[FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I (kindasorta) agree with the /that/ below. But I disagree with Dave's explicit statement, which was:

On 4/30/20 12:41 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> We cannot use another (perhaps our internal awareness of being conscious) instance of consciousness because we do not know/understand it either.

I disagree with that. So I can't agree with all that Dave is saying. There may be *other* reasons we can't use one to model the other. But it's not because we don't "know/understand" it.


On 5/1/20 8:27 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> * When a child tells you that her conglomeration of styrofoam ball, paint, and metal wire is "a model" of the solar system, the child is claiming that the styrofoam-balls-model has shares some properties with the solar system. 
> * For example, the child might understands that the balls are "round", and intends that aspect to be shared with the planets, i.e., the model leads to understanding the planets as round objects, rather than points of light in the sky. 
> 
> If you agree with /that/, I think you agree with all that Nick or David/Quine is getting at. Nick isn't asserting than anyone understands anything better than people actually understand things in practice: People TRY to use things they THINK they understand, to gain insights into things the THINK they understand less. And that attempt works only and exactly as well as it works, with no pretending otherwise. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