Re: [FRIAM] God is not a Good Theory

[Steve Smith]

I asked Alexa "what is GPT3?",

She quoted from the beginning of the Wikipedia article:

   /*Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3*(//*GPT-3*//;
   stylized*GPT·3*//) is anautoregressive
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoregressive_model>language
   model <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_model>that
   usesdeep learning
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning>to produce
   human-like text./

   /The architecture is a standardtransformer network
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_(machine_learning_model)>(with
   a few engineering tweaks) with the unprecedented size of
   2048-token-long context and 175 billion parameters (requiring 800 GB
   of storage). The training method is "generative pretraining",
   meaning that it is trained to predict what the next token is.///

That wasn't very inspired, yet was probably as useful as anything (to 
defer to a presumed authority)...  what I can't guess yet is how it 
decided to snip the quote one sentence short of the first full 
paragraph?  Maybe Wikipedia has some markup for that...


Alexa, when mashed up with it's myriad "authoritative sources" is a very 
effective *hybrid* intelligent assistant...  I'm impressed with how 
*balanced* the GPT-3 answers can be, even if they can also be a little 
milquetoasty as George Duncan's example exemplifies.



On 9/14/22 2:49 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

I have asked GPT-3 at the OpenAI playground about it:

Q: What is God?
GPT-3: There is no one answer to this question since there are so many 
different religious beliefs around the world. From a scientific 
standpoint, however, we can say that God is an unseen force or concept 
that governs or oversees everything in the universe.


Q: Does God exist?
GPT-3: There is no conclusive evidence either way on whether or not 
God exists. Many people believe in a higher power, while others don't. 
There is no right or wrong answer to this question, it is a matter of 
personal belief.


Q: Is there a life after death?
GPT-3: There is no one answer to this question since it is a matter of 
religious belief. Some people believe in reincarnation, while others 
believe in an afterlife in which we are reunited with our loved ones. 
Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide what they believe.



It is not bad for a language model, isn't it? On the other hand it 
costs millions of Dollars to build it and consumes Terabyte of data. 
Try it yourself at

https://beta.openai.com/playground

-J.


 Original message 
From: Jon Zingale 
Date: 9/14/22 9:11 PM (GMT+01:00)
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] God is not a Good Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI_channel=PhilosophyCosmology 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI_channel=PhilosophyCosmology>


-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p 
Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
   1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] God is not a Good Theory

[George Duncan]

I asked
How best can a community non-profit arts organization increase donations?

GPT-3 at the OpenAI playground replied There are a few ways a community non-
profit arts organization can increase donations: 1. Reach out to local
businesses and ask for sponsorships. 2. Have a donation drive and collect
items from the community. 3. Have a fundraiser and ask people to donate
money. 4. Ask people to volunteer their time to help with events or projects
. 5. Write grant proposals to foundations and other organizations.How best
can a community non-profit arts organization increase donations?

Sensible, if not a guide to action.
George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may
then be a valuable delusion."
>From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest
power." Joanna Macy.




On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 2:49 PM Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> I have asked GPT-3 at the OpenAI playground about it:
>
> Q: What is God?
> GPT-3: There is no one answer to this question since there are so many
> different religious beliefs around the world. From a scientific standpoint,
> however, we can say that God is an unseen force or concept that governs or
> oversees everything in the universe.
>
> Q: Does God exist?
> GPT-3: There is no conclusive evidence either way on whether or not God
> exists. Many people believe in a higher power, while others don't. There is
> no right or wrong answer to this question, it is a matter of personal
> belief.
>
> Q: Is there a life after death?
> GPT-3: There is no one answer to this question since it is a matter of
> religious belief. Some people believe in reincarnation, while others
> believe in an afterlife in which we are reunited with our loved ones.
> Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide what they believe.
>
>
> It is not bad for a language model, isn't it? On the other hand it costs
> millions of Dollars to build it and consumes Terabyte of data. Try it
> yourself at
> https://beta.openai.com/playground
>
> -J.
>
>
> ---- Original message 
> From: Jon Zingale 
> Date: 9/14/22 9:11 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] God is not a Good Theory
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI_channel=PhilosophyCosmology
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] God is not a Good Theory

[Jochen Fromm]

I have asked GPT-3 at the OpenAI playground about it:Q: What is God?GPT-3: 
There is no one answer to this question since there are so many different 
religious beliefs around the world. From a scientific standpoint, however, we 
can say that God is an unseen force or concept that governs or oversees 
everything in the universe.Q: Does God exist? GPT-3: There is no conclusive 
evidence either way on whether or not God exists. Many people believe in a 
higher power, while others don't. There is no right or wrong answer to this 
question, it is a matter of personal belief.Q: Is there a life after 
death?GPT-3: There is no one answer to this question since it is a matter of 
religious belief. Some people believe in reincarnation, while others believe in 
an afterlife in which we are reunited with our loved ones. Ultimately, it is up 
to each individual to decide what they believe.It is not bad for a language 
model, isn't it? On the other hand it costs millions of Dollars to build it and 
consumes Terabyte of data. Try it yourself 
athttps://beta.openai.com/playground-J.
 Original message From: Jon Zingale  
Date: 9/14/22  9:11 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] God 
is not a Good Theory 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI_channel=PhilosophyCosmology
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] God is not a Good Theory

[Jon Zingale]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI_channel=PhilosophyCosmology
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Marcus Daniels]

Eric writes:

< I know for myself that one of the reasons I went into the recreation of 
trying to figure things out is that I didn’t like pushy people, but didn’t want 
to become one to keep them at bay.  It seemed there was a third way, which was 
to be right about things, or to see things coming, and let the others run 
aground on their own errors without my participation. >

It would be nice if a standard feature of a car horn would be to deliver to the 
user a mild electric shock -- just to discourage needless use.

Now after four years of a being tailgated by honking lunatics that have limbs 
hanging from their metaphorical grilles, I see the value in tightening my seat 
belt and dropping it into reverse.  Hanlon's razor seems kind of sentimental by 
today's standards.   Incompetence can be an accelerant of the conflagration of 
malice:  "We've run aground..  So NOW we rape and pillage!"

Marcus
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[David Eric Smith]

Steve, probably I should have responded the first time to the main line in your 
post, which Nick automatically highlighted.

> On Sep 25, 2020, at 12:41 PM, Stephen Guerin  
> wrote:
> 
> First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep 
> disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion

I’m not sure I see that very much.

Among people I like who aren’t much for religion, many of them don’t like to be 
pushed around, and religion has been one of the larger edifices for pushing 
people around.  The proselytizing ones in particular, since they aren’t allowed 
to leave people in peace.

I know for myself that one of the reasons I went into the recreation of trying 
to figure things out is that I didn’t like pushy people, but didn’t want to 
become one to keep them at bay.  It seemed there was a third way, which was to 
be right about things, or to see things coming, and let the others run aground 
on their own errors without my participation.  Hence I project a similar motive 
on many people I get along with.  I don’t know if they would say that of 
themselves.

But that’s not hatred.  It’s not liking to be pushed around, and disliking 
people who won’t stop it.  That seems well within the mode of normal good 
health, and a certain degree of standing up for oneself.


The other kinds, like the flamboyant atheists, are not generally people I have 
much affinity for, but they seem to me to just be competitors with the 
religious for followers or the vanity of thinking they are influencers.  

I guess there must be many other categories too.

Anyway,

Eric



-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[jon zingale]

Thank you, again. Somehow this post put my mind at ease, for now.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Prof David West]

2 cents on religion —

Pretty sure I have never hated any group, a couple of individuals have come 
close ...

Although every institution of religion. be it a three person cult or a global 
church, is, in my opinion a festering pit of purulence, there is no hate there, 
just a strong desire to stay upwind.

When it comes to both science and religion I cannot understand either: 1) the 
rush to promulgate a "definitive answer;" or the pronouncement that "those 
questions lead not to edification."

