But from discussing the ergodicity issue with Karl, I think the gist of the response is that this is a kind of convenient mathematical assumption upon which not a lot rest. I.e., it's approximate ergodicity in a given domain that matters. But I'm not sure after three pints... 
-
-
Replying to @micahgallen @seanmcarroll and
Can the statistical properties of your pub-going behavior be deduced from a single sufficiently long (or short) random sample? Say hi to Jonny for me.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @micahgallen and
The ensemble distribution that defines humans surely assigns a high probability to states associated with socially / physiologically pleasing endeavours (such as pub-going). Ergocidity is only relevant at a certain levels of abstraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @a_tschantz @evantthompson and
A eukaryote might regularly find itself in the presence of a certain chemical (i.e. N-formylmethioninyl), but their ensemble distribution might assign a high probably to being in the presence of formyl peptides (of which 'N-formylmethioninyl' is a subset)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @a_tschantz @evantthompson and
Hey all! Both are right IMO. The FEP only models systems that are *locally ergodic, i.e., have a phenotype or attracting set. FEP doesn't model systems with (e.g.) historical change, only systems with conservative dynamics (so feudal France in 1400 but not the French revolution)
2 replies 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @mjdramstead @a_tschantz and
I agree with
@micahgallen, technically speaking, what's at play is only local or approximate ergodicity. I do think it's a fundamental assumption for the FEP because all the maths derives from the existence of a local random dynamical attractor, i.e., it's formulated at NESS.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mjdramstead @a_tschantz and
When I hear
@mjdramstead present the view, I have a hard time seeing the gap between the view and something I’d think@evantthompson would like. When I read Friston, I see the gap. It seems to me that clarity about the role of social & biological constraints is the key issue...2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @mjdramstead and
It's the assumption of nonstationarity/ergodicity/non-historicity that I don't like, esp as an assumption of what's touted as a grand unifying principle of life and mind
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @mjdramstead and
I will read the Friston book when it drops. But I’m tentatively skeptical as well...but in general, I’m skeptical of all unifying theories...unless they accept the full on metaphysical weirdness of Spinoza or Fazang
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
My impression is that a lot of the enactivist reaction to FEP is methodological, the result of a distaste for unifying theories as such, especially those that can be written in equations. While I appreciate the historical basis for this reaction, I struggle to sympathize.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I have no distaste for unifying theories as such or for equations. As for other "enactivists" (not a term I like) -- there are plenty of theories/equations in Varela, Di Paolo and others
-
-
Replying to @evantthompson @mjdramstead and
Oh for sure! I'm a fan of Matteo Mossio formal work in regard to constraint closure. I don't think the methodological dispositon to resist formalisms runs very deep. That's why I'm wondering, what's lost if biology is ergodic and conforms closely to thermodynamic principles?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eripsa @mjdramstead and
What's lost is contingency on starting points, history (evo-devo) and non-stationary processes.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.