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

Sun Oct 15 12:39:09 EDT 2017

Naw.  Come on Dave.  You're just picking a fight!  I don't meed the "rational man" at all.  All I need is that people either will, or will not, share an opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by definition, if shared, is what we mean by truth.  And the edge I am talking about here is emotional.  I  am not pressing this view with the ferocity that you take me for.  Persistence, perhaps, but not ferocity.  

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: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

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