[FRIAM] Could this possibly be true?

[⛧ glen]

That post, taken as a whole, with an arc, is excellent. But I want to violently slice out the part below because it's an expression of 'the Will to Simulation' that I may want to borrow one day. Your expressions retain a humanity mine never do. In particular, within this excerpt, you treat both the structural and phenomenal strengths of any particular analogy/simulation in one fell swoop. The you manage to toss in the necessary participatory requirement, as well.

Thanks! If I manage to use it, I'll ask first.

On September 16, 2021 9:55:15 PM PDT, David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu> wrote:
>But what then is the careful version?
>
>Well, my discourse can never happen except within the larger field of my experience, and I would do well to always keep that in mind.  That seems good.  But what is there of the language I produce, and that we produce together?  It is generated within behavior, it is transacted in experience, indeed.  But what forms is it desirable for me to endow it with, or in which to try to use it and develop it?  Suppose it is capable of having forms that refer to an existence in ways such that that referral doesn’t care how my experience is or isn’t involved.  A biosphere could have sprung up on this planet, with all these insects and plants and fish and so forth, and with never people to comment about them.  They would be no less themselves.  A language capable of expressing (or aspiring to express) that frame is one I would like to use.  To conceive of a language that has structures in common with a world beyond experience, even though my talking in it is an event within behavior or experience, does not seem to me obviously logically incoherent.  Any more than living in a world that would have been much the same if I hadn’t been living in it seems incompatible with the inherent coherence — of a thing’s being whatever-all that thing is — of existing.
>
>The question of “how would I know whether the language had ever achieved such an alignment, since my knowing takes place within experience” is of course fine to pursue.  But I think I can express a preference for trying for a language with that overall form, even if I don’t know how to answer the question about validation.  There is the issue of how I participate in a language, given whatever it is and whatever I am.  I have a mode of participation in, or engagement with, or use or receipt of, a language that refers to a world beyond experience, that I imagine I would not have if it didn’t.
>
>

-- 
glen ⛧