;>> are things about which it is impossible to know, period, and that yet,
>>>>>> we should try to know them. (Or speak of them, which is the same thing.)
>>>>>> (Damn! I was just induced to do it!) That is non-sense. Or a paradox. Or
>>>>>
; Hastily,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> PS. Any philosopher that holds that “knowledge” can only applied to true
> belief would not understand this conversation because I think we share the
> idea that there is probably no such thing as true belief in that sense and
> that therefore you
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:15 AM
To: "friam@redfish.com"
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
QWAN - Quality Without A Name - from Christopher Alexander, most prominently in
his book The Timeless Way of Building. Got into Software world via th
, we might be having a conversation about how we might transfer
>>>> knowledge in ways other than speech. You giving me a dose of some
>>>> substance that you have already had a dose of would seem to be of this
>>>> second sort. Think Don Juan.
>>>>
&
having a conversation about how we might transfer
>> knowledge in ways other than speech. You giving me a dose of some
>> substance that you have already had a dose of would seem to be of this
>> second sort. Think Don Juan.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hastily,
>&
Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
Who knew this:
<https://www.yourdictionary.com/qwan>
Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined -
YourDictionary<https://www.yourdictionary.com/qwan>
qwan. Acronym. Quali
ueens will
> reighn, here. That is what a castle IS.
>
>
>
> Later in the day, when I have gotten control of my morning covid19
> anxiety, I may try to lard your message below, but right now, I hope to
> straighten out this particular misunderstanding. When I speak of “we” who
in
>> that sense and that therefore you and I are always talking about
>> provisional knowledge, unless we are talking about an aspiration we
>> might share to arrive at that upon which the community of inquiry
>> will converge in the very long run.
>>
>>
bout provisional knowledge,
> unless we are talking about an aspiration we might share to arrive at that
> upon which the community of inquiry will converge in the very long run.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
&
argue with dave and Glen, hug them, drink with them,
>> > play Russian roulette. What you seek cannot be found with words!
>>
>> DW**You will have to play Russian Roulette by yourself, I'll not
>> participate. I will accept the hug and a drink. I'll even share a sl
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 2:58 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
Nick,
The only time that I have said something is "unknowable" is referencing complex
systems that some variables and some relations among variables in
ow know.
>
> Nick
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David
Paradoxes are anything *but* nonsense. My favorite author even credits it and
the "crazy" things akin to it as: "Their [the crazy philosophies'] most
important advantage over the sensible philosophies is that they come far closer
to the truth!" [†]
As for "the theory", Tarski had quite a bit t
gt; on and talk about how you, and I and Glen and Marcus are going to come to
> know, that which we do not now know.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> htt
Dave writes:
< My claim, as such, is more analogous to the argument that audiophiles advance
with regard digital sound. When you digitize you create a square wave within
the confines of the analog wave. Unless your sampling rate is infinite, there
will always be some information loss — the gaps
day, March 15, 2020 5:54 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
comments embedded.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at 5:26 PM, <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dave and Glen,
>
> It's
riam on behalf of Prof David West
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 14, 2020 4:21 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
>
> Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights.
>
> You are certainly correct tha
convergence. But, then we would have to consider all the
other Natural Languages (maybe even those like the one found in the Voinich
Manuscript), all of art and music, and body language. Metaphor adds yet another
dimension that would need to be taken into consideration.**DW
>
> Nick
>
And my pique is not the fault of others, it is from within myself — at least in
large part.
I started thinking about all the ways that Vedic and Taoist and Hermetic
thought has informed Western Science - almost totally without attribution — and
thought, "hey, why not find a nice graduate progra
From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 12:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
If what we have encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are we talki
om
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 10:27 AM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
>
> Dave and Glen,
>
> It's great to see your two frames
__
From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 4:21 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights.
