[FRIAM] the arc of socioeconomics, personal and public: was VPN server

[Frank Wimberly]

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 valid proof.  I hadn't
memorized the proofs but I had memorized conceptualizations of them. How
does that fit?  Would the referents​ be the proofs in the text or as
presented in class?

I passed.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Apr 23, 2017 10:00 AM, "┣glen┫" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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 like detailed, accurate, complete, etc.
> Even whimsical implies something active, real, behavioral, physical.  In
> other words, neither word belongs next to "mental".  When you string
> together mutually contradictory words like "rigorous mental model" or
> "whimsical mental model", your contradiction prevents a predictable
> inference.
>
> At least the word "concept" allows one to talk coherently about the
> abstraction process (abstraction from the environment in which the brain is
> embedded).  It preserves something about the origins of the things, the
> concepts.  When you talk of "mental models", then you're left talking about
> things like "mental constructs" or whatever functional unit of mind you
> have to carve out, register, as it were.  What in the heck is a "mental
> construct"?  Where did it come from?  What's the difference between a
> mental construct and, say, a physical construct?  What _is_ a "mental
> model"?  How does it differ from any other "mental" thing?  Is there a
> difference between a "mental foot" and a "mental book"?  What if my "mental
> books" are peach colored clumps of "mental flesh" with 10 "mental toes"?
> It's ridiculous.  Contrast that with the terms "conceptual foot" or
> "conceptual book".
>
> So, in the end, I simply disagree.  The term "conceptual" does much to
> illuminate.
>
>
> On 04/22/2017 08:35 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
> > there exists a dividing line between rigorous and whimsical mental models
> >
> > that the term “conceptual” does little to illuminate.
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170423/fd4006e0/attachment-0002.html>