Six Learnings FrameworkThe “Six Learnings Framework” is a pedagogical outline developed for virtual world education in general. It sets out 6 possible ways to view an educational activity.[12]Exploring: learners explore a virtual world’s locations and communities as fieldwork for class.Collaborating: learners work together within a virtual world on collaborative tasks.Being: learners explore themselves and their identity through their presence in a virtual world, such as through role play.Building: learners construct objects within a virtual world.Championing: learners promote real life causes through activities and presentations in a virtual world.Expressing: learners represent activities within a virtual world to the outside world, through blogs, podcasts, presentations and videos.Language (platform) to intellectuality is a dualistic process with no doubt.Language is an interactive principle plies in between known and unknown. sekhar --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [Wittrs] The Tactical Paraphrase: From Fallacy to Factuality To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Wednesday, 5 May, 2010, 3:52 PM SWM wrote: >I suggest those "who came in late" read the actual original exchange >you and I had and then read Dennett's text which is transcribed onto >this list. (He does go on to mention the implication of that as being a >believe in an "immortal soul" but that is to show why one needs to be >careful in embracing such a Searlean view, to wit, one finds oneself on >the same wavelength as believers in souls and immortality, etc.) I doubt that other list members will want to research the archives just to settle a dispute over who has the more accurate account of thread history; but, of course, they are free to do so. OTOH, it is possible that others might be willing to provide some feedback concerning the tactical aspects of your so-called paraphrase of Dennett's text. the facts appear to be undisputed. the text reads something like Cartesian dualists believe that more of the same will not produce understanding; but, your 'paraphrase' interprets the text as if it read 'only Cartesian dualists believe that more of the same will not produce understanding'. this interpolation results in a claim whose logical properties are very different from those of Dennett's actual text. the text would be symbolized as [1] C -> X [being a Cartesian dualist entails believing X (in this case that more of the same will not produce understanding)] the paraphrase would be symbolized as [2] X -> C [believing X entails being a Cartesian dualist] it is undisputed that Searle believes X. drawing the conclusion 'Searle is a Cartesian dualist' from this fact plus [1] is a fallacy (affirming the consequent). drawing the conclusion 'Searle is a Cartesian dualist' from this fact plus [2] is a valid move (modus ponens). hence, the tactical effect of 'paraphrasing' the text as if it read [2] instead of [1] is to turn fallacy into factuality * * * so, fellow list members, one question: does Stuart's paraphrase change the meaning of the text? Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/