Hi, Frank,
Heluva Question, there!
Allow me to skip to what seems to be the core question you are asking:
“Nick: What is it that you Peirceian’s think I am doing when I think I am
modeling stuff in my head.”
Gilbert Ryle put this in an even more succinct manner.
What is
So it's easy to substitute the word 'conceptual' for the word 'mental'
whenever I talk to you (or Nick).
I'm curious. My qualifying exam in real analysis consisted of 10 questions
(stimuli, inputs?) like "State and prove the Heine-Borel Theorem". The
successful response was a written version of a
Heh, it amuses and frustrates me the pressure to publish when one could instead
do something useful like develop and share code. Those "mental models"
scribbled down on paper obviously have less value than tools to solve the
general problem (i.e. working through all the boring but necessary ca
I've made this same point 10s of times and I've clearly failed. I'll try one
last time and then take my failure with me.
When you assert that there's a dividing line between rigorous and whimsical
mental models, what are you saying? It makes no sense to me, whatsoever.
Rigor means something
On 04/22/2017 04:41 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I have a "mental map" of the streets of Santa Fe. I can plan a route to the
> dump, or even alternative routes, which I can then successfully follow.
> Model or figment?
If you believe that "mental map" is _purely_ mental, then it's a figment.
