The spirit of this exchange and ideas and concepts certainly clarify the value of science and the hermetic synthesis of all antinomies. I found it, especially interesting in how The many isms in Scientific and philosophical terms eventually distilled into Creativity which of course brings The artist in concepts, Berdeyev into greater clarity through the illustrations you brought forward and the current revelations through science. Thank you so much for your Turning Work into play.
Love the piece. I've been privately working on much the same from a Hegelian angle (which always seems to have quite a bit in common with Whitehead)...
In the Hegelian sense the issue of computable v incomputable is baked into the dialectic vis a vis quantitative/computational thresholds. Meaning the brute force computation model of consciousness is not incorrect - so long as the brute force exceeds its own capacity for self-computation... to produce a computationally saturated, indeterminate state of systemic interiority (sublation). So the issue of computable path to consciousness v incomputable path to consciousness or RR, etc., is from my perspective somewhat of a trap, as thresholds of computation produce the incomputable to begin with. Imo the predictive and active inference operations which place errors into settled schemas are likewise using a computational model - designed to be computationally limited - and that what actually settles errors and produces the incomputable "self" is computational excess.
Anyhow. Sorry for using your comment section as my notepad. But it was too inspiring:)
A recent discussion about this paper featuring Stu Kauffman and others: https://youtu.be/c9LaBsmVEcE?si=Cnr9UV_x58QyJuJd
The spirit of this exchange and ideas and concepts certainly clarify the value of science and the hermetic synthesis of all antinomies. I found it, especially interesting in how The many isms in Scientific and philosophical terms eventually distilled into Creativity which of course brings The artist in concepts, Berdeyev into greater clarity through the illustrations you brought forward and the current revelations through science. Thank you so much for your Turning Work into play.
Love the piece. I've been privately working on much the same from a Hegelian angle (which always seems to have quite a bit in common with Whitehead)...
In the Hegelian sense the issue of computable v incomputable is baked into the dialectic vis a vis quantitative/computational thresholds. Meaning the brute force computation model of consciousness is not incorrect - so long as the brute force exceeds its own capacity for self-computation... to produce a computationally saturated, indeterminate state of systemic interiority (sublation). So the issue of computable path to consciousness v incomputable path to consciousness or RR, etc., is from my perspective somewhat of a trap, as thresholds of computation produce the incomputable to begin with. Imo the predictive and active inference operations which place errors into settled schemas are likewise using a computational model - designed to be computationally limited - and that what actually settles errors and produces the incomputable "self" is computational excess.
Anyhow. Sorry for using your comment section as my notepad. But it was too inspiring:)
Very helpful, thanks!