“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” - Douglas Adams
Bitcoin was invented in 2009. Anyone 46 and older believes it to be against the natural order of things. Don't listen to them!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Nature versus Nurture is a debate about scientific doctrine. It is a debate about the correct way of explanation for cognition.
The Representation versus Non-Representation shares the same debate. It is also about the correct way of explanation for cognition.
It is also the difference between thinking in nouns versus thinking in verbs. Nature and Representation have deep roots in Western thinking. It is a functionalist and reductionist way of thinking that meets its limits when analyzing complex adaptive systems.
Why does cognitivism insist on representations and enactivism insist on non-representations? Is there something subtle going on that isn't obvious?
I'm reading 'Catching Ourselves in the Act' and it sure as hell adamant that there are no-representations in cognition. amazon.com/Catching-Ourse…
We all have the intuitive notion that a simulation is not the same as the real thing. Why? Because our intuition tells us that something that emulates how something looks (i.e. representation) is not the same as the real thing.
We have an antiquated notion of free speech that breaks down in an environment where a sucker is born every microsecond.
The founding fathers could not imagine that your attention could be hijacked from inside the comfort of your home. Their only notion of information dissemination was exclusively through a town square.
The constitution writers could never have imagined the Nigerian scam. That is, the most outrageous of a lie would be a mechanism for the gullible to self-identify.
Genes are to Evolution, Memes are to Culture, Dicenes are to General Intelligences.
Open-ended generative processes like evolution and human culture have a thing that is replicated and propagated by the process. For evolution, these are known as genes. For culture, these are known as memes.
It became obvious to me that there isn't an equivalent for individual brains. Is there something that is equivalent to this in general intelligent systems or biological brains?