[FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick:  Oh no, you've morphed Glen and myself into an interchangeable entity!   You must be flying at high altitude! 

On 1/16/20, 8:59 AM, "Friam on behalf of thompnickson2 at gmail.com" <friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

    Marcus, 
    
    I am not sure I understand what you say here.  But I like the idea of "listening generously" and I am trying to do it.  I guess my problem in understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a context.  Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we just don't see it.  I don't think it's possible to see Eric and not see him intending.  (or, say, sleeping).  This may, in fact, be an argument in favor of your position.  I just haven't worked it out yet. 
    
    Eric's argument against my position is even more troubling.  I WAS playing fast and loose with levels of organization. 
    
    I am going to have to think about all of this. 
    
    Nick 
    
    Nicholas Thompson
    Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
    Clark University
    ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
    https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
     
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
    Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:52 PM
    To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
    Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply
    
    It would be easier if you would use a word like "artifact" or somesuch when you talk about the model absent it's contextual analogies. E.g. some yahoo back 10k years ago draws a picture and some teenage spelunker comes upon it in 2020. That picture is better described as "artifact" than "picture".
    
    To reword: the artifact you call "Eric" doesn't intend anything. But when you use that artifact to get him to do something, then the artifact+usage _intends_ that something. Some may argue that the word "model" shouldn't be used unless the usage/context is present. But that's a load of sophistry, I think. People will use whatever word they want to use whenever they want to use it. So we just have to be flexible and listen generously.
    
    On 1/15/20 12:44 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
    > To me, you are a model, right?  Whatever you are, it is my model of you with which I am dealing.  So, when you intend something  by a model, it is a case of a model intending a model, right?  So, models intend, right?  So why not just say so, in the first instance.
    
    
    --
    ☣ uǝlƃ
    
    ============================================================
    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
    archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
    FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
    
    
    ============================================================
    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
    archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
    FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove