conceptual

  Like any other kind of visual representation, you will need to follow the golden rule :  use things that are patently related/similar/different to represent things that are relevantly related/similar/different First, you are going to need to represent the elements in the structure. Use itemised elements like points, geometric figures, letters, etc. This will be your terminal vocabulary, so to speak, corresponding to what Greenberg calls the first order  elements of the system and thus can be as iconic or symbolic as desired. Then you are going to need how to represent their properties and relations. The mechanisms you can use to represent them are of two types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic [I was very tempted to call them Leibnizian but I think the reference may be too obscure for many. It’s a shame]: You can exploit similarities , relations and differences in the way you have decided to represent the elements in the structure to represent similarities, relat...

Principio general de la representación icónica : X es una buena representación de Y para un fin Z en tanto X hace manifiesto – es decir, que hace fácil que el usuario note – los aspectos del fenómeno Y que son relevantes – es decir, que es importante que el usuario note – para alcance el fin Z.  En consecuencia, una representación icónica puede ser deficiente por dos razones: (i) Ruido es cuando se hace manifiesto algo irrelevante – por ejemplo, si hacemos muy llamativa una parte o aspecto de la representación que no significa nada o, en un diagrama geométrico, usamos un ángulo recto para representar un ángulo que no tiene que ser recto. (ii) El inverso fenómeno al ruido es cuando no se hace manifesto algo relevante – por ejemplo, cuando en un diagrama geométrico se usa un ángulo que no parece ser recto cuando el que sea recto es importante para la validez de la prueba. Que algo sea manifesto en una representación (o en general en una situación dada), es decir, el que sea fáci...

I. What is metaphysical indeterminacy according to Barnes and Williams? p is undetermined if and only if, settled all the relevant semantic and epistemological issues, “it’s simply unsettled whether p or rather ¬p obtains”, i.e., “…there is a precise way that things are [but it is] primitively indeterminate which precise way things are…” Is it circular? Well, yes not viciously so, because Indeterminacy is a metaphysical primitive. That P is indeterminate does not mean that (but entails that) it is impossible to know whether P (that is epistemic indeterminacy) it is possible that P and it is also possible that not P (that is contingency) It also does not mean (and it does not entail either): it is neither true that P nor is it false (thus bivalence is false) it is neither true that P nor is it true that ~P (thus ( P v ~P ) is not a tautology) How is that possible? How I like to understand indeterminacy: The world is indeterminate if an only if there are fundamental existential tru...

hierarchical Different factors and agents at the base level contribute differently to the emerging phenomenon, but in a hierarchical way so that the contribution of some depends on the contribution of others in a hierarchical (possibly partial) order. Example : The system formed by herd and shepherd. A traditional business company. non-hierarchical structured Different factors and agents at the base level contribute differently to the emerging phenomenon, but not in a hierarchical way so that if the contribution of some depends on the contribution of others, it is in a complex, circular or symmetric way. Example : A funk band. genetic-evolutionary All factors and agents at the base level make the same sort of contributions but still different in a random (or close to random) way, reacting and building on each other’s contributions in a non-hierarchical way, generating recursive patterns of proposal-rejection/adoption. Example : A brainstorming session. Biological evolution. Genetic evo...