no model=no understanding is my claim.
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:
“Physical model” usually refers to something outside the head, like a set of equations on a blackboard, or a computer model
Gotcha, I’m referring to a representation encoded in neuron activity, which is the physical process.
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.