ultimately, they are
Maybe you begin to see how revolutionary Deleuze was in thinking and understanding and developing an ontology around these concepts before machine learning was viable.
-
-
there is nothing revolutionary in his thought; it's mostly devolutionary. Darwin was far more revolutionary.
-
And Prigogine? Is he devolutionary as well?
-
which one of his claims you're thinking of? I am not a physicist
-
The entire theory of nonlinearity and self-organizing systems is Prigogine’s contribution, and Darwinism (as well as everything else) has had to reflect that. You’re retconning Darwin with much later ideas—which he no doubt intuited.
-
When talking about Darwinism (though not Darwin), I am justified in "retconning" because Darwinism is still the main "narrative" in biology to which things are "retconned"
-
There are multiple cases of people trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to bring ideas from physics into biology -- this includes things like emergence, quantum mechanics, entropy, and so on. Most biologists do not take this very seriously.
-
The trouble is that biology deals with learning systems, and most physicists "fail" to grasp the learning nature of it -- or sometimes assume that some mathematically elegant model will be sufficient to describe it (it almost never is).
-
I think you just have a dogmatic bone to pick with other disciplines tbh.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.