[sigh] Fine. We can change what I wrote from:
"artifact = model absent the usage context"
to
"artifact = model in a non-modeling context"
The toy train isn't a useful example for this distinction. But a wooden sphere
as a model for, say, a baseball, *is* a useful example. In the "sphere
Oh crap! I;ve done it again. Sorry
N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:02
Dave,
I don’t think it’s dualism unless I assert that the representation and the
thing represented are different sorts of stuff. If every representation is OF
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS, then we have a representation-monism. If you taunt me
by asking what the FIRST representation was OF, I
Nick: Oh no, you've morphed Glen and myself into an interchangeable entity!
You must be flying at high altitude!
On 1/16/20, 8:59 AM, "Friam on behalf of thompnicks...@gmail.com"
wrote:
Marcus,
I am not sure I understand what you say here. But I like the idea of
Marcus,
I am not sure I understand what you say here. But I like the idea of
"listening generously" and I am trying to do it. I guess my problem in
understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a
context. Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we
---
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 1:39 AM Prof David West wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Not sophmoric smarminess - but a contradiction of your monism. "you are a
> model" contradicts "my model of you" which asserts "representation" of
>
Nick,
Not sophmoric smarminess - but a contradiction of your monism. "you are a
model" contradicts "my model of you" which asserts "representation" of
something — Cartesian dualism.
davew
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, at 9:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I apologize forwhat may
