[FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Glen, 

 

Sorry to put you through all that.  I now remember that I was totally wrong.  I guess it just goes to show that I am such younger sibling that I can turn anybody into an older brother.  

 

You went on to write:

 

And the very definition of a foundationalist is that something like truth is the foundation of logic. You seem to have it flipped. You seem to be saying that a foundationalist believes logic is the foundation of truth or somesuch. I thought foundationalist meant a) a foundation for all logics can be found and b) that foundation may be tied to something else ... like reality ... or convergence.

 

Here would be a good place for us to remember that I am not a philosopher, and so should not be talking at all.  However, having cast care to the wind, I now assert that foundationalism is the belief that we can trace all right thought back to a few postulates from which all truths arise by deduction.   This leads to a fascination with paradoxes, upon which any system may founder.  It also leads in biology to a fascination with firsts, the first life, the first consciousness, etc.  I don’t think either of us are foundationalists.  

 

I don’t quite know how arguing could force you to think if disagreement does not produce a tension of some sort.  Why wouldn’t I just go on believing the silly things I believe no matter what somebody else says.  Oooops!

 

Nick 

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: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:05 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

 

 

[sigh] I was adopted. My older sister was also adopted. I have no younger siblings that I know of, though they may exist.

 

And I'm not contrarian because I want to "stay ahead". I'm contrarian because too many people around me are too satisfied to sit on the haunches of their preconceptions without trying to think of *other* ways to think.

 

Why bother to argue if there is no convergence? Because exercising my ability to think in OTHER WAYS feels good. I enjoy arguing not because arguing is enjoyable, but arguing forces me to think in ways I don't normally think.

 

I do not believe logics are arbitrary. Traditional logic does arise from language and semantics. But modern logic has broken free and is more syntactic. Technology and progress are good things. And some of the non-arbitrary logics actually match human reasoning better than others. But the logic doesn't *need* the human reasoning. The human reasoning needs the logic.

 

And the very definition of a foundationalist is that something like truth is the foundation of logic. You seem to have it flipped. You seem to be saying that a foundationalist believes logic is the foundation of truth or somesuch. I thought foundationalist meant a) a foundation for all logics can be found and b) that foundation may be tied to something else ... like reality ... or convergence.

 

And to reiterate, I'm not happy or happier when I disagree. But I am *productive* when there is someone present with whom I disagree. If everyone around me agrees with me, I am useless, get bored and move on.

 

 

On 12/1/20 12:27 PM,  <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:

> Ad hominem comments:

> 

>  

> 

> Ok, in the absence of good data, I will assume that I am correct.  You are the older brother two younger siblings;  I am the younger brother to two older siblings.  My psychology is to be constantly catching up;  your psychology is to be constantly trying to stay ahead.  Normally that goes on until the older sibling dies and the younger sibling gets to catch up by saying something wise at the memorial service.  Unfortunately,  I am at least twenty years older than you, so I am doomed never to catchup.  I am Sisiphus, perpetually rolling my damned stone up your damned hill.  But I love you anyway.

> 

> */[NST===> Then /*why are we bothering to argue.  It creates a tension 

> in me that we disagree; I infer that  no such tension is felt by you.  

> I revert to my ad hominem argument above. */<===nst] /*

> 

> */[NST===>I am not (today) making a claim that logic depends on 

> content;  I am only making the claim that logic gro/**/ws out of 

> experience in much the same way that truths do and that, therefore, 

> logic arises from content, and is, usually, related to it.<===nst] /*

> 

> */[NST===>I guess /**/we do disagree, then.  You believe that logics 

> are pulled out  of our … um…; I believe that they arise from the trod 

> down midden of experience.  They are proposals about how truth is to 

> be found. I am therefore not a foundationalist./*  */<===nst] /*

> 

>  

> 

> */[NST===>I return to my ad hominem argument.  I am seeking to agree; 

> you are happier /**/when you disagree.  B.I.L.Y.A. /* */<===nst] /*

 

--

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe  <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201201/3aadbf55/attachment.html>