That post, taken as a whole, with an arc, is excellent. But I want to violently slice out the part below because it's an expression of 'the Will to Simulation' that I may want to borrow one day. Your expressions retain a humanity mine never do. In particular, within this excerpt, you treat both the structural and phenomenal strengths of any particular analogy/simulation in one fell swoop. The you manage to toss in the necessary participatory requirement, as well.
Thanks! If I manage to use it, I'll ask first. On September 16, 2021 9:55:15 PM PDT, David Eric Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >But what then is the careful version? > >Well, my discourse can never happen except within the larger field of my >experience, and I would do well to always keep that in mind. That seems good. > But what is there of the language I produce, and that we produce together? >It is generated within behavior, it is transacted in experience, indeed. But >what forms is it desirable for me to endow it with, or in which to try to use >it and develop it? Suppose it is capable of having forms that refer to an >existence in ways such that that referral doesn’t care how my experience is or >isn’t involved. A biosphere could have sprung up on this planet, with all >these insects and plants and fish and so forth, and with never people to >comment about them. They would be no less themselves. A language capable of >expressing (or aspiring to express) that frame is one I would like to use. To >conceive of a language that has structures in common with a world beyond >experience, even though my talking in it is an event within behavior or >experience, does not seem to me obviously logically incoherent. Any more than >living in a world that would have been much the same if I hadn’t been living >in it seems incompatible with the inherent coherence — of a thing’s being >whatever-all that thing is — of existing. > >The question of “how would I know whether the language had ever achieved such >an alignment, since my knowing takes place within experience” is of course >fine to pursue. But I think I can express a preference for trying for a >language with that overall form, even if I don’t know how to answer the >question about validation. There is the issue of how I participate in a >language, given whatever it is and whatever I am. I have a mode of >participation in, or engagement with, or use or receipt of, a language that >refers to a world beyond experience, that I imagine I would not have if it >didn’t. > > -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
