I'm not sure what school I'm in. But neither of those positions seems right to me. I tend to believe in (quasi)cycles and flows. E.g. when I'm dreaming, my mind is inside me. When I'm engrossed in some activity, my mind is spread over both inside and outside ... as if the skin between me and the world is gone. Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it would be that we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind" moves around, sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread very thin. And that dynamism would be critical.
To boot, I would suggest that anyone *without* such dynamism would look like a Philosophical Zombie to me. On 5/5/20 1:40 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, if epigenesis, emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that what > goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the organism > does. What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which "mind" is a > model of. Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others that mind is "of" > the organism. Eric and I are in that latter school, and I think you are, > too, but I shouldn't presume. If you are, then I expect you will join me in > believing that the outards and the innards of an organism ate mostly > different realms of discourse with some contingent but few necessary > connections between them. -- ☣ 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/
