   You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions
>>> (including the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2
>>> face teaching, apparently on the grounds that social context is at least
>>> somewhat powerful.  Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <->
>>> constructivism?  Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and,
>>> deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?
>>>
>>> [NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t
>> yet see it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed
>> people is the best way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several
>> methods, all of which make a contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?
>> <==nst]
>>
>
> Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can
> have) perfectly accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more
> accurate opinions than individuals.  To me, though, this gives weight to
> things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private understanding
> of what "postmodernism" means).  Here is the reasoning:
>
> One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing
> point (reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the
> abstraction layers between the target and the opinions.  The further
> removed you are from the banal, the crazier the navigation gets.  This is
> why we see so much symbol reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and
> lose entire (distinct) meanings along the way.  I.e. postmodernism is a
> reduction to absurdity, which can be used to argue _for_ (or against)
> realism.
>
> So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between
> 2 face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction
> layers.  E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same
> thing said with disgust.  Something said with vocal fry can be very
> different than something said valley girl style. ... #whatever
>
> Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical
> presence in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered
> abstraction used to make the Postmodernism Point(TM).
>
> I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating,
> for example, the physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks,
> gesticulating arms, etc. and getting straight at the argument, focusing
> less and less on the arguers.  So, realists should LOVE the idea of a MOOC
> and dislike "virtue argumentation".
>
> [NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I
>> recently read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and
>> sinker.  I think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where
>> people express their individuality by not eating this and that. More of the
>> narcissism of the IMac and the You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I
>> find it’s just a pain in the ass.  But just about the time 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any 
"popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific 
decision".  I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those here who have 
actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of the 
experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.


But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing, perhaps 
even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a 
behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any 
individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only *participate*.  We can't 
_do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not make "scientific 
decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done enough research.  I can do so 
_without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion.  It's because 
"scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, 
cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with 
reasoning but agree with conclusions.


Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible.  Since you used the topic of 
diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was 
essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently 
follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is 
best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also 
important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a 
big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the 
more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of 
animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).


This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function 
arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and 
function?



To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our 
own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, 
albeit after a huge period of adjustment.


I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies tend 
to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way 
out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of 
any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a similar aspect with 
non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to 
be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents.  
People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things 
others don't.  Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems 
(generalized from one or more domains in which they are plastic/resourceful) 
gives them the optimism that they will find solutions, even in the face of 
uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.



--
⇔ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Roger Critchlow]

speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to
be done at this point?

-- rec --


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen  wrote:

>
> At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally
> found it!
>
> On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
>> Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it
>> impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to
>> understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision".
>> I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those
>> here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to
>> really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc.
>> to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.
>>
>
> But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing,
> perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that
> it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction
> preclude any individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only
> *participate*.  We can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.
>
> So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does
> not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't
> done enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by
> which you reached your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is
> a contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive
> things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.
>
> This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree
> with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
>
> Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as
>> possible.  Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an
>> example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32
>> when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an
>> exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general
>> guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define
>> "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
>> important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me
>> infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy
>> *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
>> of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the more complex and
>> well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various
>> cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost
>> none).
>>
>
> This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function
> arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal between form
> and function?
>
>
> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in
>> our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the
>> consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.
>>
>
> I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies
> tend to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can
> invent our way out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of
> the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a
> similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can
> cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare
> cabinets and fridge contents.  People who can paint (or have other visual
> imagination) seem to see things others don't.  Etc.
>
> So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems
> (generalized from one or more domains in which they are
> plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions,
> even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ⇔ 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
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Roger Critchlow]

Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by
paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization
of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a
subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea
rise.

