Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the
past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a
lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of
assertions and asser
ocal situations.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:01:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Two caveats: first, this mi
y Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick
since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks)
use the word 'Truth
.
>
> 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 P
iday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
David,
Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to. Please come
back so I can administer cold compresses.
I can recognize in what you write below the v
/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What
Well, Peirce's work in modal logics demonstrates his methodological pluralism.
So it seems to me he would agree with Dave to a large extent. Nick seems to
focus on Peirce's metaphysics, of which I'm largely ignorant. But it seems like
Peirce's distinction between reality and existence might help
;
> > 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 Behal
al logical constraints in their work products.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Hi Nick,I write from Vien
very different ideas about what they are doing and why. The only
> thing that really holds them together are consequential logical
> constraints in their work products.>
> Marcus
>
> *From:* Friam on behalf of Prof David West
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
-----
*From:* Friam on behalf of Prof David West
*Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
Nothing!”
Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
F
ll
soon find something else to complain about, such as, say, the resolution to
their first set of complaints. ;-)
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:57:17 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh!
rsity of life on earth.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:41:52 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Without trying to make a strong point in suppo
Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week
sh.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:59 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Nick writes:
"Try this: Imagine that you have a fancy antenna a
/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of gepr ?
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:08 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothi
nk.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 8:39 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Dave writes:
> Specifically that
From: Friam <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> on
behalf of Prof David West <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
argument about the
> facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning. Peirce is quite
> clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually
> matter. He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the
> form of a convergence of opi
esigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Steven writes:
What of examples of conv
s True. I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what
> > truth would be if there ever were any.
> >
> > Come back. We miss you.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
>
Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:27 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Naw back at ya. I am not picking a fight or being contentious just to be
contentious.
his still doesn't quite sound
>> like you.>>
>> Nick
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>> Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
gt;
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good fo
Dave writes:
“3- It is not a pose. My antipathy for rule, convention, certitude in almost
any form is very real and very essential to my sense of self. You have no
comprehension of the sense of alienation this conviction engenders.”
And yet the From line says “Prof David West”. Back to anarchi
Whew! Fantastic thread! I'm grateful to be able to witness it.
I'd like to point out that Peirce (and as Dave points out, many of us) are what
I'd call "Grand Unified Modelers" (GUMmers): those who think there is, in R.
Rosen's terms a "largest model" ... a penultimate language that if we coul
edfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
I looked at Dave's listicle of truths about truths and the semi-discl
Roger writes:
“This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas
lighting each other. Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to
persuade each other of truths.”
We hear co
t/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:21 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Whew! Fantastic thread! I'm gr
Perfectly stated, Marcus!
It might also be useful to note that drugs like LSD, whether Dave meant them
this way or not, are VERY good belief demolishers. This is, I think, the heart
of why psilocybin helps some terminally ill finish their lives in a happier
state. I also think it's why cognit
On 10/17/2017 10:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> by asserting another definition of Truth, but so far nobody has done that.
Heh, now you're playing a new game! 8^) Plenty of us *have* provided other
definitions of truth. As in active listening exercises, perhaps you could make
an attempt to de
chology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:25 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absol
Excellent! So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask him if
his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect to what you
or I think"? Dave?
FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that
locality (scope) is set by the language. And
truth is — the persistence of a particular wiring path in an immensely
complicated, and otherwise dynamic, web of connections among billions of
sensors capturing input and hundreds of thousands of effectors
generating output from one state of the sensors-web-effectors to
another.truth is a 'fai
itus 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 Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:19 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [
Well, to be clear, I think the idea of your sensor-web-effector individuals
squirming in a machine is perfectly consistent with Peirce's conception of
reality. The disconnect lies in the extent to which that machine (in which the
sensor-web-effector individuals squirm) is "fixed once and for al
Dave sez:
It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
"infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.
It sounds as if you believe that reso
Steve,
My definition refers to a single system - a single system and is not
intended to suggest anything about interacting systems, nor anything
external to itself. I do assume that this system is contained within a
complex system which is the source of the input signals detected by the
sensors. I
rsity
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
Are you suggesting that if individuals begin to--shall we say--"improvise"
that it disturbs the potential emergence of an harmonic system? I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by "mail in their part of the overall
performance."
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Prof David West
wrote:
> Steve
Fans of Radiohead, for example, probably would not agree.
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
Dave writes:
It is not a system fault if the signal is irrelevant to survival.
It could be good to dispose of the need to keep the sensor running, and
reallocate the axons for combining other, more relevant signals.
< Similarly, a particular pathway (set of pathways) are utilized more
often wh
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:59 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
> Steve,
Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized
for 'all improv, all the time'. When that 'improv' ability is diminished
by fixed, rote, performance, that is when the system fails. When you
listen to a really good jazz group, or an orchestra learning a new piece
(or playing
s to understand this point -- that as
> > of the moment I have made no argument for the EXISTENCE of anything
> > beyond local truth.
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> > Clark University
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickth
Thanks. I'm quite relieved to read this, since I think it to be "true."
And the term "mail in" is now part of my lexicon.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Prof David West
wrote:
> Quite the opposite. The system at the root of my definition is optimized
> for 'all improv, all the time'. When th
But, as Marcus indirectly points out, your defn of truth as a capability
failure, then holds everywhere, all the time. Any system with any temporal
delay will exhibit it. E.g. the inputs come at time t0 and the reaction comes
at time t1, during that delay Δt, the system is failing ... adhering
But hailing back to the "doubt" thread, we *all* "mail it in" all the time. As
Nick argues, when you get out of bed in the morning, you're "mailing it in" to
some (or other) extent. When a jazz musician relies on muscle memory to do its
job ("mail it in") so that a more reflective neural pathw
< The only structures that could possibly satisfy the extreme
embedded/responsive constraints you've put in place for "non-failure" will be
completely "ordered" in the sense of having no depth or structure, including
faster than light communication. This makes your definition a bit useless
bec
glen,I should have been more specific - lower case truth is nothing more
than one of those three specific types of failure, i.e. sensor fatigue,
sensor or effector lock, or channelization of a circuit through the web.
My model is deliberately simple and not intended to say anything about
systems i
;> > Are you asserting that there is no stable purchase point beyond
>> > what I>> > would call, "individual belief". When a group of people
>> coalesces
>> > around>> > a belief, what would you call that? (Shared belief?) Are al
But when you say "single entity", you're also implying a universe in which that
single entity sits. I think in one of your posts, you put off talking about
where the inputs/outputs come from/go to. We don't have to go all the way to
multiple entities in order to continue the comparison of the
52 matches
Mail list logo
