[FRIAM] haldane — ethology

Fri Jul 3 10:36:01 EDT 2020

As usually, there's a couple of layers to this discussion, and a lot of it
is about language.

Let's start with a few assumptions that I hope are not very controversial:
1) Our ways of talking about psychology mostly suck, being on par with what
folk-language was regarding physics or chemistry during the time before, or
right around, when those sciences were first emerging.
2) Nevertheless there IS something that people are referring to with the
sucky language. (This is a William James-esqu spirit.)

Where does that leave us?
Well, we MUST acknowledge that there is SOMETHING Frank is talking about
when he says the inner life of a dog is greater than the inner life of a
rabbit. We also want to consider seriously (without a priori accepting)
that whatever he is talking about regarding the inner-life-of-a-dog is
similar-or-identical to whatever he is talking about regarding
his-own-inner-life.

At that point, there are a few questions:
1) What the hell is it that he is responding to, when drawing conclusions
about the inner life of other critters?
2) What the hell is it that he is responding to, when drawing conclusions
about his own inner life.
3) To what extent is he responding to the same thing in both cases?
4) Given the standard implications of the word "inner", to what extent is
it useful (vs. counterproductive) for those pursuing a science of
psychology, to let that word describe the things we are talking about?

An initial sketch of the answers to those questions is as follows:
1) When referring to the inner-life-of-the-rabbit or of-the-dog, Frank is
responding to some higher-order complexity in their behavior. That
higher-order pattern is poorly specified now, but it could be well
specified in the future, following a very large volume of relatively
standard experiments. That is the type of thing a serious field doing
cumulative research could be expected to pump out over a few decades.
2) We must acknowledge that it is much harder to be *a priori *certain what
Frank is referring to when talking about his-own-inner-life.
3) At some point, when doing science, you got to pick an idea and run with
it a bit. Nick (and I) are running with the idea that the
thing-responded-to is very similar (perhaps identical) in the above
situations. And it isn't arbitrary, we have good reasons. Others are
running with the more traditional (Cartesian) idea that the
thing-responded-to in the above cases are of fundamentally different
quality.
4) Whether you want to roll with Nick (and I) or with Frank, the word
"inner" starts to seem pretty iffy. If you are rolling with Nick (and I)
there is nothing "inner" about the thing being responded to. The thing
being responded to has many causes, including legitimately
inner/inside-the-organism causes, but there is a fundamental confusions
between description and explanation that needs to be untangled, and talk of
"inner life" is interfering with that progress. If you are rolling with
Frank, you can talk about your own inner life without caveat, but you
(should) have to be clear when-dealing-with-others that all talk of
inner-life is speculation based on outer-life; and whenever you see someone
not making that distinction, you should agree (with Nick and I) that the
language is confusing the issue.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor
<echarles at american.edu>

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:46 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Frank,
>
>
>
> Well I cannot say that you have “steelmanned” me, to use a local term of
> art.  See Larding below:
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:56 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] haldane — ethology
>
>
>
> Good question, Dave.  I have a lot of experience with rabbits and with
> dogs.  I find the sense of a relationship with dogs immensely greater.  Of
> course, I was shooting at the rabbits at ages 10-16.  Maybe they didn't
> want a relationship with me.  But I've also had more congenial interactions
> with rabbits.  My impression is that their highest priorities are eating
> and eliminating.  Dogs love to play, be scratched and petted. They get
> anxious when their people leave and ecstatic when they return.  I could go
> on.  I feel confident that dogs have a richer inner life than rabbits.
> Nick, for example, will say that you can not experience the inner life of
> "an other" because the only thing observable is its/her/his behavior even
> to itself.  *[NST===>i.e., there is nothing that constitutes the inner
> life of an organism<===nst] *TUnless he's changed his mind he doesn't
> think inner lives exist.
>
> *[NST===>Well, unless one understands “inner life” in some way quite
> different from your understanding, say, for instance, the sense in which
> Glen offered it, some weeks back.  <===nst] *
>
>   A position that I think he has embraced is the idea that a person infers
> his own feelings by observing his own behaviors.  I asked him recently what
> *is* that observer and he hasn't answered yet. *[NST===>I acknowledge
> that there is a stream of experience, that all experiences are experiences
> of other experiences, and the experience of “me” is just another
> experience, on a par with my experiences of you, or the rabbit. <===nst] *I
>  Nick, I apologize for picking on you but you are the only one I know who
> has taken that position.  Besides Laird.
>
> *[NST===>Even Laird waffled
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260060117_A_BEHAVIORIST_ACCOUNT_OF_EMOTIONS_AND_FEELINGS_MAKING_SENSE_OF_JAMES_D_LAIRD'S_FEELINGS_THE_PERCEPTION_OF_SELF>.
> There’s Eric Charles, of course.  <===nst] *
>
>  Please correct me if I have misrepresented your views.
>
> *[NST===>I suspect that proper philosophers would say I shouldn’t make
> existence claims; I should only claim that there is nothing of which we
> speak when we speak of it.  Or to speak of it as “inner” is oxymoronic.
> Or, there is something that we are talking about, but it is not in any
> useful sense, “inner”.  Or, that as most people deploy it, it is simply
> obscurantist, distractionary blather.  You know, one of those things.  *
>
>
>
> *<===nst] *
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:27 PM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> just came across this quote:
>
> “it is difficult to be sure how a rabbit feels at any time. Indeed many
> rabbits make no serious attempt to cooperate with scientists” (Haldane
> 1932).
>
> How do ethologists get past this issue?
>
> Is the bias against an interior "consciousness" simply pique because with
> rabbits, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." [Cool Hand Luke]
>
> davew
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200703/668e6cb3/attachment-0001.html>