[FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Elegant, Glen, and you caused me truly to wonder:  Is the population mean, mu,  of statistics fame, of a different substance than the individual measurements, the bar x's that are stabs at it?  But I think the answer is no.  It is just one among the others, a citizen king amongst those bar-x's, the one on which the others will converge in a normally distributed world.  I guess that makes me a frequentist, right?  

And it's not strictly true that Mu is beyond my reach.  I may have already reached it with the sample I now hold in my hand.  I just will never be sure that I have reached it.  

Could you, Dave, and I perhaps all agree that all ==>certainty<== is illusory?  

I don't think that's going to assuage you.  

I am going to have to think more. 

Ugh!  I hate when that happens. 

Nick 



Nick 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 u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 5:08 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?

But doesn't it mean that, since no experience will ever *fully prove out*, that a fully proved out experience is something we will "never truly grasp"? Doesn't the provisionality imply that *all* experience is illusory? And, then, if there is such a thing as a "fully proved out experience", then you're back to 2 things not fully proved out vs. fully proved out?

Of course, my point goes back to scale ... again ... there's a little proved out, a medium amount of proved out, and a lot proved out. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. 8^)

On 12/6/19 11:49 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> */both equally illusory./*
> 
> I think “illusory” is used here, in your way, not in the way I would 
> use it, but to refer to the world that truly is but which we an never truly grasp.  I.e., dualistically.  For me, an illusion is just an experience that does not prove out.  I arrive at my coffee house three days in a row and there is a “day old” old-fashioned plain donut available for purchase at half price.  I experience that “donut at 4” is something I can count on.  That turns out not to be the case because, another customer starts coming in at 3.59 and commandeering all the donuts.  My experience was illusory.  Or, think flips of a coin.  You flip a coin 7 times heads and you come to the conclusion that the coin is biased.  However, you flip it a thousand times more and its behavior over the 1007 flips is consistent with randomness.  You come to the conclusion that the bias was probably an illusion.
> 
> My understanding of illusory is probabilistic and provisional.

--
☣ 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