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today,
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
> anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to
> be done at this point?
>
> -- rec --
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen  wrote:
>
>>
>> At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally
>> found it!
>>
>> On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it
>>> impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to
>>> understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision".
>>> I think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those
>>> here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to
>>> really track down all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc.
>>> to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.
>>>
>>
>> But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing,
>> perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that
>> it's mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction
>> preclude any individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only
>> *participate*.  We can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.
>>
>> So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does
>> not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't
>> done enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by
>> which you reached your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is
>> a contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive
>> things, whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.
>>
>> This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree
>> with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
>>
>> Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as
>>> possible.  Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an
>>> example, I will admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32
>>> when I was essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an
>>> exploitative and abusive industry. I currently follow the general
>>> guidelines of "paleo" living... entrusting my genetic heritage to define
>>> "what is best for me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
>>> important to my diet, it is probably also important for it to come to me
>>> infrequently and in somewhat binging quantities... a good eating strategy
>>> *might* be a big juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
>>> of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the more complex and
>>> well researched ideas that are based in the indigenous diets of various
>>> cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost
>>> none).
>>>
>>
>> This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows
>> function arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal
>> between form and function?
>>
>>
>> To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in
>>> our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the
>>> consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.
>>>
>>
>> I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies
>> tend to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can
>> invent our way out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of
>> the ill-effects of any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a
>> similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people who can
>> cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare
>> cabinets and fridge contents.  People who can paint (or have other visual
>> imagination) seem to see things others don't.  Etc.
>>
>> So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems
>> (generalized from one or more domains in which they are
>> plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find solutions,
>> even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ⇔ 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
>>
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Carl]

Well, one eventually gets 3m from the West Antarctica collapse alone, if 
that happens.   However there are other 
possibly-soon-to-be-not-so-frozen bits on the planet (Greenland, the 
Arctic, other parts of Antarctica, etc) which are outside that 
particular study.   So one could imagine 3m to be conservative. Even one 
foot would certainly command a certain quality of attention.   And with 
most of these kinds of predictions, the consequences seem to be 
back-loaded.Warmer oceans of greater surface area will have other 
effects one could be concerned about if so inclined.


Nature bats last, as least far as the South China Sea is concerned.

So, there ya go.   I read science articles to get a greater sense of 
interconnectedness, unexpected interactions between events, rather than 
some clear policy decisions.   This leads me to a more "what kinds of 
principled studies could you do that would lead to more coherent 
models", or "what is the space of coherent models" rather than just 
adding to the mass of data.


Carl

On 11/2/15 6:12 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by 
paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing 
destabilization of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed, 
leads to a subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an 
eventual 3m sea rise.


-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow > wrote:


speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release
today,

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of
anything to be done at this point?

-- rec --


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen > wrote:


At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I
finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially
though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any
"popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue
and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I
think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being
honest.   As those here who have actually *done* science,
know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the
data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin
to "prove anything" to oneself.


But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective
thing, perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are
plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements
for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from
*doing* science.  At best, we can only *participate*.  We
can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one --
you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that
it's because one hasn't done enough research.  I can do so
_without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached
your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is a
contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual,
cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual
collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability
to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of
principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet
and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to
having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was
essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw
as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently
follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living...
entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for
me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
important to my diet, it is probably also important for it
to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging
quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big
juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* respond to the
more complex and well researched ideas that are based in
the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT
Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).


This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form
follows function arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for
layers of removal between form and function?

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Steve Smith]

Glen -


>At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally 
found it!

Well struggled, well found!
>> As those here who have actually *done* science, know, it is far 
from trivial to really track down all the data and reproduce all of 
the >>experiments, etc. to begin to "prove anything" to oneself.


>But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing, 
perhaps even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit 
that it's >mostly a behavior, the requirements for repetition and 
prediction preclude any individual from *doing* science.  At best, we 
can only >*participate*.  We can't _do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.
Excellent point!  And I suppose by analogy or extension, (which is the 
extension of which), Nick's original concept of "being rational" suffers 
the same issue.


So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- 
does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because 
one hasn't done enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with 
the reasoning by which you reached your conclusion. It's because 
"scientific decisions" is a contradiction in terms. Decisions are 
intra-individual, cognitive things, whereas science is an 
inter-individual collective thing.
Also well pointed-out.   I think it might be obvious that my point was 
that in anything but the most dedicated circumstances can one even 
credibly *pretend* to have done enough research to make a "scientific 
decision".  And if I understand your point, even then, it is at best, 
"in the limit" good enough to make a tentative/interim conclusion.   So 
to contradict your analysis of my description, I would say that we are 
not in disagreement, that in fact what you describe as "the reasoning by 
which I reached my conclusion" was a mis-statement.  Your own 
description is more appropriate to what I meant, rather than what I said.


