[FRIAM] The Self Case

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Glen, 

I agree totally; but can you see the degrees without first having seen the possibility of a polarity?  

I admit I am quibbling here. 

N

Nicholas 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, April 10, 2020 12:59 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Self Case

Of course! To quote one of the most preeminent magicians of all time: Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law! 8^)

But what it doesn't seem like you see is that by calling them *modes*, I've created a middle ground between them. It is the same *stuff*, just different processes. (Or, dually, the same process, just different stuff.) If you admit to that similarity, then we can take it a step further and show more than just 2 modes ... perhaps even countably infinite modes. Then your distinction of kind becomes a distinction of degree ... which means it's all the same thing, merely dependent on which part of the spectrum you're working on. I.e. the *domain*.

On 4/10/20 11:43 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> Am I allowed to agree with the second without agreeing to the second?  Am I allowed, in fact to use the success of your second argument as evidence AGAINST the aritificiality of the distinction?


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/