Since I'm bored with this webinar, I figured I'd type up some more troll food:
The _epi-_ prefix basically means "near". So a phenomenon is, somehow, ontologically localized and an epiphenomenon is epistemically distant. But that "secondary" phenomenon need not be ontologically distant, which is where the causality problems with epiphenomena enter the discussion. Frank raised these causal problems nicely awhile back with the discussion of colliders and forks. Being agnostic, in contrast to a metaphysical commitment to, say, reductionism or monism, I defer judgement on the modeling relation, the strength of the map between epistemic and ontological structures. This is why Nick's attempt to "turn the tables" on me, by suggesting that my rejection of epiphenomena is, itself, a perspective, fails. The admission that any 1 ontology can submit to analysis by multiple epistemic structures allows me to tolerate monists. And the admission that any 1 epistemic structure might effectively analyze multiple ontological structures, allows me to tolerate pluralists. A rejection of epiphenomena is a preservation of decoupled epistemology and ontology. An acceptance of epiphenomena is a registration, a parsing of the world according to a scoped epistemic structure. I go just a tad further and argue that such registration is preemptive in that it precludes the analysis of that same ontology by alternative epistemic structures. I'd be OK if someone objected to the preemptivity assertion. Some people are open-minded and cognitively endowed enough to swap their frames in and out at will. But *I* am neither that open-minded, nor cognitively endowed. I'm an agnostic *because* I recognize that limitation in myself. But I've never seen someone successfully argue that their, singular, identified epistemic frame is The capital T way to register/parse the world. On 9/16/21 8:59 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Ha! You are the worst type of troll. Why we keep feeding you is a question > for the age. > > Obviously, I haven't claimed there are no phenomena. I've claimed there are > no epiphenomena. > > On 9/16/21 8:56 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ok. Iff so, there are no phenemona, just apparent phenomena. I'm ok with >> that. n >> >> Nick Thompson >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 11:10 AM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the cancellation arc >> >> I'm not talking about observations, or your observations. I'm talking about >> the classification of a phenomenon as secondary or non-causal. There are no >> secondary or non-causal phenomena. There are no epiphenomena, only apparent >> epiphenomena. >> >> >> On 9/16/21 7:54 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Glen, >>> >>> All observations are myopic. All observations are from a point of view. >>> All propositions are three-valued. So, what is this universal point of >>> view from which you hold my observations to be myopic? Eh? Even back on >>> my meds I can see that there is something wrong with that. >>> >>> n >>> >>> Nick Thompson >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of ? glen >>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:31 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> <friam@redfish.com> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the cancellation arc >>> >>> Both EricC's and Marcus' responses say what I'm about to say, but in >>> different language. >>> >>> There is no such thing as 'epiphenomena'. When you see something you >>> *think* is epi, it means you've imputed your preconceived function. It's >>> myopic preemptive registration. >>> >>> >>> >>> On September 15, 2021 8:24:49 PM PDT, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Hi, everyone [who is still following this thread]. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Before I go back on my meds, I just thought I would send along this link >>>> <https://www.huffpost.com/entry/compass-pleasure_b_890342> . I should >>>> perhaps be embarrassed at sending a HuffPost link, but the summary of the >>>> old Olds/Milner research seems accurate enough and it is very succinct. >>>> On my account we have been talking all along about the epiphenomenal >>>> relation and in particular, that version of it which relates goals to >>>> functions. Functions are epiphenomenal with respect to the goals that >>>> serve them. The function of a pleasure (ie, a goal system) is to get us >>>> to do stuff that urgently needs doing. What happens when we access the >>>> goal system directly and make it possible to do essentially nothing and >>>> achieve the goal? Dave says, having learned what it had to teach him, he >>>> would put the device on a shelf. But how would he do that and WHY would >>>> he do that? What other goal-pleasure would be sufficient to mobilize and >>>> direct him in the putting of the device on the shelf. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok. Best be done for a bit. Let’ see. One tablet a day by mouth. Sorry >>>> to bother you all. I do learn a lot from these exercises, even if nobody >>>> else does. And then later I write something good, and that pleases me. >>>> > > -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