This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to 
disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
And even within oneself.   I believe that we often use "surrogate 
reasoning"... we tell stories that are either easier to articulate or 
perhaps just easier to agree with.   Perhaps in the vein of the Red 
Queen, I find myself in this mode of analysis/description believing a 
continuous stream of (logically?) impossible things... or more to the 
point, articulating them in place of a deeper, more intuitive, possibly 
unstate-able understanding?


 I *do* respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that 
are based in the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT 
Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).


This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows 
function arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal 
between form and function?
Well, when put that way, I do admit multiple levels of indirection  
but still ascribe to the basic concept of Form=>Function...  though 
often through multiple layers: e.g. high-fiber diets keep the colon more 
clear and therefore magically prevent or reduce colon cancer.
To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn 
in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the 
consequences, albeit after a huge period of adjustment.


I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems 
techies tend to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think 
we can invent our way out of various calamaties.
I'd say "innovate" and I don't necessarily mean "technologically". I 
think my "confidence" pivots around the diverstiy of our natures... our 
ability to adapt physically (as warm blooded mammals) as well as 
socially (as complex social creatures with an existing significant 
diversity in modes of living in groups) and personally (put 50 bozos on 
50 deserted islands and *some* of them will survive in spite of being 
bozos).
  They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of any given 
technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a similar aspect with 
non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, 
seem to be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and 
fridge contents.  People who can paint (or have other visual 
imagination) seem to see things others don't.  Etc.


So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve 
problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they are 
plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they will find 
solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a lack of reliable data.
You may misunderstand that *I* imagine that *I* (or my progeny) will 
survive (well)...   I imagine that we (humans, first-worlders, 
caucasians, etc) will NOT be as successful at surviving our own mistakes 
as, say, cockroaches, but we may well do better than say, whales or 
gorillas.   I'm not sure that first-world technologists will generally 
do better than say natives currently living in semi-harsh, 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Marcus Daniels]

Surely someone has collected the digital elevation models (DEM) to find 
potential growth areas near areas that would be impacted by such a water rise?  
 You know, as investment opportunities.  (Or to systematically short-sell 
them.)  New Orleans lost half their population after Katrina..


From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Roger Critchlow 
<r...@elf.org>
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by paraphrasing 
journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing destabilization of the Amundsen 
Basin, as is currently being observed, leads to a subsequent collapse of the 
West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an eventual 3m sea rise.

-- rec --

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow 
<r...@elf.org<mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote:
speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release today, 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
 anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of anything to be 
done at this point?

-- rec --


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen 
<geprope...@gmail.com<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:

At first, I struggled to find something to argue with.  But I finally found it!

On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially though?) I find it 
impossible to do enough research on any "popular" topic to even pretend to 
understand the issue and data well enough to make a "scientific decision".  I 
think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being honest.   As those here who 
have actually *done* science, know, it is far from trivial to really track down 
all the data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin to "prove 
anything" to oneself.

But one can't actually *do* science.  Science is a collective thing, perhaps 
even an entraining thing.  While there are plenty who admit that it's mostly a 
behavior, the requirements for repetition and prediction preclude any 
individual from *doing* science.  At best, we can only *participate*.  We can't 
_do_ it.  We can only _be_ it.

So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one -- you -- does not 
make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that it's because one hasn't done 
enough research.  I can do so _without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which 
you reached your conclusion.  It's because "scientific decisions" is a 
contradiction in terms.  Decisions are intra-individual, cognitive things, 
whereas science is an inter-individual collective thing.

This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability to disagree with 
reasoning but agree with conclusions.

Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of principles as possible.  
Since you used the topic of diet and the eating of meat as an example, I will 
admit to having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was essentially 
"boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw as an exploitative and abusive 
industry. I currently follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living... 
entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for me". With that in 
mind, I suspect that not only is meat important to my diet, it is probably also 
important for it to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging 
quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big juicy steak or three once 
every couple of weeks and a LOT of green and tuberous vegetables.   I *do* 
respond to the more complex and well researched ideas that are based in the 
indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT Of animal protein/fat 
while others eat almost none).

This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form follows function 
arguments, too, right?  Or do you allow for layers of removal between form and 
function?


To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we crash and burn in our 
own greenhouse gas-heating, we will almost surely survive the consequences, 
albeit after a huge period of adjustment.

