[FRIAM] alternative response

[Gary Schiltz]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect so. As an example of partially
supported beliefs, I have no direct way of knowing that George Washington
was the first president of the United States, or that he even existed. I
choose to believe this, because I've heard and read about him, and I find
it hard to believe that a conspiracy to instill a false assertion could
have been pulled off. I could research further, which *might* reveal enough
contradictions to invalidate my belief, but I choose not to. I take a
similar approach to, for example, climate change.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:00 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Gary,
>
>
>
> Is this what others meant earlier by “truncation”?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> 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 *Gary Schiltz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:10 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] alternative response
>
>
>
> If I am honest, which I at least usually try to be, most beliefs that I
> have are only supported by the amount of effort I'm willing to put into the
> endeavor of supporting them. I can rationalize this by saying that nobody's
> brain, not even Einstein's, has (or had) the capacity to calculate and keep
> track of all the assumptions necessary to support our beliefs. I do believe
> this is true, even though it is more the result of my simply getting tired
> of or bored with trying to do so. Maybe this has a lot to do with why
> people have "faith", they just get tired of trying to figure it all out,
> and it is so much easier to accept what a large group of your peers tells
> you. I think true wisdom starts when one realizes those limitations.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:44 PM Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
> Spoiler alert, there is no *how best to think*. You say random, Gary says
> determined. Until you investigate the consequences of each you can't even
> know whether or not you are actually developing the same model ( like with
> the Church-Turing thesis). At the end of the day, deciding whether or not
> the universe is determined, indeterminate, random, etc.. is decidedly
> uninteresting. I try to hold 50 conflicting ontological commitments before
> breakfast. Alas, it appears that we have no interest in working with the
> commitments others make. In an effort to contribute to the banality I
> propose 2401 or perhaps whatever number you would construct the fifth time
> you follow Cantor's diagonal argument!
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/20200617/3a9560f0/attachment.html>