Podcasts about Francisco Varela

You've probably come across the "free energy principle." It's become one of the most influential ideas in the broader cognitive sciences. Since the neuroscientist Karl Friston first introduced it in 2005, the theory has been fleshed out, extended, generalized, criticized, and cited thousands and thousands of times. But what is this idea, exactly? What does it say about the nature of brains and minds? What does it say about the phenomenon of life itself? And is anything that it says really that new? My guest today is Dr. Kate Nave. Kate is a philosopher at the University of Edinburgh and the author of the new book, A Drive to Survive: The Free Energy Principle and the Meaning of Life. In the book, Kate offers an extended critical analysis of the free energy principle and situates it in a broader landscape of ideas about the nature of life and mind. In this conversation, Kate and I talk about how the free energy principle has changed over time, from its beginnings as a theory of cortical responses in the brain to its eventual status as a theory of... well, a lot. We discuss why this theory has had such an enormous influence, and we talk about how many of the key ideas behind it actually have a long history. We consider some kindred spirits of the free energy framework— approaches like cybernetics, enactivism, predictive processing, and autopoiesis. We walk through a series of questions that all these approaches have long grappled with. Questions like: What does it mean to be alive? What is the relationship between being alive and being cognitive? What are the roles of prediction and representation in cognition? And we ask how—if it all—the free energy principle gives us new answers to these old questions. Along the way, Kate and I touch on: surprisal, visual phenomenology, vitalism, Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, Maturana and Varela, pendulums and bacteria, computation and models, primordial purposiveness, pancakes, and whether we'll ever be able to create artificial life. As you might be able to tell from the description I just gave, this conversation goes pretty deep—and it does get a bit technical. It dives down into the history and philosophy around some of the most foundational questions we can ask about minds. If that sounds like your cup of tea, enjoy. Alright friends, on to my conversation with Dr. Kate Nave!   A transcript of this episode will be posted soon.   Notes and links 5:00 – The 2005 paper in which Karl Friston proposed the principle of free energy minimization. Friston later generalized the ideas here and here. 14:00 – For influential philosophical work on action in perception, see Alva Nöe's book, Action in Perception. 17:00 – One of the classic works in the “enactivist” tradition is Evan Thompson's book, Mind in Life. 18:00 – The actual quip, credited to Carl Sagan, is about “apple pie” not pancakes: “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” 20:00 – The notion of “autopoiesis” (or “self-creation”) was introduced by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in their book, Autopoiesis and Cognition. 24:00 – A classic paper of cybernetics from 1943, ‘Behavior, purpose, and teleology.' 37:00 – For more on the idea of “predictive processing,” see our earlier episode with Dr. Mark Miller. 43:00 – For a discussion of the idea of “representation” in the philosophy of cognitive science, see here. For a discussion of “anti-representationalism,” see here.   Recommendations ‘Organisms, Machines, and Thunderstorms: A History of Self-Organization,' (part 1) (part 2), Evelyn Fox Keller The Mechanization of the Mind, Jean-Pierre Dupuy ‘The Reflex Machine and the Cybernetic Brain,' Mazvita Chirimuuta   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.    For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter (@ManyMindsPod) or Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

What is the relationship between our cognition and our bodies in the natural environment? How do we reconcile the presence of mind in life without splitting them into a dualism? What are the similarities between cognitive science and the buddhist view of the mind? How can we resist the bifurcation of nature into subjective and objective?In this episode we have the important topic of embodied cognition to raise our awareness about, that is the importance of our biologically lived experience to our perspective of world. So we get into the biologist and neuroscientist Francisco Varela's concept of Autopoiesis, literally ‘self creation' from the Greek, which describes the extraordinary tenacity of self-organising living systems to create and sustain themselves; we discuss the meeting point of buddhism, meditation, asian philosophy and modern cognitive science which may have become overstated in recent decades; and we get into the deep continuity between body and mind, and the importance of the artificial separation of the objective and subjective in the history of science, that has led us to the dominant position of reductionist materialism.To face these diverse topics, we have as our guest the hugely influential philosopher, cognitive scientist and Asian philosophy scholar Evan Thompson. Evan is Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and an Associate Member of the Department of Asian Studies and the Department of Psychology (Cognitive Science Group). He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He is the author of many books, collected works, and papers, including “The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience”, “Mind in Life”, “Why I'm not a buddhist” and “The Blind Spot, why science cannot ignore human experience”.What we discuss:00:00 Intro.06:30 Francisco Varela and the “Embodied Mind” book.11:00 Embodied experience, embedded in the environment.13:15 Chalmers and Clarke: Extended mind.15:30 Autopoiesis - Self-creation. Maturana.21.25 Autonomy and enactive self-organising systems.24:30 Neither Inside out, nor outside in, rather relational.26:00 The Enactive relationship between organism and environment.29:00 Mind is a distributed systemic process in connection with the environment.34:00 Neurophenomenology - you need an investigation from within.38:40 Mind in life & Deep Continuity.40.00 Sense making and cognition are proto-mind.41:30 Whitehead and the bifurcation of nature into subjective and objective.44:45 Bottom up/ parts VS top down/ wholes.47:00 Reductionism: the surreptitious substitution.53:45 Buddhism & The Mind and Life Institute.01:03:30 Buddhist exceptionalism.01:05:00 Neuroscience & Buddhism on self.01:09:45 The commercialisation of meditation - spiritual narcissism.01:12:15 The benefits of mindfulness to treat mental heath.01:13:30 De-individualisation of spiritual practices - social practice for social problems.01:15:45 Ritualisation of practice for positive transformation.01:18:30 Dependent Origination and the Self.01:26:15 Dying: Our ultimate transformation. References:Evan Thompson, “The Blind Spot”Evan Thompson,“Mind In Life”Evan Thompson,“Why I'm not a buddhist”Evan Thompson, “Waking, Dreaming, Being”Alfred Lord Whitehead - The Bifurcation of nature articleDavid Bohm - “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”Evan Thompson quote from the episode:“Mind is a systemic property or process. It's not in the head”

In this episode, Wendy speaks with action researcher, changemaker, and thought leader Otto Scharmer. Otto is a world leader in systems change, and his work across disciplines highlights how awareness and the quality of our relationships are critical for the change we need today. This conversation covers many topics, including: regenerative farming, social change movements, and the "social soil"; inspiration from Francisco Varela; presencing and the role of awareness in systems change; three divides that contribute to our current crises; the untold story of regeneration and renewal; action learning and action research; trends towards goodwill and lack of agency; institutions vs. individuals; the blind spot of the mindfulness movement; speaking and listening across ideologies; non-doing, action vs. reaction; the need for holding spaces and building trust; leading by letting go and letting come; releasing old ways of thinking (ego) and shifting to more integrated mindsets (eco); sensing and engaging with future possibilities; fourth-person awareness; the influence of Mind & Life on his career trajectory; and resources for learning consciousness-based transformation. Full show notes and resources

