[FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation
Prof David West
profwest at fastmail.fm
Sat Mar 7 05:38:34 EST 2020
Oh, BTW, I didn't notice any testiness.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, at 5:53 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> See Larding below.
>
> By the way: my mail interface is taken to tucking some of my mail into a folder called "important" where, of course, I cannot see it. So, if I appear to go missing, don't hesitate to write me an unimportant message telling me that there are important ones awaiting me.
>
> Of course I have n o I d e a what distinguishes an important message from an unimportant one.
>
> As I said, see below: Oh, and dave, what I wrote below is TESTY. I don’t realty feel testy, I don’t really feel qualified to be testy. I think the rhetoric just got away with me. It has happened before and you have promised it doesn’t’ bother you, so I am counting on your grace-under-fire again.
>
> Your friend ,
> 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 Prof David West
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:00 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation
>
> thanks Glen,
>
> I totally agree with you about dead white guys. [Except I have had face-to-face conversations with a couple of them :) ] I reference them not as a source of answers but in an attempt to find some kind of conceptual bridge for a conversation. But that might be totally counterproductive as it tends to introduce a propensity for forking the conversation.
>
> Engaging with contemporary scientists is hard when it comes to drug-induced data sets / experiences. I hope to make some connections with contemporary researchers at the ICPR conference I mentioned but the focus there seems to be psycho-medical and related to the oxytocin article you posted, and my direct interests tend to diverge from that.
>
> Perhaps something more direct might be useful. Two things, the second is mostly to tease Nick.
>
>
> 1) I am fascinated by the field of scientific visualization, using imagery to present complex data sets. Recently I "observed" the precise moment of sperm-egg fertilization. A whole lot was going on inside the egg cell boundary immediately upon contact (not penetration) with the sperm. The visualization was of thousands (millions?) of discrete inter-cellular elements breaking free from existing structures, like DNA strands, proteins, molecules and moving about independently. I could see several "fields" that were a kind of "probability field." These fields constrained both the movement of the various elements and, most importantly, what structures would emerge from their recombination. "Watching" the DNA strand 'dissolve" and "reform" was particularly interesting because it was totally unlike the "unzip into two strands, the zip-up a strand-half from each donor" visualization I have seen presented in animations explaining the process. Instead I saw all kinds of "clumps" form and merge into larger/longer "clumps" then engage in an interesting hula/belly/undulation dance to rearrange the structure into a final form. All of this "guided" by the very visible "probability fields;" more than one and color coded.
>
> Now, if I were a cellular biologist could I make use of this vision?
> **[NST===>] I love this example. Every stain produces a new image and some stains are more revealing than others, in that the models they facilitate are more robust and enduring in their predictions. I stipulate that. I also stipulate that hitting an alarm clock with a sledge hammer MIGHT reveal robust and enduring information about alarm clocks. I just don’t think it’s likely. And there is the possibility that the clock wont be very accurate thereafter. That is the whole of my argument against drug -epistemology. So if you are NOT arguing that drug-epistemology is somehow superior to sledge-hammer epistemology, then we agree and we don’t have to argue any more. **
>
> Since I am not a cellular biologist and have no understanding of inter-cellular structures/dynamics/chemistry, nor any DNA knowledge, where did the imagery come from and why did it hang together so well?
>
> Was this experience just an amusing bit of entertainment" Or, is there an insight of some sort lurking there?
> **[NST===>] I like the metaphor with stains. But just remember, if my memory serves me correctly, you don’t see jack shit when cells divide without the right stain. All such observations are of the Peircean type/; “If I do this, then I will get that.” **
>
> 2) En garde Nick.
> **[NST===>] je me garde**
>
> Quoting Huxley, paraphrasing C.D. Broad — "The function of the brain, nervous system, and sense organs is, in the main, eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. This is Mind-At-Large.
> **[NST===>] Dave, even without my characteristic ill ease with dispositions (like gravity, for instance), this last sentence gives me the heebs. And the Heaves. It is either a definition of memory (=all that I experience as past at a moment) or it is non-sense. Or some kind of balmy article of faith. **
>
> But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive.
> **[NST===>] No. No animal has ever survived. No animal has ever tried to survive. No species has ever tried to survive. This is all foolishness pressed on us by Spencer. Even Darwin was leery of it. (and no I cannot cite text)**
> To make biological survival possible, Mind-At-Large, has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet."
> **[NST===>] I suppose one can make sense of this sort of talk by postulating a world outside of experience, but unless you postulate that this world beyond experience can in principle never affect experience, you end up with a contradiction because anything that effects experience in any way, however indirect, is, by definition, experienced. **
>
> Two personal experiences: 1) I tend to not notice when my glasses get cloudy from accumulation of dust and moisture until it is quite bad. I clean my glasses, put them on, and am amazed at how clear and detailed my perceptions are post-cleaning. A very dramatic difference.
> **[NST===>] Well of course. Cleaning glasses is a method that increases the predictive potential of your current visual experiences. If your argument is only that there are experiences I have not had which will surprise me if I have them, I agree, so we don’t have to argue about that any more, right?**
> And, 2) the proper dose of a hallucinogen (and/or the right kind of meditation) and my perceptions of the world around me, using all my senses, are amazingly clear and detailed in the same way as my visual perception was changed by cleaning grime from my glasses.
> **[NST===>] The innate school marm gives us little jolts of pleasure from time to time, usually in response to activities that please her. One of those jolts is a “sense of clarity.” If you break into her storeroom and steal her clarity candies, you will get the clarity-pleasure even while seeing muddily. **
> ** **
> **Now I grant you it’s possible you will see something more clearly. See above the sledgehammered clock argument. **
>
> I would contend that the drug (meditation) removed the muddying filter of my brain/nervous system/ sense organs just as the isopropyl alcohol removed the muddying filter of moisture-dust on my glasses.
>
> I see the world as it "really" is.**[NST===>]Well, that remains to be seen, right. It might be that the dust filters the light in such a way as to reveal structures that you cannot see through the cleaned glass. The proof is in the pudding … i.e., the proving out. **
>
> Now the tease: I would contend that I am more Apollonian than thou because I value Life, and more of Life, more directly, than you do. It is not varied experience I seek, but a direct, clear, complete, apprehension and appreciation of Life Itself.
> **[NST===>] Similarly, let it be the case that I had a dozen clocks and you told me you had hit them all with a sledge hammer; now, if you told me you had lied, and gave me back the 12th clock in perfect working order, I would value it a lot more for having thought I had lost it. **
>
> davew
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, at 4:58 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > It's not pesky for me in the slightest. I'm *very* interested. I
> > haven't contributed because it's not clear I have anything to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Maybe I can start with a criticism, though. It's unclear to me why you
> > (or anyone) would delicately flip through crumbling pages of
> > philosophy when there are fresh and juicy results from
> > (interventionist) methods right in front of us? The oxytocin post
> > really *was* inspired by this thread. But because you guys are talking
> > about dead white men like Peirce and James, it's unclear how the science relates.
> >
> > My skepticism goes even deeper (beyond dead white men) to why one
> > would think *anyone* (alive, dead, white or brown) might be able to
> > *think* up an explanation for how knowledge grows. I would like to,
> > but cannot, avoid the inference that this belief anyone (or any
> > "school" of people) can think up explanations stems from a bias toward
> > *individualism*. My snarky poke at "super intelligent god-people" in a
> > post awhile back was
> > (misguidedly) intended to express this same skepticism. I worry that
> > poking around in old philosophy is simply an artifact of the mythology
> > surrounding the "mind" and Great Men
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory>.
> >
> > It seems to me like science works in *spite* of our biases to
> > individualism. So, if I want to understand knowledge, I have to stop
> > identifying ways of knowing through dead individuals and focus on the
> > flowing *field* of the collective scientists.
> >
> > Of course, that doesn't mean we ignore the writings of the dead people.
> > But it means liberally slashing away anything that even smells obsolete.
> >
> > Regardless of what you do post, don't interpret *my* lack of response
> > as disinterest or irritation, because it's not.
> >
> > On 3/5/20 6:14 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > > And the key to my being a pest — is anyone else curious about these things?
> >
> >
> > --
> > ☣ uǝlƃ
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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/20200307/5e3ef735/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list