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
As for your 1st question about representation: not sure what "enactive computation" is. We (Varela, Thompson, Rosch, Di Paolo, etc.) never talk that way.
12:15 PM - 15 Jun 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
3 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.