It is both possible that all actions are fully freely determined AND that everything moves with mechanical necessity.
Poeisis (or autopoiesis) in its model assumes that the natal moment is BOTH freely determined (created out of itself) and necessary (created in a chain of effects). But this makes a fairly large, self-contradictory claim about production.
To paraphrase Nathaniel Mackey, there is always some inistent priority behind every natal occasion; but it comes within the expression itself and then masks its own conditions of possibility, so that what happened turns out to have been happening. And what is it that’s happening is concrete insofar as it can be determined by its natality, but not given by it, and certainly any claim of autopoesis stakes itself on the latter: that it stands as its own proof.
Perhaps you're already aware of it, but this paper by Andreas Weber and Francisco Varela "Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality" talks about this. Of special interest is the section 3.4 which more or less summarizes autopoiesis while taking into account Kant's intrinsic teleology.
In summer of 1997 I interned at the Santa Fe Institute. Barry McMullin was there as well, using swarm (an early cellular automata library) to reimplement and extend the original autopoiesis algorithm. His report: https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/working-papers/comp...
Love the word "Autopoietic", nobody really knows about it and any text that uses it for sure will capture my interest.
I've first thought of this within the concept of self-assembling autonomous agents in 2016. Good times dreaming about a future where AI permeates every facet our lives.
Then you might really like the book I've first learn the world from, "Intelligence Emerging"[1] by Keith L. Downing. It's a very dense book about self-organizing processes, and emergence in general, and it drives me a bit crazy because it's one of my favorite book, but I never heard anyone mention it.
May I ask why? I'm sincerely asking, no intention of flaming or trolling.
I think we're at a point where "online" stuff already permeates every facet of our lives. And many of these systems already employ "AI" (for very limited definitions of AI) at every step. You search based on embedding and language models. You get ads based on graph theory. You see friend's posts based on this. You get approved for a loan based on "AI", hell even some legal cases are handled by extremely badly implemented "AI" systems, and so on and so on.
I feel we're slowly approaching a phase where we could get that "sci-fi" like "personal assistant" that maybe can have access to all of our data, and can "act" in our best interests. Maybe when our data is considered, the "AI" assistant could have a say. Maybe it gets to decide when and how to share stuff. Maybe it gets access to the underlying algorithms and decides when and where to "agree" or "accept" our data being used for the average / median interest.
It seems plenty of systems already use that data in day-to-day life. I'm looking forward to having systems where the good parts can continue while the concerning parts (control over data, control over algorithms) is somehow limited. It's probably too much for a human, but I can see how we could all have "agents" that follow some of our interests and have a say in the process. It certainly seems closer than "sci-fi", closer than two decades ago.
Let return to Kant’s third antinomy.
It is both possible that all actions are fully freely determined AND that everything moves with mechanical necessity.
Poeisis (or autopoiesis) in its model assumes that the natal moment is BOTH freely determined (created out of itself) and necessary (created in a chain of effects). But this makes a fairly large, self-contradictory claim about production.
To paraphrase Nathaniel Mackey, there is always some inistent priority behind every natal occasion; but it comes within the expression itself and then masks its own conditions of possibility, so that what happened turns out to have been happening. And what is it that’s happening is concrete insofar as it can be determined by its natality, but not given by it, and certainly any claim of autopoesis stakes itself on the latter: that it stands as its own proof.
Perhaps you're already aware of it, but this paper by Andreas Weber and Francisco Varela "Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality" talks about this. Of special interest is the section 3.4 which more or less summarizes autopoiesis while taking into account Kant's intrinsic teleology.
Reminds me of:
https://distill.pub/2020/growing-ca/
"Differentiable Model of Morphogenesis"
In summer of 1997 I interned at the Santa Fe Institute. Barry McMullin was there as well, using swarm (an early cellular automata library) to reimplement and extend the original autopoiesis algorithm. His report: https://www.santafe.edu/research/results/working-papers/comp...
And a later study by him: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15245628/
Autopoiesis.
That word alone brings me back to systems engineering, and how everything was "like a biological cell" in modern practice.
Love the word "Autopoietic", nobody really knows about it and any text that uses it for sure will capture my interest.
I've first thought of this within the concept of self-assembling autonomous agents in 2016. Good times dreaming about a future where AI permeates every facet our lives.
Then you might really like the book I've first learn the world from, "Intelligence Emerging"[1] by Keith L. Downing. It's a very dense book about self-organizing processes, and emergence in general, and it drives me a bit crazy because it's one of my favorite book, but I never heard anyone mention it.
[1] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262536844/intelligence-emerging...
Awesome rec. I'll check it out :)
Having AI permeate _every_ facet of life seems horrifying to me.
May I ask why? I'm sincerely asking, no intention of flaming or trolling.
I think we're at a point where "online" stuff already permeates every facet of our lives. And many of these systems already employ "AI" (for very limited definitions of AI) at every step. You search based on embedding and language models. You get ads based on graph theory. You see friend's posts based on this. You get approved for a loan based on "AI", hell even some legal cases are handled by extremely badly implemented "AI" systems, and so on and so on.
I feel we're slowly approaching a phase where we could get that "sci-fi" like "personal assistant" that maybe can have access to all of our data, and can "act" in our best interests. Maybe when our data is considered, the "AI" assistant could have a say. Maybe it gets to decide when and how to share stuff. Maybe it gets access to the underlying algorithms and decides when and where to "agree" or "accept" our data being used for the average / median interest.
It seems plenty of systems already use that data in day-to-day life. I'm looking forward to having systems where the good parts can continue while the concerning parts (control over data, control over algorithms) is somehow limited. It's probably too much for a human, but I can see how we could all have "agents" that follow some of our interests and have a say in the process. It certainly seems closer than "sci-fi", closer than two decades ago.
Niklas Luhmann's systems theory rests on autopoiesis.
This isn't really a network no? Just a 2D grid? Or am I missing something.
Each cell of the 2D grid (or "neuron") is connected to (and updated as a function of) its immediate neighbours, which makes it a network/graph.
[flagged]