No. You are very reliable, replicable and trustworthy. And no need for curiosity on my part. I emailed you once upon a time. Happy admirer, happy to buzz in and out of radar. I enjoy expecting variability as well as reproducibility, but it's part&parcel of what you already say more cogently.
I would just like to say: I signed on to Bsky exactly and only to see what you had to say. I had guessed it, but I still appreciated seeing it. Now I'm signing off again. Thank you! (I will be sure to take care of my own scientific moral fortitude in future too, not to pile that on you to support)
Sometimes the historical context bubbles up in Lao Tse, and it's startling and weird in our context
Yeah, I'd say the position is fine, but then the "conciliatory" aspect feels disingenuous if it presumes saying "No it's okay, we can need representations if we make them include not representation." I think I would only disagree with the presumed conciliation, which some *do* try to hide behind
And to be clear, I can gladly acknowledge that representations happen, which is actually (somehow) more than some anti-rep'lists will concede.
Maybe Tony will surprise me, but I suspect he is as little "conciliatory" as Hutto and I are. So I think there's 2, maybe 3 more than not-anyone, at least
Perception, Action, and Cognition
The phrase beginning "in the sense that" sort of takes all the wind out of the representation sails. The things that follow are not representations
I only see one paragraph here, but I would agree that PAC do not necessarily require computational/representational stuff
Multifractality of neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex appears to moderate the effect of corticosterone injection on anxiety-related behaviors.
www.researchgate.net/publication/...
"Accidents nearly happening but not". Sounds like the stuff of possibility on which the whole world runs.
Limiting exposure is itself a concern at another scale, e.g., of staying in business and keeping the *sign* up on the storefront
Eh, just reluctant to give one scale or another some privilege or precedence when events at one seem to need events at another for the left over determining
Whether it begins there at smaller scales or not, it is there.
Take a look at entanglement, it doesn't stay on small scales anyway. www.nature.com/articles/s41...
I am very redundant. Very. It does not make for flashy social media, but it does make for some consistency of scholarship. Three cheers for developing programmatic research. Three cheers every day, until I retire.
Blah, typo: Yes, needing that capacity for
(modeling) not necessarily discrete heterogeneity is what led me to (and keeps me with
) multifractality
Yes, needing that capacity to (model) the not necessarily discrete heterogeneity is what led me to (and keeps me with
) multifractality
And some of the reasons for molecules becoming messages...are other messages that organisms send to each other. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
"Can" really is an operative term for Pattee. Lawfulness is about possibility for him. Constraints press the laws into actual facts of what happens.
Computers operate on symbols/signs till the cows come home. But they only do that because the computer runs on dynamical flows from plugging into the electrical wall socket. And symbols exchanged with the electrical company are what make those flows keep coming
His terminology is that signs (or symbols) are constraints on dynamical flows. Constraints pinch flows. But at the same time and maybe just at other scales, dynamical flows build the constraints.
Yes, distances within distances. Embodiments within coarser(-scale) embodiments. Signs are hubs of flows, and yes, I would imagine that the sign-use hubs pinch (or are pinchings of) different flows than sign-creation hubs do (or doings of). Not me here, but Pattee.
We may read single words with much more of our bodies than just our eyes, ears, and brains.
Or at least so says my homage to Michael Turvey in the special issue in his honor at Ecological Psychology. Thanks to invaluable support from coauthors Madhur Mangalam, Melen Guillaume, & Cedrick Bonnet
Had a fun time talking with Jack Roycroft on his podcast
m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Fm...
One of the problems with limiting affordances to particular scale!@davidfarrokh.bsky.social
I'm happy & sad.
Happy part: the word "ecological" becomes usual in neuroscience.
Sad part: "affordances", yes, but the aim is to find how they are encoded in the brain.
Some eco. psychs. in the project would've made it radical but perhaps more interesting? Something like: doi.org/10.1111/ejn....
