Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Hi, Glen, You-guys are as baffling to me as I am to you. But I feel that EricC is about to yell at me for engaging in empty word-play, so I am going to [respectfully] bow out. I think we agree that when I make an inference about Nick, I call on myriad sources of information, that I command some resources that you don't, and that you command some that I don't for the same inference. Depending on the situation, my set of resources may be more or less useful than yours in making predictions about what Nick will do. That is plenty enough agreement for gummint work. All the best, Nick Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of ? glen Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 7:18 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Yes, please. I'm not a fan of defining terms before using them, because demanding such is usually a sign of adversarial strawmanning. But Nick's use of privilege combined with claiming he's addressed scope/extent is baffling. So even if it can't be rigidly denoted, at least swap in and out some other words. Some alternates might be: private, immanent, imminent, encapsulated, opaque, near, personal, idiosyncratic, bounded, priority, closed, contained, sovereign, subjective, atomized, individuated, particulate, granular, ... There are lots of words out there. Don't be stingy. On November 8, 2021 12:49:04 PM PST, Marcus Daniels wrote: >Please define "privilege". > >-Original Message- >From: Friam On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com >Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:28 PM >To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > >Gosh, Glen, > >I do hate the me that you describe. What an otiose boring old fart! > >When I tell you that some experiences tell one what other experiences are >coming down the track, and THAT would cause one to privilege these, how is >that a flattening? > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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 Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Yes, please. I'm not a fan of defining terms before using them, because demanding such is usually a sign of adversarial strawmanning. But Nick's use of privilege combined with claiming he's addressed scope/extent is baffling. So even if it can't be rigidly denoted, at least swap in and out some other words. Some alternates might be: private, immanent, imminent, encapsulated, opaque, near, personal, idiosyncratic, bounded, priority, closed, contained, sovereign, subjective, atomized, individuated, particulate, granular, ... There are lots of words out there. Don't be stingy. On November 8, 2021 12:49:04 PM PST, Marcus Daniels wrote: >Please define "privilege". > >-Original Message- >From: Friam On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com >Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:28 PM >To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > >Gosh, Glen, > >I do hate the me that you describe. What an otiose boring old fart! > >When I tell you that some experiences tell one what other experiences are >coming down the track, and THAT would cause one to privilege these, how is >that a flattening? > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Please define "privilege". -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:28 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Gosh, Glen, I do hate the me that you describe. What an otiose boring old fart! When I tell you that some experiences tell one what other experiences are coming down the track, and THAT would cause one to privilege these, how is that a flattening? N Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:55 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Because "what inputs" is ambiguous. If I were generous, I could interpret your rhetoric as pushing for a difference in degree, not kind. As when you talk about privied or non-privied "knowledge". You're simply saying that it's all the same ... planted in the same, flattened space. And that would be FINE, if you would actually talk about that space ... i.e. define your distance measure/metric. But if you don't talk about distance/scope/extent, the ordering by which some fact is more than or less than some other fact, then you're not discussing scope. You're simply flattening everything without talking about how differences of degree might either be: a) mistaken for differences in kind, or b) emergent, amassing/accreting such that what reductively is a difference in degree *becomes* a difference in kind. You simply assert your way along, never engaging with anything anyone else ever says. You can change this by discussing scope/extent directly. But you won't. On 11/8/21 11:42 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Just how does this question, > > > >> /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > not address the issue of scope? -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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 Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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 Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Gosh, Glen, I do hate the me that you describe. What an otiose boring old fart! When I tell you that some experiences tell one what other experiences are coming down the track, and THAT would cause one to privilege these, how is that a flattening? N Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:55 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Because "what inputs" is ambiguous. If I were generous, I could interpret your rhetoric as pushing for a difference in degree, not kind. As when you talk about privied or non-privied "knowledge". You're simply saying that it's all the same ... planted in the same, flattened space. And that would be FINE, if you would actually talk about that space ... i.e. define your distance measure/metric. But if you don't talk about distance/scope/extent, the ordering by which some fact is more than or less than some other fact, then you're not discussing scope. You're simply flattening everything without talking about how differences of degree might either be: a) mistaken for differences in kind, or b) emergent, amassing/accreting such that what reductively is a difference in degree *becomes* a difference in kind. You simply assert your way along, never engaging with anything anyone else ever says. You can change this by discussing scope/extent directly. But you won't. On 11/8/21 11:42 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Just how does this question, > > > >> /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > not address the issue of scope? -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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 Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Dave, Ok. I guess. One can also imagine inputs from myriad scopes, right? Unless I don’t understand what you-guys mean by scope. N Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:54 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke One can presume subsets of inputs within a single scope. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: Just how does this question, > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ not address the issue of scope? Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:17 PM To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick refuses to do that. I don't know why. If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small loops "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you experience in the deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in part, by experiences outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing wave, persistent cycles) while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed instrument, properties of your body/brain facilitate some tones over others. If your body is grown over generations to "hold" some tones, then that could be the source of the Jungian archetypes that continue ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, those tones will ring longer and louder than more transient ones learned before going into the tank, that your body/brain aren't as effective/efficient at maintaining. Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or regular contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended mind might extend out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have your smartphone and can use Google at any given time, or *expecting* that a city you're arriving to for the first time will have things like overpasses and coffee shops, not only because your prior experiences have programmed that in, but because you know other humans, with similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose "other" not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport will expose "other" not-self. A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. On 11/8/21 10:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > Key word is _inputs_ which implies an external origin, input from somewhere > other than the "self." > > Consider the experience of LSD while in a sensory deprivation tank — a real > one, not the relaxation type offered at spas. > > There are no 'inputs' via any sensory channel — at least none above the > conscious awareness threshold. > > Yet the mind is filled with images, sounds, emotions ... From whence they > come? Harder challenge, what is the origin of perceived "sacred symbols"and > Jungian archetypes that are perceived in this situation? Species memory or > the "collective unconscious" perhaps? > > davew > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 11:23 AM, <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > thompnicks...@gmail.com < <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Steve, >> >> >> >> So, the question which dominates self-perception theory is, What inputs do >> we use to infer facts about our selves? Often they are precisely NOT those >> inputs that a privileged access theory would predict. >> >> >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com < >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >> >> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> < <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam < <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Yeah, I feel like we trash things we don't have good explanations for. Biology's done a nice job of steadily filling in gaps with real science, replacing any need for "morphic resonance". I guess this is one of the reasons I still want to read Goertzel's book: https://bookshop.org/books/evidence-for-psi-thirteen-empirical-research-reports/9780786478286 We've seen the same thing with the resurgence of "Lamarkian inheritance". On 11/8/21 11:35 AM, Prof David West wrote: > your second paragraph is a nice channeling of Rupert Sheldrake — minus the > morphogenesis. > > davew > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 12:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: >> Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick >> refuses to do that. I don't know why. >> >> If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small >> loops "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you >> experience in the deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in >> part, by experiences outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing >> wave, persistent cycles) while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed >> instrument, properties of your body/brain facilitate some tones over >> others. If your body is grown over generations to "hold" some tones, >> then that could be the source of the Jungian archetypes that continue >> ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, those tones will ring longer >> and louder than more transient ones learned before going into the tank, >> that your body/brain aren't as effective/efficient at maintaining. >> >> Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream >> journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or >> regular contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended >> mind might extend out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have >> your smartphone and can use Google at any given time, or *expecting* >> that a city you're arriving to for the first time will have things like >> overpasses and coffee shops, not only because your prior experiences >> have programmed that in, but because you know other humans, with >> similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. >> >> Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose >> "other" not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport >> will expose "other" not-self. >> >> A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Because "what inputs" is ambiguous. If I were generous, I could interpret your rhetoric as pushing for a difference in degree, not kind. As when you talk about privied or non-privied "knowledge". You're simply saying that it's all the same ... planted in the same, flattened space. And that would be FINE, if you would actually talk about that space ... i.e. define your distance measure/metric. But if you don't talk about distance/scope/extent, the ordering by which some fact is more than or less than some other fact, then you're not discussing scope. You're simply flattening everything without talking about how differences of degree might either be: a) mistaken for differences in kind, or b) emergent, amassing/accreting such that what reductively is a difference in degree *becomes* a difference in kind. You simply assert your way along, never engaging with anything anyone else ever says. You can change this by discussing scope/extent directly. But you won't. On 11/8/21 11:42 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Just how does this question, > > > >> /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > not address the issue of scope? -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
One can presume subsets of inputs within a single scope. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 12:42 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Just how does this question, > > > > > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > not address the issue of scope? > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:17 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick refuses to > do that. I don't know why. > > > > If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small loops > "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you experience in the > deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in part, by experiences > outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing wave, persistent cycles) > while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed instrument, properties of your > body/brain facilitate some tones over others. If your body is grown over > generations to "hold" some tones, then that could be the source of the > Jungian archetypes that continue ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, > those tones will ring longer and louder than more transient ones learned > before going into the tank, that your body/brain aren't as > effective/efficient at maintaining. > > > > Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream > journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or regular > contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended mind might extend > out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have your smartphone and can use > Google at any given time, or *expecting* that a city you're arriving to for > the first time will have things like overpasses and coffee shops, not only > because your prior experiences have programmed that in, but because you know > other humans, with similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. > > > > Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose "other" > not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport will expose > "other" not-self. > > > > A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. > > > > On 11/8/21 10:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > > > Key word is _inputs_ which implies an external origin, input from somewhere > > other than the "self." > > > > > > Consider the experience of LSD while in a sensory deprivation tank — a real > > one, not the relaxation type offered at spas. > > > > > > There are no 'inputs' via any sensory channel — at least none above the > > conscious awareness threshold. > > > > > > Yet the mind is filled with images, sounds, emotions ... From whence they > > come? Harder challenge, what is the origin of perceived "sacred symbols"and > > Jungian archetypes that are perceived in this situation? Species memory or > > the "collective unconscious" perhaps? > > > > > > davew > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 11:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com > > <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, Steve, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> So, the question which dominates self-perception theory is, What inputs do > >> we use to infer facts about our selves? Often they are precisely NOT > >> those inputs that a privileged access theory would predict. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Nick Thompson > > >> > > >> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > >> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith > > >> *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:17 AM > > >> *To:* friam@redfish.com > > >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Nick -
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Just how does this question, > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ not address the issue of scope? Nick Thompson thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:17 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick refuses to do that. I don't know why. If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small loops "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you experience in the deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in part, by experiences outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing wave, persistent cycles) while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed instrument, properties of your body/brain facilitate some tones over others. If your body is grown over generations to "hold" some tones, then that could be the source of the Jungian archetypes that continue ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, those tones will ring longer and louder than more transient ones learned before going into the tank, that your body/brain aren't as effective/efficient at maintaining. Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or regular contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended mind might extend out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have your smartphone and can use Google at any given time, or *expecting* that a city you're arriving to for the first time will have things like overpasses and coffee shops, not only because your prior experiences have programmed that in, but because you know other humans, with similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose "other" not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport will expose "other" not-self. A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. On 11/8/21 10:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > Key word is _inputs_ which implies an external origin, input from somewhere > other than the "self." > > Consider the experience of LSD while in a sensory deprivation tank — a real > one, not the relaxation type offered at spas. > > There are no 'inputs' via any sensory channel — at least none above the > conscious awareness threshold. > > Yet the mind is filled with images, sounds, emotions ... From whence they > come? Harder challenge, what is the origin of perceived "sacred symbols"and > Jungian archetypes that are perceived in this situation? Species memory or > the "collective unconscious" perhaps? > > davew > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 11:23 AM, <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > thompnicks...@gmail.com < <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Steve, >> >> >> >> So, the question which dominates self-perception theory is, What inputs do >> we use to infer facts about our selves? Often they are precisely NOT those >> inputs that a privileged access theory would predict. >> >> >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com < >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >> >> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> < <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam < <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >> *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:17 AM >> *To:* <mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke >> >> >> >> Nick - >> >> I was contemplating this very question this morning in an entirely different >> context, though I am sure my lurking on these threads has informed my >> thinking as well. >> >> It seems to me that the question of "self" is central as >> suggested/asserted by Glen (constantly?) and my current apprehension >> of a more better notion of self involves the superposition of what >> most of us would consider an extended self. Ext
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
your second paragraph is a nice channeling of Rupert Sheldrake — minus the morphogenesis. davew On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 12:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick > refuses to do that. I don't know why. > > If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small > loops "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you > experience in the deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in > part, by experiences outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing > wave, persistent cycles) while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed > instrument, properties of your body/brain facilitate some tones over > others. If your body is grown over generations to "hold" some tones, > then that could be the source of the Jungian archetypes that continue > ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, those tones will ring longer > and louder than more transient ones learned before going into the tank, > that your body/brain aren't as effective/efficient at maintaining. > > Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream > journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or > regular contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended > mind might extend out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have > your smartphone and can use Google at any given time, or *expecting* > that a city you're arriving to for the first time will have things like > overpasses and coffee shops, not only because your prior experiences > have programmed that in, but because you know other humans, with > similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. > > Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose > "other" not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport > will expose "other" not-self. > > A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. > > On 11/8/21 10:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ >> >> Key word is _inputs_ which implies an external origin, input from somewhere >> other than the "self." >> >> Consider the experience of LSD while in a sensory deprivation tank — a real >> one, not the relaxation type offered at spas. >> >> There are no 'inputs' via any sensory channel — at least none above the >> conscious awareness threshold. >> >> Yet the mind is filled with images, sounds, emotions ... From whence they >> come? Harder challenge, what is the origin of perceived "sacred symbols"and >> Jungian archetypes that are perceived in this situation? Species memory or >> the "collective unconscious" perhaps? >> >> davew >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 11:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com >> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Steve, >>> >>> >>> >>> So, the question which dominates self-perception theory is, What inputs do >>> we use to infer facts about our selves? Often they are precisely NOT those >>> inputs that a privileged access theory would predict. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:17 AM >>> *To:* friam@redfish.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick - >>> >>> I was contemplating this very question this morning in an entirely >>> different context, though I am sure my lurking on these threads has >>> informed my thinking as well. >>> >>> It seems to me that the question of "self" is central as suggested/asserted >>> by Glen (constantly?) and my current apprehension of a more better notion >>> of self involves the superposition of what most of us would consider an >>> extended self. Extended in many dimensions, and with no bound other than a >>> practical one of how expansive our apprehension can be. We are not just >>> the "self" that we have become over a lifetime of experiences, but the >>> "self" that exists as standing wave in our geospatial embedding (a flux of >>> molecules flowing
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Both your and SteveS' comments address scope/extent directly. Nick refuses to do that. I don't know why. If we allow for a spectrum of scope, we can say that the fast/small loops "within self" provide those images, sounds, emotions you experience in the deprivation tank. Even if they were programmed in, in part, by experiences outside the tank, they keep "ringing" (standing wave, persistent cycles) while in the tank. Like a tuned stringed instrument, properties of your body/brain facilitate some tones over others. If your body is grown over generations to "hold" some tones, then that could be the source of the Jungian archetypes that continue ringing under deprivation. And, arguably, those tones will ring longer and louder than more transient ones learned before going into the tank, that your body/brain aren't as effective/efficient at maintaining. Just outside the fast/small loops might be medium loops like dream journaling, meditation, or exercise. That may extend to family or regular contact with some things in the world. The SteveS' extended mind might extend out slow/large loops like *knowing* that you have your smartphone and can use Google at any given time, or *expecting* that a city you're arriving to for the first time will have things like overpasses and coffee shops, not only because your prior experiences have programmed that in, but because you know other humans, with similar bodies/brains (and archetypes) built those cities. Traveling to a completely foreign city like Pyongyang will expose "other" not-self in the same way trying to learn a new game or sport will expose "other" not-self. A discussion of self is meaningless without a discussion of scope. On 11/8/21 10:41 AM, Prof David West wrote: > /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > Key word is _inputs_ which implies an external origin, input from somewhere > other than the "self." > > Consider the experience of LSD while in a sensory deprivation tank — a real > one, not the relaxation type offered at spas. > > There are no 'inputs' via any sensory channel — at least none above the > conscious awareness threshold. > > Yet the mind is filled with images, sounds, emotions ... From whence they > come? Harder challenge, what is the origin of perceived "sacred symbols"and > Jungian archetypes that are perceived in this situation? Species memory or > the "collective unconscious" perhaps? > > davew > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, at 11:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com > <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Steve, >> >> >> >> So, the question which dominates self-perception theory is, What inputs do >> we use to infer facts about our selves? Often they are precisely NOT those >> inputs that a privileged access theory would predict. >> >> >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith >> *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:17 AM >> *To:* friam@redfish.com >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke >> >> >> >> Nick - >> >> I was contemplating this very question this morning in an entirely different >> context, though I am sure my lurking on these threads has informed my >> thinking as well. >> >> It seems to me that the question of "self" is central as suggested/asserted >> by Glen (constantly?) and my current apprehension of a more better notion of >> self involves the superposition of what most of us would consider an >> extended self. Extended in many dimensions, and with no bound other than a >> practical one of how expansive our apprehension can be. We are not just >> the "self" that we have become over a lifetime of experiences, but the >> "self" that exists as standing wave in our geospatial embedding (a flux of >> molecules flowing through us, becoming us, being shed from us, etc), our >> entire filial relations with other organisms (our pets, domesticates, >> food-sources, scavengers of our food, etc, as well as our microbiome, up to >> perhaps macroscopic parasites such as worms and lice we may harbor). We >> are also the sum of our social relations and affiliations with other humans >> and their constructs (Democrat party, Proud Boys, Professional Poker League >> of America, etc). We >> are in relation to objects and creatur
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
Because of bless you tell them they don't "see" the pink car in your fantasy. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 12:03 PM wrote: > What’s private about “pink”? > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 12:01 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > If you imagine the car to be repainted pink what you experience is private > to you. > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:26 AM wrote: > > What color is the car parked outside my window here on Booth St. > > > > Is that “private”. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:20 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > I always see an image of the church but the point is you don't see it. > It's private. > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM wrote: > > But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, > you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the > church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the > church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit > yourself to one or the other. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM wrote: > > You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. > > > > We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. > > > > > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > Nick, > > > > I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. > What church is it? