Read on Twitter
The field has moved quite a bit since that paper. I& #39;d recommend https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cogs.12142">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/... for a recent look at these ideas.
A few sparse comments:
- saying that the brain or any other system "is a dynamical system" or "is a computer" purely based on the fact we use
1/n https://twitter.com/WiringTheBrain/status/1264495371608363008">https://twitter.com/WiringThe...
A few sparse comments:
- saying that the brain or any other system "is a dynamical system" or "is a computer" purely based on the fact we use
1/n https://twitter.com/WiringTheBrain/status/1264495371608363008">https://twitter.com/WiringThe...
dynamical system theory or information theory to study them is a category mistake, claiming ontology based on epistemological ground is not justified or justifiable,
- once we realise that, we should also understand that abstract symbols, computations, etc.
2/
- once we realise that, we should also understand that abstract symbols, computations, etc.
2/
are merely ideas ascribed to a system by an observer during a mathematical analysis of its inner workings,
- as such, they have no ontological value unless they are operationalised into some physical quantity and tested, and at that point they often lose value anyway because
3/
- as such, they have no ontological value unless they are operationalised into some physical quantity and tested, and at that point they often lose value anyway because
3/
when forced into a corner, most scientists are happy to use correlations in the name of representations (e.g., "this internal state correlates with this external variable, as such this system possesses an & #39;internal model& #39; of its environment"),
4/
4/
- a slightly more nuanced definition would entail having *causal* relationships between internal and external variables but 1) we have very few tools to test for causality and, more importantly, 2) causality is everywhere in the physical world and we reliably study
5/
5/
physics without ever questioning whether ball 1 hitting ball 2 has a representation or symbolic contents of, abstractly computes, etc. ball2
- on the other hand, if we understand the epistemological role of dynamical systems, information theory, etc. why don& #39;t we just use
6/
- on the other hand, if we understand the epistemological role of dynamical systems, information theory, etc. why don& #39;t we just use
6/
these frameworks for what they offer rather as tools to forcibly make metaphysical statements?
(A small piece on these and other ideas discussed *on the epistemological level* coming out soon, with a hopefully "funny" view on precisely the Watt governor) :)
7/7
(A small piece on these and other ideas discussed *on the epistemological level* coming out soon, with a hopefully "funny" view on precisely the Watt governor) :)
7/7
