I think the phenomenologists would claim that until you have realized that all worlds are only “inner worlds”, you haven’t properly interpreted the informal use of the word “world” into a philosophically serious frame.
Of course they are Continental Philosophers. So one has the option to simply refuse to use any of the patterns or forms that they try to use consistently, and replace anything they say _in the way they say it_ with something else that oneself says _in some different way_, and then claim that when said in the different way, the point they were trying to make cannot be sensible, by construction. I have on many occasions wondered what is the balance between rephrasing to get more angles on a question, versus rephrasing to insist on a scheme in which the question is unexpressible. The former is an essential act of reason and discourse; the latter is a refusal to cooperate and a gambit to win a contest. For any given statement, are we sure that it can be assigned to one and not the other? Eric > On May 6, 2020, at 4:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi,Glen, > > Careful. Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory? > > N > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve > > However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis > based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken > seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* > represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information > not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. > > This implies something about the compressibility and information content of > the black box's behavior, right? > > On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer >> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon >> which to argue that they do. > > > -- > ☣ 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/ > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > 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/ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... 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/
