Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen writes: but Harris, having authored so many books, should be much better at it than he seems to be. It may not be such a bad approach, depending on his goals. Does he want to persuade anyone or just a certain type of person? Wrong approach for a politician, but adequate for tenured faculty or a cult leader. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen writes: I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo and the opinions of Sam Harris (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sam-harris-liberals-like-greenwald-aslan-support-thuggish-ultimatum-of-islamic-terrorists/). “This ‘respect’ we’re all urged to show for ‘religious sensitivity,’ is actually a demand that the blasphemy laws of Islam be followed by non-Muslims and secular liberals in the West are defending this thuggish ultimatum,” he said. I don't think he means to say the secular liberals are making that demand, but rather that they are surrendering to it. And elsewhere in the podcast he mentions some of them he doesn't find readable. So I don't think he means all of them. An analogy might be a parent that beats his or her kids so furiously that the screams can be heard around the neighborhood. At some point being `sensitive' to that has a dubious moral foundation. And if one doesn't work from a moral foundation, then what is the motive for tolerance of the disruptive behavior? Just go along, get along? Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 01/20/2015 10:20 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 09:18 -0700, Roger Critchlow wrote: http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to get into Heaven They joke that The eventual results of this experiment (which are not yet available) have been accepted “in principle”, and will be published when made available by the author(s). It seems to me there is a fixation on positive results. To get funding, it is usually necessary to pre-register a set of questions, at least, if not the scientific methods. So wouldn't it be better if funding requests and submission of academic papers were the same process, and double blind? The problem with intricate jokes is they rely on an intricate audience. The joke would be far funnier if they'd included a poes-law-like description of the aims and methods ... but fewer people would be willing to play the game. So, although it would be funnier, fewer people would find it funny ... humor economics? I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo and the opinions of Sam Harris (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sam-harris-liberals-like-greenwald-aslan-support-thuggish-ultimatum-of-islamic-terrorists/). -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
And a month later, though actually submitted two months in anticipation, scientific research responds with: http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to get into Heaven It should be noted that PNIS is a mock scientific journal. -- rec -- On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:28 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: These articles popped up on my radar today: http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_ atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/ confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st088461.html What makes me care is that my friends constantly accuse me of being an atheist, despite my claim that I'm agnostic, a word they seem incapable of parsing. So for about 5 years, now, spurred on in part by Nick's posts to this list, I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. I use diagnose for provocation since I think all claims about metaphysical truth, including both atheism and theism, are delusional. 8^) Does anyone here have or know of any diagnostic algorithms that do NOT rely on self-reporting? I can easily imagine someone saying they do or don't believe in some thing but behaving otherwise. So I'd love to find more objective measures of it... even if they're only informal or N=1. One answer I've thought of myself is the way we react to particular types of fiction. For example, I really enjoy horror movies, witches, zombies, demon possessions, telekinetics who can explode other people's minds -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/ -- and of course the axe murderers that lurk behind every corner and die over and over again only to come back to life for the next installment. (But I can't stand those silly TV shows about serial killers.) Would an atheist enjoy such things that rely fundamentally on the supernatural? Similarly, I know lots of self-reported theists who don't enjoy any fiction that relies on supernatural beings or mechanisms. Where is the actual line between belief and suspension of disbelief? (cf http://vimeo.com/12403866) -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 09:18 -0700, Roger Critchlow wrote: And a month later, though actually submitted two months in anticipation, scientific research responds with: http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to get into Heaven They joke that The eventual results of this experiment (which are not yet available) have been accepted “in principle”, and will be published when made available by the author(s). It seems to me there is a fixation on positive results. To get funding, it is usually necessary to pre-register a set of questions, at least, if not the scientific methods. So wouldn't it be better if funding requests and submission of academic papers were the same process, and double blind? Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 01/20/2015 08:18 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote: And a month later, though actually submitted two months in anticipation, scientific research responds with: http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to get into Heaven Ha! Told ya so! I knew EEG granularity was good enough! -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 12/29/2014 03:53 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: Insisting on experiments that are strictly boolean valued is too harsh if there are other variables that are hard to measure, but don't completely destroy the correlation between things that can be measured. I agree completely. My hope isn't actually for a binary test. I was initially more interested in a spectrum of willingness to play the game, where [a]theists would be on one end (won't play the game at all) and agnostics are on the other end (willing to play any game for an extended period). But based on our conversation, here, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test which has 4 categories: achievers, killers, socializers, and explorers. (I mostly fall into the explorer camp.) And the expanded categories down at the bottom are interesting, too. Anyway, now I'm thinking [a]theists would show up as relatively small, relatively well defined, subsets of the 