Yes, I agree. If -- big if -- we can talk about the near bottom maps and begin to plausibly *construct* higher level maps from those *then* the conversation will be interesting. For these maps to be useful, we need some tools for deciding how "thick"/deep they are, how long they live, whether they're structured in hierarchies or dynamic constellations, etc. (Dave's recent posts hint in these directions, but are still lacking the necessary granularity and situation in a particular context.)
E.g. the pressure and temperature sensors do double duty to sense other things like inflammation. That *context* and the way those compose into one map (to temperature) or another (to inflammation) is exactly the kind of context we'd need to make any discussion of "metaphor" anything but a trigger word for nausea. On 5/28/20 9:16 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > The grounding under the ground are the kinds of ion-channels > described recently in his Touch/Pressure/Temperature/Proprioception > paper link. I hope Glen will agree with me (not so that I feel I am > *right* only because I *think* this captures/resolves a lot of what we > have argued here and offline?) somewhat on this alternative of "maps" > all the way down? -- ☣ uǝlƃ -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
