Heh, it was Homotopy Type Theory I was accusing of being hoity-toity. 8^) But I
think it's reasonable to argue that W. was pretty hoity-toity, as this story
implies:
When Feyerabend Met Wittgenstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL600Mafzf0
Disclosure: Feyerabend is my favorite philosoph
Nick style larding follows:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019, at 5:15 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> I think the effableness is a red herring. "Last night I ate spaghetti"
> doesn't fully and completely explain exactly what happened last night... but
> we all agree that I used words to describe a thing that is
thology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 2:58 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM
FriAMsketeers and Correspondents en Ineffablia -
I am traveling in Sweden right now where every other young man I meet is
named "Torbjorn" which roughly translates to "Thunder-Bear" or more
specifically "god-of-thunder/bear". In every case, I actually do feel
as if I have spoken with a God and
I think the effableness is a red herring. "Last night I ate spaghetti"
doesn't fully and completely explain exactly what happened last night...
but we all agree that I used words to describe a thing that is not
"ineffable". So far, no argument has been offered to demonstrate that
Dave's conversatio
Well, he elucidated the limitations of language including the concept that
words produced by one human to describe an experience cannot cause another
to have that same experience. Not too hoity-toity.
---
Frank Wimberly
My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/fra
The thing being left out of this still seems, to me, to be constructive vs ...
what? ... analytical explanation. Your larger document beats around that bush
quite a bit, I think. But I don't think it ever names/tackles the point
explicitly.
When you say things like "explanations are based on p
I'm not. Wittgenstein was very cool. But he wasn't a *builder*. (... as far as
I know. I'd be happy to be wrong.) The thing that (in my ignorant opinion)
distinguishes people like Wittgenstein from people like Gödel, von Neumann,
Feynman, etc. ... even Penrose with the tilings and such, is that
I'm surprised no one has quoted Wittgenstein:
Wovon Mann nicht sprechen kann daruber muss Mann schweigen.
---
Frank Wimberly
My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
P
It seems like you're asking a question with the at the end. But it's
unclear to me what the question is. If the question is:
Can a thing-occurance exist/be-real even if any attempt to describe it in any
language will be a false description?
Phrased that way, it's unclear how anyone could
LIKE. I like Dave's comments but I reply to make sure that Nick sees them.
---
Frank Wimberly
My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Wed, De
Last summer I spoke with God. The effects were profound and obvious to all.
Many of the effects, measured with MRI and encephalographic devices, were
quantifiable. I spoke of my experience, as best as I could, recognizing that
whatever words I used told but part of the story. Other's experience
Ok I'm going to try to do a better take on the "ineffable" issue. I
want to start by admitting that there is some sense in which ANYTHING I
want to describe is never fully described by the words I use, in some
reasonable use of the word "fully." If I see a turtle, and I tell you that
I saw a tu
I intend to respond to both Nick's and EricC's comments about "faith in
convergence" at some point. But I've been caught up in other things. So, in the
meantime, ...
"Irony and Outrage," part 2: Why Colbert got serious — and why Donald Trump
isn't funny
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/08/irony-an
t
>>>>> one does not agree with so faithfully that the person channeled is
>>>>> satisfied. Thank you for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have only one ill-ease, about the last part of your version:
>>>>>
>>>>> **both equally illusory.**
>
tps://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:45 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
Ineffable!
There are many things
sor of Ethology and Psychology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
&
>> Nick
>> __ __
>> Nick Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>> Clark University
>> ThompNickSon2@gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/____
>>
>> __ __
>> __ __
>> *
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Monday, December 9, 2019 6:20 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
>
>
>
> I think we&#
From: Friam On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 6:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
I think we've gotten somewhere.
Frank
---
Frank Wi
usion that the bias was probably an
>> illusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding of illusory is probabilistic and provisional.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Thompson
>>
>> Emerit
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> *thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>*
>
>
>
>
>
arku.edu/nthompson/_
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Friday, December 6, 2019 10:16 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
>
> I dare not really speak for Nick, but I think the ess
ompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of glen?C
> Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 9:40 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
Eric,
Many thanks for your three versions of my question. I haven't decided whether
any of them represent what my original question was but I appreciate all three.
I guess I want to say that my original experience of "seeing" a bear in the
woods is the same regardless of whether later experienc
d Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam On Behalf Of glen?C
> Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 9:40 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT
sh.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
Excellent! So, your *scalar* is confidence in your estimates of any given
distribution. I try to describe it in [†] below. But that's a tangent.
What I can't yet reconstruct, credibly, in my own words, is t
up
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
John,
This is a wonderful question, and though it has already gone one way in the
thread, I want to point out that there is another way it can go. "Are you
really asserting," you ask, a bit rephrased, "that the be
Excellent! So, your *scalar* is confidence in your estimates of any given
distribution. I try to describe it in [†] below. But that's a tangent.
What I can't yet reconstruct, credibly, in my own words, is the faith in
*convergence*. What if sequential calculations of an average do NOT converge?
On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 7:00 AM
To: John Kennison
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
John,
This is a wonderful question, and though it has already gone one way in the
threa
John,
This is a wonderful question, and though it has already gone one way in the
thread, I want to point out that there is another way it can go. "Are you
really asserting," you ask, a bit rephrased, "that the bear I think is in
the woods is somehow *out there* even when there is no bear?"
We CO
and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 5:08 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
But doesn't it mean that,
But doesn't it mean that, since no experience will ever *fully prove out*, that
a fully proved out experience is something we will "never truly grasp"? Doesn't
the provisionality imply that *all* experience is illusory? And, then, if there
is such a thing as a "fully proved out experience", then
, 2019 10:16 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
I dare not really speak for Nick, but I think the essence of his position is
that there is no "out there" nor is there any "in here." There is only a flow
of "expe
I dare not really speak for Nick, but I think the essence of his position is
that there is no "out there" nor is there any "in here." There is only a flow
of "experience" that is sometimes "evaluated" (interpreted?) to a false
distinction of in or out — both equally illusory.
davew
On Fri, De
Hi Nick, and Eric,
I am grappling with Nick's ideas that mental states must be physical things and
even are "out there" rather than "in here". What about delusions? If I think I
see bear in the woods but I am mistaken, is this false perception "out there"
even when the bear is not?
--John
36 matches
Mail list logo