BTW: proselytization of any "Truth" should be a serious felony and conviction 
of same should result in permanent exile from the community.

davew


On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, at 5:25 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> This isn't in response to Nick, just a convenient place to hit "Reply" in a 
> thread in which I've already deleted most of the past messages. My own take 
> on why to hate religion and/or religious people is based on my upbringing in 
> and around a population of fairly uneducated, intolerant religious bigots in 
> northeast Kansas. There was one, and only one, "true" way to believe, and 
> that was a "fire and brimstone" authoritarian father figure as "God", and us 
> poor mortals as worms whose only hope to escape painfully burning for 
> eternity in hell, was to admit how much filth we are and beg humbly and 
> fervently for forgiveness for being that way. I grew up believing all that 
> crap. I loved nature, so I was drawn to biology. Unfortunately, my high 
> school biology teacher was a deacon in the Baptist church and fervent 
> creationist. I went to University to study biology, with a huge chip on my 
> shoulder, determined to prove these evolution-believing numbskull professors 
> of their folly. I basically wasted the first three years of my college 
> education believing that creationist shit. Somehow I finally saw through it 
> and became a "born-again atheist". My hero is Richard Dawkins. In my case, 
> that was the only way I had been exposed to religion, and once I rejected it, 
> I've found it much easier (maybe I'm lazy) to reject religion out of hand 
> with the same fervor that those intolerant people of my childhood did, and 
> continue to, embrace it.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:04 PM  wrote:
>> reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in 
>> Science

>> __ __

>> Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with 
>> hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was 
>> the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists 
>> were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the 
>> world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond 
>> experience is a religious belief.  

>> __ __

>> I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak 
>> these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, 
>> it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an 
>> attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to exile 
>> them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “*get thee behind me”* in 
>> hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree attached to.  So 
>> the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds one to the thing 
>> one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one doesn’t need allies 
>> any more.   You just walk away. 

>> __ __

>> So, Steve.  What do you find **attractive** in the scientistic denial of 
>> faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But 
>> certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.Or, to put 
>> it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking 
>> from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now. 

>> __ __

>> Nick 

>> Nicholas Thompson

>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology____

>> Clark University

>> ThompNickSon2@gmail.com

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

>> 

>> __ __

>> __ __


>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people 
>> hate cops)

>> __ __

>> __ __

>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels  
>> wrote:

>>> I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns 
>>> out there is a convincing explanat

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Prof David West]

2 cents ———

I cannot think of a single *_institution_*, including the GOP, that would 
support Trump  if he loses the electoral vote or the House vote it if came to 
that. He is a political outsider, not a member of any of the "clubs" and none 
of those 'clubs" would ever offer him membership. This includes all those 
sources of "dark money" — none of them like him either. Even if Coney Barret 
was appointed Justice in October, I would bet that both her and Kavanaugh would 
recuse themselves, putting their own long term interests ahead of his, in any 
relevant case/decision. He commands the loyalty of a mere handful of 
individuals.

The real problem is long term. A huge, but still minority (maybe 40-45%), 
segment of the population will cease to hold any vestige of trust in the 
political system or the Government. It may take a few years and a couple of 
elections, but someone equally evil, but competent and charismatic, will "speak 
to them" and ascend to power. 

Of course, before the "Fascist Right" can complete this process, the "Socialist 
Left" will have turned the country to Venezuela so who cares.  **:)**

davew


On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, at 5:11 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> Thank you for your thoughts. The organizations mentioned in my earlier thread
> were mostly thought up off-the-cuff because each evoked something for me at
> the moment, humorous or otherwise. I feel disappointed that the pentagon
> would use the 1 Billion dollars, earmarked for COVID relief, as they did. It
> doesn't give me much faith that the "subtle and strategic" actors making
> decisions for the pentagon are competent or compassionate. If I wished to
> make predictions that are grounded in the facts of past actions, to justify
> my faith in that institution, where would I look? To be clear, I do not
> intend *dandy* as an insult. Rather, I wanted a label to juxtapose against
> the at-times awkward and vulgar struggles of a thinking person doing the
> work.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> 
> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Well, I can only go on the sense I have. It's not that I trust them to avoid 
*evil*. But I do trust them to avoid chaos. Trump is chaos. That's why I say if 
Trump were competent but still evil, I suspect the Pentagon *would* back him. I 
think it's wrong to use words like "compassionate" w.r.t. them. As it is, 
someone like Biden is more of a known quantity.

But re: reallocating $1B, it's reasonable that if you delegate some task (like 
spending money) to an agency, you avoid micromanaging how that money is spent. 
And the Pentagon is quite comfortable making its own decisions when delegated 
to. So, their reallocation isn't a surprise at all.

Re: predicting how they will spend money delegated to them -- Just follow the 
various defense contracts and their recipients. E.g. 
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/ It's also handy to buy a tiny bit 
of stock in the publicly traded contractors. You get reports, proxy vote docs, 
etc. that way. I used to follow Lockheed Martin quite close since I used to 
work there and still have friends who work there. There are also lots of 
academic sites that dovetail. You can search conference attendee lists for .mil 
addresses and such to infer a little intel. I doubt it's worth the effort, 
though.

On 9/25/20 4:11 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> I feel disappointed that the pentagon
> would use the 1 Billion dollars, earmarked for COVID relief, as they did. It
> doesn't give me much faith that the "subtle and strategic" actors making
> decisions for the pentagon are competent or compassionate. If I wished to
> make predictions that are grounded in the facts of past actions, to justify
> my faith in that institution, where would I look? 
-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Gary Schiltz]

This isn't in response to Nick, just a convenient place to hit "Reply" in a
thread in which I've already deleted most of the past messages. My own take
on why to hate religion and/or religious people is based on my upbringing
in and around a population of fairly uneducated, intolerant religious
bigots in northeast Kansas. There was one, and only one, "true" way to
believe, and that was a "fire and brimstone" authoritarian father figure as
"God", and us poor mortals as worms whose only hope to escape painfully
burning for eternity in hell, was to admit how much filth we are and beg
humbly and fervently for forgiveness for being that way. I grew up
believing all that crap. I loved nature, so I was drawn to biology.
Unfortunately, my high school biology teacher was a deacon in the Baptist
church and fervent creationist. I went to University to study biology, with
a huge chip on my shoulder, determined to prove these evolution-believing
numbskull professors of their folly. I basically wasted the first three
years of my college education believing that creationist shit. Somehow I
finally saw through it and became a "born-again atheist". My hero is
Richard Dawkins. In my case, that was the only way I had been exposed to
religion, and once I rejected it, I've found it much easier (maybe I'm
lazy) to reject religion out of hand with the same fervor that those
intolerant people of my childhood did, and continue to, embrace it.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:04 PM  wrote:

> reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science
>
>
>
> Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with
> hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was
> the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists
> were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the
> world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond
> experience is a religious belief.
>
>
>
> I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak
> these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms,
> it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an
> attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to
> exile them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “*get thee behind
> me”* in hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree
> attached to.  So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds
> one to the thing one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one
> doesn’t need allies any more.   You just walk away.
>
>
>
> So, Steve.  What do you find *attractive* in the scientistic denial of
> faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But
> certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.Or, to put
> it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking
> from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some
> people hate cops)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns
> out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then
> it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can
> be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to
> observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.
>  It’s all just provisional.
>
>
>
> I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:
>
>- His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle
>and superstition
>- His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with
>"generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy
>goal for a scientist.
>
> While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a
> potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want
> to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from
> Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast
> <https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-40-eric-smith-on-t

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[jon zingale]

Thank you for your thoughts. The organizations mentioned in my earlier thread
were mostly thought up off-the-cuff because each evoked something for me at
the moment, humorous or otherwise. I feel disappointed that the pentagon
would use the 1 Billion dollars, earmarked for COVID relief, as they did. It
doesn't give me much faith that the "subtle and strategic" actors making
decisions for the pentagon are competent or compassionate. If I wished to
make predictions that are grounded in the facts of past actions, to justify
my faith in that institution, where would I look? To be clear, I do not
intend *dandy* as an insult. Rather, I wanted a label to juxtapose against
the at-times awkward and vulgar struggles of a thinking person doing the
work.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick,

Did you ever read "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh?  Or see the PBS
production.  The patriarch of an English Catholic family who is an avowed
atheist in a moment of oblivion on his deathbed crosses himself as he takes
his last breath.  A rigid Freudian would say that he was unintegrated.

