I thought it was less that observers have representation but rather that our sensory systems can outline boundaries (real or perceived) of different systems thus these system come into being by our imposed boundaries in them
Bickhard accuses Maturana and Varela of “observer idealism”: the claim that representations exist only for observers but no explaining how observers come to be representational. Always thought this was a 2nd order cybernetics idea, not autopoiesis/enactivism. Am I wrong?
-
-
-
That’s essentially how I’ve understood Maturana and Varela, I guess Bickhard read them differently as actually claiming that observers have representation
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Interesting that you draw a distinction between 2nd-order cybernetics and autopoiesis/enactivism, I would consider these almost entirely overlapping categories. How is the distinction drawn?
-
I guess 2nd-order cybernetics would be broader, a superset
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.