[FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Sun Oct 15 09:53:05 EDT 2017

Nick, David: you are both correct.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Oct 15, 2017 12:44 AM, "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:

Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply cold
compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.

The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response. First,
you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery of the
'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that method
privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using it as a
Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term "rational
man" — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
conversational table.

see you in December

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> David,
>
> Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.  Please
> come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>
> I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things I
> have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind of edge
> I don't think I ever would have given it.  Try this:  Imagine that you
> have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal from outer space.
>  Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal.  Now, I say,
> the signal can either be random or systematic.  Let's say that the last
> ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/- 1 hz.  Now,
> it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
> produced by a random signal.    But now let us double the number of
> readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the measurements
> has also diminished by the square root of two.  Now double again, and
> diminish the variation once again by root 2.    And so on.  While we both
> would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal is not
> random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a sample is
> drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of 256hz.  It's that
> way with truth.  It's quite possible that our experience is random, and
> no amount of consistency  can ever convince a rational man that the
> randomness of any particular chain of experiences is not random.
> However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational man
> will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will be
> confirmed in the very long run of human experiences.  On Peirce,s
> account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"  It
> is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the midst of
> will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>
> Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is anything at
> all that is True.  I only gave a Pragmatic[ist] definition of what truth
> would be if there ever were any.
>
> Come back.  We miss you.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>
> Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
> Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past
> few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot
> of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions
> and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no
> such claim, as will be explained later.
>
> There can be no Truth.
>        Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
> - ‘truths’ are possible.
>        Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
> might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral
> ‘truths’ are possible.
>        All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
> illusory.
>
> There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
>        To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
> privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
> scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”
>
> There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or
> sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
>        Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
> Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
>        More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
> about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
> the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
> it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
> engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
> documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
> minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
> simultaneously, empathy.)
>
> As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
> intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
> orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
> ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
> living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
> the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
> belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
> those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion.
> This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.
>
> A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
> “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
> their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
> them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
> epistemology and metaphysics.
>
> None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
> essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
> 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
> 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
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/20171015/7d632df9/attachment.html>