8^) While I appreciate the troll, I don't see how either of those articles contradict my claim. I'd be happy if you'd explain that to me. And I also have to point out that you've modified your phrase from "mental model" to "mental map", which is progress! If you can find it in you to drop the word "mental", we'll finally be in agreement.
I think Eric said it nicely: reconfiguring oneself. That parts of your body interact and change each other doesn't contradict my claim that such reconfiguring is driven and constrained by sensorimotor experience of the outside world. Were you to take Eric's line of reasoning and suggest that fast bodily processes were distinguishable from slow bodily processes, then we might have a basis for _defining_ the word "mental" in modern terms. And once we define it, even if only to that vague extent, then we'd be forced to distinguish between "mental" and, say, "neural" as terms. For people who can so blithely link to sciencedaily.com press releases, it should be simple to abandon ham-handed terminology like "mental". Regardless of what we do with the undefined word "mental", I will maintain the part of my rhetoric that claims such fast bodily changes are driven and constrained by both the slow bodily processes and the outside world. And, most importantly, that measure precedes model. On 04/25/2017 05:38 PM, Vladimyr wrote: > Back to Bird Songs > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170404104719.htm > > and Star-Nosed Moles > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170424084028.htm > If now we can see "Mental Maps" Glen's position seems archaic and like > scholastic rhetoric. -- ␦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
