.#zZz#.⚡⬇️⬆️💀☢☣ПРОЦЕССЫ КОГНИТИВНОГО МОДУЛИРОВАНИЯ - МОГУТ ИМЕТЬ МЕСТО И ПРАВО,ЛИШЬ ТОЛЬКО В СИСТЕМЕ/ВВОДА,ГДЕ УЖЕ ИМЕЮТСЯ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ СВЯЗИ,ЯДЕРНОГО СБРОСА,ЛИБО ПРОМЕЖУТОЧНОГО ЗВЕНА ЯДЕРНОЙ КОРРЕКЦИИ,ЕСЛИ ТАКОВЫЕ ИМЕЮТСЯ И ВОЗМОЖНЫ ПО ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЮ СИСТЕМЫ/СВЯЗИ ЯДЕРНОГО СООТВЕТСТВИЯ!.Т.Е.ОПРЕДЕЛЯТЬ ЛЮБЫЕ ФОРМЫ КОГНИТИВНОГО ПРОЦЕССА МОДЕЛИ/ВВОДА - ЭТО ДАЛЕКО НЕ ПРОСТАЯ СИСТЕМА,КАК МОЖЕТ КАЗАТЬСЯ...И ДЕЛО В ТОМ,ЧТО СИСТЕМА ЯДЕРНОГО РАССКРЫТИЯ И ЯДЕРНОГО ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ,НЕ ПРОСТО ИЗМЕНИЛА ВОЗВРАТ ЭП,ОНА НАЛОЖИЛА ИЗМЕНЁННЫЕ/ЯДЕРНЫЕ ФОРМЫ НЕРАСЩЕПЛЁННОГО СИНТЕЗА НАЛОЖЕНИЯ,ЦЕЛЫХ СИСТЕМ СООТВЕТСТВИЯ!.А Т.К.РЕЧЬ ИДЁТ НЕ ОБ НЕКОЙ МОДЕЛИ/ВВОДА В СИСТЕМУ ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ,А ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНОГО/ЯДЕРНОГО ПРОЦЕССА СВЯЗИ РАБОТЫ СИСТЕМ,И НЕ ПРОСТО СИСТЕМ,А АБСОЛЮТНОГО РАЗРЫВА К ИЗМЕНЁННЫМ/ЯДЕРНЫМ ИЗМЕНЕНИЯМ НАБОРА,ТОГДА КОГНИТИВНЫЕ МОДЕЛИ - ЕСТЬ ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНЫЙ/ЯДЕРНЫЙ ПРОЦЕСС ВВОДА,ГЛУБОКО ЗАВИСИМОГО,ДЛИННОЦЕПОЧНОГО ПРОЦЕССА ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ,КАК МОДЕЛИ/ВВОДА,ТАК И ЯДЕРНЫХ СЛЕДСТВИЙ ПОРОЖДАЮЩИХ ЗАХВАТ СИСТЕМ/ЗАКРЫТИЯ ДАННОГО ВВОДА!.ФИЛОСОФИЯ/КОДОВАЯ ПСИХИКА/КОДОВЫЕ СЛЕДСТВИЯ ПОРОЖДЕНИЯ ПЕРЕДАЧИ КОГНИТИВНОГО ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ - ЭТО ВОПРОС ЯДЕРНОГО ВВОДА,САМОГО ЯДЕРНОГО ПРАВА ЧЕЛОВЕКА!.КОДОВАЯ ФИЛОСОФИЯ И КОДОВАЯ ПСИХИКА - СТРОЯТСЯ НА ЯДЕРНОМ ФУНДАМЕНТЕ,КОДОВОГО/ЯДЕРНОГО ПРАВА ЭП ДЕЛЕНИЯ,УРАНОВОЙ ПЕРВИЧНОСТИ БЕЛКА/СВЯЗИ,СО ВСЕМИ СИСТЕМАМИ КОНТРОЛЯ МАТЕРИИ!.ИБО ТОЛЬКО ЯДЕРНОЕ/КОДОВОЕ ПРАВО ЭП ДЕЛЕНИЯ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ - МОЖЕТ ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНО ОПРЕДЕЛЯТЬ И ПОРОЖДАТЬ,ЯДЕРНЫЕ/КОГНИТИВНЫЕ ПЕРЕМЕЩЕНИЯ СИНТЕЗА СЛЕДСТВИЙ,ОСНОВЫВАЯСЬ И СВЯЗЫВАЯСЬ С СИСТЕМАМИ ЯДЕРНОГО РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ/ЯДЕРНОГО ИММУНИТЕТА/ЯДЕРНОГО ПЕРЕМЕЩЕНИЯ/ЯДЕРНОГО ЗАКРЫТИЯ ЭП,КАК ВСЕХ СИСТЕМ ИЗМЕНЯЮЩИХ ЯДЕРНЫЙ СЧЁТ/НАЛОЖЕНИЯ ЭП,ТАК И ЯДЕРНЫЙ ВОЗВРАТ СОХРАНЕНИЯ,САМОГО ЯДЕРНОГО ПРАВА ПРОВОДИТЬ ПРОЦЕССЫ,ВРЕМЕННОГО ЯДЕРНОГО РАССКРЫТИЯ СИСТЕМ,НО УЖЕ В ЯДЕРНОМ /КОМПЛЕКСНОМ ПРОЦЕССЕ ВОЗВРАТА И КОРРЕКЦИИ ПЕРЕМЕЩЕНИЯ,ТАК И ЗАКРЫТИЯ СИНТЕЗА/СЛЕДСТВИЙ!,💀⚡⚫⚫⚫⚫⚫💀💀💀💀💀💀⚡⚡⚡
@wp9860
9 ай бұрын
A little feedback to the presenter. I'm looking at the definition of criterion 4 around time stamp 21:40. I thought that the definition of criterion 3 was more than a little bit vague. I find the criterion 4's introduction by way of its definition completely inscrutable. My situation is that this video is basically my introduction to autopoiesis having little background in the biological sciences. I offer this comment as feedback on how communication may be working, or not working, for a community of