Having problems with message search?
I was actually hoping to
do the ”I’ll show you how deep the rabbit hole really goes”
bit, lets do it at the same time, in different rooms. Or the same? Black
leather coats in
And how many ways do we
need to say that AFAWK humans AARR the only verbal beings on the planet? I
mean, to me (who is, again, but an egg) it seems from the discussion here that once
AARR starts, it’s hard to find a way of doing pure NARR? And if it’s
argued that AARR is somehow an enlargement in the behavioural repertoire of a organism,
I don’t see that they need to be exclusive, like you said. AARR(AARR AND NARR),
NARR(NARR NOT AARR). Then based on the perspective that all is behaviour, even physical
is behaviour and becomes susceptible to arbitrary relations, eh?
Från:
RFT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RFT@yahoogroups.com] För Stewart, Ian
Skickat: den 17 juli 2009 14:27
Till:
Kopia: niklas.torneke@...;
rft@yahoogroups.com; matthieu.villatte@...
Ämne: RE: [RFT] How to
operationalize the arbitrary/non arbitrary distinction?
Glad you enjoyed the workshop Andreas! Next time we’ll both
wear shades and offer red and blue pills at the start. Hmm… possible
follies sketch.
I think the distinction between AARR and NARR is crucial for a
number of reasons. For one thing, and not necessarily the most important
theoretically or otherwise, it separates our species from all others we know of
– at least in so far as we are exceptionally good at doing AARR whereas
no other species seems to be able to get too far past the NARR ‘starting
gate’.
Another possible definition of AARR- responding relationally under
the control of a contextual cue that specifies the relation such that the
relational response can be brought to bear on any relata regardless of their
physical properties.
(Commence fire!)
Ian
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.16/2241 - Release Date: 07/16/09 18:00:00
Offline 
Send Email