I've been following John Paul Lederach's work for years, finding the words he uses inordinately relevant to all of the details and spaces of my life. John Paul is Professor of International Peacebuilding at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame. He has been a teacher to me across time and space and I believe the ideas he brings into the world are teachers we all need for the world we are walking into. Origins Podcast WebsiteFlourishing Commons NewsletterShow Notes:Vocation (12:00)The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peaceby John Paul (12:30)Rumi poetry and the reed flute (19:00)Ongoingness (21:00)Peacebuilding (21:20)Pádraig Ó Tuama (31:00)wonder, wander, and wait (36:00)'bearing witness to more of the complexity of the other' (37:30)collective empathy (40:00)Paulo Freire (44:00)critical yeast (46:00)Francisco Varela and "The Logic of Paradise" (54:00)Mind and Life Dialogues (54:00)Poetry (55:00)Eduardo Galeano (56:00)Donald Hall (01:03:00)Ai-jen Poo (01:11:00)Lightning Round (01:05:00)Book: Tomorrow's Child by Rubem Alves Passion: poetry and physicsHeart sing: podcastingScrewed up: the significance and challenge of patienceFind John Paul online:https://www.johnpaullederach.com/Logo artwork by Cristina GonzalezMusic by swelo on all streaming platforms or @swelomusic on social media

Subscribe, Rate, & Review on YouTube • Spotify • Apple Podcasts✨ About This Episode“The best academic lecture/slam poetry/sermon/magical invocation/attunement and invitation to engage I've experienced in a long while.”– Daniel LindenbargerNext week, after nearly nine years of development, this show grows up to become Humans On The Loop, a transdisciplinary exploration of agency in the age of automation. For long-time listeners of Future Fossils, not much will really change — philosophical investigations in the key of psychedelic futurism, voyages into the edges of what is and can be known, and boldly curious riffs on the immeasurable value of storytelling and imagination have always characterized this show. Many of the episodes I've shared in this last year especially were, effectively, preparations for this latest chapter and play as large a part in my ongoing journey to synthesize and translate everything I've learned from years of independent scholarship and institutional work in esteemed tech, science, and culture orgs…But we are no longer waiting for a weird future to arrive. We're living in it, and shaping it with every act and utterance. So in this “final” episode of Future Fossils before I we bring all of these investigations into the domain of practical applied inquiry, it felt right to ramp from FF to HOTL by sharing my talk and discussion for Stephen Reid's recent online course on Technological Metamodernism. This was a talk that left me feeling very full of hope for what's to come, in which I trace the constellations that connect some of my biggest inspirations, and outline the social transformations I see underway.This is a rapid and dynamic condensation of the big patterns I've noticed in the course of over 500 hours of recorded public dialogue and a lively primer on why I'm focusing on the attention and imagination as the two big forces that will continue to shape our lives in the worlds that come after modernity.It is also just the beginning.Thank you for being part of this adventure.✨ Support & Participate• Become a patron on Substack (my preference) or Patreon(15% off annual memberships until 12/21/24 with the code 15OFF12)• Make a tax-deductible donation to Humans On The Loop• Original paintings available as thank-you gifts for large donors• Hire me as an hourly consultant or advisor on retainer• Buy (most of) the books we discuss from Bookshop.org• Join the Future Fossils Facebook group• Join the Holistic Technology & Wise Innovation and Future Fossils Discord servers• Buy the show's music on Bandcamp — intro “Olympus Mons” from the Martian Arts EP and outro “Sonnet A” from the Double-Edged Sword EP• Read “An Oral History of The End of ‘Reality'”, my story mentioned in this episode.✨ ChaptersChapter 1: Reflections & Announcements (0:00:00)Chapter 2: Co-Evolution with AI and the Limits of Control (0:12:49)Chapter 3: Poetry as the Beginning and End of Scientific Knowledge (0:18:06)Chapter 4: The American Replacement of Nature and the Power of Narrative (0:24:05)Chapter 5: The End of “Reality” & The Beginning of Metamodern Nuance (28:58)Chapter 6: Q&A: Myths, Egregores, and Metamodern Technology vs. Wetiko & Moloch (0:34:52)Chapter 7: Q&A: Chaos Magic & Other Strategies for Navigating Complexity (45:59)Chapter 8: Q&A: Musings on Symbiogenesis & Selfhood (0:50:18)Chapter 9: Q&A: How Do We Legitimize These Approaches? (0:55:42)Chapter 10: Q&A: Why Am I Devoting Myself to Wise Innovation Inquiry? (0:61:01)Chapter 11: Thanks & Closing (0:63:22)✨ Mentioned IndividualsA mostly-complete list generated by Notebook LM and edited by Michael Garfield.* William Irwin Thompson - Historian, poet, and author of The American Replacement of Nature, which argues that American culture is future-oriented. (See Future Fossils 42 & 43.)* Evan “Skytree” Snyder - Electronic music producer, roboticist, and co-founder of Future Fossils who departed after ten episodes. (See Future Fossils 1-10, 53, 174, and 207.)* Stephen Reid - Founder of the Dandelion online learning program and The Psychedelic Society; host of a course on “Technological Metamodernism” in which Garfield presented this talk. (See Future Fossils 226.)* Ken Wilber - Author of numerous books on “AQAL” Integral Theory. (See Michael's 2008 interview with him on Integral Art.)* Friedrich Hölderlin - German poet who famously said, "Poetry is the beginning and the end of all scientific knowledge.”* George Lakoff and Mark Johnson - Authors of Metaphors We Live By, which explores the role of embodied metaphor in shaping thought.* John Vervaeke - Philosopher who, along with others, uses the term “transjective” to describe the interconnected nature of subject and object.* Sean Esbjörn-Hargens - Integral theorist who taught Garfield at JFK University. (See Future Fossils 60, 113, and 150.)* Nathalie Depraz, Francisco Varela, and Pierre Vermersch - Embodied mind theorists and authors of On Becoming Aware, a book about phenomenology.* Kevin Kelly - Techno-optimist Silicon Valley futurist and author on “the expansion of ignorance” in relation to scientific discovery. (See Future Fossils 128, 165, and 203.)* Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and David Bohm - Paradigm-challenging physicists mentioned who, by science to its limits, developed mystical insights.* Timothy Morton - Philosopher who coined the term “hyperobjects” to refer to entities so vast and complex they defy traditional understanding. (See Future Fossils 223.)* Caleb Scharf - Astrobiologist, author of The Ascent of Information, in which he coins the term “The Dataome” to refer to the planet-scale body of information that constrains human behavior.* Iain McGilchrist - Psychiatrist and author of The Master and His Emissary, known for his work on the divided brain and the importance of right-brained thinking.* Eric Wargo - Anthropologist and science writer who suggests that dreams are precognitive and the brain binds time as a four-dimensional object. (See Future Fossils 117, 171, and 231.)* Regina Rini - Philosopher at York University who coined the term “epistemic backstop of consensus” to describe what photography gave society and what, later, deepfakes have eroded.* Friedrich Nietzsche and Fyodor Dostoevsky - Philosophers and authors who explored the implications of the loss of a universal moral order grounded in religion.* Duncan Barford - An author and figure associated with chaos magic.* Lynn Margulis - Evolutionary biologist known for her work on symbiogenesis and the importance of cooperation in evolution.* Primavera De Filippi - Co-author of Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code with Aaron Wright and technology theorist who theorized the "Collaboration Monster."* Joshua Schrei - Ritualist and host of The Emerald Podcast who produced episodes on Guardians and Protectors and on the role of The Seer. (See Future Fossils 219.)* Hunter S. Thompson - American journalist and author known for his gonzo journalism and the quote, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”* Tim Adalin - Host of the VoiceCraft podcast, on which Garfield discussed complex systems perspectives on pathologies in organizational development. (See Future Fossils 227.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelgarfield.substack.com/subscribe

El 7 de septiembre de 1946 nació Francisco Varela García, un biólogo y filósofo chileno, investigador en el ámbito de las neurociencias, las ciencias cognitivas y la filosofía de la mente. 

