Representation Of, Representation As

I have started reading Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective by Bas C van Fraassen and I have just finished the first chapter, Representation Of, Representation As. Here there is a discussion what we mean by representation in a normal language. The author defends that a representation is

p. 21 “Z uses X to depict Y as F

I am curious to see how this will be applied to science as the author argues that “Z uses” is an important part of the representation and cannot be removed.

Below there is a couple of quotes related to a discussion on whether a copy could be a representation. It could be used to bring a new look at “Yes, Doctor” as described in The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

The yes doctor hypothesis: It is the assumption, in cognitive science, that it exists a level of description of my parts (whatever I consider myself to be) such that I would not be aware of any experiential change in the case where a functionally correct digital substitution is done of my parts at that level.”

Now quotes from Scientific Representation on whether a copy of a person is a representation.

p. 19 “Socrates’ thought experiment … has a quite contemporary ring, if we replace gods (as it usual now) with mad scientists.”

p. 19 Quote from Cratylus (Socrates talks to Cratylus). “Let us suppose the existence of two objects. One of them shall be Cratylus, and the other the image of Cratylus, and we will suppose, further, that some god makes not only a representation such as a painter would make of your outward form and color, but also creates an inward organization like yours, having the same warmth and softness, and into this infuses motion, and soul, and mind, such as you have, and in a word copies all your quantities, and places them by you in another form. Would you say this was Cratylus and the image of Cratylus, or that there were two Cratyluses?

p. 22 “Look back now at Socrates, Cratylus, and the god they imagine. Did the god make an image of Cratylus or did he not make a representation of anything, but a clone? That depends. Cratylus was too nasty in his response. Did this god go on to display what he made to the Olympic throng as a perfect image of Greek manhood? Or did he display it as an example his prowess at creature-making? Or did he do neither, but press the replica into personal service, since he couldn’t have Cratylus himself?


Comments are closed.