[FRIAM] Abduction

[Prof David West]

Nick,

Alas, I was not present to hear the inchoate discussion. Please allow
me to do some deconstruction and speculation on what you might be
asking about.
Imagine a vertical line and assume, metaphorically, that this is a
'membrane' consisting of tiny devices that emit signals (electrical
impulses) into that which we presume to be 'inside that membrane'. I am
trying to abstract the common sense notion of an individual's 5 senses
generating signals that go to the brain — without making too many
assumptions about the signal generators and or the recipient of same.
We tend to assume that the signal generators are not just randomly
sending off signals. Instead we assume that somewhere on the left side
of the line is a source of stimuli, each of which triggers a discrete
signal generator which we rename as a sensor.
First question: do you assume / assert / argue that the "source" of each
stimulus (e.g. the Sun) and the means of conveying the stimulus (e.g. a
Photon) are "Real?"
Signals are generated at the membrane and sent off somewhere towards
the right.
Second question: do you assume a receiver of those signals, e.g. a
'brain-body', and do you assume / argue / assert that the receiving
entity is "Real."
If a signal is received by a brain-body and it reacts, e.g. a muscle
contraction; there are least two possible assumptions you can make:
   -  some sort of 'hard wiring' exists that routes the signal to a set
      of muscle cells which contract; and nothing has happened except
      the completion of a circuit. Or,   -  the signal is "interpreted" in some fashion and the response to it
      is at least quasi-voluntary. (Yogis and fakirs have demonstrated
      that very little of what most of us would assume to be involuntary
      reactions, are, in fact, beyond conscious control.)
Third question: are both the 'interpretation' and the 'response'
Real things?
Depending on your answers, we might have a model of interacting "Real"
things: Source, Stimulus, Membrane, Signal, Interpretation, and
Response. Or, you might still wish to assert that all of these are
"abstractions," but if so, I really do not understand at all what you
would mean by the term.
But, you are an amenable chap and might assent to considering these
things "Real" in some sense, so we can proceed.
The next step would be to question the existence of some entity
receiving the signals, effecting the interpretation, and instigating the
response. Let's call it a Mind or Consciousness. [Please keep the
frustrated screaming to a minimum.]
It seems to me that this step is necessary, as it is only "inside" the
mind that we encounter abstractions. The abstractions might be unvoiced
behaviors — interpretations of an aggregate of stimuli as a "pattern"
with a reflexive response, both of which were non-consciously learned,
e.g. 'flight or fight'.  Or, they might be basic naming; simple
assertions using the verb to-be; or complicated and convoluted
constructs resulting from judicious, or egregious, application of
induction, deduction, and abduction.
Fourth question: are these in-the-mind abstractions "Real?"

At the core, your question seems to be an ontological / metaphysical
one. Are there two kinds of Thing: Real and Abstract? If so what
criteria is used to define membership in the two sets? It seems like
your anti-dualism is leading you to assert that there are not two sets,
but one and that membership in that set is defined by some
criteria/characteristic of 'abstract-ness'.
Please correct my failings at discerning the true nature of your
question.
dave west


On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, at 10:00 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Hi, Everybody,


>  


> Yes.  St. Johns Coffee Shop WILL be open this Friday.  And then, not
> again until the 3rd of January.  I am hoping Frank will have some
> ideas for what we do on the Friday between the two holidays.>  


> Attached please find the copy of an article you helped me write.
> Thanks to all of you who listened patiently and probed insistently as
> I worked though the issues of this piece.>  


> I need help with another article I am working with.  Last week I found
> myself making, and defending against your uproarious laughter, the
> proposition that all real things are abstract.  Some of you were
> prepared to declare the opposite, No real things are abstract.
> However, it was late in the morning and the argument never developed.>  


> I would argue the point in the following way:  Let us say that we go
> along with your objections and agree that “you can never step in the
> same river twice.”  This is to say, that what we call “The River”
> changes every time we step in it.  Wouldn’t it follow that any
> conversation we might have about The River is precluded?  We could not
> argue, for instance, about whether the river is so deep that we cannot
> cross o’er because there is no abstract fact, “The River” that
> connects my crossing with yours.>  


> Let’s say, then, that you agree with me that implicit in our
> discussions of the river is the abstract conception of The River.
> But, you object, that we assume it, does not make it true.  Fair
> enough.  But why then, do we engage in the measurement of anything?>  


> I realize this is not everybody’s cup of tea for a conversation, but I
> wanted to put it on the table.>  


> Nick


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> ============================================================
> 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
> Email had 1 attachment:


>  * BP 2018 (Thompson) (in press).pdf 640k (application/pdf)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20181221/ab76e8f3/attachment.html>