[FRIAM] Eternal questions

Sat Aug 28 12:20:44 EDT 2021

>If you reject the dualistic idea that we have infallible knowledge about
ourselves,

I reject that idea but I also reject the claim that Nick makes that I have
no knowledge of myself which is not known by observing my behavior.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, 9:17 AM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The question of mechanism is not an easy one. There have been several
> attempts to figure out how to speak of it, by those who think mostly along
> the same lines as Nick and I do.
>
> Gilbert Ryle famously talked about "dispositions" in this context. Nick
> wants to go with pure "up reduction". My buddies Andrew and Sabrina want to
> talk about how organisms transition between being different types of
> special-purpose machines. There are other options.
>
> No one is denying that there are internal mechanisms which, in the right
> environment, will produce the pattern of responses being discussed. The
> first question is how to properly understand the relationship between that *part
> *of the mechanism and the "higher-level" phenomenon of interest. All I
> care about, and all Nick should care about, in that context is that we keep
> our descriptions and explanations distinct. Discussion of brain parts
> serves to help explain the behavioral patterns of interest, and at no point
> should we confuse the brain parts for the behavioral pattern. That would be
> like confusing the breakdown of baking soda with the rising of the bread.
> Obviously the baking soda is important, and it is worth describing how it
> breaks down when wet, but also we can't rule out that there are other ways
> for bread to rise, and if we remove all the wet baking soda, no amount of
> staring at it in isolation will result in our finding leavened bread.
>
> The second question is how to understand how we "feel" the emotion. The
> answer is going to be something of the form: *We are socially taught to
> recognize early correlates of the larger patterns, and to label them in
> particular ways.* If you reject the dualistic idea that we have
> infallible knowledge about ourselves, you are going to end up at some
> variation of that. And if you are *not *going to
> reject infallible-dualistic-self-insight, then we shouldn't be anywhere
> near this discussion yet, because there are much more basic issues
> to figure out first.
>
> Again, in a casual conversation, we can really not care about any of this.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what's up with the thumbs metaphor. You have thumbs, I
> could definitely, have your thumbs. Yes, there's a sense in which your
> thumb is a complex, dynamic system. But also, your thumb is easily removed
> and handed to me. In this modern wonder-age, I could even have it attached
> and made functional on my own hand.
>
> <echarles at american.edu>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 3:21 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>  uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>> > It's not a matter of being absolute or not. It's a matter of
>> nit-picking the particular word used rather than trying to dig into the
>> mechanism. Balling up the composition into "have", "are", or "doing" is all
>> useless posturing. I don't care. Use "are" if you want. I don't care. It's
>> silly to distinguish.
>>
>> It is not silly to me insomuch as each of those *feels* very
>> different.   I see others who seem to *do* their emotions... "throwing
>> tantrums" vs "having fits" vs "being spastic"...
>>
>> My inner experience is more that of "having fits" in the moment, but on
>> careful analysis, I sometimes recognize that I might have "thrown a
>> tantrum" trying to disguise it as "having a fit".   In the long run
>> though, it seems that it does sum to "being spastic".
>>
>> > What I do care about is *how* we compose from part to whole.
>> Superposition is, at least implies, a particular composition, a frequency
>> domain, overlay. But I'd argue it's an impoverished one. The question is
>> about the "hard problem", qualia, quality, etc. When you look at the
>> experiments surrounding general anesthesia, with electrodes planted in
>> various places on and in the body, you see time series that exhibit very
>> long- and very short- term patterns. Consciousness can be quantified based
>> on these time series (and spectral analyses of them). You can do the same
>> with semi-conscious sedation. They are not superpositions so much as
>> sequential modes, iterative feedback loops, waxing and waning in intensity
>> ... waves upon carrier waves. So superposition is necessary, but
>> insufficient.y
>>
>> yes, more aptly "coupling" I'd hazard, though to a casual outside
>> observer, superposition is what is observed from the outside?
>>
>> I was in a men's group for a while which had any number of silly (to me,
>> not to them) rituals which included checking in to the group with our
>> emotions.   They desperately wanted everyone to conform to the
>> mad/sad/glad/scared basis space.   I resisted, often checking in with
>> "hopeful yet trepidatious"...   which was the only words I felt
>> comfortable using to describe the feelings I had.  They tried to
>> intimidate and cajole me into mad/sad/glad/scared.   The best I could
>> offer was "I'm glad to be here, a little sad that I have to describe it
>> in these four words, scared that you will reject me because I'm not
>> following your code precisely, and mad that you might do such a
>> thing".     I thought "hopeful but trepidatious" was a good shorthand
>> for that.   I stuck with them for a few months until I attended a
>> weekend intensive which was quite profound but mostly just made me
>> realize I had better things to do than drive 90 minutes round trip once
>> a week to struggle with these guys who had too tight of a formulation
>> (bless the cardinal directions and their colors, check in
>> mad/sad/glad/scared, etc.) for my interest (over time).
>>
>> > Anyone who wants to talk about emotions and things like qualia or sense
>> of self, has to talk about such things. If they don't, they're merely
>> talking to hear themselves speak.
>>
>> That's a tight prescription and judgement...
>>
>> Carry on!
>>
>>  - Steve
>>
>> >
>> > On 8/26/21 10:16 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> >> uǝlƃ ☤>$
>> >>> Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits.
>> >> I understand that I was being provocative with the specific formulation
>> >> "we ARE" as if it were an absolute.
>> >>> To say we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by
>> which parts compose the whole.
>> >> I agree and only wanted to add to the composition "are" along with
>> >> "have" and "act-out" .
>> >>> The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order
>> frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they
>> organized?
>> >> To what extent are our identities/sense-of-self (inner experience and
>> >> outer presentation) the superposition of our "emotions"?   yes, we are
>> >> more and less than that, yet for some purposes it seems we ARE that.
>> >
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> 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
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives: 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210828/e45abfbe/attachment.html>