Show newer

The main difference between "man-made" machines and other simple physical () and , living is in the way they are "produced".

Machines are from the by an process similar to of placing layer upon layer of "things" and connecting them to "inform" a unified single structure.

Organisms, on the other side, are single unified and integrated entities from the moment of their inception, and all their "components" from the out in parallel and at the same time in a closed circular process.

Show thread

Another one in a series of Noema articles promoting the return to ancient civilizations as a recipe for a brighter (more democratic?) future. If they were so great I wonder why they all fell for Western . This one at least correctly identifies as means of .

> began with the idea that the “*civilized*” had to confront the “*barbaric*.” ***Men of vision*** set out to find meaning in life beyond their own borders. They ranged from prophets and teachers who inspired those with wealth and power to spread their message to everyone. ***Their vision could help a powerful state shape a borderless worldview and define the values of a new civilization***.

noemamag.com/modernizing-ancie

Show thread

In this propaganda article "" is used as a synonym for . Chinese ethnicity is not necessary as long as you

>"use the inherited resources, such as Confucian classics, to fashion your practices and thoughts" ...

To what end? Confront and "civilize" the barbaric liberals?

noemamag.com/a-non-liberal-fou

Identity does not care about your personal and .

>", which derives often from civilizational and cultural factors, remains opposed to . Bruno (Maçães) says “States might have a territory and a people, but their center of gravity lies in the way of life embodied in the state."

noemamag.com/civilization-stat

A rare short and clearheaded analysis of the **real** risks associated with the use of tools in contrast and response to the general overwhelming "doomsday" hype such as that presented in the recent *6 months moratorium* letter.

aisnakeoil.substack.com/p/a-mi

I wonder if those two are concerned at all with what happened with the last emperors and czars they are trying to emulate. 😀

noemamag.com/reviving-the-real

>"As Chang proclaimed: “Globalization is almost dead. Free trade is almost dead. And a lot of people still wish they would come back, but I really don’t think they will be back for a while.” "

With the world becoming more and more of a "global village" where people, capital, and ideas move freely and instantaneously there is no turning back on .

People are just becoming more aware of the fact that it is not very clever to have all of your eggs put in one basket, particularly if that basket is far away from your immediate reach.

What is happening now is not , it is .

noemamag.com/the-cost-of-deglo

I think Maturana may have "jumped the gun" here by succumbing to the cybernetic vs. type of thinking and using a gun (a mere passive or ) as a metaphor for an active, living .

In my mind, the notion of ***external control*** so pervasive in does not fit well with the notions of and .

Unlike a (living) system, the gun has no other but to react to the trigger, except, as Maturana notes, in case of malfunction (which is not equivalent to choice).

Show thread

If by some chance gets in a position with the power to "wipe out" humanity, it will be not because of its superior intelligence but because of humanity itself.

The truth is that intelligence neither craves power nor it is a precondition to raise into a position of power. Quite the opposite.

Some wise words from John Dewey about the difference between and written back in 1934.

newrepublic.com/article/100340

Humberto Romesin on ***structural determinism***
*Our Genome Does Not Determine Us*
Presentation made at the Remaining Human Forum
Vancouver, B.C., May 22, 2001
asc-cybernetics.org/2001/RH-Ma

1943 - The year when it all started:
, ,
From: *Brains, Machines, and Mathematics*
by: *Michael A. Arbib*

> Unlike the Cartesian argument that living beings are like man-made machines, Kant was the first author who defended the view that organisms are deeply different from machines because their parts and activities are non-separable, and the functions of these parts are not externally imposed, but rather intrinsically determined.

*Moreno & Mossio*
Biological Autonomy - A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry

They might **behave** (function) similarly to machines, but the real difference is how they are **produced** and maintained.

Control in always has to come from the outside or is exerted, not internally onto the elements that make the system but onto something else outside of the "control" system.

Even such brilliant thinkers as , one of the "fathers" of could not escape this profoundly ingrained "cybernetic" assumption:

>" means, literally, self-law. To see what this entails, it is easier to contrast it with its mirror image, or **external law**. This is, of course, what we call . These two images, autonomy and control, do a continuous dance."

**Francisco J. Varela** - *Principles Of Biological Autonomy*

mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/f1

Show thread

Control theories such as (Perceptual Control Theory), which are based on , are primarily focused on the control loop closed through the system's and have little or no concern for the more important, internal motor loop controlling the system's and cycles.

>The natural history of systems which exhibit as a characteristic phenomenology shows that they share one universal feature suggested by : organizational closure, i.e. indefinite recursion of component interaction.

(ibid. p79)

Show thread

> - the assertion of the system's through its internal functioning and self-regulation.

- *On Being Autonomous: The Lessons of Natural History for Systems Theory*
in:
*Applied General Systems Research* - 1978 - (ed.)
p. 77
link.springer.com/book/10.1007

>In hierarchical societies, mockery is often associated with bullies whose power exceeds their moral authority. But it is also a tool of the weak, a means to pillory those in power and hold them to account. In the Ju/’hoan case this is best reflected in the traditional practice of ***“insulting the hunter’s meat.”***

Suzman, James. Work (p. 162). Penguin Publishing Group

Show thread

With Musk, Biden is here just using an old, proven, hunter-gatherers' method to get booming young hunters in line 😎:

news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-said-

“Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors,” one Kalahari hunter told the anthropologist Richard B Lee in 1968. “We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless."

theguardian.com/artanddesign/2

Some authors consider the not a good test for finding out if an is really “intelligent” because the test is "*purely behavioral*" and looks only at responses without investigating the mechanisms that produced them.

I think that asking for the "mechanisms" would in fact introduce unnecessary bias and invalidate the test. The test is solid in principle, it is just that we have to come up with some better test cases (scenarios).

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

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