I don’t see how Attractor Theory explains global modifications of preference. For instance:
the set of things that feel desirable to me after running a marathon may differ greatly from the set of things after I read a book
might be true but it’s not warranted by a simple model of an attractor, which modifies only your local preferences.
Also, why use the term ‘attractor’, which has a very specific connotation? Does the concept conveys differences that aren’t alreay covered by a well of potential?
Yes, if I gave that impression, I apologize. I don’t think that this does a good job of modeling global preference modifications.
I’m not well versed with the idea of potential in this context, so from my mindset, “attractor” seemed like the best term. Do you mean potential in the electrical sense? (The short answer here is that I’m not well-versed in domain knowledge.)
Yes, potential as used in physics: a quantity spreaded in space which gradient determines force (electric potential is just one the three potential in nature).
I don’t see how Attractor Theory explains global modifications of preference. For instance:
might be true but it’s not warranted by a simple model of an attractor, which modifies only your local preferences.
Also, why use the term ‘attractor’, which has a very specific connotation? Does the concept conveys differences that aren’t alreay covered by a well of potential?
Yes, if I gave that impression, I apologize. I don’t think that this does a good job of modeling global preference modifications.
I’m not well versed with the idea of potential in this context, so from my mindset, “attractor” seemed like the best term. Do you mean potential in the electrical sense? (The short answer here is that I’m not well-versed in domain knowledge.)
Yes, potential as used in physics: a quantity spreaded in space which gradient determines force (electric potential is just one the three potential in nature).
Ah, got it. Thanks!