January 06, 2006

• this is good, but the reasoning becomes dodgy in part three. thin ice => skate quickly.
• Very interesting. Cheers
• This kind of falls apart for me if I think of the construction of the eye as a whole as the lens and the brain as the film. Great link, thanks. This'll keep busy when I should be doing other things.
• Good post. Much fine print and endless argument to swim through (drown in). But there are two things that bug me about the "representationalist" view. A photograph isn't a representation in the same way a word is. It's muddling to conflate the two. (which isn't to say you have pictures in your head - you are more like a kind of feeling photo continuously developing) The other thing is that representationalism seems essentially dualist.
• Raoul, but he also espouses color realism, which sounds eliminativist. The Churchlands, in their defenses of representationalism, tend to skirt the issue (of color & smell..etc), and just talk about evolutionary fitness of the representation.
• Gy - Gee I got in over my head fast. I don't know how broad the "eliminativist" eraser is supposed to be. And I haven't read the Churchlands defenses. (So perhaps I'm emulating La Petomane in my expostulations.) I'm mostly uncomfortable with using the term "representation" to describe the way parts of living things are coupled to aspects of the world in variable degrees of detail and intimacy and latency. Cause after we're through talking about perception we're going to have to talk about talking. Then we be representin'. For doesn't representation (eg, language) evoke the stuff that representationalists call "representation?"
• Did anybody else read the title as "A Cartoon Episiotomy"? *clamps knees together*
• MonkeyFilter: uncomfortable with using the term "representation" to describe the way parts of living things are coupled to aspects of the world in variable degrees of detail and intimacy and latency. *dabs last bit of paint, steps back, admires* That said, Cause after we're through talking about perception we're going to have to talk about talking. Then we be representin'. Werd.
• Raoul, you'd be better off with solipsism then. If you accept that there's an external world, and there's information about it. Then representation seems to be the obvious link between them.
• Fish tick, I did! I was at once horrified and insanely curious at the same time! Then disappointed when I reread the word for what it really was.
• so then "Episiotomy" would be a procedure to remove understanding. Hm. MonkeyFilter: Episiotomies 5¢
• Indeed- not unlike the purpose of a hysterectomy.
• Wasn't that Spotless Sunshine movie about epistiotomy?
• And Gy. I'm expressing terminologic discomfiture. You're obviously more schooled in these matters than I. I just think the difference between the analog-biological representation of the senses and the symbolic representation of language is important. (One is probably a metaphor for the other, depending on where you're standing.) I see them as distinct (but not separate) kinds of knowing.
• I also saw "episiotomy" first. And yet I clicked the link anyway...
• Net time a monkey is in Las Vegas, go to the Luxor Hotel at night. Stand just outside and look at the light projecting from the top of the pyramid. Notice as it projects upwards into the twilight it seems to curve up to and end at a point over the top of your head. Walk around the Luxor glancing up periodically to verify.
• Those drawings are for shit though