[FRIAM] millenarianism

Sun Jun 7 15:20:34 EDT 2020

Speaker End

Concept or Feeling
|
Flapping Lips
|
Ear
|
Similar (it is hoped) concept or Feeling

Listener End

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 12:37 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Frank, Russ,
>
>
>
> I was trying to retire gracefully from the field, but you are blocking my
> retreat.  I actually can think of a hundred arguments against the
> proposition that “talking is just flapping gums” and a hundred experiments
> to disprove it.  It’s an empirical assertion, and it’s wrong.  With
> “innerness of consciousness” assertion, understood as it is usually
> understood and not as The Steelman understands it, the problem is logical.
> It’s *internally* inconsistent.  (You’ll pardon the expression. )
>
>
>
> My belief is NOT that my monist position on consciousness is complete and
> totally satisfying.  In fact there are many conversations in which I engage
> in dualistic talk, such as, for instance, conversations about “voice” in
> writing, etc.  My belief is only that a monist position leads one to
> encounter fewer contradictions than a dualist one.  Frank, and perhaps
> Russ, also, have held that the contradictions encountered by my monism
> (behaviorism, what-have-you) are so central, so essential,  to their
> understanding of humans that they regard  the position as a nonstarter.
>
>
>
> But all of this is small change in comparison with the question of whether
> I have the power to direct my own mind, to decide what to think.  I don’t
> think a monist (like I am trying to be) can entertain that possibility.
> Now, of course, all organisms make decision, so it is not the fact of
> decision-making that is challenging to monism.  Nor is the illusion of an
> I-that-decides all that challenging to explain.  What a monist must never
> admit, on my account is that it is the [I-that-decides] that actually
> decides.  I think that is the nub of where we have disagreed over the
> years.
>
>
>
> Thank you both for continually keeping me honest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:26 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism
>
>
>
> Thanks, Frank. I agree completely. This is a long-standing issue with
> Nick. I'm glad you point out the similarities.
>
>
>
> -- Russ Abbott
> Professor, Computer Science
> California State University, Los Angeles
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:04 AM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> "It is SO evident to me that any conversation, even the most banal and
> proforma exchange of words, ... that I am blinded its self-evidentness,
> incapacitated by its obviousness, left without words."
>
>
>
> That's what I used to say to you about consciousness and having an inner
> life.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:56 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> Craven tho it might be, I am going to desert you on this field of battle.
> It is SO evident to me that any conversation, even the most banal and
> proforma exchange of words, is NOT a mere flapping of gums, that I am
> blinded its self-evidentness, incapacitated by its obviousness, left
> without words.
>
>
>
> You’re on your own, buddy.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:39 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism
>
>
>
> uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
>
> The argument I stole from wherever wasn't that talking was a *form* of grooming, but that it *replaced* grooming. Personally, I wouldn't go that far. I'd argue that as soon as we learned to talk, talking became yet-another-sensorimotor-behavior. I.e. talking is in the same category as having sex, punching someone in the face, riding a tandem bicycle, combing lice out of your kid's hair, etc. It's all the same thing.
>
> Well corrected... thanks.
>
> The gripe I have with most people is they reify their "thoughts", give too much primacy to the idea of material-free interaction. Words are nothing *but* flapping gums and banged keys.
>
> I will admit that having learned to type at a very early age (by oldSkool
> standards...14) there is something *like* a visceral satisfaction in
> banging the keys.   When I have forced myself to write longhand (see the
> anecdote about a first grade teacher breaking a ruler on the knuckles) it
> can *also* be viscerally satisfying, especially when using a fountain pen
> on quality paper.   And yet I find "nothing more" hyperbolic.
>
> So, to Marcus' point, talking and punching are equally manipulative. And to Nick's point, talking to oneself can be very satisfying, like shadow boxing. But fighting an *alive* opponent is always more interesting.
>
> Touche' !
>
> What about "dancing"?  My limited experience with Tae Kwon Do peaked
> during sparring which with the *right* opponent/partner felt more like
> Dancing than Fighting.  Similarly with fencing (foil only for me, no sabres
> or broadswords).  Neither felt choreographed.
>
> Some of our threads here feel more like squabbling than "dancing"... not
> quite a melee (usually) even though there are some real free-for-all.
>
> I re-submit my previous question of the role/value/import of "an
> audience/readership" participation.
>
> SS> In contrast on this (now bent) thread,  Marcel Duchamp stated
> (authoritatively?!):
>
>  “All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the
> spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering
> and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to
> the creative act,”
>
> SS> Many creatives (visual artists, writers, and more obviously performing
> artists) have agreed with this...   the audience "participation" if not
> "response" is key to their "completion"...  I don't know if this maps onto
> "closure" in CS, but maybe.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/6/20 3:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>
> Glen has suggested variously that he doesn't believe in communication, and that in humans "dialog is a form of social grooming" (I stand prepared to be corrected for mis-apprehending/stating Glen's positions).
>
>
>
> I'm inclined to agree with him somewhat, though I DO believe some of our chatter is at least an *attempt to communicate*.   So is that *all* we are doing when we blather away here?  Or perhaps just Bombastic Careening (nod to Jon)?  Mental Masturbation?   Dominance Aggression?  Random Neuromuscular Spasms?
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-..
> -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..
> 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
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
> - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-..
> -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..
> 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
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>  .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200607/63f0445e/attachment.html>