individuals like myself. Communication here can be interpreted as pedagogy. My impression is that the text of the definition (in this case Criterion 4) comes from a deep context of familiarity with the concept. This is abstracted into the given definition. If the definition works (communicates) then the viewer should be able to survey her experience and identify her own examples, thus creating a context comparable to that which the presenter has in the back of his mind. Life is all around us, so it should be hard for anyone understanding the text to do this. This test of communication lays out a production flow from presenter's context to definition text, followed by recipient contextualization, where the presenter would agree that the contextualization of the recipient accurately recapitulates the definition. I found this impossible to do. An alternative would be to reverse the pedagogical approach by giving examples illustrating the points of the definitions and then using those to motivate aspects of the definition (text). For example, imagine that I am holding up an ax in my hand and say, "This is the very hatchet that George Washington used to cut down the cherry tree. It's had 2 new heads and 5 new handles, but it is the very hatchet that George Washington used." This would communicate the notion of component replacement in autopoietic systems. This example can also illustrate that the hatchet isn't replacing its components on its own. Easy to understand. This is the same route that the presenter followed in developing his definition. Context/Examples first, definition last.
@declan8182
Жыл бұрын
Promo>SM 💘
@Childlesscatlaby
Жыл бұрын
Fantastic discussion! To expand the conversation, it might be interesting to explore the construct of structure. For example, include a "mindscape" or landscape in the "picture" that can account for movement and flow. Also, think about negotiations as habituated fields of affordances and incorporate rebuttal as a form of resistance. Resistance is often seen as an emotional appeal but fails to highlight the resources and resourcefulness both parties bring to the table.
@TheCoin100
Жыл бұрын
Beautiful
@WingZeroSymphonics
Жыл бұрын
Interesting. Zero mode is language I had gathered from work done on celestial holography. My fascination was on human terms. It appears there is more to this besides fascination.
@autobiopanography
Жыл бұрын
humaning...can't quite catch the name of the mystic mentioned.
@lukej9750
Жыл бұрын
Ramon Llull :)
@jesparent-JOPRO
2 жыл бұрын
This video looks to be a great complement to reading The Ecology of the Brain, which we're doing in our Cognition Futures reading group at Orthogonal Research & Education Lab!
@carolinaandreanavarretegon4006
2 жыл бұрын
Amazing!!
@weareallbornmad410
2 жыл бұрын
It says something about me that I misheard the intro as "Welcome to the incel seminar..."
