On 04/22/2017 11:44 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > "I argue that this mental model is a figment of your imagination..." > > In other words, a mental model.
Heh, no. Despite being a huge term that covers almost everything under the sun, "model" _does_ at least require a referent. A purely imaginary construct has no referent. It is purely imaginary. So not just any old brain fart can be called a "mental model". And whatever you and Vladimyr mean by "mental models" are pure imaginary brain farts with no referent. I.e. they don't exist. Anyone who uses the phrase "mental model" has zero idea what they're talking about, because they're talking nonsense. >8^D I do grudgingly tolerate "conceptual model", FWIW, only because I believe we can/might eventually find neural correlates of concepts, like when, say, one's pupils dilate in response to an attractive person. A conceptual model would then be a system of physiological activity that _maps_ to some phenomena in the outside world. But, it's important that if there's no _map_ to the outside world, then it can't be a model. I.e. no measure, no model. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
