Thank you, Roger, for reading my mind. Hurry up and pack, Nick. I'm sure everyone misses you.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Roger Critchlow <r...@elf.org> wrote: > I believe you all have too much free time. > > -- rec -- > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote: > >> Speaking for myself, I don’t hold A as an assumption. A is more like a >> function parameterized on relevant conditions that computes an expected >> value. Alternatively it could also be a predicate, but parameterized on >> some threshold of risk and/or reward. If snows a little, I just jump in >> the car and go. If it is wet and cold and snowed a lot, I go look at the >> pavement, and consider the risks of not getting to where I might be >> expected or try to think of ways to mitigate the risk (e.g. chains). >> Sometimes I miscalculate or misapprehend the risks and rewards, like the >> time the car was acting up, but I felt I needed to get to work to take a >> large supercomputer reservation. (I kept going and the car broke a tie >> rod and was ruined!) >> >> >> >> And I never just hop out of bed without looking because the dog could be >> there. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick >> Thompson >> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:46 PM >> >> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia >> >> >> >> Ok. Self-reflection time. >> >> 1. Ah! Perhaps we ARE just quibbling about meanings. To what >> extent does action based on assumption, A, imply that at the moment of >> acting, one holds A as a belief? I seem to be claiming that it does so as a >> matter of logic; perhaps the rest of you think it is an empirical claim. >> >> 2. I have not defended my trotting out Peirce as if he were God, >> particularly given that I have done so in commentary on others trotting out >> Feynman as if HE were God. I do so because it is easier for me to figure >> out what somebody else thinks than to figure out what I think, and also if >> feels less narcissistic. But as Glen points out, this benefit is ephemeral >> because, of course, [What I think Peirce thinks] is just [Something that I >> think] and others may wisely doubt that I have Peirce right. >> >> 3. I now know why I am being cranky. I am supposed to be >> winterizing the Massachusetts house and packing to travel to Santa Fe. I >> hate travel, I hate winterizing, and I hate packing. From my actions, I >> surmise that I have been acting in the belief that I will be happier if I >> start a fight on FRIAM then if I put my head down and do the things I am >> supposed to be doing. Sober reflection suggests that I may be wrong in >> that belief. Will this reflection result in a change in my beliefs? Only >> my actions will tell. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com >> <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels >> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:54 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia >> >> >> >> There is nothing that infuriates me more than trying to solve a problem >> with/for someone is confident in their hypothesis for no reason other than >> a few past experiences. No we definitely can live with doubt. For >> goodness sake we have Donald as president. It is a personality disorder >> when people can’t depart from their priors in the face of actual evidence. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com >> <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Nick Thompson >> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:48 PM >> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia >> >> >> >> Dear Glen, >> >> >> >> I don't know why I am so pissed at Feynman right now but this quote: >> >> >> >> *"When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live >> with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more >> interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. >> I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of >> certainty about different things. I'm not absolutely sure of anything. And >> there are many things Ι don't know anything about. But Ι don't have to know >> an answer. I don't ... Ι don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by >> being lost in the universe without having any purpose, which is the way it >> really is as far as Ι can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."* >> >> >> >> … is another one of those sentiments that we would immediately recognise >> as absurd if Feynman hadn’t said it. >> >> >> >> Peirce would say, for the most part, we cannot live in doubt. We cannot >> doubt that the floor is still under our feet when we put our legs out of >> the bed in the morning or that the visual field is whole, even though our >> eyes tell us that there are two gian holes in it. Every perception is >> doubtable in the sense that Feynman so vaingloriously lays out here, yet >> for the most part we live in a world of inferred expectations which are >> largely confirmed. Like the other Feynman quote, it is wise only when we >> stipulate what is absurd about it and make something wise and noble of what >> is left. >> >> >> >> 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 <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] >> On Behalf Of g??? ? >> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:59 PM >> To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia >> >> >> >> A better Feynman quote that targets this issue is this one, I think from >> a BBC interview: >> >> >> >> "When you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe. I can live >> with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more >> interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. >> I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of >> certainty about different things. I'm not absolutely sure of anything. And >> there are many things Ι don't know anything about. But Ι don't have to know >> an answer. I don't ... Ι don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by >> being lost in the unverse without having any purpose, which is the way it >> really is as far as Ι can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." >> >> >> >> He was talking in the context of religion, but I think it applies to >> every type of "knowledge", including the "thought manipulation" that is >> philosophy. The point is not that "thought manipulation" can never be >> useful. But that one can _justifiably_ take the position that philosophy >> should (moral imperative) be done in the _service_ of something else. >> >> >> >> You cited Smullyan in the OP, which is relevant. Many of Smullyan's >> publications are puzzles, games. Some of us simply enjoy puzzles. (I >> don't.) But every puzzle is a math problem. It's up to the puzzle solver >> to settle on why they're solving puzzles. Are they doing it because it >> FEELS good? Or are they doing it because either the solutions or the >> exercises facilitate some other objective? Some puzzle solvers (e.g. video >> gamers) find themselves in a defensive position, trying to justify their >> fetish against the world around them. The silly rancor many "practical" >> people aim at philosophers can make some of them defensive. And it's a >> real shame that we shame philosophers for doing it just because they enjoy >> it. >> >> >> >> But it moves from merely shameful to outright dangerous when a >> philosopher can't distinguish their own _why_. Someone who does it because >> it's fun shouldn't waste any time yapping about how useful it is. And >> someone who does it because it's useful shouldn't waste any time yapping >> about how fun it is. Get over it. Be confident. Engage your fetish and >> ignore the nay-sayers. >> >> >> >> On 09/21/2017 09:53 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> >> > Glen - >> >> > >> >> > I share your use of the term "Science" as in being an activity >> (roughly) defined by "the Scientific Method" just as I use the term "Art" >> as the process rather than the product (aka "Artifact"). >> >> > >> >> > When I do anything vaguely (or presumptively) artistic, I think of my >> role as that of an "Artifex" more than an "Artist" because I feel more >> emphasis on the conception/making than on being tuned into or tied into a >> larger, higher group/power which is how I read "Art and Artist". I have a >> similar ambivalence about "Scientist/Science". Despite degrees in Math >> and Physics, my practice has rarely involved actual Science (or more math >> than just really fancy arithmetic), though I have worked with "real >> Scientists" and close to "Scientific Progress" for most of my life. I >> don't even think of my work as having been that of an Engineer, but truly >> much closer to simply that of a "Technologist". And as everyone who has >> read my missives here can attest, my throwdown as a "Philosopher" is >> equally detuned... but suspect myself to oscillate wildly between the poles >> of "Philosopher" and "Philistine". All that rattled off, I truly value >> having enough understanding of all of these >> >> > ideals to recognize the differences qualitatively, and to have mildly >> informed opinions about the better and worser examples of each >> quantitatively. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ☣ gⅼеɳ >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > > ============================================================ > 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy emergentdiplomacy.org Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding Saint Paul University Ottawa, Ontario, Canada merlelefk...@gmail.com <merlelef...@gmail.com> mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2 twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
