Eric, Your commentary below re: Husserl made we wonder about ways to effectively use, as metaphor or thought experiment tool, the notion of "augmented reality." There is some interesting slipperyness: is the 'augment' the objective reality superimposed on the subjective Reality; is the 'augment' our personal idiosyncratic perception of Reality projected on the objective Real outside?
davew On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, at 12:15 PM, David Eric Smith wrote: > Hi Nick, > > The part of the book that prompted me to forward it to the list was most of > the first 3 (short) chapters. > > I think there are two parallel discourses going on, which are not about the > same thing, and which probably are not incompatible, but which also may not > be part of a cognitively unified sense of understanding. > > One thread concerns the choice or construction of whatever specifics we wish > to regard as “true”, and what we take to be the source of confidence in those > choices. For Pierce’s characterization of scientific method, inter-subjective > observation and stress-testing, etc., as the distillation of the better parts > of common empirical practice, all of what you say in your later paragraph is > stuff I agree with and think is correct. > > The other thread, which is where I think Ortega is writing, is closer to the > phenomenologists, as represented (to the extent that I understand the > approach) in Husserl. In the early chapters, to set up a system for > understanding why countries that had undergone the enlightenment would choose > to throw it away, Ortega argues that the Homo sapiens characterization of man > is slightly off the point. For his purposes, man is not all that good at > knowing very much, nor is the knowing the most central thing that sets him > apart. Instead, Ortega argues, a better starting point in thinking about what > humans are is the relentless need to construct a domain of experience that > gives guidance in what to do next. Since in every “now” there is a need to > navigate some choice of what to do, and since the experience of each now is > constantly being superseded by the following now, the need to be constantly > constructing an experiential edifice is the relentless driver of human nature > and behavior. The awareness that there is such an edifice, and that it is > something constructed, seems very close to Husserl’s arguments that (in my > language) we think of experience as a transparent window through which we > passively receive a reality, but it is more like a painted surface on which > we are constructing things we believe to be co-registered with something > outside the window. The assertion that we can only look at our own painting, > and that it is our nature to be unable to see it as our own painting, because > to function we need to use it as a transparent thing seen “through”, are I > think Husserl’s conception of what “experience” (or Experience) is distinct > from some list of “propositions that are true”. These frameworks of > experience, as a system from which one can extract choices, seem to be what > Ortega is calling “the World” for each of us, or in a zeitgeist carried by a > generation. > > I am taking my characterization of Husserl’s position at second hand from > people who have put in time with him that I have not, but I think he argues > that for Experience, in this formal sense, to occupy a place outside > awareness and to not be recognized as its own thing in our thought system, is > a source of distortion or potential inconsistency. I don’t know in how far > that is true, since I don’t think Husserl, or Ortega, or anybody modern, has > an important objection to the Piercian system for choosing which things to > label “true” about empirical matters. I find the discussion interesting > because I see it as an effort to give a concept decomposition to dimensions > of cognition or awareness. Even If being unaware of Experience in this sense > is not an important source of error, we seem to have little concept system to > discuss empirically what the aware state “is”, and I wonder if the thing > Husserl and Ortega are after goes part of the way to supplying one relevant > such concept. > > This is not my day job, and thank god for that, so all of the above is “grain > of salt” commentary. Fortunately, the books exist as things-in-themselves, > and anybody can start fresh with them. > > Best, > > Eric > > > > >> On Jul 29, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> Eric, >> >> Can you direct me to any particular passages or chapters in the book? I am >> unlikely to read the whole thing, but I want to know your thought. >> >> I rummaged around in the Books.google <http://books.google/> site for a bit >> and found this: >> >> <image002.jpg> >> >> If so, I don’t think I was saying anything this profound. I was just trying >> to get in on the ground floor of the “skepticaller-than-thou” battle I saw >> developing. >> >> There are either, or there are not, consistencies in our experiences, in my >> experiences, in your experiences, and in those we represent to one another. >> If there are not, then we have nothing to talk about, and all talk is >> meaningless. If there are, If somebody cares to call these, the world, then >> all power to them. To announce that something is “the world” or “the real” >> or “true” or “exists outside experience” is only to announce that someday >> the speaker believes people will come to agree on it, the way we have come >> to agree on so many things in the last 300 years of science. If we share >> that belief, that’s one heluva heuristic, and it is the heuristic that makes >> science possible, but it is, after all, only a heuristic. I deplore a >> skepticism that drinks only 9/10ths of the potent, and then puts the glass >> down, burps, and walks away with a smug look on its face. >> >> 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 David Eric Smith >> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 5:19 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias! >> >> I think Ortega y Gasset had things to say about that in Man and Crisis. >> >> I haven’t read enough to know yet whether I think his take is important. But >> it would be hard to find someone who picked up the question in terms more >> identical to those that Nick uses below to frame it. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> > On Jul 28, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> > wrote: >> > >> > While we're getting rid of concepts, let's just get rid of this foolish, >> > unsubstantiated concept, "the world." What sort of heuristic is THAT? >> > >> > N >> > >> > 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 Steven A >> > Smith >> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:41 AM >> > To: friam@redfish.com >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] All hail confirmation bias! >> > >> > I KNEW that confirmation bias was a problem and NOW this confirms it! >> > >> > I TOLEYA! >> > >> > On 4/24/19 5:25 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: >> >> Our World Isn't Organized into Levels >> >> https://philpapers.org/rec/POTOWI?ref=mail >> >> >> >>> In my view, our adherence to the levels concept in the face of the >> >>> systematic problems plaguing it amounts to a failure to recognize >> >>> structure we’re imposing on the world, to instead mistake this as >> >>> structure we are reading off the world. Attachment to the concept of >> >>> levels of organization has, I think, contributed to underestimation >> >>> of the complexity and variability of our world, including the >> >>> significance of causal interaction across scales. This has also >> >>> inhibited our ability to see limitations to our heuristic and to >> >>> imagine other contrasting heuristics, heuristics that may bear more >> >>> in common with what our world turns out to actually be like. Let’s >> >>> at least entertain the possibility that the invocation of levels can >> >>> mislead scientific and philosophical investigations more than it informs >> >>> them. I suggest that the onus is on advocates of levels of organization >> >>> to demonstrate the well-foundedness and usefulness of this concept. >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > 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 >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 > ============================================================ > 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