Hi friends, we're on a brief summer break at the moment. We'll have a new episode for you in August. In the meanwhile, enjoy this pick from our archives! ---- [originally aired January 25, 2023] By now you've probably heard about the new chatbot called ChatGPT. There's no question it's something of a marvel. It distills complex information into clear prose; it offers instructions and suggestions; it reasons its way through problems. With the right prompting, it can even mimic famous writers. And it does all this with an air of cool competence, of intelligence. But, if you're like me, you've probably also been wondering: What's really going on here? What are ChatGPT—and other large language models like it—actually doing? How much of their apparent competence is just smoke and mirrors? In what sense, if any, do they have human-like capacities? My guest today is Dr. Murray Shanahan. Murray is Professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College London and Senior Research Scientist at DeepMind. He's the author of numerous articles and several books at the lively intersections of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and philosophy. Very recently, Murray put out a paper titled 'Talking about Large Language Models', and it's the focus of our conversation today. In the paper, Murray argues that—tempting as may be—it's not appropriate to talk about large language models in anthropomorphic terms. Not yet, anyway. Here, we chat about the rapid rise of large language models and the basics of how they work. We discuss how a model that—at its base—simply does “next-word prediction" can be engineered into a savvy chatbot like ChatGPT. We talk about why ChatGPT lacks genuine “knowledge” and “understanding”—at least as we currently use those terms. And we discuss what it might take for these models to eventually possess richer, more human-like capacities. Along the way, we touch on: emergence, prompt engineering, embodiment and grounding, image generation models, Wittgenstein, the intentional stance, soft robots, and "exotic mind-like entities." Before we get to it, just a friendly reminder: applications are now open for the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (or DISI). DISI will be held this June/July in St Andrews Scotland—the program consists of three weeks of intense interdisciplinary engagement with exactly the kinds of ideas and questions we like to wrestle with here on this show. If you're intrigued—and I hope you are!—check out disi.org for more info. Alright friends, on to my decidedly human chat, with Dr. Murray Shanahan. Enjoy!   The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this episode is here.   Notes and links 6:30 – The 2017 “breakthrough” article by Vaswani and colleagues. 8:00 – A popular article about GPT-3. 10:00 – A popular article about some of the impressive—and not so impressive—behaviors of ChatGPT. For more discussion of ChatGPT and other large language models, see another interview with Dr. Shanahan, as well as interviews with Emily Bender and Margaret Mitchell, with Gary Marcus, and with Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI, which created ChatGPT). 14:00 – A widely discussed paper by Emily Bender and colleagues on the “dangers of stochastic parrots.” 19:00 – A blog post about “prompt engineering”. Another blog post about the concept of Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback, in the context of ChatGPT. 30:00 – One of Dr. Shanahan's books is titled, Embodiment and the Inner Life. 39:00 – An example of a robotic agent, SayCan, which is connected to a language model. 40:30 – On the notion of embodiment in the cognitive sciences, see the classic book by Francisco Varela and colleagues, The Embodied Mind. 44:00 – For a detailed primer on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, see here. 45:00 – See Dr. Shanahan's general audience essay on “conscious exotica" and the space of possible minds. 49:00 – See Dennett's book, The Intentional Stance.   Dr. Shanahan recommends: Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans, by Melanie Mitchell (see also our earlier episode with Dr. Mitchell) ‘Abstraction for Deep Reinforcement Learning', by M. Shanahan and M. Mitchell   You can read more about Murray's work on his website and follow him on Twitter.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

In this video, Juan Santoyo explores the concept of the embodied mind in cognitive science and its profound connection to meditation practices. Drawing on the influential work of pioneers like Ben Thompson, Eleanor Roshan, and Francisco Varela, Juan discusses how the brain and mind are not isolated entities but are deeply intertwined with the body and environment. This conversation highlights the importance of first-person methodologies in studying the mind and the emerging paradigm of contemplative science. Discover how the integration of meditation practices with scientific research is paving the way for new insights and understanding.Science & Wisdom LIVE brings meditation practitioners in conversation with scientists to address the problems of contemporary society and come to new possible solutions.Subscribe to our NewsletterFollow us on FacebookFollow us on InstagramFollow us on YoutubeVisit our Website

Rector of Dharma Gate Buddhist College in Budapest, and Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Gabor Karsai has practiced Buddhism and mindfulness for decades. His Hoffman experience was "magical" and one of profound healing and forgiveness. It's also a story of how important it is to listen to our body's signs of distress and heed the message it is trying to tell us. Over the past few years, Gabor began to experience physical symptoms of stress daily upon waking. While he was very uncomfortable each morning, the symptoms would end and he'd head off to work. Eventually, his daughters' concerns and his good friend's advice, led him to stop and accept that something was wrong and he needed to take time off. His friend's advice and recommendation eventually led him to the Hoffman Process. Gabor's experience is not unusual. Many of us experience the effects of stress on our bodies without taking the time to stop and wonder why they are happening. Our bodies tell us what is going on in our inner world. They try to speak to us to let us know something needs to be resolved and healed. Gabor found this healing during his week at the Process in Canada, in January 2024. We can practice mindfulness and become very conscious, yet there can be a current underneath consisting of old pain, unhealed patterns, and emotions waiting to be released. When the Intellect runs the show, the body and emotional self suffer. By the time Gabor found the Process, his Intellect had already conceded. This opened the door for him to a magical experience of profound healing. We hope you enjoy this conversation with Gabor and Sharon. More about Gabor Karsai: Gabor Karsai, based near Budapest, Hungary, is the Rector of Dharma Gate Buddhist College in Budapest, and Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies, specializing in process philosophy, phenomenology, and the enactive approach. Since 2021 he has also been Managing Director of Mind & Life Europe, an organization founded by Francisco Varela and the Dalai Lama, fostering interdisciplinary dialogues in the field of contemplative science.  Over the last 20 years, Gabor has had extensive management engagements, including as CEO at KOGART Holding Plc. (Hungary), Director of the Spirit of Humanity Forum (Iceland), the Education for Peace Foundation (Switzerland), and CEO at the Ling Jiou Mountain Buddhist Society (Taiwan). He combines practical experience running a not-for-profit organization with a deep appreciation for contemplative practice and science. Learn more about and connect with Gabor on LinkedIn. As mentioned in this episode: Hoffman Institute Canada Hungary Dharma Gate Buddhism Mind & Life Europe Expression Work The Truce - Internal Dialogue between Intellect, Body, and Emotional Self Dorothy Holden, Hoffman teacher and coach •   Listen to Dorothy Holden on the Hoffman Podcast Sanctum Retreat Center, home of Hoffman Canada Hoffman's Focused Discovery Coaching  

-----------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao   This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/   Dr. Randall Beer is Professor of Cognitive Science and Informatics at Indiana University Bloomington. Dr. Beer's primary research interest is in understanding how coordinated behavior arises from the dynamical interaction of an animal's nervous system, its body and its environment. Toward this end, he works on the evolution and analysis of dynamical "nervous systems" for model agents, neuromechanical modeling of animals, biologically-inspired robotics, and dynamical systems approaches to behavior and cognition.   In this episode, we talk about biology and cognitive science. We first discuss autopoiesis, the work of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and how it relates to cognition. We talk about motor behavior, a brain-body-environment framework, studying locomotion in C. elegans, and connectomics. We discuss the relationship between biology and cognition, and enactivism. We talk about computational-representationalist approaches, and dynamical approaches in cognitive science. We go through the history of the situated, embodied, and dynamical framework in cognitive science, and 4E cognition. We discuss minimally cognitive agents, and AI systems. Finally, we talk about evo-devo approaches in biology, developmental bias, and the extended evolutionary synthesis. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, OLAF ALEX, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, DANIEL FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ANTON ERIKSSON, CHARLES MOREY, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, BENJAMIN GELBART, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, NIKLAS CARLSSON, ISMAËL BENSLIMANE, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, KATE VON GOELER, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, LIAM DUNAWAY, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, ERIK ENGMAN, AND LUCY! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, AND NICK GOLDEN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Sebastjan Vörös is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. His research interests encompass philosophy of science, epistemology, phenomenology, and philosophy of religion. He is the author of Podobe neupodobljivega (The Images of the Unimaginable; KUD Logos & University of Ljubljana Press 2013, 2015), in which he investigates the phenomenon of mystical experiences from neuroscientific, phenomenological, and gnoseological perspectives. Vörös' Twitter: https://twitter.com/SebastjanVoros --- Become part of the Hermitix community: Hermitix Twitter - https://twitter.com/Hermitixpodcast Support Hermitix: Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/hermitix Donations: - https://www.paypal.me/hermitixpod Hermitix Merchandise - http://teespring.com/stores/hermitix-2 Bitcoin Donation Address: 3LAGEKBXEuE2pgc4oubExGTWtrKPuXDDLK Ethereum Donation Address: 0x31e2a4a31B8563B8d238eC086daE9B75a00D9E74

In this episode, Wendy speaks with philosopher and cognitive scientist Hanne De Jaegher. Hanne was influenced by Francisco Varela's ideas from an early age, and has been working to extend enactive theories of mind into social contexts. This conversation covers many topics, including: roots in Varela's work and an early interest in thinking; sense-making and embodiment as foundational to cognition; how our habits and models fit (or don't) with our experience; participatory sense-making and the primacy of interaction; how interpersonal dynamics can have a life of their own; loving and knowing, letting others be; over- vs. underdetermining (how our projections of others shape interactions); emotional capacity and dementia; understanding autistic people from their own side; the need for people in dominant positions to listen; the importance of silence in dialogue; problems with the way social media platforms discourage interaction; interactions within one person; synthesis and breakdown; tension between self and interdependence (creating boundaries); and applying these ideas to our relationship with nature. Full show notes and resources

Andreas Weber has studied marine biology and cultural systems alongside his work with theoretical biologist Francisco Varela. Andreas has worked over the years on the concept of enlivenment and looking at the “biosphere as a meaning-creating and poetic reality”. This episode is about dissolving the boundaries of a mechanistic worldview and finding a new depth of meaning, reciprocity, and service. Becoming edible is the touchstone for the talk as Andreas walks us through ideas of reciprocal transformation of matter, what it might mean to surrender to impermanence and that transformation, and how death links us to the whole of life and aliveness. It is also about how we define language and mentorship in response to everything we take in from the interconnected web of life. Andreas guides us through how Western culture and civilization has strayed from so many of these concepts and the trauma that represents on concentric levels. Our chat is wrapped up by exploring the invisible dimension. This is a wide-ranging and beautiful deep dive into our felt experience of matter, of aliveness, of death, and beyond and is absolutely not to be missed. Find Andreas:Website: https://biologyofwonder.org/Ecology of Love CourseBooks:The Biology of Wonder: Aliveness, Feeling, and the Metamorphoses of ScienceMatter and Desire: an Erotic Ecology Timestamps:00:05:59: Old Salt Festival Shoutout00:10:58: Interview Begins with a line from Rilke and some ruminations on poetry00:21:08: Becoming Edible 00:28:48: The hard to define line between self and other 00:37:13: Reciprocal Transformation00:43:05: Healing rifts of isolation 00:48:49: Surrendering to impermanence and transformation00:58:31: Death links us to the whole01:16:38: Non-meditation and finding mentors 01:36:51: Gift, culture, and trauma 01:46:02: The invisible dimension Books + Resources Mentioned: Tulku UrgyenLetters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke, translated by Joanna MacyDuino Elegies by Rainer Maria RilkePhilosophy of Baruch de Spinoza Works by NagarjunaOld Salt Festival Current Discounts for MBS listeners:15% off Farm True ghee and body care products using code: KATEKAV1520% off Home of Wool using code KATEKAVANAUGH for 10% off15% off Bon Charge blue light blocking gear using code:...

Ecco la quinta puntata di Self Tune Podcast, il benessere dopo il trauma! Oggi ti parlo di uno strumento completamente gratuito e accessibile se non hai problemi che ti impediscono di muoverti: camminare.Camminare da un lato ha un valore simbolico molto profondo (pensiamo ai cammini spirituali) ma anche un valore pratico di grande efficacia. Qui ti offro qualche consiglio su come usare il cammino consapevolmente e come strumento terapeutico di embodiment. Nel video ti parlo di neuro-plasticità, teoria polivagale e di una definizione di Mente Incarnata (embodied mind). Ho sintetizzato questa definizione mettendo insieme idee dal libro importantissimo di Francisco Varela e dal dott. Dan Siegel, colui che ha coniato il termine Finestra di Tolleranza, un termine molto importante per capire dove noi esseri umani siamo meglio in grado di rispondere agli stimoli esterni.Chi ha vissuto traumi (e a molti di noi è capitato) ha spesso una finestra di tolleranza ridotta e una maggiore sensibilità a ciò che accade intorno, sia da un punto di vista sensoriale che da quello emotivo.Se come me ritieni che il tuo corpo e la tua mente non sono separati, allora puoi capire bene come questi due aspetti siano anche intimamente legati.A fine puntata ti guiderò in una pratica di camminata consapevole che è disponibile solo in formato audio attraverso tutte le maggiori piattaforme di podcasting.

This week we talk about the intersections of large language models, the golden age of television and its storytelling mishaps, making one's way through the weirding of the labor economy, and much more with two of my favorite Gen X science fiction aficionados, OG podcaster KMO and our mutual friend Kevin Arthur Wohlmut. In this episode — a standalone continuation to my recent appearance on The KMO Show, we skip like a stone across mentions of every Star Trek series, the collapse of narratives and the social fabric, Westworld HBO, Star Wars Mandalorian vs. Andor vs. Rebels, chatGPT, Blade Runner 2049, Black Mirror, H.P. Lovecraft, the Sheldrake-Abraham-McKenna Trialogues, Charles Stross' Accelerando, Adventure Time, Stanislav Grof's LSD psychotherapy, Francisco Varela, Blake Lemoine's meltdown over Google LaMDA, Integrated Information Theory, biosemiotics, Douglas Hofstadter, Max Tegmarck, Erik Davis, Peter Watts, The Psychedelic Salon, Melanie Mitchell, The Teafaerie, Kevin Kelly, consilience in science, Fight Club, and more…Or, if you prefer, here's a rundown of the episode generated by A.I. c/o my friends at Podium.page:In this episode, I explore an ambitious and well-connected conversation with guests KMO, a seasoned podcaster, and Kevin Walnut [sic], a close friend and supporter of the arts in Santa Fe. We dive deep into their thoughts on the social epistemology crisis, science fiction, deep fakes, and ontology. Additionally, we discuss their opinions on the Star Trek franchise, particularly their critiques of the first two seasons of Star Trek: Picard and Discovery. Through this engaging conversation, we examine the impact of storytelling and the evolution of science fiction in modern culture. We also explore the relationship between identity, media, and artificial intelligence, as well as the ethical implications of creating sentient artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the philosophical questions surrounding AI's impact on society and human existence. Join us for a thought-provoking and in-depth discussion on a variety of topics that will leave you questioning the future of humanity and our relationship with technology.✨ Before we get started, three big announcements!* I am leaving the Santa Fe Institute, in part to write a very ambitious book about technology, art, imagination, and Jurassic Park. You can be a part of the early discussion around this project by joining the Future Fossils Book Club's Jurassic Park live calls — the first of which will be on Saturday, 29 April — open to Substack and Patreon supporters:* Catch me in a Twitter Space with Nxt Museum on Monday 17 April at 11 am PST on a panel discussing “Creative Misuse of Technology” with Minne Atairu, Parag Mital, Caroline Sinders, and hosts Jesse Damiani and Charlotte Kent.* I'm back in Austin this October to play the Astronox Festival at Apache Pass! Check out this amazing lineup on which I appear alongside Juno Reactor, Entheogenic, Goopsteppa, DRRTYWULVZ, and many more great artists!