[FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought

Tue Jun 20 23:21:15 EDT 2017

No one notified me about a time/place.  Maybe they knew I wouldn't yield on
the ineffability of consciousness.

Maybe knowing everyone dies strengthens the oceanic feeling.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 20, 2017 9:17 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Frank,
>
>
>
> The Metaphor group.  I thought you were going to go along?
>
>
>
> To you point about uniqueness.  It’s odd.  Misery does love company, I
> suppose. But,  I mean, really?  The only reason not to be bummed by not
> being unique, is if the banality of one’s pain suggests a solution.  But
> that was ruled out by Glen’s example, wasn’t it?
>
>
>
> I dunno.  I never quite know what Glen is on about.  But I tended to read
> his response in terms of his cancer.  He is saying, “I am comforted by
> knowing that I am not the only man with cancer.”  If I were dying of
> cancer, would I be comforted to know that a million other people are dying
> of cancer?
>
>
>
> I am just not sure.
>
>
>
> nIck
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:05 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought
>
>
>
> Part of the pain comes from feeling unique in one's defect.
>
>
>
> What happened Monday?
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2017 8:01 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
>
>
>
>
> I think Glen would reply that minor has all sorts of association that
> provide some predictability.
>
>
>
> I can’t fight every battle in every email
>
>
>
> Yes.  And immediately I have felt really stupid for feeling that.  How on
> earth could another’s pain meliorate mine!
>
>
>
> What was Monday like?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:45 PM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> *[NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence
> of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] *
>
>
>
> What about, “every planet in the Solar System that is closer to the Sun
> than Jupiter is a minor planet.”
>
>
>
> Why didn’t you challenge Glen’s use of the phrase “human mind”?
>
>
>
> Haven’t you ever felt, “Wow, if there’s a word for what I am it must not
> be too bad”?
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank C. Wimberly
>
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
>
>
> wimberly3 at gmail.com     wimberly at cal.berkeley.edu
>
> Phone:  (505) 995-8715      Cell:  (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
> Thompson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:15 PM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought
>
>
>
> Thanks, Glen,
>
>
>
> Kind of you to respond.
>
>
>
> I will do a bit of larding below.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <friam-bounces at redfish.com>]
> On Behalf Of glen ?
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:42 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought
>
>
>
>
>
> Y'all say:
>
>
>
> In http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/
> 20170619/f46244d3/attachment-0001.pdf:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If our analysis is correct, then the distinction between explanation
>
> > and description takes on an entirely new importance in science.
>
> > ...
>
> > The young man thinks, "This is not a unique problem, I am just a
>
> > bachelor," and goes about his business with a happier heart.
>
> > However, such relief is the philosophical equivalent of a placebo, and
>
> > it may be short- lived. Knowing that he is a bachelor tells the young
>
> > man nothing about his predicament that he did not already know. He
>
> > knew that he was unmarried, and that is all that it means to say one is
> a bachelor. Moreover, he has learned nothing that might help him find a
> solution to the problem.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> But, it seems to me that "This is not a unique problem" is THE fundamental
> scientific point.  It may be the only thing about science that anyone
> should care about.  You even lectured me way back to be careful about
> conflating idiographic vs. NOM-othetic information (emphasis is
> purposeful).  Circularity (of description or explanation) is irrelevant.
> What matters is the reproducibility of experiments.  It doesn't matter what
> you think happens between the laser and the film.  What matters is that it
> does the same thing every time you run the experiment and which changes to
> the experiment cause which changes to the outcome.
>
> *[NST==>Wow, Glen.  You are the only person I ever met who successfully
> squeezed positive heuristic out of the bachelor case.  Well done!<==nst] *
>
>
>
>
>
> You may notice this is the same sort of criticism I applied to your paper
> about filter explanations.  Even _if_ a particular bit of reasoning is
> circular, as long as it's not trivially circular ("flat", "thin", or
> "shallow"), there is information to be gained from examining that _circle_,
> that loop.  So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in it,
> even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns that
> because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of
> thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use.
>
> *[NST==>I assume you would agree that “unmarried because unmarried” is
> perniciously circular.  Right?  Just checking. <==nst] *
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, if instead of the vagaries of psychology and natural language, you
> were talking in math or logic, even thick loops are more easily reduced to
> their thin ("normalized", "canonical") form.  So, we can conclude, the more
> formal the language used to express the circle, the more obvious the
> circle.  But you're not talking in or about math or logic.  You're talking
> about psychology, human thought, etc. in this paper.  And therefore my
> response to you is:
>
> *[NST==>I suppose that one could argue that any time one writes a sentence
> of the form, A is a B, one has launched into metaphor. <==nst] *
>
>
>
>
>
> Are YOU relying too heavily on the (silly) metaphor of computer to brain?
> Software to thought?
>
> *[NST==>I hope not.  I HATE that metaphor. <==nst] *
>
>  >8^D
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm only on page 7.  So, maybe you eventually address this point.
>
> *[NST==>You are one of the few people on the planet to reach page 7.  How
> could I cavil!<==nst] *
>
>  Sorry if that's the case.
>
> *[NST==>I will be interested to see if the next few pages help in any way.
> *
>
>
>
> *Thanks again, glen<==nst] *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/18/2017 09:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> > FWLIW, The attached PDF is from a book manuscript,  pieces of which have
> been kicking around for more than 40 years, which Eric Charles has been
> trying unsuccessfully to get me to pull together into something
> publishable. If any of you is curious, the text will help you to understand
> the things I said in the recent complexity discussion and their relation to
> the “levels” discussion and the metaphor discussion that follows.  The
> specific discussion on metaphor is late in the pdf, so that if that is what
> interests you, you can safely skip to the first section on models.  For me,
> a model is just a scientific metaphor. Full stop.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If anybody had comments to share, we, of course, would be deeply
> grateful.
>
>
>
> --
>
> ☣ glen
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170620/58bfaab5/attachment.html>