I find this belief the most interesting.  Apophenically, it seems techies tend 
to think this way.  They're also the most likely to think we can invent our way 
out of various calamaties.  They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects of 
any given technology (or technique).  Etc.  But I see a similar aspect with 
non-techie yet methodical people... people who can cook, for example, seem to 
be able to come up with good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents.  
People who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see things 
others don't.  Etc.

So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve problems 
(generalized from one or more domains in which they are p

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Gil, 

 

No, not really.  I don’t care what you eat.  But I do care how you THINK.   The 
core of this thread is an attempt to find out the relation between reasoning 
and action in a group of people who regard themselves as rational.   Given that 
many of the people in Friam have a scientific background, one would expect that 
“The Science” and “the Scientific Consensus” would play a big role in our day 
to day decision-making.  So, if I turn to a member of the group who, for 
instance, denies the human origin of climate change, and say truthfully, “The 
scientific consensus is that humans are the origin of climate change”,  the 
that statement should change the mind of denier, forthwith.  But it never works 
that way.  In fact, it rarely works that way in any argument in FRIAM   On so 
many matters (diet and health, in particular) we feel, even though we regard 
ourselves as being of rational scientific disposition, the right – nay, even 
the obligation – to make our own decisions with respect to matters that are 
scientific at their core.   It is that paradox I am trying to explore.  How 
should scientists come to their beliefs with respect to scientific matters 
about which they are not fully qualified to come to a scientific decision, so 
to speak?  

 

N

 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 11:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

Nick are you asking why I might choose my eating habbits or habbits In general?

 

Diet wise I improved it some from not all that interesting to way more variety. 
I found I enjoyed cooking and getting away from the computer,  Plus the whole 
ritual of making a meal, a bit of music, chopping vegis, and measuring spices 
has a nice ritual appeal. 

 

after grumbling about it some I enjoy a leisurly stroll so as to get out of my 
head and out of the house and frankly being anoyed at being out of shape I 
decided I want improve it, still very much a work in progress but an 
improvement. 

 

For what it's worth I thought people were Omnivores meaning can and enjoy a bit 
of this and that.

 

 

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net 
<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote:

Hi, Owen, 

 

I agree with your focus on design.  Many years ago somebody wrote a marvelous 
essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be crèched or 
carried.  The argument was based largely on a comparative study of mammalian 
milk.  Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think seals); human milk is 
leaner.  There were many other features of the argument which I now forget, but 
the basic pattern of argument – abductive – was very convincing.  

 

When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features of 
it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The evenness of 
the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction seems to be the 
result of the consumption for a couple of million years of consuming very high 
quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded by central-location 
foraging.  For a long time, we humans have been bringing food to a central 
location and processing it.  .  

 

So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument,  I don’t think it is 
correct in this case.  I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well designed 
for processing [raw] meat and veggies.  We lack the tearing teeth of a typical 
meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built molars of a 
typical plant eater (eg, gorillas).   Our dentition is that of a creature much 
of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have been partially 
repurposed for communicative function.  

 

Great to see you today!

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com 
<mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

 

Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not 
perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to diet. 
It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.

 

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Gillian Densmore]

Nick are you asking why I might choose my eating habbits or habbits In
general?

Diet wise I improved it some from not all that interesting to way more
variety. I found I enjoyed cooking and getting away from the computer,
 Plus the whole ritual of making a meal, a bit of music, chopping vegis,
and measuring spices has a nice ritual appeal.

after grumbling about it some I enjoy a leisurly stroll so as to get out of
my head and out of the house and frankly being anoyed at being out of shape
I decided I want improve it, still very much a work in progress but an
improvement.

For what it's worth I thought people were Omnivores meaning can and enjoy a
bit of this and that.


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Hi, Owen,
>
>
>
> I agree with your focus on design.  Many years ago somebody wrote a
> marvelous essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be
> crèched or carried.  The argument was based largely on a comparative study
> of mammalian milk.  Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think
> seals); human milk is leaner.  There were many other features of the
> argument which I now forget, but the basic pattern of argument – abductive
> – was very convincing.
>
>
>
> When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features
> of it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The
> evenness of the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction
> seems to be the result of the consumption for a couple of million years of
> consuming very high quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded
> by central-location foraging.  For a long time, we humans have been
> bringing food to a central location and processing it.  .
>
>
>
> So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument,  I don’t think it
> is correct in this case.  I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well
> designed for processing [raw] meat and veggies.  We lack the tearing teeth
> of a typical meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built
> molars of a typical plant eater (eg, gorillas).   Our dentition is that of
> a creature much of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have
> been partially repurposed for communicative function.
>
>
>
> Great to see you today!
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat
>
>
>
> We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.
>
>
>
> Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not
> perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to
> diet. It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.
>
>
>
> We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.
>
>
>
> I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and
> veggies.
>
>
>
>-- Owen
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner!
> http://www.thereasoner.org/
>
> Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it
> forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that
> to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to
> get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation.
> Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent
> parts of an account of argumentation.  Again, virtues approaches to
> argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>
> [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do
> people who disagree with one another bother to talk?  What is the good in
> that?  I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of
> concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving
> more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the
> decision.  <==nst]
>
>
> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk
> _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should
> phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jab

