Hmmm. My assertion would be that if you articuilated what you MEAN by the knowledge relation it would enevitably require those three elements.
But I can see it might be a hard sell. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: David West <[email protected]> > To: nick thompson <[email protected]> > Date: 10/23/2009 4:05:22 PM > Subject: Re: In the theater of consciousness > > > Nick, just a quick private reply until I get back from Florida and can > participate in a more helpful manner. But to intrigue/annoy you in the > meantime - you said > > > The argument is as follows: Any knowledge requires a knowledge-gathering > > mechanism that uses cues. > > As a dedicated mystic I would reject this premise outright - there is no > mechanism and the cues are the knowledge. Of course, the self in the > audience of the Cartesian Theatre is merely an illusion. > > dave west ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