@julietarockera6742
2 жыл бұрын
Hello, is there a translation into Spanish of the interview?
@1330m
2 жыл бұрын
생물 인간은 인간에 의해 창조된 존재다 오토포이에시스 ----- 사람은 피조물이며 동시에 창조자다
@XKB123
2 жыл бұрын
very good, thank you.
@LiberLam
3 жыл бұрын
Ew
@gaulishrealist
3 жыл бұрын
F feminism
@kaylauevans
9 ай бұрын
P Patriarchy
@perceivingacting
3 жыл бұрын
Joanna, Ecological psychology goes only so far! As the only EP/DS student to have worked under both leaders of EP/DS (Turvey _and_ Kelso) I will say EP/DS is afraid of the fantastic truth - and won't venture any further than its establishment, historic boundaries (and we know who "they" are!!). *It does not address the nature of consciousness* Gibson (e.g., 1979) refused to - and did not need to for his programme of "experimental philosophy". EP could learn much from exploring the radical notion of _panpsychism_ - many philosophers now discuss this without blushing: Consciousness is in everything and everything is in consciousness. Whose consciousness? Well well... This understanding changes everything. _EVERYTHING_ Anything less is crass, naive dualism. 16:15 - you are starting to get it...
@debralegorreta1375
3 жыл бұрын
The input-output model assumes away the cookies in the browser.
@sleeprunning
4 жыл бұрын
work with brilliant genomicist who has data supporting view that only the universal genome has agency. Species, phenotypes, animals, humans, etc are just survival vehicles - most fail...human agency is just a pop myth, like gods and demons, etc....ho hum..semantic arguments can neither be proven nor disproven...Paul Cizek in Montreal does best research in world on this...
@hillarystevenson2437
4 жыл бұрын
I love the videos!! Just subscribed! Go and take a look at followsm[.]com! Loads of big KZitemrs use it to promote their videos!!
@bigpicsoccer
4 жыл бұрын
Great presentation! Answered a lot of questions I had about temporality and affordances and raised new ones.
@yuriarin3237
4 жыл бұрын
Any news on the map of the use of the concept of participatory sense-making?
@bigpicsoccer
4 жыл бұрын
Brilliant stuff! Are you guys aware of the work john vervaeke is doing on relevance realization at university of Toronto? Seems like there would be valuable overlap there
@MihailMahov
4 жыл бұрын
Very beautiful and smart woman! I think I am in love... 😍
@xazax2641
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks very much for posting this. This topic covers what I will likely do my PhD in, but from a HCI perspective, in which I'll actually look at our interactions with tech from a 4e perspective.
@tbonyh3976
6 жыл бұрын
Very good. Having studied with Maturana for many years it is very interesting to see how the Biology of Cognition is being recognised.
@yuriarin3237
4 жыл бұрын
where did you study with Maturana? :Q
@modvs1
6 жыл бұрын
It's interesting to think one would expend so much academic effort in defending a certain position, when really it turns out he's just simply at the aphantasia end of the 'mental imagery' spectrum.
@KrausHyperOpera
6 жыл бұрын
modvs1 It’s not clear what a debate about mental content has to do with mental imagery.
@modvs1
6 жыл бұрын
What does Hutto mean by the term 'content' if it doesn't also include the notion of 'imagery'?
@KrausHyperOpera
6 жыл бұрын
modvs1 Broadly speaking, a mental state has content is if is about the world, i.e. it has intentionality or is directed onto the world in some way, and it has something like truth/accuracy/veridicality conditions, i.e. the way the world has to be in order for the state to be representing it correctly. The specifics usually depend on what theorist you’re considering. Someone like Fodor held that mental states like beliefs and desires had content that was determined by their constituent concepts and their syntactic arrangement, where the content of the concepts was a matter of them standing in a causal covariation relation of a complex sort with their referents in the environment. People like Dretske and Millikan think it’s a matter of the state carrying information about the environment in a way consistent with the proper functioning of the systems that produce or consume those representational states. The exact relationship to the environment that counts as representational is debatable, but at the very least it has to be a relationship that admits the possibility of error or inaccuracy, so it can’t be something simple like a mere causal relationship. There’s also a debate regarding the format of the content. Someone like Fodor thinks it has a language-like format, with something akin to syntactic structure. People like Millikan think it’s pictorial, in that the elements of the content stand in isomorphic relations with the things they stand for in the environment. Regardless though, most people in philosophy of mind and cognitive science hold that many, if not most, representational mental states are unconscious and subpersonal, so it wouldn’t make sense to identify the content of those states with something like mental imagery, which seems to be necessarily conscious. Some historical philosophers did think that ideas were mental images, such as Hume, and that the representational relation was something like a resemblance relation, e.g. one’s idea of a cat is about cats because it is similar to or resembles cats. But those views aren’t especially popular nowadays.
