ultimately, they are
-
-
-
Replying to @Depopulatus @dcxtv
Darwin's idea of world-as-a-learning-machine (which he himself did not fully understand, but which we can appreciate today thanks to disciplines like machine learning) is fairly fundamental in the domain of How-The-World-Works. Deleuze also talks about it, misunderstanding Darwin
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @dcxtv
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Depopulatus @dcxtv
there is nothing revolutionary in his thought; it's mostly devolutionary. Darwin was far more revolutionary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @dcxtv
And Prigogine? Is he devolutionary as well?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Depopulatus @dcxtv
which one of his claims you're thinking of? I am not a physicist
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @dcxtv
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Deleuze’s ontology reflects the philosophical significance of nonlinear, nonequilibrium dynamics. It’s a pretty robust ontology.
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.