2012.10.15 13:00 - Woly the PaB police

The Guardian for this meeting was Alfred Kelberry. The comments are by Eliza Madrigal.

Eliza Madrigal: Hi Zon:)
Zon Kwan: hi eliza :)
Zon Kwan: korel
Eliza Madrigal: nice to see you
Eliza Madrigal: Hi Korel
Korel Laloix: Heya
Zon Kwan: dont see yet
Eliza Madrigal: :)
Zon Kwan: do you see things clearly eliza ?
Eliza Madrigal: I see your burgundy and teal striped shirt...
Zon Kwan: i meant your tag, lol
Eliza Madrigal smiles
Korel Laloix: I bit more lag than normal I think.
Eliza Madrigal: well I am clearly Eliza...
Zon Kwan: clear is good

--BELL--

Eliza Madrigal: Hi Pema :)
Korel Laloix: Heya
Pema Pera: hi Korel, Eliza, Zon, San!
Zon Kwan: pema :)
Eliza Madrigal: do you see clearly Pema?
Pema Pera: ?
Pema Pera wiping his glasses
Eliza Madrigal: just continuing the question I was asked... hah
Pema Pera: ??
Eliza Madrigal: no worries... :::looks for boxy:::::
Pema Pera: I see you clearly, and Zon clearly, and Korel clearly :)
Zon Kwan: sometimes i see
Pema Pera: Ah, and San is not here
Zon Kwan: sometimes it gets cloudy
Pema Pera: on the radar but 91 meters away :)
Eliza Madrigal: :)
Eliza Madrigal: I'll claim the log for now
Pema Pera: thanks for stopping the green verbiage, Eliza :)
Pema Pera: hi Wol!
Eliza Madrigal: Hi Wol :)
Zon Kwan: wol :)
Korel Laloix: Heya
Wol Euler: evening all!
Pema Pera murmuring "broken milk bottle" . . . .
Eliza Madrigal: :)
Wol Euler laughs.
Wol Euler: at least Gilles isn't here to sweep it up
Wol Euler: oh did I say that out loud?
Pema Pera rubs his hands in glee, at starting a new reality show
Pema Pera: so far we miss both Alfred and Gilles
Wol Euler: I'll be honest with you, I came here expecting a bitter fight in IM about censorship
Eliza Madrigal: aw, no need...
Wol Euler: hopefully not
Pema Pera: Alfred had asked me to talk more about the origin of life, last time, to continue today
Pema Pera: which is indeed an interesting topic :)
Wol Euler: commonsense would suggest the importance of keeping PaB alive for us to talk in
Wol Euler: yes indeed
Pema Pera: and yes, evolution is *full* of broken bottles :)
Wol Euler winces and rubs the spot where your finger poked between her ribs
Pema Pera: oh sure, I have no worry about PaB staying alive :)

Pema Pera: we can talk about many topics, does anyone have a preference?
Eliza Madrigal: would enjoy hearing of origins Pema...
Wol Euler nods.

Pema Pera: actually, the three most interesting questions about origins, in my opinion, are about existince, life and consciousness.

Pema Pera: Big Bang may be an answer to why/where/how there is anything at all; but the origin of life is still quite mysterious, and the origin of consciousness (reality aka milk bottles) even more so!

Pema Pera: any preference for one of the three origins?

Pema Pera: hi Alfred!
Alfred Kelberry: hi :)
Wol Euler: evening, boxy
Alfred Kelberry: phew... ok, no politics!!! :)
Zon Kwan: big bang doesnt really explain life
Pema Pera: while waiting for you, we were talking about origins :)
Alfred Kelberry: i forgot about this rule
Pema Pera: indeed, that's a separate origins question, Zon
Zon Kwan: just a start phase of a process

Alfred Kelberry: ah, very well. yes, as we agreed on. the first 15 minutes of your findings on the origins of life :)
Pema Pera watches his watch: 3 minutes left!
Pema Pera: make that 2

Wol Euler: can you explain the origin of life in 2.5 minutes?
Wol Euler: "it happened, and here we are."

Alfred Kelberry: pema: please go on, no strict timing here :)
Pema Pera: I can state that nobody knows :)
Wol Euler: a goodly answer, which has the undeniable advantage of being true
Zon Kwan: because there is no origin

Pema Pera: though there are plenty of general ideas of directions
Eliza Madrigal: :::chooses existence from 3 cards held in Pema's hand::::
Pema Pera: :-)
Eliza Madrigal: (existence, life, consciousness)
Pema Pera: existence presumably started with the big bang
Zon Kwan: what was before that

--BELL--

Pema Pera: though we don't quite know the details there either, for now at least
Pema Pera: we don't even know whether or not there was a before, before the big bang; time might have started there :-)
Alfred Kelberry: zon, presumably previous universe that contracted into the singularity. am i right, pema?

