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
1/2 Maturana and Varela didn't explicitly address this. Robert Rosen claimed his M,R systems, which are very close to autopoietic systems, are non computable. I discuss this in Mind in Life. See also …https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/science/article/pii/S0022519303000341 …
2 replies 0 retweets 4 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.