Show newer

A is not something that can be found in an observer's mind. Representations are physical copies or models of the object they represent and they are all residing in the same domain external to the observer's mind.

According to , a (the ***representation***) is something that brings its (the ), into *the same sort of correspondence* ( of mind) as the it stands for. Therefore, and exist in a different domain internal to the system

= .

The representation can be a , or the re- of the object using the same the object is made of (e.g. a *carbon copy* of a page or a copy of a living cell). In contrast, a (a map) is the reproduction of the object's form in a different substance.

Unlike real (artisanal) art, the reproduction (copy) of "digital art" is indistinguishable from the original. In addition, what is usually referred to as the "digital copy" of a physical work of art, is, in fact, a digital *model* of the real object it represents.

>Although the history of science and ideas is not my field, I could not imagine adopting Alfred North Whitehead's opinion that every science, in order to avoid stagnation, must forget its founders. To the contrary, it seems to me that the ignorance display ed by most scientists with regard to the history of their discipline, far from being a source of dynamism, acts as a brake on their creativity.

***On the Origins of Cognitive Science*** - *The Mechanization of the Mind*

by J-P Dupuy and translated by M. B. DeBevoise

*An examination of the fundamental role cybernetics played in the birth of cognitive science and the light this sheds on current controversies.*

mitpress.mit.edu/9780262512398

A Springer Open access book from @decidim

**Decidim, a Technopolitical Network for Participatory Democracy**

*Philosophy, Practice and Autonomy of a Collective Platform in the Age of Digital Intelligence*

link.springer.com/book/10.1007

The difference between a and a is that a *transformer* can re**form**ulate (modify the form) of the same substance, while a *transducer* can re**produce** the form observed in one kind of substance into the *same* form but in *another* type of substance. This kind of *reproduction* is usually called the .

*Terrence W. Deacon* writes beautifully about this conundrum:

royalsocietypublishing.org/doi

I have a somewhat different position on his second statement, however.

I think there **is** a self that determines **how** the system responds to an external perturbation.

Show thread

Found it! 😎. It is called the
***Maximum Entropy Production Principle ()***:

>The so-called maximum entropy production principle (MEPP) is known much less (even among specialists in physics of nonequilibrium processes). This antipode, as its name seemingly means, of Prigogine's principle has been overshadowed by its more famous twin. MEPP was independently proposed and used by several scientists throughout the 20th century when they dealt with general theoretical issues of thermodynamics and statistical physics or solved specific problems. By this principle, a nonequilibrium system develops so as to maximize its entropy production under present constraints.

sciencedirect.com/science/arti

Show thread

A system doesn't ***feed*** on (or ) from the environment it has to ***create*** it.

You can't get your desk organized by just acquiring some order from the environment. You have to do some and use some of your . Schrödinger admits as much:

Show thread

as the ultimate form of is usually thought of as ***resisting*** the *Second Law* of thermodynamics that says all eventually dissipates over time into a state of thermal equilibrium and enduring uniformity (disorder).

An alternative explanation says that organization (order) spontaneously emerges in dissipative structures ***because*** of the Second Law of Thermodynamics because ordered structures are much better at dissipating energy (thus more rapidly increasing the ) than disordered ones.

The explanation (for which I now can't find the proper reference😟) exemplified this with whirlpools and how they spontaneously emerge because the water molecules in them don't bump into each other as much so the flow through the drain (transition to an equilibrium state) is faster when they are streamlined (organized) into a vortex.

and

>I trusted a lot today. I trusted my phone to wake me on time. I trusted Uber to arrange a taxi for me, and the driver to get me to the airport safely. I trusted thousands of other drivers on the road not to ram my car on the way. At the airport, I trusted ticket agents and maintenance engineers and everyone else who keeps airlines operating. And the pilot of the plane I flew in. And thousands of other people at the airport and on the plane, any of which could have attacked me. And all the people that prepared and served my breakfast, and the entire food supply chain—any of them could have poisoned me. When I landed here, I trusted thousands more people: at the airport, on the road, in this building, in this room. And that was all before 10:30 this morning.

schneier.com/blog/archives/202

"A public model is a model built by the public for the public. It requires political accountability, not just market accountability. This means openness and transparency paired with a responsiveness to public demands. It should also be available for anyone to build on top of. This means universal access. And a foundation for a free market in #AI innovations. This would be a counter-balance to corporate-owned AI." #trust schneier.com/blog/archives/202

Questo è il Soluzionismo: L’Influenza di Zuckerberg e Musk nell’Economia Digitale Mondiale

Un nuovo studio del #sociologo economico Oliver #Nachtwey dell’Università di Basilea e del suo collega Timo #Seidl dell’Università di #Vienna esamina l’influenza delle idee di Mark #Zuckerberg e Elon #Musk sulla moderna economia digitale.