4 (8 or whatever) dimensional space, whereas agnostics would show up as larger, nebulous subsets. E.g. I know I dislike FPS and crosswords (though games with mixed play type are much better... an FPS with an occasional crossword would be way better ... the only reason I still play GTA, in fact.) But every so often (perhaps thrice a year), I'll play one just to see if I still dislike them ... and I almost always have to finish once I start. The same is true of bad fiction. I often start a novel, get to about page 100 and say to myself, This book really sucks. I should stop reading now. But I very rarely do. Sometimes a bad novel will sit on my nightstand and loom over me until I force my way through it. (The last novel I quit reading was Atlas Shrugged. I just couldn't take it anymore.) My guess is that (ardent) [a]theists are quite efficient at a) knowing the games for which they'll be rewarded and b) avoiding games for which they won't. (Reward being various and often intangible.) Of course, their [a]theism is probably only one of many effects of [a] deeper cause[s]. And I care much more about the cause[s] than the effect[s]. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Maybe some people is prone to the magical thinking more than others. Maybe is physic, maybe it is cultural. Maybe it is really related to mental processes biochemically mediated. Maybe there is a kind of enzyme of the faith. I lack of it, of course. Anyhow, God bless you. 2014-12-27 14:03 GMT-05:00 Gillian Densmore gil.densm...@gmail.com: Someone has to ask it: Anyone else read the thread tittle as What's the diagnosis for asthma? On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Glen thinks that atheists and theists are delusional. My claim is that agnostics are non-existent. From which it follows, I guess that all humans are delusional. I am ok with that. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:57 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? Glen writes: ``Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's point is that the concept of theist (or atheist) is too muddy to define validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree.'' Let's say I have a program and it does something that I don't expect. Someone says it is the witchcraft from a particular gal that works on the HVAC system. I ask Is it because the computer got too hot? Did she fail to keep the air conditioning running properly? They respond, No, it's not the temperature, it's the witchcraft. I look in the index of the instruction set under W and under remote access protocols, interrupt mechanisms, etc. Nothing. I keep removing degrees of freedom from the code and environment and all of my suggestions are rejected by my peer as Not an instance of witchcraft. I ask for suggestions on how to prove that witchcraft is at work and they just show me pictures of their witch suspects and give me a pamphlet on building big fires. Meanwhile, I discover a simple, mechanical, explanation for why the program isn't doing what I expect, fix it, and tell the growing mob of witch burners about what I discovered. (Of course, their explanation is that they were successful in intimidating the witch and she was forced to release me from her spell.) It should be possible to associate with any proposition a probability function that takes as arguments other routines that describe how to perform an experiment and the result of that experiment. The details of the experiment routines should be provided and should not include call a friend or reference anything that is already known or obvious.All functions and routines should be written down before doing the experiment. It should be possible that by sweeping over the space of unknowns (potential inputs) in the experiment routines to get some probabilities near zero and some near one. The refusal or inability to write these functions and routines is an indicator that the speaker is full of it and would rather talk about witches. When cornered on a question, can the believer justify or change their belief? Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- Agrónomo, IT, Candidato a MSc en Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente +57 3154531383 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
I think probability is a red herring, as is high pop variation of any kind. It's more appropriate to consider serial experimentation. If I change the concept I'm testing for to, say, gullibility, I can practice evaluating people without a high N trial. I can simply try to trick one individual after another and, over time, even if my tests are somewhat dynamic, I can evolve a collection of tricks that distinguish the gullible from the ... risk averse. Being gullible myself, I'm familiar with the process ... I am serially foolish. Sure, reduction to the smallest possible set of traits that lead to gullibility would require high N trials. But that's not necessary for approaching the gist. I can't help but think there is an equivalent method for [a]theism. There must be gurus and evangelicals, especially those busted for something but that then recover and start another congregation, who have honed the craft. Or, perhaps better examples would be people like Jack Abramoff, Edward Snowden, or even ex-addict drug counselors. These are people who, I think, are in their situations because of _systemic_ pressures rather than some hypothetical internal mechanisms that motivated them. Or, perhaps it's analogous to the false dichotomy between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. It may well be a mistake to hunt for [a]theism in individual humans (behavior- or molecule-based). Perhaps it's actually a property of the system in which the humans live, or, more likely, a result of the coupling of the individual to the society. On December 26, 2014 3:56:58 PM PST, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: The refusal or inability to write these functions and routines is an indicator that the speaker is full of it and would rather talk about witches. Or the refusal or inability to write the functions is a result of the witch-hypothesizer's embeddedness in his culture? This is something many high N trials will not discover unless explicitly designed to discover them. And that can be very difficult. How do we design a trial across cultures that involve witch-hypotheses? Is the bruja a good analog for the voodoo priestess? Is vishnu a good analog for yaweh? Can we really believe the alcoholics anonymous advocates that you can adopt _whatever_ something larger than yourself is a synonym for God? When cornered on a question, can the believer justify or change their belief? Justification is always possible. (Perhaps we could correlate justificationism with the rise and fall of conspiracy theories, which are simply tortuous justifications.) And we can't quite rely on tracking changes in belief, at least not directly. We could rely (somewhat) on changes to the self-reports of belief. But, again, when and in what context is the self-report trustworthy? -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen writes: I think probability is a red herring, as is high pop variation of any kind. I suppose so. But there are situations, especially in biology, where some aspect of an experiment can be reproduced but only to put a confidence interval on a correlation. Insisting on experiments that are strictly boolean valued is too harsh if there are other variables that are hard to measure, but don't completely destroy the correlation between things that can be measured. