[FRIAM] God
thompnickson2 at gmail.com
thompnickson2 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 5 16:29:10 EDT 2020
Hi, Russ,
I read this note during a bout of insomnia several nights back, but didn't
have the firepower to answer it, then, and have been stewing on it, ever
since. If anybody else is curious it relates to PP 68-9 of this article
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_eject
ive_anthropomorphism> . I have copied in the most relevant passage, way
below, but your summary is precise, so I will carry on here. You wrote,
beginning with that summary, as follows:
1) What exactly is privileged about introspection?
2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an identity
between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, which is strictly
false. The example being given of a dog scratching at a door to get in.
In response, I would say there is plenty of privilege in introspection. For
example, proprioception is entirely privileged - that information is simply
not available to external observers.
Well, it all depends on what one takes a "privilege" to be. I stipulate
that you have information about you that I do not have, just as I ask you to
stipulate that I have information about you that you do not have. Can we
agree on that? And I stipulate that sometimes information that you have
about you has more predictive power than the information that I have about
you, just as I ask you to stipulate that sometimes the information I have
about you (or your dog has, since I have never met you) has more predictive
power than the information that you have about you. Can we also agree upon
that? I have also to stipulate that yours is a fair use of the word
'privilege". But it is not the use to which I am putting the word. To be
privileged, a predictive power would have to be of a kind that is IN
PRINCIPLE superior. To make the claim, as I do, that there is no privileged
self-knowledge, I need to show that the processes by which you arrive at
self-knowledge are the same sort of cognitive processes by which you seek
other-knowledge. Briefly, abductive inference.
I agree with you that proprioception is a good domain to explore for
thinking this issue through. First of all, since the vast majority of
proprioception is carried out in the Medulla and Cerebellum, without any
contribution from "you", I think it's fair to say that your knowledge of the
zillions of instantaneous adjustments that you made to keep from toppling
over is highly circumscribed. Furthermore, if I were a martial arts expert
and were teaching you to wield a sword, I bet that I would have access to
knowledge about your balance and grounding that you, yourself, would not
have. If this example doesn't convince you, let's remember the phantom limb
phenomenon in which you, the amputee, could be entirely sure that your right
ankle was crossed over your left, when I, your surgeon, could plainly see
that you had no right ankle with which to cross. Now, if you are like my
friend, Frank Wimberley, you will protest at this point that, while what I
say may be true of the position (or possession) of your right ankle, it is
NOT true of the feeling that you have an ankle that is crossed. To that,
you have privileged access. But I would use the same reductive argument on
that assertion, to wit, that it is either empty or false. At which point
Glen will accuse me of a failure of steel-manning, which is probably fair.
Thanks, Russ, for reading the paper and getting its point. There is no
greater kindness one colleague can grant another. I feel I ought to send
YOU $5. It's absurd to think that you should pay me for access to your
mind. If we want to make money out of publishing, we should offer
ourselves up to the world as readers, rather than as writers. Supply and
demand, man, supply and demand!.
Here below is the relevant passage: For some reason, on my screen it wants
to be in two columns, and start on the bottom of the left. Can't fix it.
Sorry.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 2:11 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth
detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective
anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:
1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?
2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an identity
between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, which is structy
false. The example being given of a dog scratching at a door to get in.
In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in introspection. For
example, proprioception is entirely priveleged - that information is simply
now available to external observers.
In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't need
to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most important
application of this skill is prediction of what other human beings do.
People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human society functions
because we can predict to some extent what other people are likely to do. I
believe this is why self-awareness evoved in the first place. Something
similar may have evolved in dogs, which are social pack animals. We have
also evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking
into account the obvious external differences. So we can imagine being a
dog, and wanting to get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot
stand up, and turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would
we do, given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely
behaviour then. That, then is analogical.
So, I'm not exactly convinced :).
Cheers
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, thompnickson2 at gmail.com
<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry Russ. It was in a hyperlink:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_
> ejecti
> ve_anthropomorphism
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>
> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
<friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600, thompnickson2 at gmail.com
<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Russ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Hawking my wares again. I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this
> > crap. The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is
> > actually in the other direction. We model our view of ourselves on our
> experience with others.
> >
>
> What paper? What argument?
>
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
<mailto:hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au>
> http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
...
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
<mailto:hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au>
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 2:11 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
Hi Nick - finally took a look at your paper. I didn't read it to the nth
detail, but from what I understand, your scepticism about "ejective
anthropmorphism" (nice term by the way) stands on two legs:
1) What exactly is priveleged about introspection?
2) That the process of ejective anthropomorphism starts from an identity
between the target behaviour and the observers behaviour, which is structy
false. The example being given of a dog scratching at a door to get in.
In response, I would say there is plenty of privelege in introspection. For
example, proprioception is entirely priveleged - that information is simply
now available to external observers.
In terms of the identity of target and observer behaviour, it doesn't need
to be identical, but it does need to be analogical. The most important
application of this skill is prediction of what other human beings do.
People aren't the same, but they are similar - and human society functions
because we can predict to some extent what other people are likely to do. I
believe this is why self-awareness evoved in the first place. Something
similar may have evolved in dogs, which are social pack animals. We have
also evolved the ability to "put ourselves in somebody else's skin", taking
into account the obvious external differences. So we can imagine being a
dog, and wanting to get through a door, what would we do. We know we cannot
stand up, and turn the door knob, because we don't have hands, so what would
we do, given we only have paws. Scratching behaviour does seem a likely
behaviour then. That, then is analogical.
So, I'm not exactly convinced :).
Cheers
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:32:05PM -0600, <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry Russ. It was in a hyperlink:
>
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311349078_The_many_perils_of_
> ejecti
> ve_anthropomorphism
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
> <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
<https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam < <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>
friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:27 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
<mailto:friam at redfish.com> friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:59:37PM -0600,
<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi Russ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Hawking my wares again. I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this
> > crap. The argument of this paper is that the flow of inference is
> > actually in the other direction. We model our view of ourselves on our
> experience with others.
> >
>
> What paper? What argument?
>
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders <mailto:hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au>
hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> <http://www.hpcoders.com.au>
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
...
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
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>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders <mailto:hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au>
hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
<http://www.hpcoders.com.au>
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200705/e87019e2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 55774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200705/e87019e2/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 306532 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200705/e87019e2/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the Friam
mailing list