Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9031015" data-attributes="member: 71699">Less a premise and more a question. If I thought that simulation depended on structured referents and relationships (i.e. models), and I believed that those were not internalizable, then it would seem I should not think that FKR can achieve simulation. Going from the other direction, if I think that FKR can achieve simulation, and I think that simulation depends on models, then it would seem that I ought to think models can be internalized.Another way might be to put it in terms of the analytic/synthetic division. If simulation is synthetic, then it would seem that it should depend on knowledge of worldly things. (As an aside, it seems to me that the narrativist/simulationist distinction might be drawn along the lines of the anaylytic/synthetic. I feel it's possible to grasp narrativism as postmodernist - no myth, the conversation is the content.)I don't rule out other explanatory frameworks of course, although I am disinterested in those that land at any form of dualistic inscrutability.Some might call that genre emulation rather than simulation, but I still think it's a good point. I might put it more that - what are the proper referents for simulation, and what counts as sufficiently well simulated?+100I'd articulate that further as selecting its reference domains or agreeing on which models are to be drawn upon. For example, I will not draw upon some sketched out model of a world of superheroes to play simulationist FKR in my gritty world of bronze age city states. (Unless of course, my FKR is to be about bronze age superheroes!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9031015, member: 71699"] Less a premise and more a question. If I thought that simulation depended on structured referents and relationships (i.e. models), and I believed that those were not internalizable, then it would seem I should not think that FKR can achieve simulation. Going from the other direction, if I think that FKR can achieve simulation, and I think that simulation depends on models, then it would seem that I ought to think models can be internalized. Another way might be to put it in terms of the analytic/synthetic division. If simulation is synthetic, then it would seem that it should depend on knowledge of worldly things. (As an aside, it seems to me that the narrativist/simulationist distinction might be drawn along the lines of the anaylytic/synthetic. I feel it's possible to grasp narrativism as postmodernist - no myth, the conversation is the content.) I don't rule out other explanatory frameworks of course, although I am disinterested in those that land at any form of dualistic inscrutability. Some might call that genre emulation rather than simulation, but I still think it's a good point. I might put it more that - what are the proper referents for simulation, and what counts as sufficiently well simulated? +100 I'd articulate that further as selecting its reference domains or agreeing on which models are to be drawn upon. For example, I will not draw upon some sketched out model of a world of superheroes to play simulationist FKR in my gritty world of bronze age city states. (Unless of course, my FKR is to be about bronze age superheroes!) [/QUOTE]

Verification