I don’t understand the “aspartame” example. What’s the map-territory mismatch there? The territory, presumably, is aspartame, the actual substance… what’s the map?
Is that really “map”? The fact that it tastes like glucose is part of the territory, and so is the fact that it is not glucose… is the idea here that any perceptual quality is “the map”…?
How does this framework deal with visual representations? Is a picture of an orange (a) a lie because it’s not an orange (the Magritte perspective), (b) a lie only if it’s not painted with orange paint, (c) not a lie because it looks like a picture and is a picture, (d) other…?
I don’t understand the “aspartame” example. What’s the map-territory mismatch there? The territory, presumably, is aspartame, the actual substance… what’s the map?
Presumably the ‘map-territory’ mismatch is ‘tastes like glucose (and like it has calories), but is not glucose (and has 0 calories)’.
Is that really “map”? The fact that it tastes like glucose is part of the territory, and so is the fact that it is not glucose… is the idea here that any perceptual quality is “the map”…?
How does this framework deal with visual representations? Is a picture of an orange (a) a lie because it’s not an orange (the Magritte perspective), (b) a lie only if it’s not painted with orange paint, (c) not a lie because it looks like a picture and is a picture, (d) other…?