Zon Kwan: so existence is always ?
Alfred Kelberry: giving it was a closed universe
Pema Pera: that's one possibility . . .
Alfred Kelberry: pema, what about the second card? life. do you think it's a random occurance?
Zon Kwan: it just pulsates, contarcts and expanses ?
Zon Kwan: like heart
Pema Pera: we don't know, Zon :)
Pema Pera: it could
Pema Pera: and Alfred, the first thing to try is to make models of random occurrences

Alfred Kelberry: not the present universe. it's expanding in acceleration.
Pema Pera: to see whether that would work
Alfred Kelberry: therefore it's an open one
Alfred Kelberry: pema :)

Pema Pera: it's expanding right now; not necessarily open
Pema Pera: open in the simplest models
Zon Kwan: dont believe it alf
Wol Euler: if I looked at your lungs in the first half-second of an inbreath, boxy, I might assume that they will expand forever
Alfred Kelberry: pema, but there's not enough mass to keep it as is, let alone contract?
Pema Pera: but it could be closed on a vastly larger scale that the currently visible universe
Zon Kwan: dark mass
Zon Kwan: dark energy
Zon Kwan: most of it we havent even found

Pema Pera: true, Alfred, under the simplest assumptions -- but who knows, there could be different mass distributions on a very very large scale, with us a dimple in that distribution
Zon Kwan: if we have lost 90 % of universe, how can we say there is not enough mass
Alfred Kelberry: yes, true
Pema Pera: to extrapolate from our finite observations to an infinite universe is an . . . infinite extrapolation!
Alfred Kelberry: i actually skeptical about the dark matter, despite all the prove
Pema Pera: within the scale we can see, the arguments for both dark matter and dark energy are quite strong

Alfred Kelberry: pema, how do you think the second card came up into existence?
Pema Pera: life?
Alfred Kelberry: yes
szavanna Resident: hi all :)
Alfred Kelberry: sz! :)
Eliza Madrigal: Hi Sza :))
Wol Euler: hello sza
Zon Kwan: hi szavanna
Alfred Kelberry: particle girl :)
Wol Euler: and zen, hello
Pema Pera: I don't know . . . presumably an interesting random occurrance in the right place at the right time
Eliza Madrigal: Hi Zen :)
szavanna Resident: °͜° boxy
Pema Pera: hi Zen and Sza!
Zon Kwan: zen bro :)
Zen Arado: Hi all
Alfred Kelberry: pema, i assume in many places?
Pema Pera: could be
Alfred Kelberry: mr zen :)
szavanna Resident: hi Pema :)
Pema Pera: or it could be a one-time event :)
Pema Pera: we really don't know

Zon Kwan: what is difference between life and consciousness ?
Pema Pera: interesting question!

Eliza Madrigal: some suggest that the universe is alive... a biological organism, which is why it is friendly to biological organisms... that particles 'think' and process information
Pema Pera: is an amoeba conscious?
Alfred Kelberry: pema, what is the basic form that is considered life?
Pema Pera: right now, cells
Pema Pera: but before that, who knows?
Alfred Kelberry: zon, this is a difficult question, i guess

Zon Kwan: to me whole existence is alive
Eliza Madrigal: :)
Zon Kwan: we can define life more narrowly
Zon Kwan: in terms of biology
Alfred Kelberry: let's see what the dictionary says...
Zon Kwan: then the answer is different
Alfred Kelberry: consciousness - the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
Pema Pera: good point, Zon

Pema Pera: I was talking in terms of natural science
Zon Kwan: so the answer depends on the viewpoint
Pema Pera: but many traditions have a very different outlook
Zon Kwan: thinks natural science is insufficent
Zon Kwan: to solve the problem of life

Alfred Kelberry: pema, do you pursue this research in your spare time?
Zon Kwan: of it is a problem
Zen Arado: nobody really knows what consciousness is
Zen Arado: sorry :)
Pema Pera: it's very hard for me to define what time I have to spare, Alfred
Pema Pera: :-)
Zon Kwan: we are it
Pema Pera: but it certainly overlaps with my work too
Alfred Kelberry: pema, meaning there's no ias backed project on this?
Pema Pera: yes, Zen, I've never seen a perfect definition of consciousness, or of life for that matter
Zen Arado: when does a foetus become conscious?
Pema Pera: IAS doesn't back anything as such, Alfred
Alfred Kelberry: pema, i think there's no perfect definition of anything. our understanding evolve with time as we learn.
Pema Pera: yes
Alfred Kelberry: pema, a bit sad. ias seems to be a good place for such a research.

--BELL--

Zon Kwan: consciousness sleeps in stone, dreams in plants, awakes in animals and comes self aware in humans

Alfred Kelberry: pema, besides, given what interdisciplinary significance it has
Pema Pera: and yes, Zon, problems have to be posed within a particular framework -- such as science, or such as a particular tradition -- and then you can try to solve it within that framework; like playing chess, with the moves allowed in that framework

Pema Pera: and Alfred, I meant that IAS does not "back" particular research in any area; researchers can do what they like, including studying the origin of life :)
Eliza Madrigal: that's beautiful, Zon
Pema Pera: so don't be sad :)
Alfred Kelberry: ah, got it :)

Zon Kwan: then you create the problem with the question
Alfred Kelberry: what a life!
Zen Arado: yes Nice Zon
Zon Kwan: and play to solve it
Zon Kwan: lol

Pema Pera: poetry and physics are rather different angles on reality :-) and both can illuminate, perhaps even be complementary
Pema Pera: like when analyzing a painting: you can talk about the paint and about what is depicted
Pema Pera: two very different approaches, both true
Pema Pera: in their own framework
Wol Euler nods.

Alfred Kelberry: pema, are you still interested in astronomy research?
Pema Pera: oh sure
Pema Pera: we completed a paper about double star formation in dense star systems recently
Alfred Kelberry: can we add a 15 minutes report on astronomy to this session? :)
Pema Pera: hehehe

Pema Pera: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4131 is my latest astronomy paper
Pema Pera: but I want to hear from others also what they are up too
Pema Pera: I've talked too much already today!

Zon Kwan: how do you see the role of philosophy in current science world Pema, does it have anything to give ?
Alfred Kelberry: i know many were interested in the asteroid protection program you are in
Pema Pera: yes, I think so, Zon
Pema Pera: but most of what is called philosophy these days has rather little to do with what used to be "love of knowledge" in the past
Zon Kwan: metaphysics is banned ?
Wol Euler: yep
Pema Pera: and many thoughtful scientists don't want to be called philosophers for that reason
Wol Euler: (to pema)
Zen Arado: philosophy is a rather large area though
Korel Laloix: And at least at the unvirsity level, it is faily meaningless now as well.

Pema Pera: I consider Husserl's phenomenology to be real philosophy in being both experimental and aiming at covering everything
Zen Arado: though it starts to get like just juggling concepts to me
Pema Pera: yes, Korel
Zon Kwan: thinks we need an integrated scientific approach somehow, not based on materialism
Pema Pera: either a laundry list of ideas of the past, or overly formal definitions without very meaningful depth, in my opinion

Zen Arado: well I did an MA in it and still think I just nibbled at the edges
Pema Pera: yes, Zon, I think that will come
Pema Pera: what did you find most interesting, Zen?
Alfred Kelberry: pema, is it also considered not a real philosophy?
Pema Pera: (depends whom you ask, Alfred)

Zen Arado: I did political philosophy
Pema Pera: whose ideas did appeal to you most?
Zen Arado: how people can best live together
Alfred Kelberry: pema, what are the points made by those who think it's not?
Zen Arado: seemed useful
Zen Arado: I liked Rawls
Zen Arado: Rorty
Pema Pera: oh, various, everyone has their own angle, Alfred

Alfred Kelberry: zen, what is your favorable political formation for a just social life? :)
Zen Arado: John Rawls and Richard Rorty
Alfred Kelberry: pema, give a few examples
Pema Pera: I've read some Rorty, and he seemed like taking a sensible stance, bridging various schools
Zen Arado: neopragmatism
Zen Arado: was interesting
Pema Pera: yes
Alfred Kelberry: oh, sounds cool
Zen Arado: but he a bit of a rebel
Pema Pera: going back to William James
Zen Arado: Peirce was the most important pragmatist I think
Alfred Kelberry: "an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application"

Zon Kwan: i like Ken WIlbers approach
Alfred Kelberry: pab would be outlawed under this rule :)
Zon Kwan: a try to integrate all
Zen Arado: :) boxy
Pema Pera: many parallels with phenomenology -- parallel threads in different continents
Pema Pera: both resonating with William James
Zen Arado: I found flaws with Rorty but forget what they were now
Pema Pera: :-)

--BELL--

Pema Pera: I'd say that Pab has been quite successful in having delivered more than 5,000 sessions by now; certainly a pragmatic form of success; I don't know whether any other SL activity has reached that number :-)

Zon Kwan: Pema, you know Wilbers work ?
Pema Pera: somewhat, not in detail
Zon Kwan: your view ?
Pema Pera: my view of what?
Zon Kwan: on his approach
Zen Arado: I thought he a bit wacky
Pema Pera: oh, I don't know him well enough to judge
Zon Kwan: wacky ?
Zen Arado: from what I read
Pema Pera: as for an impression, he seems to want to blend everything, which is always a tricky thing to try to do
Zen Arado: probably good stuff too
Pema Pera: and can easily lead to shallow generalities
Zon Kwan: thats integreting...lol
Alfred Kelberry: pema, pab as a group yes. not the philosophy behind it :)
Zen Arado: but some of it a bit weird I thought


