[FRIAM] truth, reality, & narrative

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

MGD -- Excellent point! That evokes the Citizens United ruling and incorporation, in general. With very liberal interpretation, we can imagine these organizations, like city-nests, as our (or some subset of us) extended mind. E.g. to the extent that an entrepreneurial enterprise succeeds or fails, it's a representation of how "real" that organization is as a model of the "truth". If manufactured wants ala persuasive advertising do a good job, then they socially construct the truth and the success of that enterprise is at least positively reinforced, if not self-fulfilling. And the extent to which we can get batsh¡t minds like Trumps or ISIS' to reify themselves, we can more effectively *criticize* them than we can by flapping our gums about ideas.

NST1 -- Re: composing for Harpers or Times, it's interesting that a curated, authored artifact like that would be your intention. In a way, I think my post can be viewed as a passive aggressive attempt on my part to demonstrate *that* such narrative-supporting media are part of the problem, *not* part of the solution. At the end of a bloviating Op-Ed or long-form article, I end up in the exact state I don't want to be in, predisposed to thinking in the terms laid out by the bloviation. The wisdom that story tellers arrive at, in order to tell a *good* story, you have to pull your reader along with you. And that applies for science popularizers as well as fiction writers. Nowhere is it more obvious than math. Those theorem-proof-theorem-proof books are nothing if not "pulling you along" ... gaslighting you with every proof. Socially, the most profound effect *I* see is how technologically optimistic, libertarian, and meritocratical sci-fi fanatics are. So, no, a long-form article for this argument would be self-contradictory.

NST2 -- By "validate against", I intend some cognitive dissonance. To validate means interpolate and match observations from a referent. So if I said "validate with" or "validate to", I'd be targeting that confirmation. By saying "validate against", I'm hinting at falsification and extrapolation. I want the data to falsify my model, not confirm it. But, of course, the ultimate objective is to build a model that both [inter|extra]polates in good faith.

JxF (I don't know Jochen's middle name) -- Thanks for that article!

On 1/5/21 9:16 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> They have to establish a bureaucracy and mechanisms for public communication, fixed buildings for use, etc.   Such people and buildings are the basis for a target list.  They can put themselves in a position to take bigger losses per event.

On 1/5/21 9:18 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> I love the grandiosity of your post and will try to slog through the links so I can fully understand it.  If I were you and had had an idea as grandiose and timely as this one, I would be trying to get it to Harpers Mag or a Times op-ed.  Mind you I wouldn't succeed and would waste a shit-load of time in the effort.  
> 
> One teensy clarification:  Can you explicate " build a logic that validates against human reasoning "  I think I am probably reading too much into "against".  

On 1/5/21 10:29 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> It reminds me of the recent article from Muthukrishna about "Psychology as a historical science"
> https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/historical_psychologyv20.pdf



-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