OK. I'm going to focus on this distinction. When you explain some thing to someone, you have a choice between 2 styles. You can tell them how to make it happen or you can tell them how that thing fits in with everything else. So, in your eraser behind the book setup, you focus on the latter. Erasers are this, books are that, eyeballs are this, gravity is that. But you *could* explain what's happening by providing the setup recipe and then saying "go do it... I'll wait." I.e. tell them to get a friend who sits some distance away, get a book, get an eraser, hold the eraser above and behind the book, drop the eraser.
That's the explanation. That is the "methods section". There is no more that we need to say. Anything you say after that is speculation and *should* be ignored. So, if you're trying to "explain" killdeer behavior, you lay out a recipe for *creating* a killdeer ... maybe with a wrench and some pliers in your garage. If you cannot create a killdeer, then you cannot understand killdeer. That's it. That's all I meant. Now, you might think I'm throwing in the towel. But there are things we can do to remedy the impasse presented by not being able to create killdeer. We can make our descriptions of killdeer more constructive. For example, we can snatch one, put it into an aviary and *manipulate* it. Manipulation is the next best thing to creation. But, again, you don't need to skip to the end and "explain" why this, why that, how it fits in with the universe. All you need do to provide an explanation is to say *how* to make the killdeer *do* some behavior. A detailed recipe for how some other person can snatch their own killdeer and make it do things. If you can reproducibly *generate* the behavior, then your recipe for doing so, is a constructive explanation. On 12/11/19 9:01 PM, [email protected] wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:17 PM To: FriAM <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind? The thing being left out of this still seems, to me, to be constructive vs ... what? ... analytical explanation. Your larger document beats around that bush quite a bit, I think. But I don't think it ever names/tackles the point explicitly. */[NST===>] I am not sure I quite understand that distinction. Can you say more? /*
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