Pema Pera: there is integrating cultures by immigrating, and there is tourism :)
Pema Pera: and tourism can be very useful and inspiring
Pema Pera: as a first step
Zon Kwan: likes the idea of a big picture
Pema Pera: but I wouldn't quite call that integrating as yet
Pema Pera: yes, me too
Pema Pera: :)
Zon Kwan: we have a long way to go yes


Alfred Kelberry: pema, re: pheno. what are the flaws that make some think it is not a real philosophy?
Pema Pera: I think there have been many disagreements, Alfred
Pema Pera: I haven't made any study of them, since most of them are based on lack of understanding of the ideas behind phenomenology

Pema Pera: unless you actually do it, just attacking it with verbal arguments doesn't mean much
Alfred Kelberry: ah
Pema Pera: it would be like complaining about math books having pictures that are not very pretty
Pema Pera: missing the point of what they stand for
Zen Arado: agrees
Zen Arado: you have to do a LOT of reading on these topics to get a handle on them
Zen Arado: not a wikipedia summary
Pema Pera: yes, unfortunately

Alfred Kelberry: pema, it is a failproof position :)
Pema Pera: the development was cut off in the late thirties
Alfred Kelberry: no critic is being accepted on the account that you're not a convert

Pema Pera: Alfred, I can't prove anything to somebody not going into details -- which you can't do in one hour in a chat; I can't proof arithmetic even :-)
Wol Euler: that is unfair, that is not what he said
Alfred Kelberry: i find it hard to believe that among so many philosophers out there, not one got it and provided a reasonable critic
Zen Arado: critique?
Alfred Kelberry: so those who got it and in agreement are good, the rest do not get it :)
Alfred Kelberry: zen, yes. thank you :)

Pema Pera: oh, there have been critiques on certain aspects
Zen Arado: philosophy proceeds by detailed argumants and counterarguments
Pema Pera: as there always are, and then can finetune things
Alfred Kelberry: pema, yes, but as you said they are all false due to lack of understanding
Zen Arado: if we were going to discuss pragmatism we would have to examine all of the arguments for and against

Pema Pera: Alfred, if somebody wants to critique modern mathematics, what would you say?
Pema Pera: how would you defend mathematics?
Alfred Kelberry: you never answer straight in your field, you always route it to some other domains
Pema Pera: (I get letters all the time from people who think they can do math and physics much better than all the leading experts :-)
Alfred Kelberry: myriads of metaphors and examples, but little actual discussion on pheno itself
Pema Pera: how would you defend mathematics, Alfred, do you think that could be done?
Pema Pera: without the person attacking taking the time to actually learn mathematics?

Zen Arado: I don't even know what 'mathematics' is...difficult to define
Zen Arado: most seem to think it is arithmetic :)
Pema Pera: if you can show me some writing that attacks phenomenology, from which it is clear that the writer has actually engaged in a serious attempt to do the epoche, I will be *delighted* to respond
Zon Kwan: its the language god uses as he creates worlds

--BELL--

Pema Pera: I haven't seen a single paper like that.
szavanna Resident: °͜° Zon
Zon Kwan: nods
Eliza Madrigal: I have to get going... Alfred this seems like a nice session to post...
Pema Pera: I'll have to leave, but Alfred, if you can find such a paper, I'll respond to that criticism in as much detail as you like
Wol Euler: bye eliza, enjoy the day
Eliza Madrigal: I hope you'll do so... nothing controversial
Zen Arado: byee Eliza
szavanna Resident: byebyeee all great to see you Pema °͜°
Alfred Kelberry: pema, it's a failproof statement as well. you know i'm not in a position to provide you with such a paper.
Wol Euler: bye pema, thank you!
szavanna Resident: meep!
Zon Kwan: bye eliza
Pema Pera: I don't know, you can google if you like
Alfred Kelberry: yet you repeatedly avoid straight answers on the matter

Zen Arado: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ph...ient=firefox-a
Zen Arado: plenty of critics against any philosophy
szavanna Resident: bye Zenji, puppy, Wol and Zon too °͜°
Pema Pera: I rest my case, Alfred :)
Pema Pera: bfn
Wol Euler: bye sza, take care
Zen Arado: byee Szaji:)
Zon Kwan: bye szavanna
Alfred Kelberry: pema, you've been doing it for decades and ask some random guy to go google pheno critiques? :)
Wol Euler: perhaps the random guy has an obligation to bring something to the discussion too?
Zen Arado: but you would have to read long articles boxy if you are going to challenge arguments

Wol Euler: I do hope you'll post this session, boxy
Wol Euler: it would be a waste not to
Alfred Kelberry: yes, it's rather safe, i'd think :)