You are certainly correct that much,
: Saturday, March 14, 2020 10:27 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
Dave and Glen,
It's great to see your two frames coming into adjustment. At the risk of
taking the discussion back to
Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 8:28 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
FWIW, I
FWIW, I agree completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The lost
opportunity is implicit in the ebb and flow of collective enterprises. Similar
opportunity costs color the efforts of any large scale enterprise. I can't
blame science or scientists for their lost opportunities because tr
BTW the ICPR conference on the science of psychedelics was just postponed till
September because of Covid.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, at 3:21 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Excellent! Thanks for making the arc more clear.
>
> I think the advent of studies of the psychedelics as therapeutic
> interventions *d
Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights.
You are certainly correct that much, or most, of my pique is simply impatience.
But, I am here now, with these questions, and with a limited window within
which to be patient. Should my great grandchildren have my interests, Science
might s
One thing that might get in the way, here, is that *my* own concept of science
values *negative results* as much or more than positive results. When someone
says something like "science can't answer X", I look simply for whether
interventionist experiments have been done on X. I care very little
Excellent! Thanks for making the arc more clear.
I think the advent of studies of the psychedelics as therapeutic interventions
*do* apply to fields like alchemy, mysticism, and altered states. So, your (1)
is either wrong or overstated. In particular, the attempt to show correlations
between "
I will try to reduce it to three elements:
1) Once upon a time I had hoped that that Peirce in specific and Science in
general might provide some "sense making" tools/insights that I could apply to
fields of inquiry like alchemy, mysticism, and altered states. I am concluding
that the hope is u
I didn't intend for it to address hallucinations but to give an example of
philosophers aiding in the advance of science.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:55 AM uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> How is this related to conversations about whether or not hallucinations
> are
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> > thompnicks...@gmail.com
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2
pson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 10:58 AM
> To: FriAM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
>
> I'm not going to answer because that's irrelevant.
Not much I expect. The only hallucinations I've had are boring flashing
lights and geometric patterns.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 11:55 AM uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> How is this related to conversations about whether or not hallucinations
> are real?
>
> On 3/12
How is this related to conversations about whether or not hallucinations are
real?
On 3/12/20 10:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Not part of Tetrad but more philosophical see:
>
>Glymour, C., and Wimberly, F.
> Actual Causes and Thought Experiments,
> in Joseph Keim Campbell, M
Not part of Tetrad but more philosophical see:
Glymour, C., and Wimberly, F.
Actual Causes and Thought Experiments,
in Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, Harry S. Silverstein (eds.),
Causation and Explanation, MIT Press, Cambridge, July 2007.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
505 6
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 10:58 AM
> To: FriAM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork fro
0:58 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
I'm not going to answer because that's irrelevant. The challenge is whether or
not conversations like this impact the science done by those who have them.
On 3/12/20 9:56 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wr
I'm not going to answer because that's irrelevant. The challenge is whether or
not conversations like this impact the science done by those who have them.
On 3/12/20 9:56 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ah! When you say that the benefit of philosophy to science is
> "straightforward", what
-
From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 10:52 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
That is confused. What I asked for was evidence that having philosophical
conversations improves the science being produced by those
That is confused. What I asked for was evidence that having philosophical
conversations improves the science being produced by those having the
conversations. The *history* project of showing the evolution of philosophical
ideas into scientific ideas is straightforward. But that's not what needs
s...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 5:00 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
Privileging "Science' — "Scientific Think
In trying to infer an arc from your post, I reduced it to these bullets:
1) preclusion of some lines of investigation
2) science is not scientific
3) physics devolving into metaphysics
4) practical questions science can't answer ("dangerosity")
5) robustness and polyphenism in computing
6) extrins
Privileging "Science' — "Scientific Thinking" — "Scientific Method," even to
the extent of deeming it the "best available" tool for acquiring knowledge and
understanding, raises some, to me, interesting questions.
The first and most obvious, is why certain questions and lines of investigation
44 matches
Mail list logo
