tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post8351013056863782741..comments2023-08-19T10:04:08.922+01:00Comments on Thought • Art • Representation: Can Information Be Naturalised?Jim Hamlynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16488331333061422244noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-45866074580848167482016-07-20T21:59:26.408+01:002016-07-20T21:59:26.408+01:00A reply, at last! :) http://psychsciencenotes.blog...A reply, at last! :) http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/reply-to-hamlyn-in-detail.htmlAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-16152086665105193782016-06-28T21:48:04.721+01:002016-06-28T21:48:04.721+01:00Think about it. If we are pretending that we inten...Think about it. If we are pretending that we intend what we intend then we don't actually pretend at all. In which case your argument is self refuting.Jim Hamlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16488331333061422244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-61694950930866992432016-06-28T00:47:50.266+01:002016-06-28T00:47:50.266+01:00My question is: For what sake should it be needed ...My question is: For what sake should it be needed that we make this distinction (between use and intentional use), if it is not to continuing to pretend that there is an entity called "intentional use"? This "intention" is the phlogiston of "culturalism".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-29285929884554542922016-06-26T10:38:33.974+01:002016-06-26T10:38:33.974+01:00Thanks James,
\\Are you suggesting here that repr...Thanks James,<br /><br />\\Are you suggesting here that representations are good 'functional approximations'//<br /><br />Almost, but no. I'm following Donald Brook in claiming that representations are actions and objects of efficacious substitution. A map, and all other nonverbal representations in fact, are efficacious substitutes in certain functional respects (not all respects) and in certain circumstances (not all circumstances). This is different from functional approximation because the function need not be approximate. In some circumstances the relevant function can be exactly the same. Verbal representations are not in the least approximate (save for onomatopoeic utterances which aren't really verbal anyway) at all. They rely for their efficacy on mutual agreement.<br />Jim Hamlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16488331333061422244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206373238418288113.post-24051130039653720702016-06-25T21:57:06.615+01:002016-06-25T21:57:06.615+01:00Are you suggesting here that representations are g...Are you suggesting here that representations are good 'functional approximations' to the things they stand in for (like a flat head screw driver is a good (functionally approximate) stand-in for a dedicated lid lifter, with respect to prying a lid off a paint tin); or are you supporting the opposite view- namely that representations are functionally distal with respect to their stand-ins? For example: It's unlikely that I will try and ride my mountain bike across my navigational app, or that I'm worried about aggressive wild pigs coming out of my smart phone. Put simply, a map doesn't really count as a functional approximation to the terrain it represents (and what ever wild life that may lurk within), because we don't interact with them in the same way. A map (representation) is a tool that aids cognition with respect to various navigational activities one wishes to pursue within the a given territory. The same thing goes for recipes, lists, instructions/proceedures, charts, tables, graphs, technical drafting, diagrams, illustrations, etc. I get the feeling that this property of “standing in for” is a trifle overblown (?). <br />In what sense is a representation a “stand-in” if it is not functionally approximate/equivalent? If it is functionally approximate/equivalent then you could suppose that the environment by itself will always do the job in the same way the flat head screwdriver ( or butter knife; or chisel; or metal ruler) will for a dedicated lid lifter (pace Gibsonian's and Radical enactivits). In this case wouldn't representation be entirely redundant? What is meant by “Stand-in”? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04369264537906109842noreply@blogger.com