The chapter on boardgames might be the most compelling one for you specifically.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
I'm going to try to reply on-site to the questions about "pushing stability out" and also numerical computation. The difficulty is in writing something less than BCS's book.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
As you observed, the book is one big lump, but the worldview is also one big lump. It's densely internally connected, and each part makes sense in dependence on all the other parts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
And since each part individually contracts the whole of the analytic/cognitivist view, each part is incomprehensible or seems obviously wrong taken on its own.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
That's why there's this "cognitive flip" phenomenon, where you finally see enough of the interconnections between the pieces that the coherence of the whole thing suddenly comes into focus and you can see the world with it, and you are like OOOOOHHHH I GET IT
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think I'm sort of half flipped. Like your blog commenter here: https://meaningness.com/representational-theory-of-mind/comments#comment-1449 … Need to go further and understand this reply of yours. So yeah I need to read some ethnomethodology I think.pic.twitter.com/mnQqiepPCU
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @Meaningness
Yeah, I think half-flipped is my position as well. I think my model of the situation is Cognitivism ~ classical physics (electrons are localised) Nature ~ quantum physics (electrons are both distributed and localised) Non-representationism ~ 'there are no electrons' (monism?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_aiju @drossbucket
Do you mean this literally or as analogies? Non-cognitivism has nothing to say about electrons
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
It's an analogy where electrons ~ representations. (Of course, I'm being slightly uncharitable here.) In my own view representations are prominent, but they are inexact, incomplete and distributed, which I guess may prompt a 'they're not really representation' response...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_aiju @drossbucket
Oh, yeah, I think Dreyfus went wrong with a “there are no representations at all” line (and Phil and I followed his lead briefly in ~1986 before recovering in ~1988). “Inexact incomplete & distributed” is roughly “nebulous”… but I would go further and say >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
it’s an incoherent category that unhelpfully lumps a wide variety of phenomena better considered separately because their nature and mechanisms differ. Some of them we’ve got a pretty good understanding of, others little or no understanding, and some probably actually don’t exist
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.