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Someone has to ask it: Anyone else read the thread tittle as What's the diagnosis for asthma? On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Nick Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Glen thinks that atheists and theists are delusional. My claim is that agnostics are non-existent. From which it follows, I guess that all humans are delusional. I am ok with that. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:57 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? Glen writes: ``Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's point is that the concept of theist (or atheist) is too muddy to define validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree.'' Let's say I have a program and it does something that I don't expect. Someone says it is the witchcraft from a particular gal that works on the HVAC system. I ask Is it because the computer got too hot? Did she fail to keep the air conditioning running properly? They respond, No, it's not the temperature, it's the witchcraft. I look in the index of the instruction set under W and under remote access protocols, interrupt mechanisms, etc. Nothing. I keep removing degrees of freedom from the code and environment and all of my suggestions are rejected by my peer as Not an instance of witchcraft. I ask for suggestions on how to prove that witchcraft is at work and they just show me pictures of their witch suspects and give me a pamphlet on building big fires. Meanwhile, I discover a simple, mechanical, explanation for why the program isn't doing what I expect, fix it, and tell the growing mob of witch burners about what I discovered. (Of course, their explanation is that they were successful in intimidating the witch and she was forced to release me from her spell.) It should be possible to associate with any proposition a probability function that takes as arguments other routines that describe how to perform an experiment and the result of that experiment. The details of the experiment routines should be provided and should not include call a friend or reference anything that is already known or obvious.All functions and routines should be written down before doing the experiment. It should be possible that by sweeping over the space of unknowns (potential inputs) in the experiment routines to get some probabilities near zero and some near one. The refusal or inability to write these functions and routines is an indicator that the speaker is full of it and would rather talk about witches. When cornered on a question, can the believer justify or change their belief? Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
General relativity predicts gravitational waves. A result of that prediction, elaborate measurement techniques have been devised like computational filtering of observatory data (Einstein @ Home) or superconducting devices to detect polarization of the cosmic microwave background (POLARBEAR 2). It's not a single thing to measure , but also other measurements of related phenomena, like the perihelion precession of Mercury. What sort of things does it make sense for [a]theists to say and do, and does these things occur (instead of the opposite) in a statistically significant way? -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:56 AM To: Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? I don't understand that concept of validator at all. For glucose, you talk about multiple measures. It sounds like you're saying a more accurate measure is the validator for a less accurate measure. These are all concrete things: urine, blood, etc. But then you go on to say a conceptual notion is the best validator. Is a conceptual notion a more accurate measure than a concrete measure? I don't get it. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
So, did Nick mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_validity ? On 12/26/2014 11:35 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: General relativity predicts gravitational waves. A result of that prediction, elaborate measurement techniques have been devised like computational filtering of observatory data (Einstein @ Home) or superconducting devices to detect polarization of the cosmic microwave background (POLARBEAR 2). It's not a single thing to measure , but also other measurements of related phenomena, like the perihelion precession of Mercury. It sounds like you're describing parallax, the idea of approaching something with many many meaures. Or perhaps robustness analysis, in the sense that if a concept is modeled in many different ways and stays consistent across models, then it's a robust concept. I'm familiar with those methods ... though I have some issues with the latter. But none of this seems to fit with what Nick seemed to describe, the idea that an experiment is validated by a (validator) concept. That just seems backwards to me... like some form of insidious justificationism. It would lead a researcher to conclude that if a test (any test) failed, it would _not_ falsify the concept. It would just mean you didn't know the trait/person/species well enough. What sort of things does it make sense for [a]theists to say and do, and does these things occur (instead of the opposite) in a statistically significant way? Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's point is that the concept of theist (or atheist) is too muddy to define validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree. In fact, such a result would bring me quite a bit of joy! In other words, there can be no test for [a]theism because it's an incoherent concept. In fact, we're all agnostics, we just don't realize it. [*] I would just say valid ... but too few people read broad words like that and work to find the submeaning appropriate to the context. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen writes: ``Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's point is that the concept of theist (or atheist) is too muddy to define validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree.'' Let's say I have a program and it does something that I don't expect. Someone says it is the witchcraft from a particular gal that works on the HVAC system. I ask Is it because the computer got too hot? Did she fail to keep the air conditioning running properly? They respond, No, it's not the temperature, it's the witchcraft. I look in the index of the instruction set under W and under remote access protocols, interrupt mechanisms, etc. Nothing. I keep removing degrees of freedom from the code and environment and all of my suggestions are rejected by my peer as Not an instance of witchcraft. I ask for suggestions on how to prove that witchcraft is at work and they just show me pictures of their witch suspects and give me a pamphlet on building big fires. Meanwhile, I discover a simple, mechanical, explanation for why the program isn't doing what I expect, fix it, and tell the growing mob of witch burners about what I discovered. (Of course, their explanation is that they were successful in intimidating the witch and she was forced to release me from her spell.) It should be possible to associate with any proposition a probability function that takes as arguments other routines that describe how to perform an experiment and the result of that experiment. The details of the experiment routines should be provided and should not include call a friend or reference anything that is already known or obvious.All functions and routines should be written down before doing the experiment. It should be possible that by sweeping over the space of unknowns (potential inputs) in the experiment routines to get some probabilities near zero and some near one. The refusal or inability to write these functions and routines is an indicator that the speaker is full of it and would rather talk about witches. When cornered on a question, can the believer justify or change their belief? Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen, Nice Wikipedia entry. If that is not what I meant, it certainly is what I SHOULD have meant. I have been sufficiently distracted by family over the last two weeks that I don't know what is what with this discussion To recap: if I remember, I first tried to find out if we are talking about theism, or the wider category of metaphysical belief. Somebody helped me clarify that. But now, you, Glen, seem to be confusing them. Or perhaps it's me that WANTS to confuse them. Induction requires metaphysics. There are some things that you have to believe before you can start believing in FACTS. So, if you think one can survive without metaphysics, I think you are wrong. But does the metaphysics have to be theistic, in any sense. Here is where my confusion begins. In order to put my feet out of bed every morning, I have to believe there is still a floor under the bed. That belief is clearly empirical but it is also based on a healthy dose of metaphysics that tells me that the world is not the sort of place where floors disappear without some sort of provocation. Having no indications of such a provocation, I am justified in believing that the floor is there. That belief takes the form of my unhesitatingly putting my feet out. So, I would say, I don't have to believe in God to get up every morning, but I do have to belief in The Floor. Now, is my Belief in Floor a religious belief? Speaking for myself: I think my belief in Floor is religious. It's hard for me to think of a belief in God as anything but a belief in that which endures, despite any reason to believe that it endures, and my Faith in Floor is an example of such a belief. Clear as mud, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 1:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? So, did Nick mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_validity ? On 12/26/2014 11:35 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: General relativity predicts gravitational waves. A result of that prediction, elaborate measurement techniques have been devised like computational filtering of observatory data (Einstein @ Home) or superconducting devices to detect polarization of the cosmic microwave background (POLARBEAR 2). It's not a single thing to measure , but also other measurements of related phenomena, like the perihelion precession of Mercury. It sounds like you're describing parallax, the idea of approaching something with many many meaures. Or perhaps robustness analysis, in the sense that if a concept is modeled in many different ways and stays consistent across models, then it's a robust concept. I'm familiar with those methods ... though I have some issues with the latter. But none of this seems to fit with what Nick seemed to describe, the idea that an experiment is validated by a (validator) concept. That just seems backwards to me... like some form of insidious justificationism. It would lead a researcher to conclude that if a test (any test) failed, it would _not_ falsify the concept. It would just mean you didn't know the trait/person/species well enough. What sort of things does it make sense for [a]theists to say and do, and does these things occur (instead of the opposite) in a statistically significant way? Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's point is that the concept of theist (or atheist) is too muddy to define validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree. In fact, such a result would bring me quite a bit of joy! In other words, there can be no test for [a]theism because it's an incoherent concept. In fact, we're all agnostics, we just don't realize it. [*] I would just say valid ... but too few people read broad words like that and work to find the submeaning appropriate to the context. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen thinks that atheists and theists are delusional. My claim is that agnostics are non-existent. From which it follows, I guess that all humans are delusional. I am ok with that. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:57 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? Glen writes: ``Well, my specific problem is that I think atheists and theists are delusional. They think they know things they cannot know. So, if Nick's point is that the concept of theist (or atheist) is too muddy to define validatable[*] tests for, then, as an agnostic, I would completely agree.'' Let's say I have a program and it does something that I don't expect. Someone says it is the witchcraft from a particular gal that works on the HVAC system. I ask Is it because the computer got too hot? Did she fail to keep the air conditioning running properly? They respond, No, it's not the temperature, it's the witchcraft. I look in the index of the instruction set under W and under remote access protocols, interrupt mechanisms, etc. Nothing. I keep removing degrees of freedom from the code and environment and all of my suggestions are rejected by my peer as Not an instance of witchcraft. I ask for suggestions on how to prove that witchcraft is at work and they just show me pictures of their witch suspects and give me a pamphlet on building big fires. Meanwhile, I discover a simple, mechanical, explanation for why the program isn't doing what I expect, fix it, and tell the growing mob of witch burners about what I discovered. (Of course, their explanation is that they were successful in intimidating the witch and she was forced to release me from her spell.) It should be possible to associate with any proposition a probability function that takes as arguments other routines that describe how to perform an experiment and the result of that experiment. The details of the experiment routines should be provided and should not include call a friend or reference anything that is already known or obvious.All functions and routines should be written down before doing the experiment. It should be possible that by sweeping over the space of unknowns (potential inputs) in the experiment routines to get some probabilities near zero and some near one. The refusal or inability to write these functions and routines is an indicator that the speaker is full of it and would rather talk about witches. When cornered on a question, can the believer justify or change their belief? Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Very Nice! So, the gods become reflective projections, much like empathy or the (over hyped) mirror neurons. I'd argue that's a statement about both your 1st point (thinking about ourselves) and your 2nd (understanding our environment). I'll read the Brague book. But it reminds me of the persistent anthropomorphized physics like that of Smolin or even the consciousness-centric physics. RE: re-ligiere -- Would it be appropriate to argue against Marcus's alleged independence from his entertainment by asserting that things like Harry Potter or Eat, Pray, Love are little religions? Perhaps even something like Dr. Oz or Oprah Winfrey ... or perhapse even the evening news are little religions. Obviously, something like futbol or football fits even better. These smaller coherences of thought/behavior tie their subcultures together in much the same way as something like a small Xtian denomination. Science, I'd argue is a different beast, though, depending on whose definition you use. I try to be a critical rationalist and assume that actual science (as opposed to any concept of science inside any people's heads) doesn't tie us together at all. It's an observer-independent set of methods that could be carried out by someone with 3 arms as well as someone made of pure energy (whatever that means) as well as someone with hooks isntead of hands. There need be no relation between the doers of science, whereas there must be some relation between the doers of religion. circa Tue Dec 23 13:26:17 EST 2014 doug wrote: The theory that early humans projected their own powers on to events like lightening, war and such and called them gods seems compelling. What is less well known is that in our interaction with those gods, say through ritual and prayer, we learn about ourselves. In fact dealing with the projected gods may have been necessary for human enlightenment about its own powers. Also the very idea of god or gods may be important in telling us something about the awesome coherence of the universe. Are the gods necessary for this? Don’t know. We are on the edge of human cognition as it explores the very idea of uni-verse. A very interesting book on the long history of humanity getting to the concept and words for “world.” is Remi Brague’s The Wisdom of the World: the human experience of the universe in western thought. In the background of the god talk of course is the idea of religion. I prefer to take it at its root, re-ligiere, to re-tie together. Religion is a way of tying things together. In this sense science too is a religion, a way of tying things together. It appears to be different because of its stress on matter and to a slightly lesser degree mathematics. But that is a selection of out of experience of some aspects while leaving behind others. - that is, science is much more focused on stuff than on say love, passions, or the subtleties of human and animal interactions. The things of novels are not the things of science (yet). The standard religions are just tying together a different set of experiences than science does, but all are motivated in part by explorations in understanding (and by careers, power, etc.) f aspects of our experience. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 12/22/2014 12:18 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote: @Glen before diving to deep into it with numbers- do you have a working defination of Agnostic vs Atheist? Well, the standard definitions suffice, I think. This one works just fine for agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. And this one works for atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Having argued about this sort of thing for decades, now, I find the primary denotational sticking point to be the difference between belief and knowledge. The primary connotational sticking points are usually dogma and the ontological status of supernatural phenomena. Agnostics and atheists align almost perfectly regarding the supernatural stuff. An atheist claims the supernatural does not exist, whereas an agnostic claims that supernatural stuff is completely irrelevant. Dogma, however, becomes very important. Atheists tend to be more dogmatic, particularly about the structure and interpretation of evidence, whereas agnostics tend to be more willing to let the data lay around without curating or interpreting it. So, whether you consider the standard definitions working or not depends on the actionable differences between a) knowledge vs. belief and b) the tendency (or not) to triage data into evidence. Re (a) I find it useful to ask questions like Can you know something you don't believe? And Can you believe something you don't know? Re (b) it can be interesting to see how badly the social network mangles scientific research results. For whatever reason, despite most research being published with lots of caveats and hedges, most people read it as scientific knowledge or proof. The same can be said about the gossip game, where a statement at one end gets modified as it's whispered from one person to the next. There is a biological limit to iterative depth. You can't just wrap a statement inside he-said(she-said(he-said(she-said(... forever. At some point you have to put in a hard stop, a triage. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Glen - Great wordsmithery as usual! My first instinct was to hairsplit argumentatively and ask for more fine-structure in the definition of god or gods... to start, we are all progressive feminists here I am sure, so god or gods should be taken as gender neutral such that the goddess or goddesses is entirely implied here. Then we might question if said god(ess)(es) need be fully anthropomorphised (gendered humanoids) or if merely ascribing sentient beingness is enough? So I would contend that what is needed is NOT an athiest detector but rather a religious belief classifier system designed around these other finer structures. Even more interesting would be a type of learning classifier that could maybe be applied to individuals first by asking their self-reporting on these matters, then perhaps based on various behaviours (frequency and nature of prayer, attendance to other rituals, adherence to golden and other rules or commandments, etc.), and finally to the physiometric (brain only, or should the entire body be included... on the off chance that belief in god(ess(es)) occurs in the pancreas or in lymphatic system? I don't know how valuable it is to hairsplit to another level... but the question of belief. As far as physiometrics go, I suppose we could start as the Nazis did and maybe the most fundamentalist Islamists do and check one's (male in the first place, female in the second) circumcision status. And for Catholics, maybe the salivary response when presented with a communion wafer? Perhaps something equally obvious could be offered up for members of the LDS church, or the Zoroastrians... hmmm... interesting questions to contemplate on the first day of the rest of the solar year! Merry Solstice everyone! Dogma, however, becomes very important. Atheists tend to be more dogmatic, particularly about the structure and interpretation of evidence, whereas agnostics tend to be more willing to let the data lay around without curating or interpreting it. So, whether you consider the standard definitions working or not depends on the actionable differences between a) knowledge vs. belief and b) the tendency (or not) to triage data into evidence. Re (a) I find it useful to ask questions like Can you know something you don't believe? And Can you believe something you don't know? Re (b) it can be interesting to see how badly the social network mangles scientific research results. For whatever reason, despite most research being published with lots of caveats and hedges, most people read it as scientific knowledge or proof. The same can be said about the gossip game, where a statement at one end gets modified as it's whispered from one person to the next. There is a biological limit to iterative depth. You can't just wrap a statement inside he-said(she-said(he-said(she-said(... forever. At some point you have to put in a hard stop, a triage. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Ha! I am immune to your sarcasm! 8^) It is _precisely_ agnostic to assert that the gender of the gods is completely irrelevant, as is their hair color. So, your hair splitting simply provides us with, dare I say it, CERTAIN convincing evidence that you are a paternalist! And that you rely so heavily on rules like adding -ess to names for females (e.g. actress) when the straightforward word (e.g. actor) perfectly describes those of either gender, clearly and unambiguously identifies you as a dogmatist. Personally, I'm betting belief in the supernatural lies in the pineal gland, the homunculus clock. And what's this about an LSD church? I need to find one of those. On 12/22/2014 02:24 PM, Steve Smith wrote: My first instinct was to hairsplit argumentatively and ask for more fine-structure in the definition of god or gods... to start, we are all progressive feminists here I am sure, so god or gods should be taken as gender neutral such that the goddess or goddesses is entirely implied here. Then we might question if said god(ess)(es) need be fully anthropomorphised (gendered humanoids) or if merely ascribing sentient beingness is enough? So I would contend that what is needed is NOT an athiest detector but rather a religious belief classifier system designed around these other finer structures. Even more interesting would be a type of learning classifier that could maybe be applied to individuals first by asking their self-reporting on these matters, then perhaps based on various behaviours (frequency and nature of prayer, attendance to other rituals, adherence to golden and other rules or commandments, etc.), and finally to the physiometric (brain only, or should the entire body be included... on the off chance that belief in god(ess(es)) occurs in the pancreas or in lymphatic system? I don't know how valuable it is to hairsplit to another level... but the question of belief. As far as physiometrics go, I suppose we could start as the Nazis did and maybe the most fundamentalist Islamists do and check one's (male in the first place, female in the second) circumcision status. And for Catholics, maybe the salivary response when presented with a communion wafer? Perhaps something equally obvious could be offered up for members of the LDS church, or the Zoroastrians... hmmm... interesting questions to contemplate on the first day of the rest of the solar year! Merry Solstice everyone! Dogma, however, becomes very important. Atheists tend to be more dogmatic, particularly about the structure and interpretation of evidence, whereas agnostics tend to be more willing to let the data lay around without curating or interpreting it. So, whether you consider the standard definitions working or not depends on the actionable differences between a) knowledge vs. belief and b) the tendency (or not) to triage data into evidence. Re (a) I find it useful to ask questions like Can you know something you don't believe? And Can you believe something you don't know? Re (b) it can be interesting to see how badly the social network mangles scientific research results. For whatever reason, despite most research being published with lots of caveats and hedges, most people read it as scientific knowledge or proof. The same can be said about the gossip game, where a statement at one end gets modified as it's whispered from one person to the next. There is a biological limit to iterative depth. You can't just wrap a statement inside he-said(she-said(he-said(she-said(... forever. At some point you have to put in a hard stop, a triage. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
circa Mon Dec 22 18:10:45 EST 2014, mgd wrote: As I see it, the significant attention in that case in that example is putting together the joke. For True Blood or Walking Dead, it's the screenwriters, actors, directors, consultants, and other creative individuals involved in making the shows.For a video game, it's the artists and coders. I suppose I could say by paying my cable bill, I'm somehow a participant. But that would be like saying because I voted I'm a leader.I think that is absurd. Maybe in the gaming example, there is a more overlap because experienced players would be able to give useful feedback to the game developers. If there is any point to our consumer culture, it's as a clumsy and inefficient tax to sustain the people that create. Ahh, but you're forgetting that your payment includes not only your money but also your eyeballs. Thankfully, we're evolving away from the more one-way transactions of content. Network shows, including nonalacart cable services, rely on more than how much money you pay for each individual episode. The continued existence of True Blood depends on extrapolations into eyeballs. By watching it you are participating. Even further, if you talk about it at the water cooler... if you reference it in mailing list posts, if you wear costumes at halloween parties based on it, etc, you are participating. The same is true for most video games, now, which track interest via varous trophies as well as tracking social games (where people play together over the internet), not to mention MMO games where the boundary between real assets and game assets is blurred. Even your oversimplification to I voted, therefore I'm a leader isn't as absurd as you intend. Voting isn't merely a purely private ink mark on an anonymous ballot. It's an identity for many people. Do you split your ticket? Do you vote for candidates? Do you talk about voting... even in the abstract? Hell, even non-voters like Russell Brand are participants in our voting system. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Being a Buddheo-Christian, I can say I believe in the Pythagorean Theorem and have faith in something some call God. And I ponder why there is Something rather than Nothing. Maybe quantum mechanics? It's getting pretty close. My bet is my brain is so beat up at this point that an EKG would not likely find a hint of much. -- Owen On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:09 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: circa Mon Dec 22 18:10:45 EST 2014, mgd wrote: As I see it, the significant attention in that case in that example is putting together the joke. For True Blood or Walking Dead, it's the screenwriters, actors, directors, consultants, and other creative individuals involved in making the shows.For a video game, it's the artists and coders. I suppose I could say by paying my cable bill, I'm somehow a participant.But that would be like saying because I voted I'm a leader.I think that is absurd. Maybe in the gaming example, there is a more overlap because experienced players would be able to give useful feedback to the game developers. If there is any point to our consumer culture, it's as a clumsy and inefficient tax to sustain the people that create. Ahh, but you're forgetting that your payment includes not only your money but also your eyeballs. Thankfully, we're evolving away from the more one-way transactions of content. Network shows, including nonalacart cable services, rely on more than how much money you pay for each individual episode. The continued existence of True Blood depends on extrapolations into eyeballs. By watching it you are participating. Even further, if you talk about it at the water cooler... if you reference it in mailing list posts, if you wear costumes at halloween parties based on it, etc, you are participating. The same is true for most video games, now, which track interest via varous trophies as well as tracking social games (where people play together over the internet), not to mention MMO games where the boundary between real assets and game assets is blurred. Even your oversimplification to I voted, therefore I'm a leader isn't as absurd as you intend. Voting isn't merely a purely private ink mark on an anonymous ballot. It's an identity for many people. Do you split your ticket? Do you vote for candidates? Do you talk about voting... even in the abstract? Hell, even non-voters like Russell Brand are participants in our voting system. -- ⇔ glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Calibration and validation of an extant _device_, based on extant theory is very different from the calibration or validation of the theory upon which a device might be built. Russ' question was intended to assume the validation of the theory and go on from there. On 12/20/2014 12:15 PM, Steve Smith wrote: On 12/20/14 11:35 AM, glen wrote: On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. I guess my argument about validation is as simple as this: The only validation I can imagine would be against self-reporting. One could find a mechanistic brain-imaging (or measureable neurochemical) system which could be *correlated* with self-reported (a)theist claims. But what of those who remain? Those who *claim* to be theists whose brains light up much more like a-theists and vice-versa? Would the machine's measurements take precedence over the self-reported claim. This fits too well with the known-to-be-flawed lie detectors of forensic science. If you were wired to a lie detector and asked if you believed in god and it lit up (or not) when you said yes (or not), what would you know? That lie detectors measure something besides truth/lie? That YOU don't know your own mind? I suppose if you deliberately lied and the machine lit up... then you might surmise that it works, but if you truthfully said I do not believe in god and it lit up, then would it mean that you don't know your own mind on the subject? Maybe the Solstice tomorrow night will return me to the sanity of not getting caught in such cogitations as this one p.s. I'm still not receiving any of Nick's messages, though they show up in the archive, e.g. http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2014-December/045222.html And some of my messages don't seem to be getting through either. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella It's long past due that we begin FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Well, returning to the (somewhat silly) ideas presented in the following articles: http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st088461.html the point is to find a non-self-reported biomarker for the belief in unexplained phenomena. The ideas of invisible friends, internal monologues, feelings of interconnectedness or higher powers, could easily be caused by biochemical or neuronal mechanisms. And the behavior they manifest could be much broader than talking about god or thanking god. Marcus' proposal is for _finding_ the correlates to come up with a functional neuronal biomarker, which might include binding patters across the entire cortex (eg eeg), which I'd prefer. But if we did do one based on behavior, it could be much broader than just references to gods or particular types of god. A good example popped up just today: Drug Unlocks Malleable, Fast-Learning, Child-LIke State In Adult Brain http://www.neomatica.com/2014/11/04/drug-unlocks-malleable-fast-learning-child-like-state-adult-brain/?utm_content=buffer7f0b7utm_medium=socialutm_source=plus.google.comutm_campaign=buffer Professor Carla Shatz of Stanford University and her colleagues have discovered a way to revert an adult brain to the “plastic”, child-like state that is more able to form new connections quickly. The technical term “plastic” implies the ability to adapt or shape itself to new conditions. The striking results were revealed through experiments on a protein expressed in brain cells known as PirB (this is the name of the protein in the animal model, in humans it is called “LilrB2″), which seems to stabilize neural connections. Many spiritual pagan types include psychoactive drugs as part of their religious practice. And many people cite particular drugs as having helped them commune with various deities, including nature. And it's relatively common for atheists to claim that part of what makes them an atheist is their ability to (or desire to) change their opinions when presented with new evidence... a kind of neural plasticity. Aside from the biomarkers (proteins or neural patterns), we could design behavioral studies to test for, say, the tendency to talk to yourself (talk to your invisible friends). Or the tendency to refer to others' feelings. Systems thinking atheists might well be more theistic than their more reductionist counterparts. Etc. Tests for the following would be interesting: http://www.inquisitr.com/1692212/atheists-rewrite-ten-commandments-mythbusters-adam-savage-judged-new-commands/ 1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. 2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. 3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. 4. Every person has the right to control over their body. 5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. 6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. 7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. 8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations. 9. There is no one right way to live. 10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. p.s. I'm still not receiving Nick's posts. Had to get the quoted content from the archive. Circa Sun Dec 21 12:32:00 EST 2014 Nick wrote: I think what Steve (and perhaps others) have sunk their teeth into here is not whether such research is possible, or even whether it is interesting, if what one seeks is an understanding of how the brain works; they are (I am?) wondering in what sense this constitutes a diagnosis of atheism. What is the validator here, and against what is it validated. I think theism (or atheism) are lodged in higher order patterns of behavior. So the state of being an atheist cannot be diagnosed EITHER by identifying a particular neuron OR by asking a person, but only by a careful - ethological, if you will - long-term study of that person's behavior. When that study is done on many people, I suspect, you will find a very complex multi dimensional pattern of variation . a family ressemblence, if you will, among people with respect to the notion of a personal god. I have a friend who is currently living a heroic life while being battered by one circumstance after another, pretty much out of her control. I found myself writing to her, I pray that you have a better year. Now, I think I am as atheist as one can get in a person who does not see himself a professing or
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on behavior would it get at what you want? Yes, that would be very nice. I'd first use it on myself to see if my friends are right. I've often found that others have insight into my personality that I simply don't have. Next, I'd use it on them to see if they were right about themselves. Then I'd probably use it on my mom ... but I probably wouldn't tell her the result... or I might have to lie. After going through all that, I'd probably try it out on my cats. I get the distinct feeling they're more rational than I'll ever be. On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. The diagnosis wouldn't be all that magical. However, having had 2 PETs and something like 6 CTs in the past 2 years, I can say that the radiologists are engaged in some mystical hermeneutics! I love the little details they deem fit to jot down or fit to ignore. p.s. What's with all the accusations of [SPAM]? -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Throw the switches, prime the charge, FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 12/20/14 11:35 AM, glen wrote: On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on behavior would it get at what you want? Yes, that would be very nice. I'd first use it on myself to see if my friends are right. I've often found that others have insight into my personality that I simply don't have. Next, I'd use it on them to see if they were right about themselves. Then I'd probably use it on my mom ... but I probably wouldn't tell her the result... or I might have to lie. After going through all that, I'd probably try it out on my cats. I get the distinct feeling they're more rational than I'll ever be. I like this response... it fits what I know of you and it entertains me... On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. I guess my argument about validation is as simple as this: The only validation I can imagine would be against self-reporting. One could find a mechanistic brain-imaging (or measureable neurochemical) system which could be *correlated* with self-reported (a)theist claims. But what of those who remain? Those who *claim* to be theists whose brains light up much more like a-theists and vice-versa? Would the machine's measurements take precedence over the self-reported claim. This fits too well with the known-to-be-flawed lie detectors of forensic science. If you were wired to a lie detector and asked if you believed in god and it lit up (or not) when you said yes (or not), what would you know? That lie detectors measure something besides truth/lie? That YOU don't know your own mind? I suppose if you deliberately lied and the machine lit up... then you might surmise that it works, but if you truthfully said I do not believe in god and it lit up, then would it mean that you don't know your own mind on the subject? Maybe the Solstice tomorrow night will return me to the sanity of not getting caught in such cogitations as this one Merry Solstice everyone! - Steve The diagnosis wouldn't be all that magical. However, having had 2 PETs and something like 6 CTs in the past 2 years, I can say that the radiologists are engaged in some mystical hermeneutics! I love the little details they deem fit to jot down or fit to ignore. p.s. What's with all the accusations of [SPAM]? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote: I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. But if you think that you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory either. The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas the atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Oh, God, I know I shouldn't touch this topic. But , I can't help myself. First I need to know how to distinguish metaphysics from theism. Once I know that, I think I can answer your question. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:15 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote: I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. But if you think that you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory either. The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas the atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