@tbonyh3976
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you Mario for such a complete discussion. I saw this video presentation dated a year ago so I am replying unaware of its history. I have spent some time with HM but the distinctions between representationalism and anti-representationalism are not familiar to me. My understanding of HM is that living systems as autopoietic systems are structurally coupled to that part of the medium they occupy, namely their niche and further that their structure and that of the niche change congruently in the medium that constitutes them over their ontogeny. The autopoietic system maintains its organization whilst the niche comprises that part of the medium (or environment) the system occupies. This situation can be likened to a sailboat sliding through the water maintaining its organization as long as no destructive interaction like a hurricane intervenes. Yet the situation is entirely different when a composite autopoietic system is structurally coupled with another composite autopoietic system. The two systems slide together congruently like a hand in glove each providing the medium or niche for each other. In this situation, the two entities are structurally coupled congruently, with each other. And their behaviour follows the path contingent to their mutual interactions as long as they remain in contact. Because they are structure-determined systems and can only participate in those actions their structures permit no instructive interactions are possible between the two entities. With homo sapiens with a brain like we have, such interactions co-ordinate consensually. Language does not arise in the brain but arises in the extremely intimate structural coupling of mother or caregiver with the baby. Such consensual co-ordination of behaviour, constitues a linguistic domain. When, over the course of the child’s ontogeny such consensual co-ordination of behaviors coordinates more complex behavior, a domain of language arises. More complex domains arise through repeated recursions of co-ordinations of co-ordinations of consensual behavior such that observation arises and ‘the observer’ arises. Philosophically we might say the observer is a reified entity who performs the observation. Here however we can see that the observer is a recursion of the act of observation. And we can say possibly (crossing tall buildings at a single bound) that all acts are cognitive acts.
@tbonyh3976
6 жыл бұрын
Having spent some time with Humberto Maturana over the years I am not sure whether he would agree that the game of life fulfilled the requirements of autopoiesis. Perhaps you have already asked him?
@m0rtrufia207
6 жыл бұрын
Mario Villalobos D:
@yuriarin3237
4 жыл бұрын
que
@m0rtrufia207
2 жыл бұрын
@@yuriarin3237 No lo entenderías jaj
@yuriarin3237
2 жыл бұрын
@@m0rtrufia207 expliqueme pues
@modvs1
6 жыл бұрын
Conflating "bike riding" with "producing text" is a terrible idea.
@alauc
6 жыл бұрын
Theory of autopoieis is very important for us, but without broader approach ( faith, science, art) it is not possible to understand, research, live, and develop life in Love and Freedom.I would like talk through skype ( ante.lauc) with all participants and after we could demonstrate the power of closed/open advantages of autopoiesis. Now we do live in allopoietic society, where lack of honesty and knowledge destroy are hearts and minds. We are far from love, truth, and freedom. Grigory Grabovoi is, for me, the best scholar, he does not use autopoiesis as concept, but his papers are autopoietic, because he does know all processes and structures. When we will know reprocess and restructure all relevant elements and relations ( interactions) we will live love and freedom and achieve eternal life.