I often wonder if we will have an epiphany (root meaning visit from God) as
we die.  A friend who had open heart surgery while his heart was stopped
said, "No, Frank".  But he wasn't really dead.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 4:04 PM  wrote:

> reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science
>
>
>
> Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with
> hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was
> the only avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists
> were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the
> world that god knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond
> experience is a religious belief.
>
>
>
> I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak
> these “many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms,
> it seems that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an
> attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to
> exile them. But Frank is right:  There is an element of “*get thee behind
> me”* in hatred.  You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree
> attached to.  So the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds
> one to the thing one hates, and snip it.  Once you have done that, one
> doesn’t need allies any more.   You just walk away.
>
>
>
> So, Steve.  What do you find *attractive* in the scientistic denial of
> faith?  I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But
> certainty is something that ony a religious person can have.Or, to put
> it round the other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking
> from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some
> people hate cops)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns
> out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then
> it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can
> be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to
> observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.
>  It’s all just provisional.
>
>
>
> I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:
>
>- His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle
>and superstition
>- His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with
>"generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy
>goal for a scientist.
>
> While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a
> potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want
> to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from
> Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast
> <https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-40-eric-smith-on-the-physics-of-living-systems/>:
> "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point".
>
>
>
> And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at
> Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.
>
> First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the
> deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've
> talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of
> the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see
> the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading
> the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing
> out potential formalizations.
>
>
> FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar
> views as Max Planck.
>

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[thompnickson2]

reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in Science

 

Yeah.  Richard Dawkins and three other loonies.  I was in a chatgroup with hard 
scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was the only 
avowed non-religious person on the chat.  The european physicists were all 
dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the world that god 
knows and we aspire to know.   Any belief in a world beyond experience is a 
religious belief.  

 

I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here.   The way you speak these 
“many”,  with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, it seems 
that you hate them.  So what exactly is hate.  I think it’s an attempt to 
recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to exile them. But 
Frank is right:  There is an element of “get thee behind me” in hatred.  You 
cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree attached to.  So the key to 
resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds one to the thing one hates, and 
snip it.  Once you have done that, one doesn’t need allies any more.   You just 
walk away. 

 

So, Steve.  What do you find attractive in the scientistic denial of faith?  I 
am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But certainty is 
something that ony a religious person can have.Or, to put it round the 
other way, Whenever we speak with  certainty, we are speaking from the 
religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now. 

 

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

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

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate 
cops)

 

 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out 
there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to 
be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other 
way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are 
interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional. 

 

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

*   His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle 
and superstition 
*   His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized 
world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a 
scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a 
potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want to 
get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from Eric 
Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast 
<https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-40-eric-smith-on-the-physics-of-living-systems/>
 : "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". 

 

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at Eric 
Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post. 

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep 
disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked about 
in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few scientists 
I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most basic 
patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the synthesis, at 
least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out potential 
formalizations.


FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar 
views as Max Planck. 

 see: https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 

 

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this pursuit. I 
put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.  I think it 
could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. 

 

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  (meant 
in humor)

-Stephen

 

 

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[David Eric Smith]

Hi Steve,

I thought about trying to reply, because I got tangled in some small activity 
of this kind a month or two ago, but wasn’t sure there was much value to what I 
had to say.  People are all different.  There are patterns I think I see, but I 
expect that umbrellas like “religious” are so big they mostly cover people who 
would say my patterns don’t apply to them.

The other reason I didn’t write is that, in yet a third conversation, I 
repeated this to somebody in the past week, and twice in a week is too many 
times to hear my own voice.

But here was how any of this came about.

There is an Iranian student, who a year or two ago was working in China and 
looking for a job that it turned out I didn’t have to offer him.  But he keeps 
in touch and sends me a harangue from time to time.  He seems to find this 
question compelling.  Anyway, I got one of these harangues a few months ago: 
“Mr. Eric, can you explain to me why you don’t believe in God.  Is it because 
of a contradiction with science?  What would it take to convince you that God 
exists.”

Everything about that sentence is made for Richard Dawkins, because this is 
exactly where he wants to play in the world, and goes against everything about 
the way I want to say anything.  So, now what to do?  Should try to answer 
respectfully and not be rude.

Anyway, I’ll save you most of the length.

There is a way I perceive religious people, which does not imply bad intent, 
but is a kind of way of being that has repelled me as long as I can remember, 
though I tried to be obedient for decades at first.

I imagine my best self as I was as a very young kid.  What I did was pay 
attention to things, which at _its_ best took the form of getting totally 
absorbed in trying to look at them as their own selves, in whatever were their 
own terms.

To me, what the religious person does when he sees someone doing that is go and 
shove a postcard in front of that person’s face, to get in the way of whatever 
he was trying to look at, and carrying an image of the religious person’s need 
to be important where he isn’t.  That is: things are not allowed to be what 
they are for their own sake; they are given permission to exist only to the 
extent that they exist “for” the religious person’s need to matter.  This to me 
is the primordial human character defect.  (I don’t say this as a judgment of 
anybody, or to suggest I don’t have it; only that it bothers me and I see it as 
a problem.)  When I read Sartre or I guess Camus, what I see in them is an 
asserted answer to Nietzche’s problem of Nihilism: people need to learn to be 
comfortable seeing themselves as small as they are, and for most things as 
irrelevant as they are, and out of that clear view, to decide that is enough 
for them to have the things they need to live: comfort in what they are doing, 
required degrees of commitment, the ability to handle trouble and continue to 
make an effort, self-control, and so forth.  In the frame of what I was 
answering the Iranian student, the defining characteristic of religion is the 
need to perceive yourself as being something more than you really are, to have 
enough to live.  

Where science comes into it is several things, and I’ll spare you some of the 
maybe-more-original parts of that.  The hackneyed part of it is that you can’t 
work to see things clearly if you have a need, the satisfaction of which 
against certain views, is more important to you than getting the views right.  
It annoys me when people like the 4 horsemen say stuff like this, because I 
think they do it out of disdain and a wish to dominate, saying people should 
just set aside their arbitrary and perverse needs, implying that the horsemen, 
being better than the rabble, have handily done that.  That has, to me, the 
anti-empirical feel of telling vertebrates they shouldn’t have eyes put 
together backward; they have the eyes they have.  Part of clarity is allowing 
the possibility that they need falsehood to function.  If that is part of what 
science has to work against to get a clear view of anything, then that is what 
it is.  One doesn’t deny the need for crutches if it exists.  But if they are 
crutches, it would be good to know that.

My feeling is similar to the one I read Jon as expressing: I just feel no 
empathy for the position that the religious compulsion is inevitable and 
everyone must ultimately admit he feels it.  I think the thing I feel is a wish 
for my mind to be quieter, and to be able to do what I am doing plainly and 
simply.  I think I also would like to give the world the respect it deserves, 
by granting that it has terms that are not about me, and that it might be a 
good experience to take some of them in.  I don’t know why I have that sense 
that respect for the world is a good thing; it probably is a sense that the 
kind of person who could have it would be a good person, and it would give me 
some peace of mind if I thought I were trying to be 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Marcus Daniels]

A datapoint from the corporate world:  I see very overt support for those 
protesting the treatment of Breonna Taylor.Workforce and customers are 
diverse and sophisticated, and it is no-brainer to take the high road.Some 
of these companies have bigger revenues than some countries and are not tied to 
the politics of any one of them. 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:36 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate 
cops)

I'm not clear on whether dandy is an insult, or not ... But I don't think the 
Pentagon will support Trump. Despite some popular rhetoric, our military is 
mostly strategic, which is what allows us to be all volunteer. Brute force 
things get a lot of press. But it's the subtle work that does the heavy 
lifting. And Trump is way too sloppy and disengaged to be part of that crowd. 
... Now, were he competent as opposed to merely evil, they might back him.

