[FRIAM] Ordinary logic

[Prof David West]

Frank asserts:

"but it exists independently of nervous systems."

I am in the middle of synthesizing a dozen or so new books, including Iain McGilchrist's two volume, *The Matter With Things: Our brains, our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World,* all of which advance the essential argument that nothing exists independently of nervous systems and Everything is a product of Mind which is sometimes embedded in nervous systems.

davew


On Fri, Apr 1, 2022, at 11:49 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Formal logic is not a god but exists independently of nervous systems.
> 
> A -> B   <->   -B -> -A
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022, 9:57 AM Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn’t it the case that, in some sense, the subjects are being good Bayesian‘s in that they are taking a count of the priors. I know that’s wrong, but you see what I mean. It’s one of those puzzles of the form if elephants had wings, and wings convey flight, then elephants could fly? Right? The nice thing about Peirce is that he saw logic, not as a God, but as the result of the functioning of the elemental operators of the nervous system. Nick.
>> 
>> Sent from my Dumb Phone
>> 
>> On Apr 1, 2022, at 7:24 AM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I mean.... presumably AFTER reading the second option,  the participants understood the first option to be "a bank teller who is not an activist". 
>> 
>> The most notable thing about the study is how shitty psychological research is in general. It should be impossible to publish those results without some accompanying "qualitative" research exploring how the participants understood the question.   Whether my interpretation is right or wrong,  we should not be in the position of speculating blindly.  
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 6:39 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am still without a computer, but will try to dictate more precisely, because I am going stir crazy not being able to communicate with friam. There is a huge literature in philosophy and cognitive science in which scientists ask people to make inferences and then fall over themselves laughing when their subjects make inferences that are not correct according to formal logic.  Most of the examples that are familiar  to me involved abduction which formal logicians seem to regard as a fallacy but which Peirce regards as a formally correct form of logic that is both probabilistic and weak. Here is an example from sobers book, Ockhams razors
>>> 
>>> Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Philosophers asked subjects which of the following statements is more probable: One Linda is a bank teller. Two jLinda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. When subjects answer the latter, the philosophers fall all over themselves laughing because a conjunction can never be larger than its conjuncts.
>>> 
>>> Analytical philosophy aside, what do we suppose is going on here.? I think the subjects have already abducted That the probability that Linda is a bank teller is vanishingly small, And so have rejected the Premises of the problem. Any wiser thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Best my slurred speech and fat thumbs could do! Thanks for your patience. Nick.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Dumb Phone
>>> 
>>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:
>>>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>> 
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:
>> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>> 
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:
>>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> 
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220401/7043e2d6/attachment.html>