[FRIAM] query and observation

Fri Sep 13 12:48:16 EDT 2019

Dave -

Your invocation of Sheldrake/Morphenetic Fields was a nice surprise.   I
think you are on to something with that connection and I would suggest
that Hoffman's work does support Sheldrake in a distant/qualitative way
without endorsing his specifics.   

I am also reminded of a Science Fiction novel by David Brin, "The
Practice Effect" which has been discussed here before (someone
corrected/reminded me of the proper source last time I mentioned it at
least).   Morphogenetics seems about as believeable as "the Practice
Effect" as presented.    I *would* be interested in more elaboration by
yourself and others on how you see Hoffman and Sheldrake living on the
same continuum and the landscape between them.

- Steve

On 9/13/19 8:51 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
>  
>
> Please see larding below!
>
>  
>
> 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] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 5:12 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] query and observation
>
>  
>
> this is the FRIAM I knew and loved,
>
> */[NST==>Your use of the past tense makes me nervous.  When ARE you
> coming back? <==nst] /*
>
>  
>
>  
>
> As one of the deluded ones claiming direct, non intermediated,
> perception of that which is behind Hoffman's interface, his arguments
> are not surprising. Blaming the existence of the interface on
> evolution was kind of new and interesting.
>
> */[NST==>I am too demented right now to give this the consideration it
> deserves, but you, Dave, have always been generous about my dementias,
> so I am going to allow myself to continue, here. I just want to know,
> though, how you tell the difference between your direct knowledge, and
> the other kind.  Does direct knowledge come with little “d” icons
> attached?  So, not only do you have direct knowledge but you also have
> direct knowledge that that knowledge is direct, and direct knowledge
> that your knowledge of that knowledge is direct and ….ad finitum. 
> Just checking.  <==nst] /*
>
>  
>
> It is the juxtaposition, entirely coincidental, of Hoffman with
> Heidegger, Gadamer, and the whole hermeneutic school of philosophy
> that caused the greatest amount of thinking. Although not a
> hermeneuticist per se, Peirce seems to be at minimum, a fellow traveler.
>
> */[NST==>Yes, I agree.  Although, in my present demented state, I
> wouldn’t know a Gadamer if it bit me on my ankle. <==nst] /*
>
>  
>
> The claim by Hoffman, and all the physicists he cites, that the only
> thing we can know is the interface and whatever is behind that
> interface is not what everyone thinks it is, i.e. Objective Reality˛—
> seems to parallel the hermeneutic position that all we can know is the
> interpretation and whatever is behind the interpretation is not what
> every thinks it is, i.e. Truth.
>
> */[NST==>You dualists offer us a false choice.  Either we must assert
> a truth beyond experience, or deny any truth at all.  By why not a
> truth IN experience.  Truth is a [mathematical] property of
> experience.  That upon which human experience converges.  Truth is
> just what keeps banging us on the head as we grope around in the
> dark.  <==nst] /*
>
>  
>
> Nick's monism seems. to me, to be similar with Behavior more or less
> the same thing as Interface or Interpretation.
>
> */[NST==>Well, yes, but with Peirce’s pragmatic[ist] notion of truth.
>  Some methodological behaviorists [Watson] were proper dualists,
> asserting only that talk of events beyond experience was
> scientifically nugatory.  Philosophical behaviorists  [Wittgenstein??]
> assert that talk of events beyond experience is MEANINGLESS.  <==nst] /*
>
>  
>
> Hoffman's argument that, because we are all humanoids and share the
> same spot in the evolutionary sequence, we share a common, mostly, 
> Interface made me think immediately of Rupert Sheldrake and
> morphogenetic fields.
>
> */[NST==>I can’t call up Sheldrake at the moment, but if you are
> talking about the manner in which development channels us into common
> paths, the fact that even though there is tremendous randomness in
> epigenetic processes, yet we all end up looking [pretty much] the
> same, then, yes, I think the metaphor is excellent.  <==nst] /*
>
>  
>
> It is not the book, in itself, it is the connections that are fascinating.
>
>  
>
> davew