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner!  http://www.thereasoner.org/


Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces 
us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a 
teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of 
arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and 
other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of 
argumentation.  Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a 
larger context: our cognitive lives.




On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


[NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who 
disagree with one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s 
because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there 
is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision 
actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]


Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as 
a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most 
of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming.  But 
perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at 
least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails).  It 
is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I read, every noise I 
hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me.  
There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, 
etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is 
difficult to get at any other way.



--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

--
⇔ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Owen Densmore]

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not
perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to
diet. It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.

I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and veggies.

   -- Owen

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen  wrote:

>
> An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner!
> http://www.thereasoner.org/
>
> Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it
>> forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that
>> to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to
>> get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation.
>> Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent
>> parts of an account of argumentation.  Again, virtues approaches to
>> argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.
>>
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do
>>> people who disagree with one another bother to talk?  What is the good in
>>> that?  I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of
>>> concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving
>>> more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the
>>> decision.  <==nst]
>>>
>>
>> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk
>> _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should
>> phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that
>> replaces grooming.  But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some
>> sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.
>>
>> The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr
>> e-mails).  It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I
>> read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from,
>> _might_ reprogram me.  There are other ways to be programmed (working in
>> the garden, driving, hiking, etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to
>> talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.
>>
>>
> --
> glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847
>
>
> --
> ⇔ 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
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Exactly, Glen, 

 

You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask.  I 
was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face 
conversation on tricky, intricate, issues.  WHY?  Face to face education is 
under a tremendous attack these days.  Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an 
objective test.  Save on dormitories.  Save on the whole in loco parentis 
thing.  Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if 
it's not on OUR watch?  Higher ed could be so much more efficient.  Do we 
really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM? 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:43 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

 

An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner!   
<http://www.thereasoner.org/> http://www.thereasoner.org/

 

> Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it 
> forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to 
> be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get 
> out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. 
> Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts 
> of an account of argumentation.  Again, virtues approaches to argumentation 
> embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives.

 

 

 

On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:

> On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

>> 

>> [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do 

>> people who disagree with one another bother to talk?  What is the 

>> good in that?  I assume it’s because we are striving for the 

>> non-zero-sum gains of concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, 

>> I gather, that involving more than one person in a decision actually 

>> improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]

> 

> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk _mostly_ 
> as a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should phrase it as: 
> most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming.  
> But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, 
> at least sporadically and rarely.

> 

> The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails).  
> It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I read, every 
> noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ 
> reprogram me.  There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, 
> driving, hiking, etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based 
> reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.

> 

 

--

glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

 

--

⇔ 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> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Owen, 

 

I agree with your focus on design.  Many years ago somebody wrote a marvelous 
essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be crèched or 
carried.  The argument was based largely on a comparative study of mammalian 
milk.  Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think seals); human milk is 
leaner.  There were many other features of the argument which I now forget, but 
the basic pattern of argument – abductive – was very convincing.  

 

When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features of 
it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The evenness of 
the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction seems to be the 
result of the consumption for a couple of million years of consuming very high 
quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded by central-location 
foraging.  For a long time, we humans have been bringing food to a central 
location and processing it.  .  

 

So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument,  I don’t think it is 
correct in this case.  I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well designed 
for processing [raw] meat and veggies.  We lack the tearing teeth of a typical 
meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built molars of a 
typical plant eater (eg, gorillas).   Our dentition is that of a creature much 
of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have been partially 
repurposed for communicative function.  

 

Great to see you today!

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester.

 

Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not 
perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to diet. 
It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed.

 

We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat.

