I have gradually converged toward this aesthetical conception of the/my mind based on my phenomenological experience but also on my understanding of PDP/Parallel Distributed Processing models ("ANN"/ "Deep or Machine learning").
The former is obviously related to an attentional drive toward my own psychomotricity through many practical activities (like juggling or doing percussions for ex.) and can be linked to the enaction of sensorymotor recurrent kinesthetic patterns.
I will concentrate here more on the later: understanding PDP models.
The dynamic of these parallel and distributed models can be apprehended through the observation of simulations which is necessary when dealing with complex non-linear dynamics, but more simply by first understanding the basics of their mathematical representation (don't run 😉).
The mathematical language for expressing this distributivity is *matrices*, ie "linear algebra" (cf. PDP book for a nice soft 101 intro). Basically they can be understood as operators to express simple linear movements of an (abstract) object: translation, rotation, etc.
They are used for ex. in 3D games to simulate the changing animated perspective of a subjective camera or move and tranform objects.
The link with gesture should now be obvious.
And it appears that these models also exhibit *generic cognitive-like properties*, like distributed memory, spontaneous generalization or graceful degradation, the relation with also the mind is patent.
So when studying these models of emergence, that is of historical enaction, one can analogically also study the resonance with his own sensorimotor schemes.
This is one technique of how a scybernethician can shape, with cognitive techno-sciences, his embodied mind aesthetics.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
[ What is Science: 1. Origin: Collectively Enacting a First-order Perspective ]
Here's an initial objectivist first-order* description of the nature & constitution of modern scientific inquiry from an enactive point of view:
* 3P-only description without the observer-actor
1/3
It could be complemented, to have a better grasping about the form/process complex dialectics, with the famous Varela"s paper "Not one, not two": the "it" (form) and the process leading to "it".
A new discussion on the subject (not seen yet):
2/3
I will follow this initial intro with a more scybernethic and second-order style of representation that will help to give more meaning, I hope, to second-order logic², to the importance of the initial suspension of judgment and more generally to second-order rationality².
3/3
[ Logic²: from Morin's Complex Thinking to Ancient Catuṣkoṭi Logic ] 🧵🪡
I'm happy because yesterday I have finally academically sourced (G. Priest) my second order logic, or exploration heuristic and hermeneutic logic, the other complementary,
implicit and hidden face of classical normative and propositional logic (Aristotle, Russell, Frege, etc).
Both define what I call a bidimenTional formal space: one linear classical Cartesian representational dimension coupled orthogonally with a recursive self-referencial imaginary/complex (math. sense), "fractal" one.
[ "Metaphysics": Formal Worldview vs Processual Method ] 🧵
I don't like the old term "metaphysics" because of its lack of analytical discrimination: do we speak politely about the subjective preconceptions of a view (so critically about its hidden & implicit political agenda),
or about its transcendental (Kant) a priori conditions of possibility?
Moreover, even if physics has historical precedence as a prototype of the objective study of the world-out-there, i.e. of a materialist so-called "realist" formal view,
science is today much broader, even if restricted to the sciences of nature (not so "natural"...), and physics much more fluffy.
Both shares the same influences (enaction) and objectives: to exceed the mind-mind problem (extension of the traditional mind-body problem, Jackendoff), i.e. relating computational & phenomenological aspects of the mind.
While neurophenomenology is polarized on the traditional first order of science, coupling the rational dimension with experimental empiricism, scybernethics is more philosophically polarized and aimed at the active transformation of the observer-actor himself.
In short, neurophenomenology is more normative while scybernethics is more heuristic and hermeneutical. Two faces of enactive science.
People should stop blaming or adulating robotic machines and understand that they are just an objectified mirror of *our own automatism and conventions*.
It is important to see that this reflection can be used in a cognitive reverse engineering perspective (cognitive hacking) to better understand our own habitual and therefore uncontested *unconscious* habits of the body (concrete mechanics) and mind (abstract computations).
This is why it is essential to understand in depth, in a practical (know-how) and historical (evolutionary epistemology) way, what it means to "code" and design "functions".
It is really hard for me to define "what" is scybernethics, as its nature is processual (how, why). For me, in the tradition of "Enaction" (Varela & al.), forms are always thought as a posteriori of processes.
Initially it was just a endeavor to model and theorize legitimately my own mind to better understand it because beyond the world in which I live, it was the other mystery I wanted to explore in my lifetime.
I can see now that It has led me from biology and computer modeling practices to a new and creative second order (von Foerster) phenomenological and cognitive domain, a new territory of our conceptual and rational space.