With no data, I expect a large share of the GOP to back him. Parties, including 
the Democrats are, solely, mechanisms for gaining and maintaining power. That 
the Democrats are slightly left is the only reason they show any ability to 
govern. 

I don't regard the EPA as a significant player. So it doesn't much matter what 
they'll back. But my guess would be that most people who work there would not 
back Trump. The USPS seems the same, except for their union, which I would not 
expect to back Trump.

If much of the GOP money is "dark", then that's where the Trump support will 
come from. Any sunlight shed on the individuals and corporations that provide 
such support helps identify those who want to gain and maintain their power. 
One worry I have are the gov/corp hybrids like utility companies, power, water, 
etc. (in which I include oil refining/delivering and internet service like 
Century Link and Comcast). I'm not *as* concerned about corps like Microsoft or 
Apple because, like the EPA and the Pentagon, their constituents are well 
educated and subtle/strategic in ways the constituents of the utilities are not 
(necessarily).

That's all I got, though.

On 9/25/20 9:31 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> Assuming that there is not a peaceful transition, which organizations 
> do you believe will back the coup: Pentagon*, GOP, EPA, SCOTUS, USPS? 
> I hope that speculating about the loyalties of institutions may help 
> the analysis, and fundamentally I hope that FriAM is a group of 
> thinkers before that of being dandies.
> 
> * 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentago
> n/


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

I'm not clear on whether dandy is an insult, or not ... But I don't think the 
Pentagon will support Trump. Despite some popular rhetoric, our military is 
mostly strategic, which is what allows us to be all volunteer. Brute force 
things get a lot of press. But it's the subtle work that does the heavy 
lifting. And Trump is way too sloppy and disengaged to be part of that crowd. 
... Now, were he competent as opposed to merely evil, they might back him.

With no data, I expect a large share of the GOP to back him. Parties, including 
the Democrats are, solely, mechanisms for gaining and maintaining power. That 
the Democrats are slightly left is the only reason they show any ability to 
govern. 

I don't regard the EPA as a significant player. So it doesn't much matter what 
they'll back. But my guess would be that most people who work there would not 
back Trump. The USPS seems the same, except for their union, which I would not 
expect to back Trump.

If much of the GOP money is "dark", then that's where the Trump support will 
come from. Any sunlight shed on the individuals and corporations that provide 
such support helps identify those who want to gain and maintain their power. 
One worry I have are the gov/corp hybrids like utility companies, power, water, 
etc. (in which I include oil refining/delivering and internet service like 
Century Link and Comcast). I'm not *as* concerned about corps like Microsoft or 
Apple because, like the EPA and the Pentagon, their constituents are well 
educated and subtle/strategic in ways the constituents of the utilities are not 
(necessarily).

That's all I got, though.

On 9/25/20 9:31 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> Assuming that there is not a peaceful transition, which organizations do you
> believe will back the coup: Pentagon*, GOP, EPA, SCOTUS, USPS? I hope that
> speculating about the loyalties of institutions may help the analysis, and
> fundamentally I hope that FriAM is a group of thinkers before that of being
> dandies.
> 
> * https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Marcus Daniels]

Still wishing Gertrude well in her integration with the Borg.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 9:46 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate 
cops)

Hey now! Pigs are pretty damned smart.

On 9/25/20 9:41 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  
> (meant in humor)


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Hey now! Pigs are pretty damned smart.

On 9/25/20 9:41 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p  
> (meant in humor)


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Stephen Guerin]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns
> out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then
> it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can
> be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to
> observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models.
>  It’s all just provisional.
>

I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:

   - His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle
   and superstition
   - His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with
   "generalized world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy
   goal for a scientist.

While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a
potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want
to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from
Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast
:
"we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point".

And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at
Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post.

First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the
deep disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've
talked about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of
the few scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see
the most basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading
the synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing
out potential formalizations.

FWIW,  Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar
views as Max Planck.
 see:
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435

I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this
pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline.
I think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our
time.

To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p
(meant in humor)

-Stephen
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[jon zingale]

Assuming that there is not a peaceful transition, which organizations do you
believe will back the coup: Pentagon*, GOP, EPA, SCOTUS, USPS? I hope that
speculating about the loyalties of institutions may help the analysis, and
fundamentally I hope that FriAM is a group of thinkers before that of being
dandies.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[jon zingale]

"I've been believing in nothing since I was born, it never was a question."
- Polly Jean Harvey

In my experience, adding God to a conversation has done very little to move
things forward and has often left many dead where they stood. Surprisingly,
while both witnessing police violence against individuals as-well-as
religious violence against investigative conversation, I continue (likely
against my best judgment) to hold space for either to behave humanely. Being
told to accept the frame that at the end of my thinking I will find that I
have been thinking about God has its opposites, beliefs are discovered not
chosen. Even Einstein died not believing quantum physics. It wouldn't
surprise me that Planck would have a hand in baking-in the quantum woo.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Marcus Daniels]

If a sitting president lost an election and did not concede to a peaceful 
transition of power, it stands to reason the transition is likely to be 
unpeaceful.  If someone non-impotent like Bernie Sanders were, in effect, to 
incite the sort of people prone to that, I don't think the first thing I would 
do is wag my finger at him.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:21 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate 
cops)

Excellent! That answers it nicely. I just wasn't sure if that *was* the flag or 
if you were saying it didn't need a flag and merely using it to segue.

Yes, there's some slippery ground around "protected classes", which is why the 
composition of the SCOTUS is so important.

On 9/25/20 8:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
>  "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort:
>    "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate speech 
> and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any posters that 
> use this type of language will be given a public warning and if their post 
> behavior continues they will be unsubscribed"
> 
> I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus post 
> called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the risk of 
> inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you quote is I 
> also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post.
> 
> And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually 
> wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world, 
> I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other position 
> of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations to sit 
> through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your EricC 
> reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a protected 
> class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article 
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/>
>  of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then punched 
> a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime.
> 
> I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and 
> "religious"  person to bring up what I wanted to talk about.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Excellent! That answers it nicely. I just wasn't sure if that *was* the flag or 
if you were saying it didn't need a flag and merely using it to segue.

Yes, there's some slippery ground around "protected classes", which is why the 
composition of the SCOTUS is so important.

On 9/25/20 8:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
>  "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort:
>    "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate speech 
> and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any posters that 
> use this type of language will be given a public warning and if their post 
> behavior continues they will be unsubscribed"
> 
> I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus post 
> called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the risk of 
> inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you quote is I 
> also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post.
> 
> And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually 
> wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world, 
> I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other position 
> of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations to sit 
> through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your EricC 
> reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a protected 
> class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article 
> 
>  of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then punched 
> a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime.
> 
> I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and 
> "religious"  person to bring up what I wanted to talk about.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Stephen Guerin]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:17 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙  wrote:

> So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking
> about "flagging" the post, whatever that means,  you were only trying to
> change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about?


Good question, Glen.

 "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort:
   "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate
speech and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any
posters that use this type of language will be given a public warning and
if their post behavior continues they will be unsubscribed"

I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus
post called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the
risk of inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you
quote is I also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post.

And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually
wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world,
I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other
position of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations
to sit through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your
EricC reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a
protected class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article

of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then
punched a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime.

I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and
"religious"  person to bring up what I wanted to talk about.

