Back

replied to uh's status

@uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust Thank you for this, Ulrike!

I'll leave to the side from now on all my (many) method and style misgivings with the book :)

I thought this chapter was okayish, although not containing anything particularly novel. I had lots to quibble with, but maybe the central thing I didn't get was the point in pp.54ff that context-independent constraints are vague or ambiguous, and not deterministic. Did you understand that one?

replied to Dimitri Coelho Mollo's status

@dcm@social.sunet.se @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust not entirely. On one level it seems just like a description of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape (?) as the point of his notion of canalisation is that development is constrained but not determined to a degree of specificity that each individual has to take the same narrow path. But I then found confusing the discussion on those pages that sounds like constraints themselves are multiply realisable. They could be but why “must”? 1/

replied to Ulrike Hahn's status

@dcm@social.sunet.se @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust see pg 55

“That is, con-
straints that hold dynamic neurological equilibrium steady are adjustable,
conditional on other counterbalancing constraints. For this persistent
balancing act to be possible at all, innate and vague constraints must
be ambiguous; that is, their governing constraints must permit multiple
realizability. “

replied to Ulrike Hahn's status

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@social.sunet.se @uh @dcm@bookwyrm.social @MolemanPeter @NicoleCRust

IMHO

Persistent balancing acts
(ie heartbeats)

Require both:

• 1 Innate & Vage Constraints
(ie pump this blood)

• 2. Multiple realizability
(ie use any neural net)

eg
https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12914
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.010

ps: a clarification paper is awaiting to be written for the overlapping confusing definitions in philos, cogni, neuro, comp,.. terms: