<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.qt-msoplaintext1, li.qt-msoplaintext1, div.qt-msoplaintext1
{mso-style-name:qt-msoplaintext1;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle25
{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><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dave, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I confess I did not see the “ecstatic” context of your question: Is here any place in pragmatism for knowledge gained in “special” states of consciousness. I think <b><i>The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg </i></b>is a fable about consciousness. Conscioiusness, as we experience it in everday life, IS the golden egg, and it does’t get more golden when we eff with it. Perhaps I should rethink that. Hmmm. Opiods exist in the nervous system to tell the organism when it has done something right. But why go to all that trouble of doing something right when we can drink the poppy juice and have the pleasure of doing something right without the bother? Here, I guess I have bought some of the premises of evolutionary epistemology. If it feels good, it must have BEEN good, for the average person, in the deep history of the population of which I am a member. But given that all control systems work on cues, the fact that it feels good is insufficient evidence that it is, even to a card carrying evolutionary epistemologist. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If you smash an alarm clock with a sledge hammer, it will ring. Does that tell you anything about time? Kill the goose and all you get is goose-guts. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><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>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Prof David West<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 20, 2020 1:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] question for pragmatists and Piercians among us<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Nick,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Thanks for the response. I think you answered my questions but, because your answers seem to confirm a conclusion I came to prior to the answers, I need to check if I have it correct.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>The key issue, for me is in question 4 and your answer ... <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' id=qt><div><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>4- If we had a "consensus" enumeration of plausible effects does our "conception of the object" have any relation to the ontology of the object?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><b><i><span style='color:black'>[NST===>] I don’t think so. Increasing the number of people who think that “unicorn” means “a horse with a narwhale horn on his forehead” has no implications for the existence or non existence of unicorns.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> ... which is the reason that I asked the followup question about naturalized epistemology (NE).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>NE comes from W.V.O. Quine and advocates replacing traditional approaches for understanding knowledge with empirically grounded approaches ala the natural sciences — how knowledge actually forms and is used in the World. A subset would be about what knowledge must an agent form and hold in order to survive; which sounds related to evolutionary epistemology.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>The epistemology of Pierce and traditional philosophers of knowledge is deemed, like mathematics, to be divorced from common sense understandings of meaning and truth. I.e. Pierce's system (logic?) can tell us whether or not we have a truthful conception of an object, but nothing further. It cannot tell us that Donald "is," let alone that he is an "x."<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Alas, I seems I must abandon the hope that Pierce can offer assistance in my quest to understand what knowledge is, means for obtaining it, and how we know if we have it.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>davew<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, at 1:35 AM, <a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' id=qt><div><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>David,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>I immediately got snarled up in writing you a long, turgid response, so figured I better write you a short one first, lest I never respond at all. See larding below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>n<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/D">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/D</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>From: Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> On Behalf Of Prof David West<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 8:48 AM<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Subject: [FRIAM] question for pragmatists and Piercians among us<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Politically charged question to follow. Unlike my usual wont, I am not trying to be provocative. I pick a difficult example for my question in the hope that it will generate enough heat to produce light with the hope that the light will illuminate clarity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Pierce said:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>"Consider what effects, <b><i>that might</i></b> conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>The Donald is our object<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><b><i><span style='color:black'>[NST===>] It might be argued that the whole project is ill-founded because “the Donald” is an individual, and therefore, by definition, not a general. Abduction is to generals. I think this is a cheap response, because, while The Donald is not a general in the same way “cat” is a general, it is still a lower level general. “Is it true that The Donald is over 6’ tall” is a reasonable question to ask in the same way that “how many angels….pin?” is not a reasonable question to ask. So, then, by definition, The Donald is a real </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>1- Can we enumerate the "effects with conceivably practical bearings" we expect our object to have?<b><i>[NST===>] </i></b> <b><i>Eric might help us here, but basically, I have to agree with you the Maxim is faulty at this point. It seems to me a monstrous category error. Objects are just not the sorts of things that have effects. Events have effects. Actions have effects. Thanks reminding me of this problem. I always supply words when I read the maxim, such as effects… of conceiving of the object in the way we do, as opposed to some other way. The effects under consideration are the expectations that would arise from conceiving of the object way. So, if we conceive of DT as a liar, then many effects follow from that conception, and those effects are the meaning of the conception, and it has no other meaning. </i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>2- Must the enumeration include both "positive" and "negative" effects?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> 2a- does the answer to #2 depend on the definition of "our?" If 'our' is defined inclusively the answer to #2 would seem to be yes, but if 'our' is exclusive or restricted to only those with pro or anti perspectives/convictions, maybe not.<b><i>[NST===>] </i></b> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><b><i><span style='color:black'>[NST===>] well, we have to remember that the Maxim is a thesis about meaning, and so I think the maxim can be applied relatively—i.e., If [to me] a unicorn is a white horse with a narwhale horn in the middle of his forehead, then that is [to me] the meaning of unicorn. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>3- Must the effects we conceive have some threshold measure of a quality we might call 'truthiness', 'likelihood', 'believe-ability', reality'? [T becoming a dictator.]<b><i>[NST===>] </i></b> <b><i>The question is not about the meaning of “trump”; as a proper name, “Trump” has no meaning in that sense. The question is about the assignment of trump to the general, “dictator”, and so concerns the meaning of that general. If we were to test by observation the proposition that Trump is a dictator, what tests would we employ. These tests, according to the maxim, are the meaning of the attribution. </i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> is a conceivable effect, but, I for one, see no possibility of that effectuating<b><i><span style='color:black'> [NST===>] I don’t think so. What “unicorn” means to me has no implications for the existence of unicorns. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>4- If we had a "consensus" enumeration of plausible effects does our "conception of the object" have any relation to the ontology of the object?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><b><i><span style='color:black'>[NST===>] I don’t think so. Increasing the number of people who think that “unicorn” means “a horse with a narwhale horn on his forehead” has no implications for the existence or non existence of unicorns. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>5- If we have myriad enumerations does that mean "we" cannot possess a conception of the object, merely multiple conceptions of caricatures of the object?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>I'm working on a paper with an epistemological focus and that brought me to Pierce and prompted the above questions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Another question for the evolutionists who are also pragmatists: why pragmatism over "naturalized epistemology?"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1><b><i><span style='color:black'>[NST===>] I am not sure what a naturalized epistemology is. Evolutionary epistemology is the known that all knowledge arises through selection mechanisms. People will say, for instance, that both a bird’s wing and a jumbo jet’s constitute knowledge about flight. Well, I suppose. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>davew<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>============================================================<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"><span style='color:windowtext'>http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"><span style='color:windowtext'>http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=qt-msoplaintext1>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"><span style='color:windowtext'>http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a> by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>============================================================<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>