So it's easy to substitute the word 'conceptual' for the word 'mental' whenever I talk to you (or Nick).
I'm curious. My qualifying exam in real analysis consisted of 10 questions (stimuli, inputs?) like "State and prove the Heine-Borel Theorem". The successful response was a written version of a valid proof. I hadn't memorized the proofs but I had memorized conceptualizations of them. How does that fit? Would the referents be the proofs in the text or as presented in class? I passed. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Apr 23, 2017 10:00 AM, "┣glen┫" <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've made this same point 10s of times and I've clearly failed. I'll try > one last time and then take my failure with me. > > When you assert that there's a dividing line between rigorous and > whimsical mental models, what are you saying? It makes no sense to me, > whatsoever. Rigor means something like detailed, accurate, complete, etc. > Even whimsical implies something active, real, behavioral, physical. In > other words, neither word belongs next to "mental". When you string > together mutually contradictory words like "rigorous mental model" or > "whimsical mental model", your contradiction prevents a predictable > inference. > > At least the word "concept" allows one to talk coherently about the > abstraction process (abstraction from the environment in which the brain is > embedded). It preserves something about the origins of the things, the > concepts. When you talk of "mental models", then you're left talking about > things like "mental constructs" or whatever functional unit of mind you > have to carve out, register, as it were. What in the heck is a "mental > construct"? Where did it come from? What's the difference between a > mental construct and, say, a physical construct? What _is_ a "mental > model"? How does it differ from any other "mental" thing? Is there a > difference between a "mental foot" and a "mental book"? What if my "mental > books" are peach colored clumps of "mental flesh" with 10 "mental toes"? > It's ridiculous. Contrast that with the terms "conceptual foot" or > "conceptual book". > > So, in the end, I simply disagree. The term "conceptual" does much to > illuminate. > > > On 04/22/2017 08:35 PM, Vladimyr wrote: > > there exists a dividing line between rigorous and whimsical mental models > > > > that the term “conceptual” does little to illuminate. > > -- > ␦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
============================================================ 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