Apustimelogist

Friston appeals to more or less exactly the same thing Schrodinger is talking about in his original motivations for the free energy principle. Well th...

Not sure I agree. I've only started to think more deeply into this after a conversation I am having in another thread and it is beginning to dawn on m...

Because what current physics can or can't model has nothing to do with my point, otherwise I wouldn't be defending it with a simulation that can't be ...

I want to go back on the idea I think I have been alluding that this grounding issue has something to do with ontology in a way which is contrasted to...

But my point isn't about explaining. As I have said multiple times, many explanatory frameworks are important. I don't expect all explanations to be r...

Yes, this is a fair point. I would just question if it ever seems reasonable to say that events observed at the larger scale of existence do depend on...

Not sure what you're implying or what you are referring to in what I said. Categories are things we apply enactively like any other knowledge. They re...

I replied here: What I was implying is that all of the events that led to the development of neuronal structure- whether on an evolutionary or develop...

Why is it reductionist if I explicitly talk about the importance of higher level explanatory frameworks? When are you going to refute the idea that al...

I have said a couple times in the thread I see the importance of different explanatory frameworks on different levels but just seems to me all complex...

I don't have a criterion for existence but my assumptions from what science and philosophy seems to say to me is that: there is a single realm of exis...

Alot of the details are probably out there in the field of biology in terms of things like gene translation and cellular development. Is any of this n...

I wouldn't say that its not like the portait cannot possibly in principle be faithful (where it does not have wrong predictions); but that it cannot t...

I am not sure this makes sense. A neuron is characterized as a physical object made up of particles that behave according to the laws of physics. All ...

But this is just the application of a tool which is nothing more than what is enacted in behavior or cognitive states. In fact, applying math to the s...

Well this just ignores the context about which of two things is more fundamental. In any case, under my view of enactivism, a "semiotic modelling rela...

Yes, these are very good examples I think. Alot of that seems to be detailing experiments so I don't see how it can be contradictory to the view you o...

Mathematics is something we enact, and in that sense it is grounded in the smallest scales of existence because our behavior and brain obviously is. T...

Yes, I don't think so either. My desire to just get rid of an inherent conflict between our direct aquaintance of experience and our descriptions of o...

Do the smallest scales of existence ground our use of math? Absolutely. The kind of synchronication between internal and external states as described ...

Yeah but how would you answer the point that you don't need numbers to represent something?

But the information isn't numbers, the symbols are not numbers.

Did you communicate this message with numbers?

I didn't mean mechanistic in such a narrow sense as you do here.

Its just the idea that mechanistic component cannot be inherently interpreted in terms of a semantic component. If you look at a brain performing a pl...

Yes, when I was thinking about fundamentalness in a different way in terms of how physics doesn't seem to paint a picture where there is a constant, f...

Essentially, there are always definite, objective outcomes but the statistics of the world are oberserver-dependent. This contextuality isn't specific...

Why is your view restricting this to numbers? There is no reason you need to represent things with numbers.

I mean, there is no alternative. There are extreme nonlocal correlations in quantum mechanics; you cannot get rid of the strangeness.

Sorry, very late reply. Will be long post. Alright, fair enough! I had trouble formulating a reply to this. I don't have enough insight inside these t...

Really enjoyed reading this :up:

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. These processes are not meant to explain the rules, they explain our behavior despite under...

Regarding tacit knowledge, I think all we do is essentially tacit at some level. Traditionally people often split up know-how and know-that but to me,...

I like this Evan Thompson quote a lot!

No it doesn't. It just explains how people can still act coherently under chronic underdetermination. Because they don't resolve anything. All that it...

I mean, I don't understand how you could think this as some kind of over-reductive description when I literally said in the same paragraph the followi...

This is fair! A kind of dualist then?

Yes, definitely agree. Ofcourse, words and concepts must be inherently evolved, developed, learned, used in a social context. Brains in some sense syn...

Ofcourse, but I don't think it comes for free and imo it is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain people's beliefs about the world so it doesn't...

Counterfactual definiteness? Yes, I guess; but again, when people talk about counterfactual definiteness, they are usually talking about the wavefunct...

There is not one, unique probability space. Measurements alter the statistical behavior of stochastic system, inducing different statistical contexts ...

I think I am going to quote from something I wrote to myself just to describe how I think about that kind of thing. It is very anchored in a first-per...

Well I think it is certainly a better story than just appealing to reason or metaphysical truth without any explanation of how people do it and withou...

Well, yes, more or less. So are you when you use "you" communicating with me. The question is: do I exist outside of your mind, Wayfarer?

Sure, perhaps, but this would apply to everything you can ever think or say. I wasn't necessarily arguing for 'objective knowing' in some perspective-...

I really doubt chatgpt is going to give you a good interpretation from the stochastic interpretation. I doubt it is discussed in nearly enough for cha...

I don't see the contradiction and I think if you say there is one then maybe you should make it explicit through something like syllogism, where all a...

I can agree if I don't take your words too literally; after all, I have said always that there is no perspective-independent view. I am just keen to h...

Yes, I take the point that many people do believe that quantum mechanics suggests that the world is observer relative in a radical way but I strongly ...

I literally just mean something like: the world exists when no one is looking. It was here before we were born and will be there after we die. It exis...