-Stephen

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:17 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙  wrote:

> So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking
> about "flagging" the post, whatever that means, you were only trying to
> change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about?
>
> On 9/24/20 11:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> > As a list admin, this might be flaggable.  I'm not sure if expressing
> hatred of a protected class of people in of itself is hate speech- it seems
> to be at least up to the line. Ie, replace with "The two groups I hate more
> than cops are gays and black people" - would I have a responsibility to
> intercede?
> >
> > As I consider the impotence of this group to take political action and
> incite political violence I consider the statement low to zero risk. I will
> take no action as a list admin. Intellectually, I would like to know where
> the line of hate speech is.
>
> On 9/24/20 11:32 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> > Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking about 
"flagging" the post, whatever that means, you were only trying to change the 
subject to something you'd prefer to talk about?

On 9/24/20 11:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> As a list admin, this might be flaggable.  I'm not sure if expressing hatred 
> of a protected class of people in of itself is hate speech- it seems to be at 
> least up to the line. Ie, replace with "The two groups I hate more than cops 
> are gays and black people" - would I have a responsibility to intercede?
> 
> As I consider the impotence of this group to take political action and incite 
> political violence I consider the statement low to zero risk. I will take no 
> action as a list admin. Intellectually, I would like to know where the line 
> of hate speech is.

On 9/24/20 11:32 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Marcus Daniels]

I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth.  If it turns out 
there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then it has to 
be this way and the “divine” has been cornered.   If nature can be some other 
way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to observe, then those are 
interesting qualifications or alternative models.   It’s all just provisional.

But all of these models are essentially unrelated to doctrines that humans have 
invented as a way to regulate group behavior and to exercise power.

A fun quote from my statistical mechanics text:

  The kinetic theory of gases came to be the next conceptual step.  Among 
pioneers in this discipline one counts several unrecognized geniuses, such as 
J.J. Waterston who – thanks to Lord Rayleigh – received posthumous honors from 
the very same Royal Society that had steadfastly refused to publish his works 
during his lifetime.  Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide on September 5, 1906 
depressed – it is said – by the utter rejection of his atomistic theory by such 
colleagues as Mach and Ostwald.  Paul Ehrenfest, another great innovator, died 
by his own hand in 1933.  Among 20th century scientists in this field, a 
sizable number of have met equally untimely ends.  So “now”, (here we quote 
from a well-known popular text[1] “it is our turn to study statistical 
mechanics”.

[1] D.H. Goodstein, States of Matter, Dover, New York, 1985


From: Friam  On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:47 PM Steve Smith 
mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:
I took Marcus statement to be primarily hyperbolic with a dash of rhetoric...  
or vice-versa?   I also took Stephen's strong statement against it as a 
primarily rhetorical mode of bringing focus to the topic I think he really 
wants to talk about...
Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.
I also saw it as an opportunity freeze it in the spotlight to be studied. There 
is a hatred and disdain of religion by many in the "scientific" community. I 
find it misplaced and hope this dialectic tension between the religious and 
scientific may soon resolve in a modern synthesis of Science and Religion.

Marcus, consider the following from Max Planck:

"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in 
the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To 
the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of 
every generalized world view."

As the father of Action in quantum physics, can you glimpse where he might be 
pointing with "every generalized world view"? Even if you can't follow him, 
could you tolerate those that do? Here's more context for the above i from 
Planck's Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Religious_views>. 
Please give it some reflection - it's only 7 paragraphs :-)

Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[36] He was very tolerant 
towards alternative views and religions.[37] In a lecture in 1937 entitled 
"Religion und Naturwissenschaft" (Religion and Natural Science) he suggested 
the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer's 
ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide 
an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused 
on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the 
over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.[38]

Planck was tolerant and favorable to all religions. Although he remained in the 
Lutheran Church, he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed 
"the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm 
advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter 
of time." [39]

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Planck expressed the view 
that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the 
unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he 
thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a 
churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, 
all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both 
science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, 
against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"[39]

Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear 
headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my 
research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter 
originates and exists only by virtue of a 

[FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people hate cops)

[Stephen Guerin]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:47 PM Steve Smith  wrote:

> I took Marcus statement to be primarily hyperbolic with a dash of
> rhetoric...  or vice-versa?   I also took Stephen's strong statement
> against it as a primarily rhetorical mode of bringing focus to the topic I
> think he really wants to talk about...
>
> Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people"  for what it was.

I also saw it as an opportunity freeze it in the spotlight to be studied.
There is a hatred and disdain of religion by many in the "scientific"
community. I find it misplaced and hope this dialectic tension between the
religious and scientific may soon resolve in a modern synthesis of Science
and Religion.

Marcus, consider the following from Max Planck:

*"Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is
in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all
considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the
crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."*


As the father of Action in quantum physics, can you glimpse where he might
be pointing with "every generalized world view"? Even if you can't follow
him, could you tolerate those that do? Here's more context for the above i
from Planck's Wikipedia
. Please give it
some reflection - it's only 7 paragraphs :-)

Planck was a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.[36] He was very
tolerant towards alternative views and religions.[37] In a lecture in 1937
entitled "Religion und Naturwissenschaft" (Religion and Natural Science) he
suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with
a believer's ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the
symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized
atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the
same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols
by believers.[38]

Planck was tolerant and favorable to all religions. Although he remained in
the Lutheran Church, he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He
believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady
and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is
undoubtedly a matter of time." [39]

In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft", Planck expressed the
view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the
unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists,
he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. He was a
churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty,
all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both
science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and
dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward
God!"[39]

Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most
clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of
my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter
originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle
of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom
together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and
intelligent spirit (orig. geist). This spirit is the matrix of all
matter."[40]

Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and Christian faith.
He said: "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers,
God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all
considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the
crown of the edifice of every generalized world view".[41]

On the other hand, Planck wrote, "...'to believe' means 'to recognize as a
truth,' and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably
safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some
training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many
reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of
miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and
confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be
accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief
in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably
progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish
completely."[42]

Later in life, Planck's views on God were that of a deist.[43] For example,
six months before his death a rumour started that he had converted to
Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he
declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not
believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God".[44]
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 04:06:01PM +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> I am not sure I agree with the arguments from you Russ. You say "People aren't
> the same, but they are similar - and human society functions because we can
> predict to some extent what other people are likely to do [...]. We have also
> evolved the ability to 'put ourselves in somebody else's skin', taking into
> account the obvious external differences."
> 
> But we cannot predict what someone else will do, only if we know the person
> really well - for instance if it is your wife or husband for 30 years. In
> whodunit films it becomes clear in the end why people have acted they way they
> did, but only in hindsight. In hindsight we almost always can say why people
> acted the way they did, but we cannot predict it beforehand. You say hindsight
> is 20/20 for this in English, right?

Leave a $100 bill on a park bench. What do you predict the next person
to sit at that seat will do?

Yes - someone you know well will be more predictable - my wife says so!

I might also predict that if I disturb a magpie's nest, the bird will
attack me.

Also humans have the ability to reason what others predict they might
do (3rd order reasoning), and deliberately do a contrary thing if that
games the interaction. Not many other species have that ability (some
other great apes have been shown to reason that way, IIRC, but that's
about it). But humans are also capable of seeing through that sort of
deceit too, via 4th order reasoning, but that recursive capability
maxes out at 5th order IIUC.

I would say most humans are actually quite predictable most of the
time. But some are distinctly less so, and quite possibly successful
as a result. Donald Trump is probably like this. He comes up with a
lot of crazy stuff, so it's really hard to figure out what he's
thinking.


> 
> We also haven't evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's 
> skin".
> It is not impossible, but can be very difficult and requires detailed 
> knowledge
> and imagination. This is the reason why Hollywood has invented cinemas to show
> us how what it is like to be somebody else (the GoPro cameras in modern days
> have the same function).
>

Contrariwise, in a game where an object is hidden in one spot, then
when a person leaves the room, and the object is moved to another
spot. Upon returning to the room, where do you think that person will
start looking for the object. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally–Anne_test

Apparently, children under the age of 4 have difficulty with this
task, but older humans successfully see the situation from someone
else's point of view. So yes, the task is difficult, and undoubtedly
requires detailed knowledge, but adult humans are able to do this with ease.