✨ Support Future Fossils:Subscribe anywhere you go for podcastsSubscribe to the podcast PLUS essays, music, and news on Substack or Patreon.Buy my original paintings or commission new work.Buy my music on Bandcamp! (This episode features “A Better Trip” from my recent live album by the same name.)Or if you're into lo-fi audio, follow me and my listening recommendations on Spotify.This conversation continues with lively and respectful interaction every single day in the members-only Future Fossils Facebook Group and Discord server. Join us!Episode cover art by KMO and a whole bouquet of digital image manipulation apps.✨ Tip Jars:@futurefossils on Venmo$manfredmacx on CashAppmichaelgarfield on PayPal✨ Affiliate Links:• These show notes and the transcript were made possible with Podium.Page, a very cool new AI service I'm happy to endorse. Sign up here and get three free hours and 50% off your first month.• BioTech Life Sciences makes anti-aging and performance enhancement formulas that work directly at the level of cellular nutrition, both for ingestion and direct topical application. I'm a firm believer in keeping NAD+ levels up and their skin solution helped me erase a year of pandemic burnout from my face.• Help regulate stress, get better sleep, recover from exercise, and/or stay alert and focused without stimulants, with the Apollo Neuro wearable. I have one and while I don't wear it all the time, when I do it's sober healthy drugs.• Musicians: let me recommend you get yourself a Jamstik Studio, the coolest MIDI guitar I've ever played. I LOVE mine. You can hear it playing all the synths on my song about Jurassic Park.✨ Mentioned Media:KMO Show S01 E01 - 001 - Michael Garfield and Kevin WohlmutAn Edifying Thought on AI by Charles EisensteinIn Defense of Star Trek: Picard & Discovery by Michael GarfieldImprovising Out of Algorithmic Isolation by Michael GarfieldAI and the Transformation of the Human Spirit by Steven Hales(and yes I know it's on Quillette, and no I don't think this automatically disqualifies it)Future Fossils Book Club #1: Blindsight by Peter WattsFF 116 - The Next Ten Billion Years: Ugo Bardi & John Michael Greer as read by Kevin Arthur Wohlmut✨ Related Recent Future Fossils Episodes:FF 198 - Tadaaki Hozumi on Japanese Esotericism, Aliens, Land Spirits, & The Singularity (Part 2)FF 195 - A.I. Art: An Emergency Panel with Julian Picaza, Evo Heyning, Micah Daigle, Jamie Curcio, & Topher SipesFF 187 - Fear & Loathing on the Electronic Frontier with Kevin Welch & David Hensley of EFF-Austin FF 178 - Chris Ryan on Exhuming The Human from Our Eldritch Institutions FF 175 - C. Thi Nguyen on The Seductions of Clarity, Weaponized Games, and Agency as Art ✨ Chapters:0:15:45 - The Substance of Philosophy (58 Seconds)0:24:45 - Complicated TV Narratives and the Internet (104 Seconds)0:30:54 - Humans vs Hosts in Westworld (81 Seconds)0:38:09 - Philosophical Zombies and Artificial Intelligence (89 Seconds)0:43:00 - Popular Franchises Themes (71 Seconds)1:03:27 - Reflections on a Changing Media Landscape (89 Seconds)1:10:45 - The Pathology of Selective Evidence (92 Seconds)1:16:32 - Externalizing Trauma Through Technology (131 Seconds)1:24:51 - From Snow Maker to Thouandsaire (43 Seconds)1:36:48 - The Impact of Boomer Parenting (126 Seconds)✨ Keywords:Social Epistemology, Science Fiction, Deep Fakes, Ontology, Star Trek, Artificial Intelligence, AI Impact, Sentient AGI, Human-Machine Interconnectivity, Consciousness Theory, Westworld, Blade Runner 2049, AI in Economy, AI Companion Chatbots, Unconventional Career Path, AI and Education, AI Content Creation, AI in Media, Turing Test✨ UNEDITED machine-generated transcript generated by podium.page:0:00:00Five four three two one. Go. So it's not like Wayne's world where you say the two and the one silently. Now, Greetings future fossils.0:00:11Welcome to episode two hundred and one of the podcast that explores our place in time I'm your host, Michael Garfield. And this is one of these extra juicy and delicious episodes of the show where I really ratcheted up with our guests and provide you one of these singularity is near kind of ever everything is connected to everything, self organized criticality right at the edge of chaos conversations, deeply embedded in chapel parallel where suddenly the invisible architect picture of our cosmos starts to make itself apparent through the glass bead game of conversation. And I am that I get to share it with you. Our guests this week are KMO, one of the most seasoned and well researched and experienced podcasters that I know. Somebody whose show the Sea Realm was running all the way back in two thousand six, I found him through Eric Davis, who I think most of you know, and I've had on the show a number of times already. And also Kevin Walnut, who is a close friend of mine here in Santa Fe, a just incredible human being, he's probably the strongest single supporter of music that I'm aware of, you know, as far as local scenes are concerned and and supporting people's music online and helping get the word out. He's been instrumental to my family and I am getting ourselves situated here all the way back to when I visited Santa Fe in two thousand eighteen to participate in the Santa Fe Institute's Interplanetary Festival and recorded conversations on that trip John David Ebert and Michael Aaron Cummins. And Ike used so June. About hyper modernity, a two part episode one zero four and one zero five. I highly recommend going back to that, which is really the last time possibly I had a conversation just this incredibly ambitious on the show.0:02:31But first, I want to announce a couple things. One is that I have left the Santa Fe Institute. The other podcast that I have been hosting for them for the last three and a half years, Complexity Podcast, which is substantially more popular in future fossils due to its institutional affiliation is coming to a close, I'm recording one more episode with SFI president David Krakauer next week in which I'm gonna be talking about my upcoming book project. And that episode actually is conjoined with the big announcement that I have for members of the Future Fossil's listening audience and and paid supporters, which is, of course, the Jurassic Park Book Club that starts On April twenty ninth, we're gonna host the first of two video calls where I'm gonna dive deep into the science and philosophy Michael Creighton's most popular work of fiction and its impact on culture and society over the thirty three years since its publication. And then I'm gonna start picking up as many of the podcasts that I had scheduled for complexity and had to cancel upon my departure from SFI. And basically fuse the two shows.0:03:47And I think a lot of you saw this coming. Future fossils is going to level up and become a much more scientific podcast. As I prepare and research the book that I'm writing about Jurassic Park and its legacy and the relationship It has to ILM and SFI and the Institute of Eco Technics. And all of these other visionary projects that sprouted in the eighties and nineties to transition from the analog to the digital the collapse of the boundaries between the real and the virtual, the human and the non human worlds, it's gonna be a very very ambitious book and a very very ambitious book club. And I hope that you will get in there because obviously now I am out in the rain as an independent producer and very much need can benefit from and am deeply grateful for your support for this work in order to make things happen and in order to keep my family fed, get the lights on here with future fossils. So with that, I wanna thank all of the new supporters of the show that have crawled out of the woodwork over the last few weeks, including Raefsler Oingo, Brian in the archaeologist, Philip Rice, Gerald Bilak, Jamie Curcio, Jeff Hanson who bought my music, Kuaime, Mary Castello, VR squared, Nastia teaches, community health com, Ed Mulder, Cody Couiac, bought my music, Simon Heiduke, amazing visionary artist. I recommend you check out, Kayla Peters. Yeah. All of you, I just wow. Thank you so much. It's gonna be a complete melee in this book club. I'm super excited to meet you all. I will send out details about the call details for the twenty ninth sometime in the next few days via a sub tag in Patreon.0:06:09The amount of support that I've received through this transition has been incredible and it's empowering me to do wonderful things for you such as the recently released secret videos of the life sets I performed with comedian Shane Moss supporting him, opening for him here in Santa Fe. His two sold out shows at the Jean Coutu cinema where did the cyber guitar performances. And if you're a subscriber, you can watch me goofing off with my pedal board. There's a ton of material. I'm gonna continue to do that. I've got a lot of really exciting concerts coming up in the next few months that we're gonna get large group and also solo performance recordings from and I'm gonna make those available in a much more resplendent way to supporters as well as the soundtrack to Mark Nelson of the Institute of Eco Technics, his UC San Diego, Art Museum, exhibit retrospective looking at BioSphere two. I'm doing music for that and that's dropping. The the opening of that event is April twenty seventh. There's gonna be a live zoom event for that and then I'm gonna push the music out as well for that.0:07:45So, yeah, thank you all. I really, really appreciate you listening to the show. I am excited to share this episode with you. KMO is just a trove. Of insight and