<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Nick -</p>
<p>As a neo-socialist of sorts, I would not invest money in anything
looking for a monetary return. I would invest what "excess
resource" I might command in things that I believed would make a
better world according to my best idea of such. This "best" would
include plenty of thoughtful care about unintended consequences,
etc. (and still be fraught with such risks). <br>
</p>
<p>When I was young, I felt strongly in favor of "because it is
there" as an excuse to climb a mountain or pursue the answer to
various questions about the (presumably) objective world and how
it works. I was also in favor of "progress for progress' sake".
I was a bit of a technotopian, believing that the very simple fact
of increasing human's ability to manipulate the physical world,
was equivalent to providing for "better living" or "the greatest
good for the greatest number" or somesuch. I understand that to
have been naive in many ways. This does not make me fundamentally
a technophobe, but to the average technophile it may seem so. <br>
</p>
<p>My daughter works on the deeper mechanisms of flavivirii (e.g. w
nile, dengue, zika), partly because the molecular machinery at
this level is what she knows well, but also because she believed
(going into it) that relieving some of the most acute
health-challenges in the third world was a worthy cause to
dedicate her life to. These diseases are not acutely challenging
to first world peoples with modern medical support. From what I
know of Sci/Tech salaries, her income as a senior researcher is
roughly half what I am used to seeing in the world of hard(er)
sciences and technology development. *She* is investing at least
that amount in making a better world (by her view of that). She
came to the awareness at some point that while her work is
meaningful and important, it perhaps pales in comparison to "yet
softer" remedies to the suffering in these places. First off, I
think she told me that the money dedicated (via NIH?) to
flavivirus research far exceeds the cost of providing mosquito
nets to the people who suffer the most from these mosquito borne
viruses... and that the demand always exceeds the availability in
spite of costing roughly $2.50 each and lasting 3-5 years. Her
personal lab budget might not buy everyone a net, but it sounds as
if her whole lab's budget in this area might. I think she *does*
send her own personal "tithe" in that direction (nets).<br>
</p>
<p>Age/experience and also an exploding sphere of scientific and
technical frontiers has lead me to realize (now that I no longer
feel I can scale the highest mountains of that landscape, even in
a highly supported expedition) that it was never up to me (or any
one individual) to focus on the highest mountains, but that the
deepest value includes the mundane of gently exploring and
documenting the whole landscape, and remaining open to
appreciating the smallest of grottos to be found there, rather
than only seeking or valuing "the highest summits". The summits
will be pursued as a consequence of any gradient ascent strategy
coupled with a certain amount of random walk driven by pure
curiosity.</p>
<p>No longer a technophile, assertedly not a technophobe, but maybe
a techno-meh?<br>
</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3B923707-0083-4121-8501-71DECB305C5C@snoutfarm.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">I
wouldn’t invest it in research, I’d invest it in development
and then hire a team that understood research. There is
$5k spent per person (all persons) by venture capital in San
Francisco alone. That’s not like the ~ $500k per person at
a DOE government lab, but the total amount in the region is
about like the combined DOE and NSF budgets, of which only a
fraction goes to research anyway.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From: </b>Friam
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> on behalf of Nick Thompson
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nickthompson@earthlink.net"><nickthompson@earthlink.net></a><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception -
sheldrake<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Steve,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
you had money to invest on research, and were hoping to make
5 percent on your money, would you give it to an nsf vetted
project, or to a random project? The former, surely. Yet,
if everybody invests that way, all the money ends up being
piled up in the middle and nothing novel is ever tried. We
need the loonies, and we need some crazy people who have
faith in loonies. They are the equivalent to “sports” in a
breeding program. Without loonies and their cronies, there
is no variation for selection to work on. Unfortunately,
most people who bet on loonies loose. Yes, a few win big,
but most lose. So, on average, it doesn’t pay to be a
loonie-croney. That’s the paradox. This leads me to the
conclusion that madness is a form of altruism.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Nick</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Nicholas
S. Thompson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Emeritus
Professor of Psychology and Biology</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Clark
University</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a
href="http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Friam [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steven A Smith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 18, 2019 11:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Unmediated perception -
sheldrake</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dave -<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">It
seems like the ideas that seem to capture my imagination
- Sheldrake, quantum consciousness among them - tend to
be labeled as "pseudo." This is annoying, first because
my hermeneutical hackles bristle whenever anyone tries
to assert their interpretation as privileged over
someone else's; and because there seem to be so many
cross-connections that afford all within the net to gain
plausibility simply from being in the net.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks for making this point and sharing this predilection.
I find a duality in this experience myself which can be a
challenge to manage. I deeply share your suspicion/resentment
of "privileged interpretation". I also am deeply suspicious
of persuasive modes of communication (NLP as an extreme
example, bad but conventional rhetoric second to that). I
have been a direct "victim" of this in my life from time to
time, but more chronically I have *observed* others being
persuaded to believe things for which there is either shaky
evidence or which is highly contradicted by the evidence
available. My judgement of this can sound or feel like my
own positioning with "privileged interpretation" which is what
makes manipulative rhetoric so insidious. I agree that all
that is labeled "pseudo" is not false or flimsy, or is only
*contingently* so.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>On the other hand, one of the common tools I've seen in this
type of manipulative rhetoric is to *claim* that dismissal by
the mainstream is nearly "proof" of truthiness. For example,
Climate Denial, AntiVax, ChemTrails, UFOlogy, etc. seem to
hold up as their prime (or at least significant) evidence the
simple fact that the "mainstream" or the "establishment"
dismisses them. The apparent bias of many to believe
anything wrapped up in the trappings of a "conspiracy".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>On the other other hand, new or changing or revolutionary
paradigms in knowledge are *naturally* strongly or
fundamentally counter to the common/standard "truth".
Copernicus and Galileo and their move from geocentric to
heliocentric astronomical models.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>You use the phrase "capture my imagination" which I find
*also* holds a dualism for me. On the one hand, I believe
that intuition is a critical element in my own understanding
and knowledge of the world. On the other, I find that my
"imagination" is vulnerable to "whimsy" and a carefully
constructed "whimsy" can be as compelling in it's own way as
the biases of "conspiracy". The carrot to go with the stick.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Being trained formally in Science and Mathematics, I have a
deep respect for the methods and sensibilities of those
domains. Working in "Big Science" among a broad
cross-cutting set of disciplines (27 years at LANL) also gave
me a deep suspicion of "received wisdom". While the largest
portion of the work I observed stood on it's own merits, the
largest portion of the *funding* for the work seemed to follow
the biases of "privileged interpretation" and "received
wisdom". I also felt that *publication* of scientific work
went through a similar but not as extreme biased filter.
Peer review and reproduction of results are central to
scientific progress, so this can be problematic. On the other,
other, other hand, irresponsible publication of "hooey"
without proper peer review seems somewhat pervasive and
corrupts the process in it's own insidious way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><ramble off><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>- Steve<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives back to 2003: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>