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

┣glen┫ gepropella at gmail.com
Sun Apr 23 11:59:52 EDT 2017

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.


More information about the Friam mailing list