so if an entity has liveliness (it has a growth function and a direction) - perhaps what Burja is aiming at, you will not consider it alive because it is not a process? What if it spawned processes or was the first node in a process?
OTOH, why can you not idolize a process just as much as an entity? "evolution" is an example.
Excellent post with echoes of a parallel conversation happening in Michael Levin's line of research, which includes collective intelligence in biological and computational substrates, particularly the bowtie metaphor of memory and time in his 2024 Entropy pub: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/26/6/481. Levin's work aligns with Terrence Deacon's jargon-filled version of the same, and that the two recently reconciled fairly well with help: https://youtu.be/HuWbHwPZd60
As for footnote two, Levin hosted RIT's Ororbia whose Mortal Computation line of research might blur the line a bit and sit in the Gramsci Gap along with Levin's Xenobots and Anthrobots:
Not too far away from Mandelbrot, but maybe sorting algorithms are 'enough' process and memory? https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.05375 Either way, I appreciate the post's (and Levin's) process philosophy orientation to better structure some of Whitehead's (also jargon-filled) metaphysics
Seems to me the connection of all three is autopooeisis.
This notion of liveness feels very much in line with the Karl Friston gang's work on active inference and the free energy principle
Also feels in line with recent Eros philosophies I've been coming across. I say feels because not confident enough for thinks.
Reading this while re-watching The Thing (1982)
so if an entity has liveliness (it has a growth function and a direction) - perhaps what Burja is aiming at, you will not consider it alive because it is not a process? What if it spawned processes or was the first node in a process?
OTOH, why can you not idolize a process just as much as an entity? "evolution" is an example.
Excellent post with echoes of a parallel conversation happening in Michael Levin's line of research, which includes collective intelligence in biological and computational substrates, particularly the bowtie metaphor of memory and time in his 2024 Entropy pub: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/26/6/481. Levin's work aligns with Terrence Deacon's jargon-filled version of the same, and that the two recently reconciled fairly well with help: https://youtu.be/HuWbHwPZd60
Clocks, oscillations, and collective intelligence were featured in his Nature comm. bio. too: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-06037-4
As for footnote two, Levin hosted RIT's Ororbia whose Mortal Computation line of research might blur the line a bit and sit in the Gramsci Gap along with Levin's Xenobots and Anthrobots:
https://youtu.be/uBzG8_HjbMY
https://youtu.be/s7JTnNutgYs
Not too far away from Mandelbrot, but maybe sorting algorithms are 'enough' process and memory? https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.05375 Either way, I appreciate the post's (and Levin's) process philosophy orientation to better structure some of Whitehead's (also jargon-filled) metaphysics
Sounds like an imperative for some to be useful and interesting