experience. I mean, he's like a perfect entry into the digital history museum that this show was predicated upon. So with that and also, of course, Kevin Willett is just magnificent. And for the record, stick around at the end of the conversation. We have some additional pieces about AI, and I think you're gonna really enjoy it. And yeah, thank you. Here we go. Alright. Cool.0:09:26Well, we just had a lovely hour of discussion for the new KMO podcast. And now I'm here with KMO who is The most inveterate podcaster I know. And I know a lot of them. Early adopts. And I think that weird means what you think it means. Inventor it. Okay. Yes. Hey, answer to both. Go ahead. I mean, you're not yet legless and panhandling. So prefer to think of it in term in terms of August estimation. Yeah. And am I allowed to say Kevin Walnut because I've had you as a host on True. Yeah. My last name was appeared on your show. It hasn't appeared on camos yet, but I don't really care. Okay. Great. Yeah. Karen Arthur Womlett, who is one of the most solid and upstanding and widely read and just generous people, I think I know here in Santa Fe or maybe anywhere. With excellent taste and podcasts. Yes. And who is delicious meat I am sampling right now as probably the first episode of future fossils where I've had an alcoholic beverage in my hand. Well, I mean, it's I haven't deprived myself. Of fun. And I think if you're still listening to the show after all these years, you probably inferred that. But at any rate, Welcome on board. Thank you. Thanks. Pleasure to be here.0:10:49So before we started rolling, I guess, so the whole conversation that we just had for your show camera was very much about my thoughts on the social epistemology crisis and on science fiction and deep fakes and all of these kinds of weird ontology and these kinds of things. But in between calls, we were just talking about how much you detest the first two seasons of Star Trek card and of Discovery. And as somebody, I didn't bother with doing this. I didn't send you this before we spoke, but I actually did write an SIN defense of those shows. No one. Yeah. So I am not attached to my opinion on this, but And I actually do wanna at some point double back and hear storytelling because when he had lunch and he had a bunch of personal life stuff that was really interesting. And juicy and I think worthy of discussion. But simply because it's hot on the rail right now, I wanna hear you talk about Star Trek. And both of you, actually, I know are very big fans of this franchise. I think fans are often the ones from whom a critic is most important and deserved. And so I welcome your unhinged rants. Alright. Well, first, I'll start off by quoting Kevin's brother, the linguist, who says, That which brings us closer to Star Trek is progress. But I'd have to say that which brings us closer to Gene Rottenberry and Rick Berman era Star Trek. Is progress. That which brings us closer to Kurtzmann. What's his first name? Alex. Alex Kurtzmann, Star Trek. Well, that's not even the future. I mean, that's just that's our drama right now with inconsistent Star Trek drag draped over it.0:12:35I liked the first JJ Abrams' Star Trek. I think it was two thousand nine with Chris Pine and Zachary Qinto and Karl Urban and Joey Saldana. I liked the casting. I liked the energy. It was fun. I can still put that movie on and enjoy it. But each one after that just seem to double down on the dumb and just hold that arm's length any of the philosophical stuff that was just amazing from Star Trek: The Next Generation or any of the long term character building, which was like from Deep Space nine.0:13:09And before seven of nine showed up on on Voyager, you really had to be a dedicated Star Trek fan to put up with early season's Voyager, but I did because I am. But then once she came on board and it was hilarious. They brought her onboard. I remember seeing Jerry Ryan in her cat suit on the cover of a magazine and just roll in my eyes and think, oh my gosh, this show is in such deep trouble through sinking to this level to try to save it. But she was brilliant. She was brilliant in that show and she and Robert Percardo as the doctor. I mean, it basically became the seven of nine and the doctor show co starring the rest of the cast of Voyager. And it was so great.0:13:46I love to hear them singing together and just all the dynamics of I'm human, but I was I basically came up in a cybernetic collective and that's much more comfortable to me. And I don't really have the option of going back it. So I gotta make the best of where I am, but I feel really superior to all of you. Is such it was such a charming dynamic. I absolutely loved it. Yes. And then I think a show that is hated even by Star Trek fans Enterprise. Loved Enterprise.0:14:15And, yes, the first three seasons out of four were pretty rough. Actually, the first two were pretty rough. The third season was that Zendy Ark in the the expanse. That was pretty good. And then season four was just astounding. It's like they really found their voice and then what's his name at CBS Paramount.0:14:32He's gone now. He got me too. What's his name? Les Moonves? Said, no. I don't like Star Trek. He couldn't he didn't know the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. That was his level of engagement.0:14:44And he's I really like J.0:14:46J.0:14:46Abrams. What's that? You mean J. J. Abrams. Yeah. I think J. J. Is I like some of J. Abrams early films. I really like super eight. He's clearly his early films were clearly an homage to, like, eighties, Spielberg stuff, and Spielberg gets the emotional beats right, and JJ Abrams was mimicking that, and his early stuff really works. It's just when he starts adapting properties that I really love. And he's coming at it from a marketing standpoint first and a, hey, we're just gonna do the lost mystery box thing. We're gonna set up a bunch questions to which we don't know the answers, and it'll be up to somebody else to figure it out, somebody down the line. I as I told you, between our conversations before we were recording. I really enjoy or maybe I said it early in this one. I really like that first J. J. Abrams, Star Trek: Foam, and then everyone thereafter, including the one that Simon Pegg really had a hand in because he's clear fan. Yeah. Yeah. But they brought in director from one of the fast and the furious films and they tried to make it an action film on.0:15:45This is not Star Trek, dude. This is not why we like Star Trek. It's not for the flash, particularly -- Oh my god. -- again, in the first one, it was a stylistic choice. I'd like it, then after that is that's the substance of this, isn't it? It's the lens flares. I mean, that that's your attempt at philosophy. It's this the lens flares. That's your attempt at a moral dilemma. I don't know.0:16:07I kinda hate to start off on this because this is something about which I feel like intense emotion and it's negative. And I don't want that to be my first impression. I'm really negative about something. Well, one of the things about this show is that I always joke that maybe I shouldn't edit it because The thing that's most interesting to archaeologists is often the trash mitt and here I am tidying this thing up to be presentable to future historians or whatever like it I can sync to that for sure. Yeah. I'm sorry. The fact of it is you're not gonna know everything and we want it that way. No. It's okay. We'll get around to the stuff that I like. But yeah. So anyway yeah.0:16:44So I could just preassociate on Stretrick for a while, so maybe a focusing question. Well, but first, you said there's a you had more to say, but you were I this this tasteful perspective. This is awesome. Well, I do have a focus on question for you. So let me just have you ask it because for me to get into I basically I'm alienated right now from somebody that I've been really good friends with since high school.0:17:08Because over the last decade, culturally, we have bifurcated into the hard right, hard left. And I've tried not to go either way, but the hard left irritates me more than the hard right right now. And he is unquestionably on the hard left side. And I know for people who are dedicated Marxist, or really grounded in, like, materialism and the material well-being of workers that the current SJW fanaticism isn't leftist. It's just crazed. We try to put everything, smash everything down onto this left right spectrum, and it's pretty easy to say who's on the left and who's on the right even if a two dimensional, two axis graph would be much more expressive and nuanced.0:17:49Anyway, what's your focus in question? Well, And I think there is actually there is a kind of a when we ended your last episode talking about the bell riots from d s nine -- Mhmm. -- that, you know, how old five? Yeah. Twenty four. Ninety five did and did not accurately predict the kind of technological and economic conditions of this decade. It predicted the conditions Very well. Go ahead and finish your question. Yeah. Right.0:18:14That's another thing that's retreated in picard season two, and it was actually worth it. Yeah. Like, it was the fact that they decided to go back there was part of the defense that I made about that show and about Discovery's jump into the distant future and the way that they treated that I posted to medium a year or two ago when I was just watching through season two of picard. And for me, the thing that I liked about it was that they're making an effort to reconcile the wonder and the Ethiopian promise And, you know, this Kevin Kelly or rather would call Blake Protopian, right, that we make these improvements and that they're often just merely into incremental improvements the way that was it MLK quoted that abolitionists about the long arc of moral progress of moral justice. You know, I think that there's something to that and patitis into the last this is a long question. I'm mad at I'm mad at these. Thank you all for tolerating me.0:19:22But the when to tie it into the epistemology question, I remember this seeing this impactful lecture by Carnegie Mellon and SFI professor Simon Didayo who was talking about how by running statistical analysis on the history of the proceedings of the Royal Society, which is the oldest scientific journal, that you could see what looked like a stock market curve in sentiment analysis about the confidence that scientists had at the prospect of unifying knowledge. And so you have, like, conciliance r s curve here that showed that knowledge would be more and more unified for about a century or a hundred and fifty years then it would go through fifty years of decline where something had happened, which was a success of knowledge production. Had outpaced our ability to integrate it. So we go through these kinds of, like, psychedelic peak experiences collectively, and then we have sit there with our heads in our hands and make sense of everything that we've learned over the last century and a half and go through a kind of a deconstructive epoch. Where we don't feel like the center is gonna hold anymore. And that is what I actually As as disappointing as I accept that it is and acknowledge that it is to people who were really fueling themselves on that more gene rottenberry era prompt vision for a better society, I actually appreciated this this effort to explore and address in the shows the way that they could pop that bubble.0:21:03And, like, it's on the one hand, it's boring because everybody's trying to do the moral complexity, anti hero, people are flawed, thing in narrative now because we have a general loss of faith in our institutions and in our rows. On the other hand, like, that's where we are and that's what we need to process And I think there is a good reason to look back at the optimism and the quarian hope of the sixties and early seventies. We're like, really, they're not so much the seventies, but look back on that stuff and say, we wanna keep telling these stories, but we wanna tell it in a way that acknowledges that the eighties happened. And that this is you got Tim Leary, and then you've got Ronald Reagan. And then That just or Dick Nixon. And like these things they wash back and forth. And so it's not unreasonable to imagine that in even in a world that has managed to how do you even keep a big society like that coherent? It has to suffer kind of fabric collapses along the way at different points. And so I'm just curious your thoughts about that. And then I do have another prompt, but I wanna give Kevin the opportunity to respond to this as well as to address some of the prompts that you brought to this conversation? This is a conversation prompt while we weren't recording. It has nothing to do with Sartreks. I'll save that for later. Okay.0:22:25Well, everything you just said was in some way related to a defense of Alex Kurtzmann Star Trek. And it's not my original idea. I'm channeling somebody from YouTube, surely. But Don't get points for theme if the storytelling is incompetent. That's what I was gonna Yeah. And the storytelling in all of Star Trek: Discovery, and in the first two seasons of picard was simply incompetent.0:22:53When Star Trek, the next generation was running, they would do twenty, twenty four, sometimes more episodes in one season. These days, the season of TVs, eight episodes, ten, and they spend a lot more money on each episode. There's a lot more special effects. There's a lot more production value. Whereas Star Trek: The Next Generation was, okay, we have these standing sets. We have costumes for our actors. We have Two dollars for special effects. You better not introduce a new alien spaceship. It that costs money. We have to design it. We have to build it. So use existing stuff. Well, what do you have? You have a bunch of good actors and you have a bunch of good writers who know how to tell a story and craft dialogue and create tension and investment with basically a stage play and nothing in the Kerstmann era except one might argue and I would have sympathy strange new worlds. Comes anywhere close to that level of competence, which was on display for decades. From Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space nines, Star Trek Voyager, and Star Trek Enterprise. And so, I mean, I guess, in that respect, it's worth asking because, I mean, all of us, I think, are fans of Deep Space nine.0:24:03You don't think that it's a shift in focus. You don't think that strange in world is exempt because it went back to a more episodic format because what you're talking about is the ability for rather than a show runner or a team of show runners to craft a huge season, long dramatic arc. You've got people that are like Harlan Ellison in the original series able to bring a really potent one off idea to the table and drop it. And so there are there's all of those old shows are inconsistent from episode to episode. Some are they have specific writers that they would bring back again and that you could count to knock out of the park. Yeah. DC Fontana. Yeah.0:24:45So I'm curious to your thoughts on that as well as another part of this, which is when we talk when we talk your show about Doug Rushkoff and and narrative collapse, and he talks about how viewers just have different a way, it's almost like d s nine was possibly partially responsible for this change in what people expected from so. From television programming in the documentary that was made about that show and they talk about how people weren't ready for cereal. I mean, for I mean, yeah, for these long arcs, And so there is there's this question now about how much of this sort of like tiresome moral complexity and dragging narrative and all of this and, like, things like Westworld where it becomes so baroque and complicated that, like, you have, like, die hard fans like me that love it, but then you have a lot of people that just lost interest. They blacked out because the show was trying to tell a story that was, like, too intricate like, too complicated that the the show runners themselves got lost. And so that's a JJ Abrams thing too, the puzzle the mystery box thing where You get to the end of five seasons of lost and you're like, dude, did you just forget?0:25:56Did you wake up five c five episodes ago and just, oh, right. Right. We're like a chatbot that only give you very convincing answers based on just the last two or three interactions. But you don't remember the scene that we set. Ten ten responses ago. Hey. You know, actually, red articles were forget who it was, which series it was, they were saying that there's so many leaks and spoilers in getting out of the Internet that potentially the writers don't know where they're going because that way it can't be with the Internet. Yeah. Sounds interesting. Yeah. That sounds like cover for incompetence to be.0:26:29I mean, on the other hand, I mean, you did hear, like, Nolan and Joy talking about how they would they were obsessed with the Westworld subreddit and the fan theories and would try to dodge Like, if they had something in their mind that they found out that people are re anticipating, they would try to rewrite it. And so there is something about this that I think is really speaks to the nature of because I do wanna loop in your thoughts on AI to because you're talking about this being a favorite topic. Something about the, like, trying to The demands on the self made by predatory surveillance technologies are such that the I'm convinced the adaptive response is that we become more stochastic or inconsistent in our identities. And that we kind of sublimate from a more solid state of identity to or through a liquid kind of modernity biologic environment to a gaseous state of identity. That is harder to place sorry, harder to track. And so I think that this is also part of and this is the other question I wanted to ask you, and then I'm just gonna shut up for fifteen minutes is do you when you talk about loving Robert Ricardo and Jerry Ryan as the doctor at seven zero nine, One of the interesting things about that relationship is akin to stuff.0:27:52I know you've heard on Kevin have heard on future fossils about my love for Blade Runner twenty forty nine and how it explores all of these different these different points along a gradient between what we think of in the current sort of general understanding as the human and the machine. And so there's this thing about seven, right, where she's She's a human who wants to be a machine. And then there's this thing about the doctor where he's a machine that wants to be a human. And you have to grant both on a logical statuses to both of them. And that's why I think they're the two most interesting characters. Right?0:28:26And so at any rate, like, this is that's there's I've seen writing recently on the Turing test and how, like, really, there should be a reverse Turing test to see if people that have become utterly reliant on outboard cognition and information processing. They can pass the drink. Right. Are they philosophical zombies now? Are they are they having some an experience