“Any understanding of the world must somehow imply a correspondence between its map and the territory.
So obviously, a good understanding of the world should not merely implement the correspondence, it should expose it to verbal and logical analysis.
So obviously, understandings of the world that are hard to verbalize, or have complicated subjective parts, are worse.
So obviously, it should be the goal of my opponents to exhibit a simple, constructive, interpersonally agreeable correspondence function, and if they can’t, that’s a strike against them.”
I notice an interesting argument form:
“Any understanding of the world must somehow imply a correspondence between its map and the territory.
So obviously, a good understanding of the world should not merely implement the correspondence, it should expose it to verbal and logical analysis.
So obviously, understandings of the world that are hard to verbalize, or have complicated subjective parts, are worse.
So obviously, it should be the goal of my opponents to exhibit a simple, constructive, interpersonally agreeable correspondence function, and if they can’t, that’s a strike against them.”
Not sure if that last sentence is sarcastic, but exactly! It is very problematic to babble (ctrl+f for “babbling”).
Yes! Exactly. I invite the computationalist or functionalist camp to propose their own mappings, jessicata suggested this.