 

I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and veggies.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com 
<mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote:


An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner!  http://www.thereasoner.org/

Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it forces 
us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that to be a 
teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to get out of 
arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. Epistemological and 
other cognitive considerations have to be prominent parts of an account of 
argumentation.  Again, virtues approaches to argumentation embed arguing in a 
larger context: our cognitive lives.




On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


[NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people 
who disagree with one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I 
assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted 
action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one 
person in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]


Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as 
a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most 
of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming.  But 
perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at 
least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails).  It 
is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I read, every noise I 
hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me.  
There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, 
etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is 
difficult to get at any other way.


-- 
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847  



-- 
⇔ 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

 


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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen,

Another great bit of "idiographic" science.  

Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the 
decision-making patterns you describe here.  

Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here.  Is it REASONABLE.  
Is it REASONING.  Is it EVER reasonable to change your individual behavior on 
the basis of a population average?  

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat


Speaking to the larger issues, I only change my behavior under parallax, when I 
see multiple, seemingly disparate lines of reasoning converging.  For the 
climate, it's my natural dislike of crowds combined with myopic thinking and 
the "leave only footprints" ethic.  For meat, it was a convergence of its cost 
(in resources) to raise, animal abuse/exploitation, the practices/consequences 
of industrial meat, and the prevalence of fast food (including the way I feel 
after eating it and an irrational association of fast food with obesity).  The 
cancer and heart disease studies have no impact on my behavior, at least so far.

Supplements are an interesting case for me.  I experiment with all sorts of 
them, usually for very short periods of time.  I'm not very methodical about 
it.  But I've played around with tryptophan, melatonin, probiotics, milk 
thistle, amino acids, trace minerals, [in]soluble fiber, etc., including, of 
course various broad vitamins.  They all have interesting effects ... well, 
except the milk thistle... I've never observed any effects of that.  But I get 
the same restful sleep with tryptophan as I do after "smoking" a cigar. (I 
haven't smoked a cigar in a looong time, though.)  Melatonin does seem to 
reduce the recovery time from jet lag.  Etc.  Now, what it would take to get me 
to, say, take a daily vitamin for more than a week or two?  I have no idea.  
Nothing, probably.  The vitamins helped during chemo.  But otherwise, they're 
mostly useless to me.



On 10/28/2015 06:15 AM, John Kennison wrote:
> I think my real reasons are that I like meat, and I think that being a 
> vegetarian would be inconvenient. I do respond to cancer studies, so I try to 
> eat salads and broccoli  and fruits and other vegetables. Also, I have 
> largely (but not at all completely) given up red meat. The latest studies 
> will make me less likely to go to a Subway for a processed Turkey sandwich. 
> But I have already entertained the thought that the studies are probably 
> flawed because people who lots of processed meats will include a 
> disproportionately high number who do not eat very well--I haven’t, of 
> course, checked to see whether the studies control for this possibility.

On 10/27/2015 10:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Dear Friam members,
>
> I am more
> interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or 
> not to change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to 
> change the habits of your children or grandchildren.  In what sense 
> will that process be "reasonable?"

--
⇔ 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



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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Rich Murray]

I choose to evolve forever without limits, asking for and accepting help
from within and without -- information, evidence, role models, guidance,
feedback, support, direction, intuition, inspiration, revelation,
transformation, miracles, union -- allowing healing forgiveness and release
of all confusions in my own mind -- serving the highest benefit of each and
all...

We are each uniquely evolving facets of all of entire single evolving
creative spontaneous open fractal hyperinfinity...

I accept all of your spontaneous power -- I let you all the way in...

John A. McDougall MD  drmcdougall.com  fresh organic low-fat, low-protein,
high complex starches and colored vegetables, low-sugar -- I have no
caffeine or cocoa or alcohol -- no medicines at all, 500 mg V-C daily...

also, ForksOverKnives.com


Woodrow C. Monte, PhD  WhileScienceSleeps.com  avoid all methanol, which in
humans only is made by ADH1 enzyme into uncontrolled formaldehyde inside
cells of 20 tissues -- wood peat and cigarette smoke, aspartame, dark wines
and liquors, fresh tomatoes, unfresh fruits juices vegetables, cut up,
heated, preserved wet at room temperature in sealed cans jars plastics...


