It would be easier if you would use a word like "artifact" or somesuch when you talk about the model absent it's contextual analogies. E.g. some yahoo back 10k years ago draws a picture and some teenage spelunker comes upon it in 2020. That picture is better described as "artifact" than "picture".
To reword: the artifact you call "Eric" doesn't intend anything. But when you use that artifact to get him to do something, then the artifact+usage _intends_ that something. Some may argue that the word "model" shouldn't be used unless the usage/context is present. But that's a load of sophistry, I think. People will use whatever word they want to use whenever they want to use it. So we just have to be flexible and listen generously. On 1/15/20 12:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > To me, you are a model, right? Whatever you are, it is my model of you with > which I am dealing. So, when you intend something by a model, it is a case > of a model intending a model, right? So, models intend, right? So why not > just say so, in the first instance. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