> Therefore I tend to disagree with both statements. 
> 
> -J.
>

Maybe we don't disagree, but just misunderstand each other :).


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Jochen Fromm]

I am not sure I agree with the arguments from you Russ. You say "People aren't 
the same, but they are similar - and human society functions because we can 
predict to some extent what other people are likely to do [...]. We have also 
evolved the ability to 'put ourselves in somebody else's skin', taking into 
account the obvious external differences."But we cannot predict what someone 
else will do, only if we know the person really well - for instance if it is 
your wife or husband for 30 years. In whodunit films it becomes clear in the 
end why people have acted they way they did, but only in hindsight. In 
hindsight we almost always can say why people acted the way they did, but we 
cannot predict it beforehand. You say hindsight is 20/20 for this in English, 
right?We also haven't evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's 
skin". It is not impossible, but can be very difficult and requires detailed 
knowledge and imagination. This is the reason why Hollywood has invented 
cinemas to show us how what it is like to be somebody else (the GoPro cameras 
in modern days have the same function).Therefore I tend to disagree with both 
statements. -J.
 Original message From: Frank Wimberly  
Date: 6/28/20  15:07  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
Coffee Group  Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God Russ,Your views on 
these matters are very similar to my own.Frank---Frank C. Wimberly140 Calle Ojo 
Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505505 670-9918Santa Fe, NMOn Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 2:11 AM 
Russell Standish  wrote:Hi Nick - finally took a look at 
your paper. I didn't read it to the nth detail, but from what I understand, 
your scepticism about "ejective anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands 
on two legs:

1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?

2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an
identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour,
which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at
a door to get in.

In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in
introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged -
that information is simply now available to external observers.

In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't
need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most
important application of this skill is prediction of what other human
beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human
society functions because we can predict to some extent what other
people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved
in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which
are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put
ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious
external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to
get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and
turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do,
given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely
behaviour then. That, then is analogical.

So, I'm not exactly convinced :).

Cheers

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink: 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti
> ve_anthropomorphism
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi Russ,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this 
> > crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is 
> > actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our
> experience with others.
> > 
> 
> What paper? What argument?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell Standish                    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders     hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>                       http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ...
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:3

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Frank Wimberly]

Russ,

Your views on these matters are very similar to my own.

Frank


---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 2:11 AM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth
> detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective
> anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:
>
> 1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?
>
> 2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an
> identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour,
> which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at
> a door to get in.
>
> In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in
> introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged -
> that information is simply now available to external observers.
>
> In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't
> need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most
> important application of this skill is prediction of what other human
> beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human
> society functions because we can predict to some extent what other
> people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved
> in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which
> are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put
> ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious
> external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to
> get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and
> turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do,
> given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely
> behaviour then. That, then is analogical.
>
> So, I'm not exactly convinced :).
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink:
> >
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti
> > ve_anthropomorphism
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
> > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Hi Russ,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this
> > > crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is
> > > actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our
> > experience with others.
> > >
> >
> > What paper? What argument?
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> 
> > Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> >   http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> 
> >
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ...
> > ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>   http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> -

Re: [FRIAM] God

[thompnickson2]

Hi, russ,

 

Thanks for that careful reading.  There is no greater kindness than to take the 
time to read  colleague’s work.  

 

I will think carefully about what you say.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

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

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 3:08 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

 

Nick your article reminds of Elizabeth Culotta. She says in her Science article 
that anthropomorphism is a natural property of humans that contributed to the 
rise of religions. She quotes Oxford University psychologist Justin Barrett who 
argues that "Humans have a tendency to see signs of agents—minds like our 
own—at work in the world" and Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom who says 
"We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, 
desires, emotions, and consciousness,... and this is at the core of many 
religious beliefs".

Elizabeth Culotta, On the Origin of Religion, Science (2009) Vol. 326, Issue 
5954, 784-787

 

-J.

 

 

 Original message 

From: Russell Standish mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au> > 

Date: 6/28/20 10:12 (GMT+01:00) 

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> > 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God 

 

Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth 
detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective 
anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:

1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?

2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an
identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour,
which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at
a door to get in.

In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in
introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged -
that information is simply now available to external observers.

In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't
need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most
important application of this skill is prediction of what other human
beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human
society functions because we can predict to some extent what other
people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved
in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which
are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put
ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious
external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to
get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and
turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do,
given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely
behaviour then. That, then is analogical.

So, I'm not exactly convinced :).

Cheers

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink: 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti
> ve_anthropomorphism
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > 
> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'  <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > Hi Russ,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this 
> > crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is 
> > actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our
> experience with others.
> > 
> 
> What paper? What argument?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
> <mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au> 
>   http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ...
> ... . -. - .. .-

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Jochen Fromm]

Nick your article reminds of Elizabeth Culotta. She says in her Science article 
that anthropomorphism is a natural property of humans that contributed to the 
rise of religions. She quotes Oxford University psychologist Justin Barrett who 
argues that "Humans have a tendency to see signs of agents—minds like our 
own—at work in the world" and Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom who says 
"We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, 
desires, emotions, and consciousness,... and this is at the core of many 
religious beliefs".Elizabeth Culotta, On the Origin of Religion, Science (2009) 
Vol. 326, Issue 5954, 784-787-J.
 Original message From: Russell Standish 
 Date: 6/28/20  10:12  (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'  Subject: Re: 
[FRIAM] God Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to 
the nth detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective 
anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:1) What exactly is 
priveleged about introspection?2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism 
starts from anidentity between the target behaviour and the observers 
behaviour,which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching 
ata door to get in.In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege 
inintrospection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged -that 
information is simply now available to external observers.In terms of the 
identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn'tneed to be identical, but 
it does need to be analogical. The mostimportant application of this skill is 
prediction of what other humanbeings do. People aren't the same, but they are 
similar - and humansociety functions because we can predict to some extent what 
otherpeople are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evovedin the 
first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, whichare social pack 
animals. We have also evolved the ability to "putourselves in somebody else's 
skin", taking into account the obviousexternal differences. So we can imagine 
being a dog, and wanting toget through a door, what would we do. We know we 
cannot stand up, andturn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what 
would we do,given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a 
likelybehaviour then. That, then is analogical.So, I'm not exactly convinced 
:).CheersOn Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
wrote:> Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink: > > 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti> 
ve_anthropomorphism> > Nicholas Thompson> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and 
Psychology> Clark University> thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>  > > > -Original Message-> 
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish> Sent: 
Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 
09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:> > Hi Russ,> > > >  > > > > 
Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this > > crap.  
The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is > > actually in the 
other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our> experience with 
others.> > > > What paper? What argument?> > > -- > > 
> 
Dr Russell Standish    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)> Principal, 
High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au>   
http://www.hpcoders.com.au> 
> > 
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ...> 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...> FRIAM Applied Complexity 
Group listserv> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
un/subscribe> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> archives: 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> FRIAM-COMIC 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. 
.- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- 
. .-. ...> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn 
GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> archives: 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> FRIAM-COMIC 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ -- 
Dr 
Russell Standish    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)Principal, High 
Performance Coders hpc

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Russell Standish]

Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth 
detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective 
anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:

1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?

2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an
identity between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour,
which is structy false. The example being given of a dog scratching at
a door to get in.

In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in
introspection. For example, proprioception is entirely priveleged -
that information is simply now available to external observers.

In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't
need to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most
important application of this skill is prediction of what other human
beings do. People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human
society functions because we can predict to some extent what other
people are likely to do. I believe this is why self-awareness evoved
in the first place. Something similar may have evolved in dogs, which
are social pack animals. We have also evolved the ability to "put
ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking into account the obvious
external differences. So we can imagine being a dog, and wanting to
get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot stand up, and
turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would we do,
given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely
behaviour then. That, then is analogical.

So, I'm not exactly convinced :).

Cheers

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink: 
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti
> ve_anthropomorphism
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi Russ,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this 
> > crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is 
> > actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our
> experience with others.
> > 
> 
> What paper? What argument?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>   http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ...
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[thompnickson2]

Sorry Russ.  It was in a hyperlink: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejecti
ve_anthropomorphism

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


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Russ,
> 
>  
> 
> Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this 
> crap.  The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is 
> actually in the other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our
experience with others.
> 

What paper? What argument?


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ...
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Russ,
> 
>  
> 
> Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this crap.  The
> argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is actually in the other
> direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our experience with others.  
> 

What paper? What argument?


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Gary Schiltz]

Not a religion per se, but reincarnation seems anything but static.

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 7:39 AM Prof David West 
wrote:

> The book i promoted at vFRIAM - Excellent Beauty by Eric Dietrich does a
> good job of dealing with the question "why religion" AND "why science?"
> Pretty much the same question.
>
> Anyone aware of a religion that claims an afterlife that is other than
> "eternal damnation" or "eternal bliss." Some kind of existence that is not
> basically static. I have been looking and yet to find one. Different
> nuances of course, but all basically claiming a static state. BTW this
> includes the static state of "nothingness."
>
> Mormonism is an exception, but I and trying to find if it is the only one.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020, at 9:59 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Russ,
>
>
>
> Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this crap.
> The argument of this paper
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejective_anthropomorphism>
> is that the flow of inference is actually in the other direction.  We model
> our view of ourselves on our experience with others.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
>
>
>
> The theory which makes some sense to me is that we humans (as social
>
> creatures) have evolved to anthropomorphise. This make sense for dealing
> with other humans, who might be competitors, or compatriots. And the
> modelling makes use of a remarkable trick - observe one's own mind, and use
> those observations to model somebody else's mind. This explains why we have
> self-awareness, if not consciousness.
>
>
>
> The thing is, the same trick also works quite well with other animals, who
> may be predators or prey, irrespective of whether other species actually
> have minds or not.
>
>
>
> So it makes sense that when some relatively rare phenomenon occurs,
> perhaps a thunderstorm, that the alpha male stands up and makes threatening
> noises. And it seems to work when the thunder goes away
>
>
>
>
>
> eventually. And so the thunderstorm has been anthropomorphised. This got
> extended to other phenomenon, eg famines get blamed on angry gods who can
> be appeased by making the appropriate offerings. Eventually con-artists
> exploited this with ever more elaborate stories that leveraged this innate
> tendency to anthromorphise. I'm sure astrology started out as a cunning
> plan to garner research funds for early astonomers from ignorant kings.
>
>
>
> Like most evolutionary stories, this is a "just so" story. But I think it
> has a grain of truth.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Russell
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>
>   http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Prof David West]

The book i promoted at vFRIAM - Excellent Beauty by Eric Dietrich does a good 
job of dealing with the question "why religion" AND "why science?" Pretty much 
the same question.

Anyone aware of a religion that claims an afterlife that is other than "eternal 
damnation" or "eternal bliss." Some kind of existence that is not basically 
static. I have been looking and yet to find one. Different nuances of course, 
but all basically claiming a static state. BTW this includes the static state 
of "nothingness."

Mormonism is an exception, but I and trying to find if it is the only one.

davew


On Sat, May 23, 2020, at 9:59 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Russ,

> 

> Hawking my wares again. I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this crap. The 
> argument of this paper 
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_ejective_anthropomorphism>
>  is that the flow of inference is actually in the other direction. We model 
> our view of ourselves on our experience with others. 

> 

> Nick 

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

> 

> 

> 


> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:39 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

> 

> The theory which makes some sense to me is that we humans (as social

> creatures) have evolved to anthropomorphise. This make sense for dealing with 
> other humans, who might be competitors, or compatriots. And the modelling 
> makes use of a remarkable trick - observe one's own mind, and use those 
> observations to model somebody else's mind. This explains why we have 
> self-awareness, if not consciousness.

> 

> The thing is, the same trick also works quite well with other animals, who 
> may be predators or prey, irrespective of whether other species actually have 
> minds or not.

> 

> So it makes sense that when some relatively rare phenomenon occurs, perhaps a 
> thunderstorm, that the alpha male stands up and makes threatening noises. And 
> it seems to work when the thunder goes away

> 

> 

> eventually. And so the thunderstorm has been anthropomorphised. This got 
> extended to other phenomenon, eg famines get blamed on angry gods who can be 
> appeased by making the appropriate offerings. Eventually con-artists 
> exploited this with ever more elaborate stories that leveraged this innate 
> tendency to anthromorphise. I'm sure astrology started out as a cunning plan 
> to garner research funds for early astonomers from ignorant kings.

> 

> Like most evolutionary stories, this is a "just so" story. But I think it has 
> a grain of truth.

> 

> Cheers, Russell

> 

> --

> 

> 

> Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)

> Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au

> http://www.hpcoders.com.au

> 

> 

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[thompnickson2]

Hi Russ, 

 

Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this crap.  The
argument of this paper
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_eject
ive_anthropomorphism>  is that the flow of inference is actually in the
other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our experience with
others.  

 

Nick  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

 

The theory which makes some sense to me is that we humans (as social

creatures) have evolved to anthropomorphise. This make sense for dealing
with other humans, who might be competitors, or compatriots. And the
modelling makes use of a remarkable trick - observe one's own mind, and use
those observations to model somebody else's mind. This explains why we have
self-awareness, if not consciousness.

 

The thing is, the same trick also works quite well with other animals, who
may be predators or prey, irrespective of whether other species actually
have minds or not.

 

So it makes sense that when some relatively rare phenomenon occurs, perhaps
a thunderstorm, that the alpha male stands up and makes threatening noises.
And it seems to work when the thunder goes away

 

 

eventually. And so the thunderstorm has been anthropomorphised. This got
extended to other phenomenon, eg famines get blamed on angry gods who can be
appeased by making the appropriate offerings. Eventually con-artists
exploited this with ever more elaborate stories that leveraged this innate
tendency to anthromorphise. I'm sure astrology started out as a cunning plan
to garner research funds for early astonomers from ignorant kings.

 

Like most evolutionary stories, this is a "just so" story. But I think it
has a grain of truth.

 

Cheers, Russell

 

-- 

 



Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)

Principal, High Performance Coders  <mailto:hpco...@hpcoders.com.au>
hpco...@hpcoders.com.au

   <http://www.hpcoders.com.au>
http://www.hpcoders.com.au



 

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ...
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Russell Standish]

The theory which makes some sense to me is that we humans (as social
creatures) have evolved to anthropomorphise. This make sense for
dealing with other humans, who might be competitors, or
compatriots. And the modelling makes use of a remarkable trick -
observe one's own mind, and use those observations to model somebody
else's mind. This explains why we have self-awareness, if not
consciousness.

The thing is, the same trick also works quite well with other animals,
who may be predators or prey, irrespective of whether other species
actually have minds or not.

So it makes sense that when some relatively rare phenomenon occurs,
perhaps a thunderstorm, that the alpha male stands up and makes
threatening noises. And it seems to work when the thunder goes away


eventually. And so the thunderstorm has been anthropomorphised. This
got extended to other phenomenon, eg famines get blamed on angry gods
who can be appeased by making the appropriate offerings. Eventually
con-artists exploited this with ever more elaborate stories that
leveraged this innate tendency to anthromorphise. I'm sure astrology
started out as a cunning plan to garner research funds for early
astonomers from ignorant kings.

Like most evolutionary stories, this is a "just so" story. But I think
it has a grain of truth.