142 mg methanol weekly is provided by 6.5 cans aspartame diet drink, about
1 can daily, the amount used by 161 moms, whose kids became autistic, over
twice the methanol taken by 550 moms who had no autistic kids.

dietary methanol and autism, Ralph G. Walton, Woodrow  C. Monte, in press,
Medical Hypotheses (now peer reviewed), free full rich text, 38 references:
Rich Murray 2015.07.06
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/dietary-methanol-and-autism-ralph-g.html


neurobehavioral effects of aspartame, GN Lindseth et al 2014, funded by
Army, free full plain text -- 25% of 28 healthy young university students
had obvious harm from a dose same as 9 cans daily for just 8 days: Rich
Murray 2015.07.05
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/neurobehavioral-effects-of-aspartame-gn.html


Table 5.2 is the key chart -- ADH1 enzyme at high levels in 20 tissues in
body and fetus makes methanol into formaldehyde right inside cells,
initiating over 20 human diseases, with full text references, WC Monte
paradigm: Rich Murray 2013.03.21
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/03/table-52-is-key-chart-adh1-enzyme-at.html



"As a matter of course, every soul citizen of Earth has a priority to
quickly find and positively share evidence for healthy and safe food,
drink, environment, and society."

within the fellowship of service,

Rich Murray,
MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964 history and physics,
1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932
rmfor...@gmail.com
505-819-7388 cell
619-623-3468 home
http://rmforall.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/rmforall
https://www.facebook.com/rmforallmethanol
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-murray/30/835/652
https://about.me/richmurray
rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat


On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, glen  wrote:

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>> [NST==>Well, remember Glen.  I am a rank Deweyan.  I think that people can
>> and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly.  One thing
>> that
>> stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
>> climate change.”  I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
>> opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst]
>>
>
> Yes, but while we have some control over how we are integrated, as an
> individual, we have little/no control over how the whole aggregates ...
> more importantly, we have little/no knowledge of the implications of the
> aggregate.  Blind action is no better than nefarious nor worse than
> virtuous action.
>
> [NST==>Ok, you are
>> forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who disagree
>> with
>> one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s
>> because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
>> Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one
>> person
>> in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]
>>
>
> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk
> _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should
> phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that
> replaces grooming.  But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some
> sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.
>
> The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr
> e-mails).  It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I
> read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from,
> _might_ reprogram me.  There are other ways to be programmed (working in
> the garden, driving, hiking, etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to
> talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.
>
> --
> ⇔ glen
>
>
> 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Merle Lefkoff]

Nick,

Yes, you individually can't do anything about climate change, but since
animal agriculture--NOT energy use--causes more than 50% of climate change,
if there is a mass global movement away from meat--that can make a big
difference.  If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by
now it may be on YouTube.  It's also about both decision making and
behavior.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:18 PM, glen ep ropella 
wrote:

> On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the
>> decision-making patterns you describe here.
>>
>
> I don't understand the question.  How similar is my behavior is to my
> decision-making?  That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think
> straight. 8^)  First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my
> decision-making.  Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but
> that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior.
> Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.
>
> Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at
> all.  Or, let me put it another way.  There are things I can control (like
> voting, calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable
> containers, etc.).  But the connection of any of those things with climate
> change is tenuous.  So, when making my decisions (i.e.  behaving) I rely on
> _lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ...
> not a single input.  My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler,
> etc) are all multiply and heterogeneously justified.  Hence it's misleading
> to impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.
>
> Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here.  Is it
>> REASONABLE.  Is it REASONING.  Is it EVER reasonable to change your
>> individual behavior on the basis of a population average?
>>
>
> Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my
> biological milieu.  I think that implies the answer to your question is "of
> course".  If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap
> water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course,
> it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population
> average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or
> fruit.  You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the
> ambiguity in "like", not the biology that processs it.
>
> But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where
> _thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then
> absolutely NO.  That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you
> or anyone else.
>
> --
> glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
me...@emergentdiplomacy.org
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merlelefkoff

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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Larding below!

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the
decision-making patterns you describe here.

 

I don't understand the question.  How similar is my behavior is to my
decision-making?  That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think
straight. 8^)  First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my
decision-making.  Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but
that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior.
Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.

[NST==>Gak!  Words fail!  Sorry!  I agree there is no difference between
decision making and behavior.  No failure implied.  <==nst] 

 

 

Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at all.
Or, let me put it another way.  There are things I can control (like voting,
calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable
containers, etc.).  But the connection of any of those things with climate
change is tenuous.  So, when making my decisions (i.e.  behaving) I rely on
_lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ... not
a single input.  My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler, etc)
are all multiply and heterogeneously justified.  Hence it's misleading to
impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.