I #ricercatori hanno analizzato #discorsi, #libri e #articoli provenienti dalla #SiliconValley, rivelando un nuovo spirito del #capitalismo digitale.

Condividi questo post se hai trovato la news interessante.

#redhotcyber #online #it #web #ai #hacking #privacy #cybersecurity #cybercrime #intelligence #intelligenzaartificiale #informationsecurity #ethicalhacking #dataprotection #cybersecurityawareness #cybersecuritytraining #cybersecuritynews #infosecurity

redhotcyber.com/post/questo-e-

1️⃣ Kihbernetic with
2️⃣ fundamental : a recursive self-production for growth and learning, and a linear production of "other things", such as behavior and waste, distributed in
3️⃣ Control , of , immersed in, and dealing with things in the system's environment, for managing the workload of different regulators, and to provide long-term goals and preserve the identity of the system, all using
4️⃣ : sensory of data and other resources, motor of behavior, as the difference that will make a difference in the subsequent (updated) state, all interconnecting
5️⃣ : the -ed to external stimuli, the of sensory states, the of the expected outcome of past behavior, and the repeated of new information into an updated knowledge state.

>"’s preoccupation with mathematics, echoed in ’s commitment to mechanical models and ’s conception of formal descriptions, largely excluded social phenomena in which cybernetics was practiced."

's last paper

constructivist.info/19/1/082.k

A 3D of a natural can be visualized as created from the interaction of 2D made of and of that modulate (change the form of or constrain) each other, leaving a 1D as a record of how their interaction unfolds in .

All must be open-ended. The learning agent (the ) must have the to set its own learning goals as well as plan and execute a of activities to achieve these goals.

One can never learn *all existing data* but rather refine their understanding of the data that is available to them. As true for human intelligence, you can either have "deep and narrow" specialized agents or "average and broad" . You can't have both in the same entity. Time and "limitation" are the main inspirations for and between learning agents.

People should have figured it out by now that the of processing power, not the in gargantuan data and control centers is the right thing to do.

Stop working on LLMs (Large Language Models) and start working on PCAs (Personal Customizable Assistants).

From: arxiv.org/pdf/2311.00344.pdf

The current craze over *social media ruining democracy* and *AI posing an existential threat to humanity* stems from the fact that most people don't understand that the only thing is able to do is *amplify* their own capacity to do good or bad.
The Internet and AI are communication and intelligence , the same way motors and servo mechanisms are amplifiers of our muscle power.

, like is not a *thing*. It is a or property of the part of an entity's (which *is* a thing) that the entity may *be* conscious or aware of ... or *not*.

Furthermore, consciousness is a proposition. One can be either conscious of something or not. You can't be a *little bit conscious* the same way you can't be a *little bit alive*.

I read a sample of Robert M. Sapolsky's new book *Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will* on Amazon, and I really don't see why some people find it "revolutionary". I find it full of half-baked contradictory claims that don't hold water even under quick superficial scrutiny like this.

Brains don't generate behaviors. They motor responses to sensory stimuli that an outside observer then interprets as the behavior of the observed individual in their immediate environment. The observer can also stick electrodes in the brain of the individual and then correlate the observed behavior with the measurements performed on some of the neurons and then conclude that those firings have caused the behavior. However, even if it was possible to replicate the exact sequence of the observed firings of all the neurons, the observed behavior would be different if the "response" of the environment was also not exactly the same as during the measurement.

Determinism alone doesn't "cause" anything even if there are no such things as "causeless causes". The current of the system is obviously determined by its previous state and the current sensory inputs, so there are at least two separate "determinisms" in play here all the time, and, as an individual existing in its particular environment, I have at least **some** over the unfolding of both, my biology (eating, drinking coffee), and my environment (writing this nonsense)😉.

I wish people who are coming up each day with a new "breakthrough" theory using physics and/or quantum mechanics to explain everything from complexity and life to consciousness and free will, would read first what has said about it.
This is from:
polanyisociety.org/MP-On--the-

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

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