Cheers, Russell

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Jochen Fromm]

Daniel Dennett writes in "Breaking the spell" that philosophy asks questions 
that may not have answers while religion proposes answers that may not be 
questioned. -J.
 Original message From: Prof David West  
Date: 5/21/20  16:46  (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 
God Certainly. I apologize if I implied otherwise."What is the function of 
that?" seems to be a strange question — a disguise for a different type of 
question like, "what is the evolutionary advantage?My reaction to the article 
was along the lines: Does DMT, at the micro-dose level in the human brain, 
contribute a biological evolutionary advantage along the lines of nuanced 
sensitivity — helping make more precise distinctions to sensory input and 
therefore increase survival odds in some subtle way. The belief in "Other" or 
"God" is just a side effect?Fast forward a few millennia and the side-effect 
that had little or no consequence vis-a-vis biological evolution suddenly 
becomes a vulnerability —a contra-survival trait—  in terms of socio-cultural 
evolution? [Yes, I am being a bit sloppy and or metaphorical as I toss about 
the the term evolution.]davewOn Wed, May 20, 2020, at 3:36 PM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? > > Nicholas 
Thompson> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology> Clark University> 
thompnicks...@gmail.com> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>  > > > 
-Original Message-> From: Friam  On Behalf 
Of Prof David West> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM> To: 
friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God> > Who said anything about a 
function?> > A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express 
some > sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency > 
among expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs > / 
staged body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of > supernatural 
belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, > no interpretation, 
no assignment of meaning, no explantation.> > davew> > > On Wed, May 20, 2020, 
at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:> > Wait a minute?> > > > What is 
the function of believing in higher spirits? > > > > Or is it a spandrel?> > > 
> N> > > > Nicholas Thompson> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology 
Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >  > > > > > > -Original 
Message-> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David 
West> > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM> > To: friam@redfish.com> > 
Subject: [FRIAM] God> > > > Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in 
"higher spirits" e.g. "God."> > > > 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143> > > > Since 
human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this > > assertion); 
that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — > > incorporate 
beliefs in the supernatural.> > > > davew> > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- 
... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. > > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. 
.-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv> > Zoom 
Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > > 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > archives: 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > FRIAM-COMIC 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... 
-..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. > > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- 
--- .-. -.- . .-. ...> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv> > Zoom 
Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam> > un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > archives: 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > FRIAM-COMIC 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > >> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... 
-..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- 
.-. -.- . .-. ...> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv> Zoom Fridays 
9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> archives: 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> FRIAM-COMIC 
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. 
.- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. 
-.- . .-. ...> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p 
Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/ma

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Steve Smith]

My own "just so" story about belief in the supernatural is that it
provides ballast to an emerging/evolving mind (on top of an evolving
neural system including the development of language and planning
functions) which becomes somewhat obsessive about "posing questions and
finding answers".   I tend to think of the pervasive belief in the
supernatural as a way to resolve those questions which are simply too
subtle or complex or to whose resolution is too subtle or obscured to
yield to "rational" answers.   I suspect it is also a useful place to
build ill-formed hypotheses... theories that just don't hold water (yet)
and need to be scaffolded by actions of "the gods" or equivalent.  
While I find *other's* various superstitious beliefs inconvenient to
deal with sometime, I think they hold a significant utility for both
individual and group, but it is their nature, just like *scientific*
beliefs (although not JUST like) to be overturned as understanding expands.

On 5/21/20 8:44 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Certainly. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
>
> "What is the function of that?" seems to be a strange question — a disguise 
> for a different type of question like, "what is the evolutionary advantage?
>
> My reaction to the article was along the lines: Does DMT, at the micro-dose 
> level in the human brain, contribute a biological evolutionary advantage 
> along the lines of nuanced sensitivity — helping make more precise 
> distinctions to sensory input and therefore increase survival odds in some 
> subtle way. The belief in "Other" or "God" is just a side effect?
>
> Fast forward a few millennia and the side-effect that had little or no 
> consequence vis-a-vis biological evolution suddenly becomes a vulnerability 
> —a contra-survival trait—  in terms of socio-cultural evolution?
>  
> [Yes, I am being a bit sloppy and or metaphorical as I toss about the the 
> term evolution.]
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 3:36 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? 
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>> Clark University
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>  
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
>>
>> Who said anything about a function?
>>
>> A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some 
>> sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency 
>> among expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs 
>> / staged body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of 
>> supernatural belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, 
>> no interpretation, no assignment of meaning, no explantation.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Wait a minute?
>>>
>>> What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 
>>>
>>> Or is it a spandrel?
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University 
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
>>> To: friam@redfish.com
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] God
>>>
>>> Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. 
>>> "God."
>>>
>>> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
>>>
>>> Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
>>> assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
>>> incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
>>> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Prof David West]

Certainly. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

"What is the function of that?" seems to be a strange question — a disguise for 
a different type of question like, "what is the evolutionary advantage?

My reaction to the article was along the lines: Does DMT, at the micro-dose 
level in the human brain, contribute a biological evolutionary advantage along 
the lines of nuanced sensitivity — helping make more precise distinctions to 
sensory input and therefore increase survival odds in some subtle way. The 
belief in "Other" or "God" is just a side effect?

Fast forward a few millennia and the side-effect that had little or no 
consequence vis-a-vis biological evolution suddenly becomes a vulnerability —a 
contra-survival trait—  in terms of socio-cultural evolution?
 
[Yes, I am being a bit sloppy and or metaphorical as I toss about the the term 
evolution.]

davew


On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 3:36 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? 
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
> 
> Who said anything about a function?
> 
> A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some 
> sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency 
> among expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs 
> / staged body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of 
> supernatural belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, 
> no interpretation, no assignment of meaning, no explantation.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wait a minute?
> > 
> > What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 
> > 
> > Or is it a spandrel?
> > 
> > N
> > 
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University 
> > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
> > To: friam@redfish.com
> > Subject: [FRIAM] God
> > 
> > Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. 
> > "God."
> > 
> > https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
> > 
> > Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
> > assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
> > incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
> > 
> > davew
> > 
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> > 
> > 
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> >
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Frank Wimberly]

"God, do I exist?"   "And who is asking?"  Not relevant but I found it
funny when I first heard it.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:36 PM  wrote:

> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right?
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
>
> Who said anything about a function?
>
> A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some
> sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency among
> expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs / staged
> body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of supernatural
> belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, no
> interpretation, no assignment of meaning, no explantation.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wait a minute?
> >
> > What is the function of believing in higher spirits?
> >
> > Or is it a spandrel?
> >
> > N
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
> > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
> > To: friam@redfish.com
> > Subject: [FRIAM] God
> >
> > Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g.
> "God."
> >
> > https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
> >
> > Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this
> > assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric —
> > incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
> >
> > davew
> >
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-.
> > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-.
> > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> >
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[thompnickson2]

Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? 

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


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

Who said anything about a function?

A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some sort of 
belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency among expressions of 
that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs / staged body positioning / 
etc. are interpreted as expressions of supernatural belief in prehistoric 
cultures. Again just an observation, no interpretation, no assignment of 
meaning, no explantation.

davew


On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wait a minute?
> 
> What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 
> 
> Or is it a spandrel?
> 
> N
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University 
> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] God
> 
> Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. "God."
> 
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
> 
> Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
> assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
> incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
> 
> davew
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Prof David West]

Who said anything about a function?

A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some sort of 
belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency among expressions of 
that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs / staged body positioning / 
etc. are interpreted as expressions of supernatural belief in prehistoric 
cultures. Again just an observation, no interpretation, no assignment of 
meaning, no explantation.

davew


On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wait a minute?
> 
> What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 
> 
> Or is it a spandrel?
> 
> N
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] God
> 
> Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. "God."
> 
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
> 
> Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
> assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
> incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
> 
> davew
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] God

[thompnickson2]

Wait a minute?

What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 

Or is it a spandrel?

N

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


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] God

Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. "God."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143

Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.

davew

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[FRIAM] God

[Prof David West]

Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. "God."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143

Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.

davew

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/