Is there a difference that makes a difference between saying that enactive computations are not representational *at all* and saying that they are not semantic or symbolic representations, but rather iconic representations? @joe_dewhurst @danwilliamsphil
-
Show this thread
-
Follow-up thought: are second-order cybernetic systems Turing computable? It seems that von Foerster, Maturana, and Varela would say that they are not but I'm not sure as to why.
@evantthompson6 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
Replying to @carl_b_sachs
2/2 See also this one https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-14859-0_16 …
0 replies
1 retweet
6 likes
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.