I (kindasorta) agree with the /that/ below. But I disagree with Dave's explicit statement, which was:
On 4/30/20 12:41 PM, Prof David West wrote: > We cannot use another (perhaps our internal awareness of being conscious) > instance of consciousness because we do not know/understand it either. I disagree with that. So I can't agree with all that Dave is saying. There may be *other* reasons we can't use one to model the other. But it's not because we don't "know/understand" it. On 5/1/20 8:27 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > * When a child tells you that her conglomeration of styrofoam ball, paint, > and metal wire is "a model" of the solar system, the child is claiming that > the styrofoam-balls-model has shares some properties with the solar system. > * For example, the child might understands that the balls are "round", and > intends that aspect to be shared with the planets, i.e., the model leads to > understanding the planets as round objects, rather than points of light in > the sky. > > If you agree with /that/, I think you agree with all that Nick or David/Quine > is getting at. Nick isn't asserting than anyone understands anything better > than people actually understand things in practice: People TRY to use things > they THINK they understand, to gain insights into things the THINK they > understand less. And that attempt works only and exactly as well as it works, > with no pretending otherwise. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