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles > wrote: > > Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about > themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have > self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is > the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable > knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the > world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology > without Magic.) > > > > That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about > themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of > knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other > times it causes big problems. > > > > Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? > > > > Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad > sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that > guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, > but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of > electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right > nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic > program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. > Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due &g
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
What’s private about “pink”? n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke If you imagine the car to be repainted pink what you experience is private to you. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:26 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: What color is the car parked outside my window here on Booth St. Is that “private”. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 11:20 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke I always see an image of the church but the point is you don't see it. It's private. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit yourself to one or the other. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Nick, I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. What church is it? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote: Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology without Magic.) That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other times it causes big problems. Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at tennis" after one bad experienc
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
If you imagine the car to be repainted pink what you experience is private to you. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:26 AM wrote: > What color is the car parked outside my window here on Booth St. > > > > Is that “private”. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 11:20 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > I always see an image of the church but the point is you don't see it. > It's private. > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM wrote: > > But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, > you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the > church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the > church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit > yourself to one or the other. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM wrote: > > You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. > > > > We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. > > > > > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > Nick, > > > > I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. > What church is it? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles > wrote: > > Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about > themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have > self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is > the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable > knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the > world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology > without Magic.) > > > > That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about > themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of > knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other > times it causes big problems. > > > > Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? > > > > Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad > sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that > guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, > but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of > electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right > nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic > program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. > Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due > to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the > diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as > problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer > blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is > that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at > tennis" after one bad experience and never tries it again? > > > > Why are we talking about this? > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:33 AM wrote: > > Eric inter alia, > > > > The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge > is of
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
What color is the car parked outside my window here on Booth St. Is that “private”. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 11:20 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke I always see an image of the church but the point is you don't see it. It's private. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit yourself to one or the other. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Nick, I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. What church is it? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote: Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology without Magic.) That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other times it causes big problems. Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at tennis" after one bad experience and never tries it again? Why are we talking about this? On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:33 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: Eric inter alia, The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge is of the form of inferences made from evidence. To the extent that some sources of knowledge may lead to better inferences-- may better prepare the organism for what follows-- some may be more privileged than others, but that privilege needs to be demonstrated. Being in the same body as the knowing system does not grant the knowing system any a priori privilege. If you have followed me s
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