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, at 4:05 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
>
> > Heh, I doubt you're missing my point. And please don't mistake my
>
> > defense/explanation of Hoffman as advocacy. I think it's interesting.
>
> > But he relies too much, IMO, on idealized modeling. So, I don't think
>
> > the interface idea is really all that important. But it is interesting.
>
> >
>
> > To me, though, the way the interface idea directly impacts my
>
> > day-to-day actions is in facilitating my (already present) doubt about
>
> > any metaphysical claims. When some arbitrary person tells me *why*
>
> > they made some decision like accepting a job offer or whatever,
>
> > Hoffman's idea helps me understand their rationale. E.g. in the
>
> > *simple* strategy, where an agent makes their decision on the
>
> > green/red heuristic, if that agent *talks* in terms of green and red,
>
> > then my judgment of them is positive. If, however, that agent
>
> > hand-waves themselves into metaphysical hooha about why they made
>
> > their decision, then my judgment is negative.
>
> >
>
> > Practically, we could talk about that the "singularity" is fideistic.
>
> > Or we could talk about Renee's son's belief in "the principle of
>
> > attraction". Or from cognitive behavior therapy, concepts like
>
> > "catastrophizing" are understandable in these terms. When a 15 year
>
> > old exclaims that "My parents will kill me" it's an exclamation that's
>
> > not very easy to understand for someone whose actually had someone try
>
> > to kill them. But if we understand the boundaries and extent of the
>
> > control surface one has access to, it makes the exclamation more
>
> > understandable.
>
> >
>
> > I've mentioned this in the context of "code switching". The ability to
>
> > put oneself in the shoes of another depends, fundamentally, on
>
> > how/whether you can doff or don their "interface". More speculatively,
>
> > I've had a lot of trouble sympathizing with the idiots who voted for
>
> > Trump. But I can divide any 2 Trump supporters into those who *refuse*
>
> > to make "metaphysical" statements and those who adhere closely to
>
> > "what I thought at the time".
>
> >
>
> > To me, the hygienic examples of heliocentrism etc. are impoverished.
>
> > The usefulness is more about how/when to recognize when someone's
>
> > "blowing smoke" or being authentic in describing their inner life.
>
> > It's possible the reason some of us might have trouble seeing how the
>
> > idea would matter is because *some* of us already doubt much/most of
>
> > what people, including our selves, say. And that we don't need the
>
> > interface idea to be so doubtful? 8^)
>
> >
>
> > On 9/12/19 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
> > > I may be missing your point badly, but your response lead me to flip
>
> > > my thinking inside out and ask myself just what I mean by "so what"
>
> > > and realized that *might* be the central point to Hoffman's argument.
>
> > >
>
> > > My "so what?" perhaps illuminates Hoffman's argument:   The utility
>
> > > of my perception of the sun and moon as orbiting the earth (or
>
> > > actually more typically of them arcing across the surface of  one or
>
> > > more fixed
>
> > > domes) is higher in most contexts than perceiving them as being
>
> > > involved in a much more abstract (albeit elegantly simpler?)
>
> > > relationship formulized by GmM/r^2.   This "utility landscape" IS
>
> > > the fitness landscape for evolution.    Obviously there must be
>
> > > "gateways" (passes, tunnels, etc.) from the portion of this
>
> > > landscape we live in everyday to the ones say where we are trying to
>
> > > predict uncommon astronomical observations (e.g.  eclipses).
>
> > >
>
> > > I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't think the work was important
>
> > > or interesting or fundamental, only that I don't see how it changes
>
> > > how I live my everyday life for the most part.   I am *literally*
>
> > > trying to invert my metaperceptions to see how I could be directly
>
> > > aware that my perceptions are an interface, not a direct response to
>
> > > reality... all easy to do intellectually (once some thought has been
>
> > > put into it) but not so easy to apprehend even indirectly?
>
> >
>
> > ============================================================
>
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190913/e93cfaf0/attachment.html>