[FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
Prof David West
profwest at fastmail.fm
Wed Jun 26 09:11:59 EDT 2019
Nick,
not larded, but referenced response:
**"by whoooom?"**
>From Wikipedia: Philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include Heraclitus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus>, Karl Marx <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx>,[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy#cite_note-4> Friedrich Nietzsche <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche>, Henri Bergson <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson>, Martin Heidegger <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger>, Charles Sanders Peirce <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce>, William James <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James>, Alfred North Whitehead <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead>, Alfred Korzybski <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski>, R. G. Collingwood <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._G._Collingwood>, Alan Watts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts>, Robert M. Pirsig <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig>, Charles Hartshorne <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hartshorne>, Arran Gare <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arran_Gare>, Nicholas Rescher <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Rescher>, Colin Wilson <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wilson>, Jacques Derrida <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida>, and Gilles Deleuze <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze>." My library is in Utah, so I cannot point to other references that confirm Wikipedia's inclusion of Peirce in the process school.
**"Who is this YOU of whom you speak?"**
Nick T. stated he (might) use mental constructions to regulate experience. I used the pronoun 'you' to refer to Nick T. and make the assertion that Nick T. could not regulate experience.
**"can’t a model of the self-screen experience and thus lead to different experiences?"**
No. There is no model of the self anymore than there is a self, or an 'out-there-other' - at least if you want to be a real experiential monist asserting that nothing IS except experience.
If you really want to be an 'experiential monist' I believe you will have to become a process philosopher yourself. There is no "experience" no "experienc-er" there only is the process of "experienc-ing." The hyphen is intended to divorce the neologism from the common word, which implies a who — but retain the notion of constant dynamic process.
Process philosophers (and Buddhists) are not 'dualists' (nor am I) and all pretty much deny, to a greater or lesser degree of absolutism, that there is an "out there."
**Satori** is an altered state of awareness where you see through the illusory, concrete | solid | physical, world 'out-there' to the reality behind it which is the dynamic, statistical, super-positioned, quantumn-ness underpinning it all. BTW, if you can still see "the individual photon" you are not quite there yet - because neither both you and it are illusory constructs. Satori is experience, in-and-of-itself-only.
**"Peirce as fragile foundation."**
No accusations, no sin. Peirce, again to the degree I have any understanding, wrestles with the problem of speaking about a 'non-dualist' reality using a language saturated with the verb 'to be'. As an aficionado, you inherit the same problem.
**"somewhere nice"**
Amsterdam, fifth floor office looking down on two canals and a horizon of downtown. Ride bicycle to and from everyday, including a ferry ride across the IJ river. Interesting place, nice people, new adventures (actually new wine in old bottles as I am doing software development, but "my way"). Bureaucracy is interesting: taking three months to open a business bank account, six months to get residency/work permit. Jenny Quillien just down the road in Weesp and she sends her hello and kind regards. If you ever travel, we both have space to crash and tours to offer.
davew
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 3:27 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Hi, David,
>
> I realize I didn’t really address your points, I think mostly because I don’t understand them. Please see larding below.
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:11 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
>
> BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.
> **[NST==>by whoooooom? <==nst] **
>
> There is no such thing as experience that is not OF something — at least as long as experiences are intermediated, first by embodied senses, then by cognitive “constructions.” YOU cannot regulate your experiences, only the process of experiencing can yield what might appear to be regularities / patterns / consistencies.**[NST==>Even in a monist system, can’t a model of the self-screen experience and thus lead to different experiences. Hence, self-control? <==nst] **
>
> Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to be.
> **[NST==>I have no idea what you mean be this… honestly. <==nst] **
>
> Quantum sensitivity is not “thrown away” by the design of your retina, or any other sense organ. The only thing that can ‘block’ such sensitivity are those pesky cognitive constructs, and they do not block so much as they establish a willful disregard.**[NST==>I still don’t know what a quantum signal would look like, so I don’t know what quantum sensitivity would be sensitivity to. But it seems to me that if one threw in random input between a quantum signal, whatever that might be, and the optic nerve, whatever sensitivity the cone cells might have would be sensitivity to extraneous events in the retina (the passing blood cell, say), rather to anything in your dualist’s world “out there”. <==nst] **
>
> To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think (understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.
> **[NST==>As I said earlier, I can enumerate all sorts of sins that you might be accusing me of here, but I don’t know which one, and I don’t see why I should do the work of accusation for you. Thus your hubris is matched by my bone-headedness. <==nst]**
> ** **
> **You somewhere nice? **
>
> Hubristic, ain’t I?
> davew
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Dave West Wrot:
>> **To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.**
>>
>> The Monist replyeth,
>>
>> **I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?**
>>
>> 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: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>>
>> re: "deep philosophical questions:
>>
>> Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.
>>
>> Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.
>>
>> I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.
>>
>> The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.
>>
>> To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.
>>
>> [Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
>> > interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
>> > an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
>> > would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
>> > suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
>> > degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
>> > first intuition is "entirely." In meteorology, they talk about the
>> > "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
>> > measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
>> > they based their predictions of future ones. I wonder what sort of
>> > tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
>> > the model right.
>> >
>> > But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
>> > backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it? Is there any
>> > world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
>> > disadvantage?
>> >
>> > 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: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
>> > To: friam at redfish.com
>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>> >
>> > Ah Nick,
>> >
>> > because they finely tune the carrier wave (that which you perceive as
>> > neural noise) in such a way that my quantum signal, being the delicate
>> > creature it is, can survive multiple synaptic shocks as it moves from
>> > neuron to neuron — the way you would want a well padded barrel when
>> > going over Niagara Falls.
>> >
>> > davew
>> >
>> > (I assume you are wearing your hip boots as standard gear in the MIB.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > > David,
>> > >
>> > > I will see your "bushwash" and raise you a hornswaggle.
>> > >
>> > > Why, my feathered friend, if quantum accuracy is so important, do
>> > > you wear your retina backwards? Why do you see through your
>> > > ganglion cells.
>> > >
>> > > 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: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
>> > > To: friam at redfish.com
>> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>> > >
>> > > Nick said:
>> > > "I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes,
>> > > THAT long ago. There is a second shoe, however. Yes the retina
>> > > (cochlea,
>> > > etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.
>> > >
>> > > So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the
>> > > elements are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole
>> > > system cannot resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near."
>> > >
>> > > Not to impugn your professors, but bushwah!
>> > >
>> > > To make an analogy: the "neural noise" is akin to "junk DNA" just
>> > > because they had not figured out what signals existed within the
>> > > noise and how they were transmitted and received does not mean lost signal.
>> > >
>> > > While "the system" seldom makes the effort to resolve at quanta
>> > > scale does not mean that it cannot. (Why it seldom does is whole
>> > > 'nuther
>> > > thread.)
>> > >
>> > > But, assuming your professors were correct, would it be permissible
>> > > to ask why the organism evolved the sensitivity only to evolve the
>> > > blockade? Or, having evolved the blockade why then evolve the
>> > > sensitivity? Where is the competitive advantage in having either the
>> > > sensitivity or the blockade? Or, do such questions tend not to
>> > > edification?
>> > >
>> > > I have seen the angels dancing on the head of the pin, so I know it
>> > > can be done. Have also consorted with others, directly or
>> > > intermediated by words, who can say, and demonstrate, the same.
>> > >
>> > > davew
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > > > David,
>> > > >
>> > > > Can somebody forward this on to Mike Daly, whose email I can NEVER recover?
>> > > >
>> > > > I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes,
>> > > > THAT long ago. There is a second shoe, however. Yes the retina
>> > > > (cochlea,
>> > > > etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.
>> > > > So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the
>> > > > elements are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system cannot
>> > > > resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near. To do what it does, it
>> > > > needs to weed out its own noise. So accuracy in vision is not a
>> > > > question of accuracy of the elements, but of the ingenuity of
>> > > > construction. Note, for instance that we wear our retinas "backwards":
>> > > > we actually see THOUGH the many layers of the retina because the
>> > > > light sensitive elements ... the rods and cones ... are at the
>> > > > back of the retina. So all that sensitivity of light sensing
>> > > > elements is rudely cast away in the organization of the retina.
>> > > > It's like we are a football players who wear our jerseys inside out but boast about the
>> > > > precision, detail, and color of our logos.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hope you are well. Where are you well?
>> > > >
>> > > > All my Peirce books were lost in the mail coming here, so I have
>> > > > been focusing on my garden. Mild, calm June. May be the best garden ever.
>> > > > But my mind? Not so sure about that.
>> > > >
>> > > > 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: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
>> > > > To: friam at redfish.com
>> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>> > > >
>> > > > Doing some reading on quantum consciousness and embodied mind and
>> > > > came across these items:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-hel
>> > > > p-
>> > > > te
>> > > > st-quantum-mechanics/
>> > > >
>> > > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
>> > > > 2
>> > > >
>> > > > (A Rebecca Holmes from Los Alamos Natl. Labs is part of the
>> > > > Scientific American reported research.)
>> > > >
>> > > > not only can the human eye perceive individual photons (and
>> > > > perhaps quanta level phenomena) "The healthy human cochlea is so
>> > > > sensitive that it can detect vibration with amplitude less than
>> > > > the diameter of an atom, and it can resolve time intervals down to
>> > > > 10µs [i.e., microseconds, or millionths of a second]. It has been
>> > > > calculated that the human ear detects energy levels 10- fold lower
>> > > > than the energy of a single photon in the green wavelength…”
>> > > > Regarding human tactile and related senses (haptic,
>> > > > proprioceptive), it has recently been determined that “human
>> > > > tactile discrimination extends to the nanoscale [ie, within
>> > > > billionths of a meter],” this research having been published in the journal, Scientific Reports (Skedung et al 2013)"
>> > > >
>> > > > interesting stuff
>> > > > dave west
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ============================================================
>> > > > 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
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > ============================================================
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> > ============================================================
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20190626/b59405fc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list