"Maybe the answer is to take a fistful of magic mushrooms and listen to some Bach? "
Always the answer! LSD in a sensory deprivation tank, ala Timothy Hurt in the movie Altered States, was, for me, even better. davew On Mon, Dec 31, 2018, at 12:59 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Ha! Dude. I feel like I've said it over and over again. Nothing is > real. To do what you've (or Peirce's) done and simply redefine the word > "real" is iffy, at best. Why not simply *admit* that nothing is real > and move on? The answer to your question is that there's something that > lies, within you, apparently, that is not comfortable with the idea that > there is no real. Those of us who are comfortable with the idea that > there is nothing that's real can't really provide the answer you want. > Maybe the answer is to take a fistful of magic mushrooms and listen to > some Bach? I don't know. > > But I can *simulate* someone like you, I think. And the answer my > simulation provides is either embodied-situated cognition or something > like panpsychism. I.e. the brain-in-a-vat is a useless game and nobody > should be playing it. Most of it devolves into persnickety > redefinitions of "experience". So, because you just said "instincts are > a result of natural selection and are products of experience", I can > extend that claim to claims like: > > Dopamine, part of the generative system for human behavior, is a > product of human experience. > > Is 3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine a part of human experience, defined in > terms of human experience? Or is it an objective chemical whose reality > existed before/after/independent of humans? I'd claim this sort of > question *requires* our inference to handle causal loops. It's > simultaneously a generator and a phenomenon of human experience. Is > this a (flat) tautology? Would it require modal logic? Etc. > > These are the answers my simulations of people like you provide. And if > our inference engine can't handle loops, then we're screwed. (Note that > if I *stop* playing along and allow that Truth and Reality can come from > something outside experience - human or not -, then the answers can > change.) > > A little particular word-salad included below: > > On 12/31/18 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Oh Joy. Oh Rapture! SOMEBODY understands me. A new day is dawning. A > > new year has begun! > > But Eric(S) already (however implicitly) brought up methodological- > Peircianism. I often worry that others really do understand *me* even > if/when I feel like I haven't been understood. It's based, I suppose, > on reflection. When someone repeats what they thought I said in words I > would never have used, does it mean they do or don't understand me? > > > Yes. Even stronger. It is clear that we can NOT extrapolate .* Unless > > you regard “Given normal error, the mean of the population, μ, probably > > lies within +/- s/n, the standard error” as metaphysics. That’s the > > absolute best you can hope for. Somebody once called it, “A kiss from your > > aunt” realism. > > Yes, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone (making money > outside an ivory tower or outside their Church) who would claim to > *know* anything more than that. Pluralism is the rule, not the > exception. > > > Ok, Glen. So now that you understand me, how can I understand you? How do > > you break free from the he fact that when we speak of truth beyond human > > experience we inevitably extrapolate from human experience and that such > > extrapolations are inevitably human experiences? Honest. I am not trying > > to be a jerk, here. I just can’t see my way out of that box, given the > > brain-in-the-vat. By the way, instincts, being the result of natural > > selection, are also taken as products of human experience. > > As may be obvious from my first paragraphs in this post, I may not be > very clear on what you mean by "break free from the fact". You're > playing a weird game where you have access to a fact that a Peircian has > no access to. I'm starting to think Kellyanne Conway (with her > "alternate facts") and Rudy Giuliani (with his "truth is not truth") are > Peircians, too. >8^D You can break free from it by a) admitting it's > not a fact - e.g. there are lots of people who don't make the > extrapolation, b) there are no such things as "facts", or c) the driving > force for such a demiurge is *not* experience. I'm sure there are other > ways to break free of it, too. > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > 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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
