Analogy is required for comprehension.

I agree in principle – and definitely agree on the critical importance of frame-of-reference in general – although I think the definitions can become one while also being many.

You’re a pragmatist, fundamentally, it seems. “if it works, it works and if it works, use it!” I believe i am effectively a pragmatist as well, albeit I try to shake off some of the stereotypes about pragmatism.. but I definitely lean in that direction.

Here is a fundamental of mine – and I don’t have a lot, but I’m gaining more and more of them:

Analogy is required for comprehension.
It goes deep.

If one’s leanings were towards an automaton view, or a cognitive thinking organism, or an embodied cognition view, or a brain-in-a-vat “we are computers within sluggish waterbags, or a slime-mold humanity view…

… there may be analogous answers that would be functionally equivalent that _use_ analogies that allow the organism to comprehend the concepts based upon their prior knowledge and linking to it.

So we’re effectively saying the same thing it seems, just analogizing differently in ways that best befit our own leanings as it were

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + four =

Leave a Reply