[FRIAM] models, reality, etc.

[Eric Charles]

Dave asked how valid it was to claim "every experiencer's behavior will be
grounded on the interpretations, not the 'raw data'."

I think the answer has to be: Centuries of effort to try to nail that down
how we "interpret" "raw data" can only be resolved by recognizing that
whatever we mean by "raw data" is, at best,  what is seen from an
additional point of view,  which we have no a priori reason to privilege in
the way that terminology intends.
(William James waves from the corner of the room. )




On Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 3:13 PM Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm wrote:

> Given an "experiencer":
>
> - what is directly "experienced" is apparently randomly moving dots.
>
> - what is "interpreted" from that experience (a kind of meta-experience)
> are 'triangles', 'squares', 'stars', and 'prisms'.
>
> - every experiencer's behavior will be grounded on the interpretations,
> not the 'raw data'. In an important way this makes the patterns 'more real'
> than the data.
>
> - if two independent experiencers could occupy the exact same
> observational point, they might experience the same interpretations. Open
> question because they could not occupy the same observational point at the
> same time.
>
> - if we could devise a 'language' that would allow us to say that, "my
> equilateral triangles are identical to your slightly isosceles triangles
> plus Factor X," we could say that we are seeing the same patterns / making
> the same interpretations.
>
> - are triangles, squares, stars, and prisms, the only possible
> interpretations/experiences? if so why? *One* possibility is
> anthropomorphic in nature - they are the only possible patterns that an
> observer configured as a human being can see. This answer would seem to
> weaken the case for the 'reality' of the patterns vis-a-vis the reality of
> the dots. *Two*, the patterns are akin to Platonic 'ideals', in which
> case they are real, but in a sense that forces a kind of dualism.
>
> - how valid is the statement, "every experiencer's behavior will be
> grounded on the interpretations, not the 'raw data'." I would argue for
> validity, which raises some real problems when you are dealing with 12
> trillion dots instead of twelve. I would seem to mandate the construction
> of "models" based on some set of "primitive" interpretations/patterns. It
> would seem that some kind of constraints are necessary to build 'orderly'
> models. If so, then the constraints are interpretations (meta-expriences)
> in the same fashion as for the "primitives" and raise the same kind of
> questions — are the 'structures' constraining the models the only possible
> ones?
>
> - of course, a good Buddhist epistemologist  would argue that you can
> transcend the "patterns" and behave in accordance with the 'raw data' but
> few on this list will be interested in that.
>
> just a start ...
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Wow.  It's all those things at once!
>
>
>
> *REALLY?!!!!!*
>
>
>
> What a great example!
>
>
>
> Let me try and put it into words.  The nominalist would like to say “There
> is no real pattern there, it just depends on how you want to look at it.”
> The realist would like to say, “Nonsense.  The patterns appear when you
> take into account the point of view of the observer.  Anybody who cares to
> take that point of view, adopt that procedure, etc., will see each
> pattern.  They are real patterns.”
>
>
>
> How do you understand it, Dave?
>
>
>
> 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, January 12, 2019 11:53 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] models, reality, etc.
>
>
>
> This popped up elsewhere and I thought the FRIAM group might find it
> interesting. I had not heard of "statistical equivalence" before. The GIF
> recalled to mind previous conversations about Reality (which is "real:" the
> dots, the triangles, the squares, ...?); models; interpretations (ala
> Copenhagen); even Nick's Natural Design.
>
>
>
> davew
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190115/b60e142e/attachment.html>