Alice is part of the world, right? So any belief about Alice is part of a world model. Any belief about Alice’s preference for cabernet is part of a world model—specifically, the world model of who-ever holds that belief.
By any chance....?
Yes.
(The phrase “the totality of” could, without any impact on our current discussion, be replaced with “elements of”. )
Is there something wrong with that? I inferred that to also be the meaning of the original poster.
specifically, the world model of who-ever holds that belief
Not “whoever”, we are talking specifically about Alice. Is Alice’s preference for cabernet part of Alice’s world model?
I have a feeling we’re getting into the snake-eating-its-own-tail loops. If Alice’s preferences are part of Alice’s world model then Alice’s world model is part of Alice’s world model as well. Recurse until you’re are reduced to praying to the Holy Trinity of Godel, Escher, and Bach :-)
The phrase “the totality of” could, without any impact on our current discussion, be replaced with “elements of”.
Could it? You are saying that value judgments must be a part of. Are there “elements of” which do not contain value judgements?
Are there “elements of” which don’t contain value judgements?
That strikes me as a question for dictionary writers. If we agree that Newton’s laws of motion constitute such an element, then clearly, there are such elements that do not not contain value judgements.
Is Alice’s preference for cabernet part of Alice’s world model?
iff she perceives that preference.
If Alice’s preferences are part of Alice’s world model, then Alice’s world model is part of Alice’s world model as well.
I’m not sure this follows by logical necessity, but how is this unusual? When I mention Newton’s laws, am I not implicitly aware that I have this world model? Does my world model, therefore, not include some description of my world model? How is this relevant?
Alice is part of the world, right? So any belief about Alice is part of a world model. Any belief about Alice’s preference for cabernet is part of a world model—specifically, the world model of who-ever holds that belief.
Yes. (The phrase “the totality of” could, without any impact on our current discussion, be replaced with “elements of”. )
Is there something wrong with that? I inferred that to also be the meaning of the original poster.
Not “whoever”, we are talking specifically about Alice. Is Alice’s preference for cabernet part of Alice’s world model?
I have a feeling we’re getting into the snake-eating-its-own-tail loops. If Alice’s preferences are part of Alice’s world model then Alice’s world model is part of Alice’s world model as well. Recurse until you’re are reduced to praying to the Holy Trinity of Godel, Escher, and Bach :-)
Could it? You are saying that value judgments must be a part of. Are there “elements of” which do not contain value judgements?
That strikes me as a question for dictionary writers. If we agree that Newton’s laws of motion constitute such an element, then clearly, there are such elements that do not not contain value judgements.
iff she perceives that preference.
I’m not sure this follows by logical necessity, but how is this unusual? When I mention Newton’s laws, am I not implicitly aware that I have this world model? Does my world model, therefore, not include some description of my world model? How is this relevant?