Because "what inputs" is ambiguous. If I were generous, I could interpret your rhetoric as pushing for a difference in degree, not kind. As when you talk about privied or non-privied "knowledge". You're simply saying that it's all the same ... planted in the same, flattened space. And that would be FINE, if you would actually talk about that space ... i.e. define your distance measure/metric. But if you don't talk about distance/scope/extent, the ordering by which some fact is more than or less than some other fact, then you're not discussing scope. You're simply flattening everything without talking about how differences of degree might either be:
a) mistaken for differences in kind, or b) emergent, amassing/accreting such that what reductively is a difference in degree *becomes* a difference in kind. You simply assert your way along, never engaging with anything anyone else ever says. You can change this by discussing scope/extent directly. But you won't. On 11/8/21 11:42 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Just how does this question, > > > >> /"What inputs do we use to infer facts about our selves?"/ > > > > not address the issue of scope? -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
