Instantiation/representation/having a model, in my view, is not binary and is needed for any understanding. You seem to say that I don’t think ‘understanding’ requires instantiation. My example with the bowl is meant to say that you do require a non-zero degree of instantiation—although I would call it modelling instead because instantiation makes me think of a temporal model, but bowls can be represented as static without losing their defining features. In short, no model=no understanding is my claim. This is an attempt to make the word knowledge more precise because it can mean many things.
I then go on to describe why you need a more high fidelity model to represent the defining features of someone’s brain state evolving over some time period. The human brain is obviously incapable of that. Although an exact subatomic model of a bowl contains a lot of information too, you can abstract much more of it away without losing anything essential.
I’d also like to correct that I make no claims that science, or anything, is subjective. Conversely, I’m claiming that subjectivity is not a fundamental concept and we can taboo it in discussions like these.
Late response:
Instantiation/representation/having a model, in my view, is not binary and is needed for any understanding. You seem to say that I don’t think ‘understanding’ requires instantiation. My example with the bowl is meant to say that you do require a non-zero degree of instantiation—although I would call it modelling instead because instantiation makes me think of a temporal model, but bowls can be represented as static without losing their defining features. In short, no model=no understanding is my claim. This is an attempt to make the word knowledge more precise because it can mean many things.
I then go on to describe why you need a more high fidelity model to represent the defining features of someone’s brain state evolving over some time period. The human brain is obviously incapable of that. Although an exact subatomic model of a bowl contains a lot of information too, you can abstract much more of it away without losing anything essential.
I’d also like to correct that I make no claims that science, or anything, is subjective. Conversely, I’m claiming that subjectivity is not a fundamental concept and we can taboo it in discussions like these.
The crucial question is whether the model needs to be inside-the-head in some or all cases.
I don’t see the usefulness of tabooing subjectivity when it is the whole point.
Where else would the model be if not inside the head? Or are you saying one can ‘understand’ physical objects without any hint of a model?
To quote myself:
Gotcha, I’m referring to a representation encoded in neuron activity, which is the physical process.