Show newer

In other words, the is just another able to and think about other objects.

In medieval Scholasticism, the term '' was used for that which stood apart, like in the way it is still present today when we say that a patient is a 'subject' of (subjected to) surgery. An '' was not a thing but rather correlated to a knowing being as the "intentional object" existing only in their mind's .

thephilosophyforum.com/discuss

along with 2nd order Cybernetics are trying to "right the wrong" introduced by Kant and return to the original meaning by making the (observer) the of inquiry.

"This month alone, one such approach revealed an unexpected link between memory formation and metabolic regulation."

No way ... you are kidding me, get outta here ...

You have to be alive in order to think?

quantamagazine.org/mental-phen

(Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people") - was the first to state that everything starts with "", in a " .

(Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') - starts with the bottom-up association and decision of free individuals.

PJ boosted

It is out and open-access. // And I have a modest commentary in it.

Special Issue <<Humberto Maturana’s Impact on Science and Philosophy: A Plurality of Perspectives>> edited by Alexander Riegler & Pille Bunnell

Target articles by Fritjof Capra, Alexander V. Kravchenko, Nelson Monteiro Vaz, Jorge Mpodozis, and Randall Whitaker

constructivist.info/18/1

#HumbertoMaturana #cybernetics #RadicalConstructivism

I see lots of posts and articles from people listing all the bad things they were able to "convince" 's to do for them as "proof" of how and models can be harmfully biased, so I thought will ask why is that.

The answer is, as expected, "garbage in - garbage out".

It is not the tool's fault the people using it are deliberately biased and misleading and most of them provide as "proof" only the screenshots of the answer, without bothering to also supply the questions they asked that led to such an answer.

These are my questions and the answers from :

Just finished my first conversation with 's and I must say I'm impressed.
Here is an example (the best of 3 attempts):

PJ boosted

I thought I knew a fair bit about the birth of the World Wide Web and its early days, but I'd never heard of the "Oh Yeah?" button before. slate.com/technology/2022/12/o #epistemology #trust #www #WorldWideWeb #TimBernersLee

Found this interesting chapter from a (quite expensive) book. Not sure why the authors differentiate between and concepts, but nonetheless a very interesting discussion.
researchgate.net/publication/3
The "Virtuous Continuum of Responses" in Fig. 2 has two apparent aspects:
1️⃣ Commitment to following the or to
2️⃣ Commitment to or to a
I find it intriguing that by looking at it this way it seems like a religious individual may become but never . A truly individual has to be prepared to oppose the of the land (both secular and religious) if it endangers "long-term value creation and the duties owed to all stakeholders".

From to in Addressing

"This article contrasts with and approaches to harm, which are usually context-sensitive, relational, and individualized. We argue that subsidiarity—the principle that should have meaningful within larger systems—might foster the balance between context and scale that is needed for improving responses to harm."

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.11

Show thread

Recently read this articl about "why we should embrace ":

spin.atomicobject.com/2020/05/
I understand but don't know where to put the .

Just because we are not able to perceive the "true" , that does not mean such a thing does not exist and that we all live in our own little .

I think a much better term would be for the fact that our capabilities do not extend beyond controlling our own internal .

As an illustration of the pervasive lack of control humility in our society, in a recent discussion, I've got this comment: "This controller's "internal" states just controlled you, or you would not have responded."😀

Probabilmente il miglior "concept album" di tutti i tempi:

youtu.be/Qug8SvnTKOo

of :

1️⃣Summa Technologiae - Stanisław Lem
2️⃣The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
3️⃣An Introduction to Cybernetics - W. Ross Ashby
4️⃣Thinking in Systems - Donella H. Meadows
5️⃣The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement - Eliyahu M. Goldratt
6️⃣At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity - Stuart Kauffman
7️⃣A Question of Physics: Conversations in Physics and Biology conducted by Paul Buckley and David F. Peat

Show thread

of :

1️⃣ Summa Technologiae - Stanisław Lem
2️⃣The Glass Bead Game - Hermann Hesse
3️⃣The Foundation series - Isaac Asimov
4️⃣The Teachings of Don Juan - Carlos Castañeda
5️⃣Earth's Children series - Jean M. Auel
6️⃣Jonathan Livingston Seagull - Richard Bach
7️⃣Siddhartha - Hermann Hesse

I was updating my Bio and realized I've never had a proper . So here it is:

Retired professional and coach with years of experience in the and domains.

WRT to , I'm primarily interested in the and of . My attitude towards is opportunistic (will use whatever works best for the occasion) and I consider a necessary evil to get things done properly.

My experience with technology starts in the late 70's on a room-sized IBM machine and programs on punch-cards, transitioned to the HPL on an HP 9825A "fully algebraic desktop calculator" and ended abruptly with the "peeking" and "poking" on a ZX81.

Even if I was reasonably good at it, after getting my first DOS/Windows PC to play with on something called the , I fell in love with things like , , and new ideas, that could be done much better and faster with this new gadget, and soon decided that being a , doing the and while dealing with other to define and is much more fun than the actual of the product itself.

I'm very glad I found this where we can "Question Others to Teach Ourselves". Please feel free to ask questions and argue with my views. Be sure I'll be doing the same. Nothing is sacred. There are no stupid questions, just BS answers.

Stay safe and be nice to other people.

@pj

PJ boosted

I ran across the FLICC model of science denial a while ago while reading _How to Talk to a Science Denier_ by Lee McIntyre. I can say that throughout the years of engaging flat-earthers, stop-the-stealers, creationists, Covid deniers, vaccine skeptics, QAnon believers, and the like, I have faced every one of the techniques outlined. ([Image Source](skepticalscience.com/history-F))

, , ,

Radio Paradise, from Eureka CA, a pioneer in the "" is hiring a CTO:

"We'll pay you enough to live here comfortably. Semi-generous by local standards, low compared to SF, LA, NYC or London. “Enough” is all any of us aspire to make here. We're not capitalists. We participate – gratefully – in a gift economy. That's a huge part of why we love coming to work each day."

Check it out, forward to anyone who might be interested, or just listen the superb lineups of music on multiple different streams. It's free.😘

radioparadise.com/blog/cto

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

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