I always see an image of the church but the point is you don't see it. It's private. On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:10 AM wrote: > But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, > you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the > church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the > church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit > yourself to one or the other. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM wrote: > > You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. > > > > We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. > > > > > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke > > > > Nick, > > > > I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. > What church is it? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles > wrote: > > Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about > themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have > self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is > the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable > knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the > world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology > without Magic.) > > > > That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about > themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of > knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other > times it causes big problems. > > > > Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? > > > > Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad > sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that > guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, > but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of > electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right > nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic > program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. > Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due > to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the > diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as > problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer > blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is > that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at > tennis" after one bad experience and never tries it again? > > > > Why are we talking about this? > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:33 AM wrote: > > Eric inter alia, > > > > The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge > is of the form of inferences made from evidence. To the extent that some > sources of knowledge may lead to better inferences-- may better prepare the > organism for what follows-- some may be more privileged than others, but > that privilege needs to be demonstrated. Being in the same body as the > knowing system does not grant the knowing system any *a priori* > privilege. If you have followed me so far, then a self-knowing system is > using sensors to infer (fallibly) the state of itself. So if Glen and > Marcus concede that this is the only knowledge we ever get about anything, > than I will eagerly concede that this is “self-knowledge”. It’s only if &
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
But even when you stood in front of the church, in your way of thinking, you did not see the church. So, either you always see an image of the church, in which case, “an image of the” drops out, OR, you ways see the church. There is no indirect OR direct perception. You have to commit yourself to one or the other. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:45 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke I haven't been near that church for many years. Offline? OK. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 10:15 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: You’re experiencing a church, not an image of church. We better take this off line or The People will excommunicate us. n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke Nick, I have an image of a beautiful church in my mind. I see many details. What church is it? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 7:40 AM Eric Charles mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote: Something like what Nick said. Of course people know things about themselves (in the casual sense of "know") - or - of course people have self-awareness (if you prefer that phrasing). The only thing to reject is the suggestion that people magically have infallible / unquestionable knowledge about themselves. That's part of generally rejecting that the world is magical. (Title of my eventual pop-culture book: Psychology without Magic.) That we most people don't tend to question people's claims about themselves is a social convention, not a fact about the nature of knowledge. Sometimes that social convention is very helpful, and other times it causes big problems. Why are we talking about this again? Something about computers? Ok... so... I run the diagnostic that checks my hard drive for bad sectors. The report comes back that sectors 101-103 are bad. Does that guarantee those sectors are bad? No. It's a pretty damn reliable indicator, but there's no guarantee it's perfect. Maybe some birst of electromagneticness hit the right part of the motherboard at the right nanosecond to screw up the diagnostic. Maybe someone hacked the diagnostic program, and put in a routine that reports back 101-103 are bad every time. Maybe those sectors registered as bad during the diagnostic, but it was due to a ridiculously minor flaw in a ball bearing, and next time the diagnostic is run two completely different sectors will come back as problematic. No matter which of these options is the case, the computer blocks off those sectors, and will never write to them in the future. Is that "self-knowledge"? Is it equivalent to someone who decides "I am bad at tennis" after one bad experience and never tries it again? Why are we talking about this? On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:33 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: Eric inter alia, The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge is of the form of inferences made from evidence. To the extent that some sources of knowledge may lead to better inferences-- may better prepare the organism for what follows-- some may be more privileged than others, but that privilege needs to be demonstrated. Being in the same body as the knowing system does not grant the knowing system any a priori privilege. If you have followed me so far, then a self-knowing system is using sensors to infer (fallibly) the state of itself. So if Glen and Marcus concede that this is the only knowledge we ever get about anything, than I will eagerly concede that this is “self-knowledge”. It’s only if you claim that self-knowing is of a different character than other-knowing, that we need to bicker further. I stipulate that my point is trivial, but not that it’s false. I have cc’d bits of the thread in below in case you all have forgotten. I could not find any contribution from Eric in this subject within the thread, although he did have something to say about poker, hence I am rethreading. Nick . Nick Thompson thompnick
Re: [FRIAM] The Possibility of Self Knowledgke
The essential element of "cringe" is inadequate self-self feedback. On November 7, 2021 9:33:37 PM PST, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >Eric inter alia, > > > >The position I have taken concerning self knowledge is that all knowledge is >of the form of inferences made from evidence. To the extent that some sources >of knowledge may lead to better inferences-- may better prepare the organism >for what follows-- some may be more privileged than others, but that >privilege needs to be demonstrated. Being in the same body as the knowing >system does not grant the knowing system any a priori privilege. If you >have followed me so far, then a self-knowing system is using sensors to infer >(fallibly) the state of itself. So if Glen and Marcus concede that this is >the only knowledge we ever get about anything, than I will eagerly concede >that this is “self-knowledge”. It’s only if you claim that self-knowing is of >a different character than other-knowing, that we need to bicker further. I >stipulate that my point is trivial, but not that it’s false. > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 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/