@scottbakker1868
6 жыл бұрын
A great talk, but for those budding eliminativists out there, Froese actually misconstrues the terrain, I think, falling into the trap that seems to have captured all post-cognitivists: the failure to consider the cognitive ecological nature of our attempts to cognize cognitive ecology. Froese asks, Does normativity make a difference in cognition? In listing the pros and cons of what he calls ‘weak yes’ answers to this question (15:35), Froese claims that the key advantage is that the problem of naturalizing normativity is avoided. One key disadvantage is the tu quoque, the fact that arguing against normativity requires normativity. Another key disadvantage is phenomenological: its incompatibility with the apparent experience of normativity. Ultimately, he thinks the problem is that this leads to an untenable nihilism regarding central intentional phenomena. I actually think he’s wrong on all these accounts. In other words, his advantage isn’t an advantage and his disadvantages are not actually disadvantages. Eliminativist accounts of normativity are generally dismissed out of hand because they have next to nothing to say about the nature of normativity. They tend, as critics like to say, ‘to throw the baby out with the bathwater.’ If there’s no ‘normativity’ to naturalize, then the eliminativist needs to provide a natural account of norm talk, as well as why we seem so convinced, as Froese is convinced, that there is such a phenomena as intrinsic normativity. The burden of naturalization does not go away, it merely shifts. [see www.academia.edu/31152366/On_Alien_Philosophy] The tu quoque, on the other hand, is only a problem if using norm-talk entails affirming the existence of normativity, which it does not, no more than God talk entails the existence of God. The eliminativist doesn’t dispute the efficacy of norm-talk, only that this efficacy turns on the extension of this talk. The tu quoque (and I highly recommend checking out William Ramsey’s SEP entry on eliminative materialism in this regard) simply begs the question against the eliminativist. The problem of phenomenological incompatibility, the way eliminativism cuts against the experience of normativity, only follows so far as we actually do experience ‘normativity.’ My own eliminativism happily concedes experiences of right or wrong in the course of everyday problem-solving, while wondering how, given the ecological nature of human metacognition, the intellectual intuition of ‘rightness/wrongness’ is possible. The endless disputation, the rank inability to even agree on formulations of the explananda (let alone explanations of them), certainly suggests our intuitions have led us astray regarding normativity. As for ‘untenable nihilism,’ this sounds an awful like religious dismissals of evolution. Ugly answers don’t amount to impossible ones. Given the history of science, I think ugliness-the degree to which science controverts traditional conceits (such as the notion that we are an irreducible, emergent exception to the natural rule)-counts as a theoretical virtue. Don't be fooled: The real advantage of eliminativism lies in its parsimony. The real disadvantage, at least so far, lies in its explanatory poverty.
@matthewegbert
6 жыл бұрын
Hi Scott, thanks for the interesting comment. I think Tom (and others) will have a better chance of seeing this if you post it to the discussion on the ensoseminars page for Tom's talk, here: ensoseminars.com/presentations/past17/
@andrewpatrickallen9009
6 жыл бұрын
Very ambitious talk, deserves more views.
@ensoseminarseries6202
7 жыл бұрын
Talk starts at 10:00. Unfortunately and despite everything working during a testing session, there were some technical issues with some loss of audio from Inman. To join the discussion, we'd prefer you comment on the ENSO Seminars website page for this talk, ensoseminars.com/presentations/past15/ (people likely will not notice comments posted here).
@andrewmartin3671
7 жыл бұрын
Talk starts at 5:30 or 6:30.
@andrewmartin3671
7 жыл бұрын
(at 22:34) I must have a look at how these ideas relate to Walter Freeman's ideas on group activities in his book on neurodynamics, "How brains make up their minds" (1999). He talks like this kind of group activity is a necessary polar-opposite to cognition that draws us out of our reflective selves into a social context. From the introductory chapter: The deep formation of trust requires more complex behaviours [than conversation], which involve the induction of altered states of consciousness, including trances. Among the many techniques used are behavioural aids such as chanting, drumming and dancing, with chemical aids such as alcohol and hallucinogens. The essence of these procedures is to loosen the self-conscious control of individuals and dissolve their cognitive and emotional structures in a meltdown of meanings that are counter to socialization."
@andrewmartin3671
7 жыл бұрын
Talk starts at 10:05
@andrewmartin3671
7 жыл бұрын
Mmm... EUCog nostalgia.
@ensoseminarseries6202
8 жыл бұрын
If you are interested in commenting or asking questions, the best place to do so is here: ensoseminars.com/presentations/past10/
@matthewegbert
8 жыл бұрын
Videos of the model presented: - The experimental condition, (including the biological essential variable): kzitem.info/news/bejne/2Hp-u46laYCKkmU - The control condition (the biological essential variable is not included in the sensorimotor dynamics): kzitem.info/news/bejne/mph70Z-dmKqWgmk
Пікірлер