@Plinz You could argue that virtuality is contained in reality, so that it's monist, but *from our perspective* there are two realities, one virtual and one real A map is made out of physical molecules from the terrain, but its representational content can't be mistaken for the terrain
@metaphorician @Plinz I agree w/ your queries but i find it wild that people (not referring to you) seem to invoke so easily the concept of representational content. Humans have it but what makes something into a RC? If this were the product of natural processes would this chemical etching be a RC?
@metaphorician @Plinz I believe RCs exist—in us & animals—but i don’t think it’s easy to explain how is it that they exist. Consider a planet where abiogenesis hadn’t happened. Some equivalent of that photosensitive plate formed naturally. Sunlight reflects off a tree & falls on the plate. I’d say 1/4
@metaphorician @Plinz that the plate pattern doesn’t refer to anything. It doesn’t represent any more than a broken glass represents the rock that broke it or a fallen domino represents the falling of some other piece. Physical stuff are what they are in themselves—they don’t refer outside of them 2/4
@metaphorician @Plinz It’s you who takes the sand pattern to represent the nodal lines. The tree pattern on the photographic plate & the sand pattern on the Chladni plate aren’t even a thing! The molecular & sand "pixels" in themselves don’t know they make a pattern, let alone a "tree" 3/4
@metaphorician @Plinz So outside you—the conscious observer—there isn’t even a pattern in the first place, in order for it to represent some other pattern. The physical stuff of the brain clearly accomplishes this, but how?! 4/4
@Rares82 @Plinz Not sure how to get logic and stuff from this, but this book looks like it might help en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mat…
@metaphorician @Rares82 I think that the basic thesis of the book is wrong (math derived from experience)