Show newer

Not all in real requires an immediate response of the dynamical to what's happening in its environment.

>Constraining the behavior of a system in a functional way, i.e., control, can be exerted here and now—by the specific parameters of environments. Such is the case of tropisms: a plant turns in the direction of a light. However, in cases in which control is displaced in time, the functional ‘‘freezing’’ of some degrees of freedom has to be written somehow and somewhere (i.e., some form of memory must occur), and—if one wants to have a physical description of this memory process—according to Pattee, one has to employ an alternative sort of description in the form of time-independent constraints. This description is "symbolic’’ in the sense of consisting of timeless structures, having external significance, that—themselves—form a system, being non-arbitrarily linked together by certain rules. According to Pattee, the two kinds of description (symbolic code and physical laws) are incommensurate. Neither is reducible to the other.

J. Rączaszek-Leonardi building on 's work on Reconciling and aspects of

academia.edu/899225/Reconcilin

>"The craze with all things is not just because of its inherent weirdness. It’s motivated by a impulse that has been animating science from Robert Hooke in the 17th century to Stephen Hawking in the 21st."

iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not

@jimdonegan

is the of equating mere physical that abide ***inexorable, universal, and incorporeal*** natural with such as an observer that is also enforcing its ***particular, arbitrary, and local*** that are the result caused by the interaction of its parts.

Any is an that entails or selection of what is measured, and its comparison *against* some predefined depending on the current state of the system.

There is no outside of a system. Information must be *created* by the observer system from external structures. Two observers will always create *different* information from the same set of data depending on the state they are in.

@Clarity

How do you define ?
Do the thoughts we obviously have in our heads exist even if no one else can attest to that?

defines as
>"the number of it takes to compute the arrangement from the description".

When the description is much shorter than the arrangement it describes, we have , and when the length of the description is the same as that of the arrangement we have .

>"If the length of the description approximates the length of the arrangement, it is clear that *we do not understand this arrangement*."

😀

I see more and more individuals doing "organizational change in complex systems" frowning on the mention of "best practices", documentation, and planning, because:

> "in an increasingly interconnected world where technology, information, and customer expectations evolve at an accelerating rate, insights from past performance quickly become irrelevant in many scenarios"

medium.com/topology-insight/be

All such "modern approaches" to dealing with *complex systems* forget that the *insight from past performances* is the **only** thing we can actually rely on while preparing for the uncertain future.

They also forget that organizations normally work, not in any one of the *clear, complicated, complex, and chaotic domains* at any point in time, but they are rather *in and out of all of those situations all the time*, and different parts of the same organization can also be in different situations at the same time.

Best practices are also not "silver bullets" as they would like you to believe. Best practices are the default (only possible) response the system can produce to par the current situation because it depends primarily on the the system is currently in.

Having *diverse perspectives*, allowing time for *experimentation*, and maintaining short and direct *learning loops* are not some new and "improved" methods the organization should start adopting when things get complicated or complex, but should be rather part of the (documented and planned) very ***best practices*** an organization adopts as the *normal way of doing business*.

>"It’s not just Love Island: “fake British accent” videos have over 188,000 views on TikTok, where young people say they use the voice whenever they feel uncomfortable."

Maybe a way of unconsciously adopting a "Keep Calm and Carry On" perspective in unexpected circumstances?

getpocket.com/explore/item/why

>"If time didn’t have a direction, it seems to me that would make time into just another spatial dimension, and if all we’ve got are spatial dimensions, then it seems to me nothing’s happening in the universe."

getpocket.com/explore/item/a-d

The use of the terms and seems somehow different in than in other disciplines.

In engineering a "transformation" means altering the of the same and "transduction" is used when the form is "produced" in another (different) substance.

For example, a will change (reduce or increase) the voltage "pressure" of an AC current source while a such as a microphone will change an **acoustic** pressure (wave) to an **electric** signal.

assemblyai.com/blog/an-overvie

is defined as "an involving the apparent of something not present". Consequently, it requires a apparatus.

Because an does not have the ability to experience its surroundings except through user-provided prompts, an erroneous statement generated by the model should be called a (computational) , not a hallucination.

It cannot be a because there is no involved in the generation of the statement.

>All received cellular information must be analyzed to be deployed as cellular problem-solving to maintain homeorhetic equipoise. However, the effective implementation of information is definitively a function of orderly information management. Consequently, effective cellular problem-solving is information processing and management.

Cellular information is not *received* and *processed* or *implemented*, it is *created* and *used* by the cell to regulate its internal autopoietic (growth) processes. Cells don't *solve problems* and I don't know what the *function of orderly information management* stands for.

I had to look for the meaning of *homeorhetic equipoise* and it turns out that *homeorhesis* stands for *steady flow* and *equipoise* stands for *balance*. So why just not use those words?

Revised central dogma? This sounds more like a bunch of BS written by a chatGPT.

comdig.unam.mx/2023/06/06/a-re

>The Cambridge Dictionary reports that is “a special power that some people have naturally,” but this association with individual influence is criticized as just another tedious expression of the **Great Man Theory** and overlooks much interconnected complexity. In her book, “Charisma and the Fictions of Black Leaders,” Erica Edwards argued that this view has “privileged charismatic leaders, from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King Jr., over the arduous, undocumented efforts of ordinary women, men and children to remake their social reality.” This uncritical faith in charisma as a motor of history, she wrote, “ignores its limits as a model for social movements while showing us just how powerful a narrative force it is.”

noemamag.com/the-secret-histor

(Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning *chosen of the people*) claimed that everything starts from *atoms*, in a *bottom-up* .

(Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') can be described as *top-down* mechanisms based on the free association and decision of autonomous individuals.

All is *bottom-up* or from the *inside-out*. There is no such thing as *top-down causation* imposed from the outside. There is only an emergent (internal) level of constraints and other control mechanisms generated by the interaction of individuals fulfilling a common need or objective.

>"If we teach only the findings and products of ... without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from ? Both then are presented as unsupported assertion."

>"Science is far from a perfect instrument of . It’s just the best we have. In this respect, it’s like . Science by itself cannot advocate courses of human , but it can certainly illuminate the possible of courses of action."

>"Every time we exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the outside world, we are doing science. When we are self-indulgent and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into pseudoscience and superstition."

From 's *Baloney Detection Kit - Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking*

themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/

@Pat
I believe that is just a of an interaction between two (or more) physical .

Memory requires an entire physical able to preserve the contained in this record from one moment in time to another until it is retrieved (by the system) and used for something else.

According to , the "integrated functional circuit" for requires three things:

1⃣
2⃣ , and
3⃣

Prediction is essential for drawing (memory-based)

>" without which perception degenerates into and memory into ".

See pp 105-106 in the quite interesting collection of his thoughts *Understanding Understanding*

link.springer.com/book/10.1007

@Pat

Not according to Howard Pattee, they don't.
Read the paper and see if you can find a flaw in his reasoning. I can't.

> must have emerged from the physical world. This emergence must be understood if our knowledge is not to degenerate (more than it has already) into a collection of disjoint specialized disciplines.

>... and require different levels of ... physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical that have no , while depends, at least to some degree, on of dynamics by rate-independent memory ."

researchgate.net/publication/1

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.