[NST==>Well, remember Glen.  I am a rank Deweyan.  I think that people can
and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly.  One thing that
stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
climate change.”  I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst] [NST==>Ok, you are
forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who disagree with
one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s
because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person
in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst] 

 

 

 

> Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here.  Is it
REASONABLE.  Is it REASONING.  Is it EVER reasonable to change your
individual behavior on the basis of a population average?

 

Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my
biological milieu.  I think that implies the answer to your question is "of
course".  If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap
water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course,
it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population
average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or fruit.
You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the ambiguity
in "like", not the biology that processs it.

[NST==>Oh, gosh!  I am beginning to see how naïve (and perhaps
unbehavioristic) my question is.  Does it boil down to, “Are reasons ever
causes.  Crap!  Back to freshman philosophy.”  <==nst] 

 

 

But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where
_thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then
absolutely NO.  That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you
or anyone else.

[NST==>WE absolutely agree on that, and I should be pistol-whipped for
straying from that fundamental notion. <==nst] 

 

--

glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

 



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>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 10/28/2015 02:31 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by
now it may be on YouTube.


Cool!  I hadn't heard of this one.  I didn't find it on youtube.  But I did find 
it on netflix.  I'm sad to see that it's executive producre is Leonardo DiCaprio, 
though.  That guy irritates me. >8^)

--
⇔ 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

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


[NST==>Well, remember Glen.  I am a rank Deweyan.  I think that people can
and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly.  One thing that
stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
climate change.”  I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst]


Yes, but while we have some control over how we are integrated, as an 
individual, we have little/no control over how the whole aggregates ... more 
importantly, we have little/no knowledge of the implications of the aggregate.  
Blind action is no better than nefarious nor worse than virtuous action.


[NST==>Ok, you are
forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who disagree with
one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s
because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person
in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]


Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as 
a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most 
of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming.  But 
perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at 
least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails).  It 
is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I read, every noise I 
hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me.  
There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, 
etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is 
difficult to get at any other way.

--
⇔ 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

[FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Friam members, 

As those of you in the mother church are already aware, I have been trying
to foment a conversation about what rationality consists of and how does it
relate to a purported scientific consensus.  I assume that you are all, more
or less, rational people.  How exactly, then, did each of you come to the
conclusion that, say, animal fats do or do not cause heart disease, smoking
does or does not cause cancer, human activity does or does not cause global
warming, that tick bites do (or do not) cause a syndrome called chronic Lyme
disease, that, say, beet powder improves metabolism (?), or that turmeric
does or does not alleviate arthritis.  Or, perhaps more important, how did
you decide to act on these beliefs?  Or not?

A friend of mine is always trying to change my eating habits and now
assaults me with evidence that red meat, particularly if processed, is
increasing my risk of cancer.  She includes in her email several links that
are designed to convince me.  I include those below.  

The question I would like us to consider is not really the substance of the
matter.  I am effing 77 years old, with a dozen things wrong with me that
are likely to kill me long before tomorrow's hotdog will.  I am more
interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or not to
change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to change the
habits of your children or grandchildren.  In what sense will that process
be "reasonable?"

Discuss.

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: EMAIL  
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Re: Meat

Here's a thoughtful look at what the WHO had to say about meat and cancer:

http://examine.com/blog/scientists-just-found-that-red-meat-causes-cancer--o
r-did-they/?utm_source=Examine.com+Insiders_campaign=34d0d95b1b-Red_mead
10_27_2015_medium=email_term=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945=t(R
ed_mead10_27_2015)=0_e4d662cb1b-34d0d95b1b-70203945_cid=34d0d95b1b
c_eid=3edf56d922

Apparently the WHO looked at 800 different studies.  That's a lot of
studies.  Is it a meta study?

R


On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> R
> 
> I always wait for the metastudy. 
> 
> n
> 
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: EMAIL
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:35 PM
> To: Nick Thompson 
> Subject: Meat
> 
> Nick,
> 
> Are you freaking out about the meat/cancer news?  Here's an article 
> that puts it in perspective:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/oct/26/me
> at-and 
> -tobacco-the-difference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence?CMP=fb_a
> -scien ce_b-gdnscience?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience
> 
>
.
> 
> 



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