[FRIAM] WAS: ∄ meaning, only text: IS: Simulations as constructed metaphors

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Ha! Like "steelman", I did not coin it, nor is it "my term". I've forgotten where I learned it, probably from the diffusion of innovations work I did a long time ago. In museology, it seems to mean "a product of natural processes". But I use it more to mean "objects one finds lying around on the ground". I use it that way because the museology definition seems rife with causa prima problems ... much like the one you're trying to get at below. (E.g. are humans natural? If so, are human constructions natural? Nonsense.)

As always, it's a spectrum, not a strict disjunction. YMMV (your mileage may vary). Feel free to kidnap or abuse the term in any way you see fit.


On 8/10/20 1:32 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> I can see your epitaph-- ITAL==>Glen Ropella, Coiner of Terms<==ital
> 
> "Naturfact," like "Steelman" is doomed to be a keeper.  So let me try to understand it, better.  The question in my [so-called] mind is, Can artifacts generate naturfacts? Let's say we design a robot so as to avoid objects it "sees" at a 45 degree angle.  Sitting on the laboratory floor before us, that robot is an "artifact".  Now, we place that robot in a rectangular room with bare walls and a bunch of Styrofoam cubes, and we turn it on.  It sets about herding the cubes into piles.  Has the artifact produced a naturfact?  Or, analogous to the intelligent design discussion, do we need to invent a concept of "derived artifactuality".  
> 
> It's possible you don't give a damn, but it is your term and best you guard it or it will be kidnapped. 

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