merjet

It is interesting that I haven't found any discussion of the Peikoff and Harriman show in the DIM course on any of the Objectivist forums that I've visited (other than OL of course). Perhaps the subject is a bit too embarrassing? Neither can I believe that none of the ARIans has very serious disagreements with them in this matter. The threat of excommunication must be like the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, so they keep a very low profile. Peikoff rules!

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=5430

Dragonfly wrote:

In this case I mean by "representation" a mapping of a part of the physical world onto the brain, so that it contains information about that part of the world.

This exemplifies the misuse of "representation" to describe perception.

As I say in greater detail here here

a representation requires three components. Dragonfly's description has only two. Completing the analogy takes a third component, the representer, e.g. a homunculus. Dragonfly denies there being a homunculus in his account, but something that plays that role is what is needed to complete the analogy. Otherwise, it is poor analogy.

I can agree to his use of "mapping" in one sense. One sense I would not accept is a parcel of land, a map, and the maker or viewer of the map. The map does represent the parcel, the maker or viewer is the representer, so the analogy holds. The acceptable sense is the way "mapping" is used in mathematics, but that is not a "representation."