Hm. It seems to me that self-attention allows a kind of circularity, where dependence on ancestors (or a built
environment, or whatever "deep" structure exists in one's current context) does not. Nick's diatribe against
teleonomy back in '87 focuses on circularity and, I suspect, would appeal
teleonomic matter (particles that think) - totally consistent with Vedic /
Buddhist cosmology. Even elementary particles are subject to the Law of Karma
if they "misbehave"—something very unlikely, but not impossible.
davew
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, at 10:27 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>
>
> On
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 2:35 PM David Eric Smith
wrote:
> [...] [Yoshi Oono's The Nonlinear World]
> in which he argues that the phenomena you mention are only
> “pseudo-complex”. Yoshi, like David but with less of the predictable
> “Darwin-was-better; now what subject are we discussing today?”
Hi all,
I asked what I thought, naively, was a fairly simple question, namely
something like Nick's question (2): "*What are the conditions that require
us to identify something [as] an agent?*" I wasn't intending to be
prescriptive and wouldn't have used "require us." I was more musing to
Stephen,
Too much good here for me almost-even to be able to read in scarce time, but on
your final point 6, about whether various dissipative structures are complex,
or not by what measure:
Do you know Yoshi Oono’s wonderful idiosyncratic book The Nonlinear World?
By the way, not all designers are individuals. Foxes design the behavior
of rabbits and rabbits design the behavior of foxes, but I wouldn't be
quick to call foxes an individual or rabbits an individual. Natural
selection designs but it is not itself designed to do so.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at
Russ,
"agent" is an overloaded word in our work. While there's overlap, I don't
think there will ever be a single definition to cover them all. I break
our use into two classes: software architecture design and discussions
around Agency (ie acting on its own or others behalf)
*Software Design
Where angels fear to tread, dave rushes in.
Question 1) seems, to me, to be nonsensical; or hopelessly anthropocentric; or,
unanswerable in any generalized or abstract form.
Paraphrasing question 2) — what set of observables (behaviors) must be present
before We/I can assert, "*t***hat *thing
Hi, Russ,
I have a non-scientist friend to whom I sometimes show my posts here for
guidance. I showed him some recent posts and he wrote back, "Wow, Nick!
You are really swinging for the fences, here!" He and I know that one who
swings for the fences, rarely hits the ball, let alone the fences.
EricS gives what looks a bit like a derivation of "closure to efficient cause"
from first principles. 8^D And Dave's reference to autopoesis is perfectly apt. (There's
a lot of hemming and hawing about whether Rosen's M-R Systems are a particular instance
of autopoiesis.) But Eric's more
Nick,
I just asked Eric for examples. Your examples confuse me because I don't
see how you relate them to agenthood. Are you really suggesting that you
think of waves and puddles as agents? My suggestion was that you need some
sort of internal decision-making mechanism to qualify as an agent.
I
Eric,
Thanks for your thoughtful additional thoughts. To make it easier for me to
understand where you are going, would it be possible to include a
prototypical example for each of your categories?
Thanks.
-- Russ
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 5:30 PM David Eric Smith
wrote:
> I have had a
Thank you Dave,
Yes, one of the fourteeners I should climb, and before I get too old to do it.
Eric
> On Jul 16, 2023, at 3:51 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> If you have not read it — I highly recommend The Tree of Knowledge by
> Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Self organization
Eric,
I hadn't seen your mail until David quoted it.
What you say reminds me of a project I worked on for a couple of years in
the Robotics Institute at Carnegie. Under the global title of Factory of
the Future I coordinated a project to automate and optimize a fluorescent
lamp factory. There
If you have not read it — I highly recommend The Tree of Knowledge by Humberto
Maturana and Francisco Varela. Self organization from simple to complex via a
single mechanism.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023, at 7:30 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I have had a version of this problem for several years,
Some examples I like to think about:
Waves arrange pebbles on a beach from small to large
A puddle maintains its temperature at 32 degrees as long as it has ice in
it.
The carotid sinus maintains the acidity of the blood by causing us to
breath more oxygen when it gets to acid. (I hope I have
I have had a version of this problem for several years, because I want to start
with small-molecule chemistry on early planets, and eventually talk about
biospheres full of evolving actors. I have wanted to have a rough category
system for how many qualitative kinds of transitions I should
I'm not sure what "closure to efficient cause" means. I considered using as
an example an outdoor light that charges itself (and stays off) during the
day and goes on at night. In what important way is that different from a
flashlight? They both have energy storage systems (batteries). Does it
I'm still attracted to Rosen's closure to efficient cause. Your flashlight
example is classified as non-agent (or non-living ... tomayto tomahto) because
the efficient cause is open. Now, attach sensor and effector to the flashlight
so that it can flick it*self* on when it gets dark and off
19 matches
Mail list logo