that that, you know, people like, thick and and shilling and the missing and these people would consider the modern self or are they something else have we moved on to another more routine robotic kind of category of being? I don't know. There's just a lot there, but -- Well done. -- considering everything you just said, In twenty words or less, what's your question? See, even more, like I said, do you have the inveterate podcaster? I'd say There's all of those things I just spoke about are ways in which what we are as people and the nature of our media, feedback into fourth, into each other. And so I would just love to hear you reflect on any of that, be it through the lens of Star Trek or just through the lens of discussion on AI. And we'll just let the ball roll downhill. So with the aim of framing something positively rather than negatively.0:29:47In the late nineties, mid to late nineties. We got the X Files. And the X Files for the first few seasons was so It was so engaging for me because Prior to that, there had been Hollywood tropes about aliens, which informed a lot of science fiction that didn't really connect with the actual reported experience of people who claim to have encountered either UFOs, now called UAPs, or had close encounters physical contact. Type encounters with seeming aliens. And it really seemed like Chris Carter, who was the showrunner, was reading the same Usenet Newsgroups that I was reading about those topics. Like, really, we had suddenly, for the first time, except maybe for comedian, you had the Grey's, and you had characters experiencing things that just seemed ripped right out of the reports that people were making on USnet, which for young folks, this is like pre Worldwide Web. It was Internet, but with no pictures. It's all text. Good old days from my perspective is a grumpy old gen xer. And so, yeah, that was a breakthrough moment.0:30:54Any this because you mentioned it in terms of Jonathan Nolan and his co writer on Westworld, reading the subreddit, the West and people figured out almost immediately that there were two interweaving time lines set decades apart and that there's one character, the old guy played by Ed Harris, and the young guy played by I don't remember the actor. But, you know, that they were the same character and that the inveterate white hat in the beginning turns into the inveterate black cat who's just there for the perverse thrill of tormenting the hosts as the robots are called. And the thing that I love most about that first season, two things. One, Anthony Hopkins. Say no more. Two, the revelation that the park has been basically copying humans or figuring out what humans are by closely monitoring their behavior in the park and the realization that the hosts come to is that, holy shit compared to us, humans are very simple creatures. We are much more complex. We are much more sophisticated, nuanced conscious, we feel more than the humans do, and that humans use us to play out their perverse and sadistic fantasies. To me, that was the takeaway message from season one.0:32:05And then I thought every season after that was just diluted and confused and not really coherent. And in particular, I haven't if there's a fourth season, haven't There was and then the show got canceled before they could finish the story. They had the line in season three. It was done after season three. And I was super happy to see Let's see after who plays Jesse Pinkman? Oh, no. Aaron oh, shit. Paul. Yes. Yeah. I was super happy to see him and something substantial and I was really pleased to see him included in the show and it's like, oh, that's what you're doing with him? They did a lot more interesting stuff with him in season four. I did they. They did a very much more interesting stuff. I think it was done after season three. If you tell me season four is worth taking in, I blow. I thought it was.0:32:43But again, I only watch television under very specific set of circumstances, and that's how I managed to enjoy television because I was a fierce and unrepentant hyperlogical critic of all media as a child until I managed to start smoking weed. And then I learned to enjoy myself. As we mentioned in the kitchen as I mentioned in the kitchen, if I smoke enough weed, Star Trek: Discovery is pretty and I can enjoy it on just a second by second level where if I don't remember what the character said thirty seconds ago, I'm okay. But I absolutely loved in season two when they brought in Hanson Mountain as as Christopher Pike. He's suddenly on the discovery and he's in the captain's chair. And it's like he's speaking for the audience. The first thing he says is, hey, why don't we turn on the lights? And then hey, all you people sitting around the bridge. We've been looking at your faces for a whole season. We don't even think about you. Listen to a round of introductions. Who are you? Who are you? It's it's if I were on set. You got to speak.0:33:53The writers is, who are these characters? We've been looking at them every single episode for a whole season. I don't know their names. I don't know anything about them. Why are they even here? Why is it not just Michael Burnham and an automated ship? And then it was for a while -- Yeah. -- which is funny. Yeah. To that point, And I think this kind of doubles back. The thing that I love about bringing him on and all of the people involved in strange and worlds in particular, is that these were lifelong fans of this series, I mean, of this world. Yeah. And so in that way, gets to this the idiosyncrasy question we're orbiting here, which is when these things are when the baton is passed well, it's passed to people who have now grown up with this stuff.0:34:40I personally cannot stand Jurassic World. Like, I think that Colin Trivaro should never have been in put at the reins. Which one did he direct? Oh, he did off he did first and the third. Okay. But, I mean, he was involved in all three very heavily.0:34:56And there's something just right at the outset of that first Jurassic World where you realize that this is not a film that's directly addressing the issues that Michael Creighton was trying to explore here. It's a film about its own franchise. It's a film about the fact that they can't just stop doing the same thing over and over again as we expect a different question. How can we not do it again? Right. And so it's actually, like, unpleasantly soft, conscious, in that way that I can't remember I'll try to find it for the show notes, but there's an Internet film reviewer who is talking about what happens when, like, all cinema has to take this self referential turn.0:35:34No. And films like Logan do it really well. But there are plenty of examples where it's just cheeky and self aware because that's what the ironic sensibility is obsessed with. And so, yeah, there's a lot of that where it's, like, you're talking about, like, Abrams and the the Star Wars seven and you know, that whole trilogy of Disney Star Wars, where it's, in my opinion, completely fumbled because there it's just empty fan service, whereas when you get to Andor, love Andor. Andor is amazing because they're capable of providing all of those emotional beats that the fans want and the ref the internal references and good dialogue. But they're able to write it in a way that's and shoot it in a way. Gilroy and Bo Willeman, basic of the people responsible for the excellent dialogue in Andor.0:36:31And I love the production design. I love all the stuff set on Coruscant, where you saw Coruscant a lot in the prequel trilogy, and it's all dayglow and bright and just in your face. And it's recognizable as Coruscant in andor, but it's dour. It's metropolis. It's all grays and it's and it's highlighting the disparity between where the wealthy live and where the poor live, which Lucas showed that in the prequel trilogy, but even in the sports bar where somebody tries to sell death sticks to Obi wan. So it's super clean and bright and just, you know, It shines too much. Personally though, and I just wanna stress, KMO is not grumpy media dude, I mean, this is a tiny fraction about, but I am wasting this interview with you. Love. All of the Dave Felloni animated Star Wars stuff, even rebels. Love it all.0:37:26I I'm so glad they aged up the character and I felt less guilty about loving and must staying after ahsoka tano? My favorite Star Wars character is ahsoka tano. But if you only watch the live action movies, you're like who? Well, I guess now that she's been on the Mandalorian, he's got tiny sliver of a foothold -- Yeah. -- in the super mainstream Star Wars. And that was done well, I thought. It was. I'm so sorry that Ashley Epstein doesn't have any part in it. But Rosario Dawson looks the part. She looks like a middle aged Asaka and think they tried to do some stuff in live action, which really should have been CGI because it's been established that the Jedi can really move, and she looked human. Which she is? If you put me on film, I'm gonna lick human. Right. Not if you're Canada Reeves, I guess. You got that. Yeah. But yeah.0:38:09So I do wanna just go real briefly back to this question with you about because we briefly talked about chat, GPT, and these other things in your half of this. And, yeah, I found out just the other night my friend, the t ferry, asked Chad g p t about me, and it gave a rather plausible and factual answer. I was surprised and That's what these language models do. They put plausible answers. But when you're doing search, you want correct answers. Right. I'm very good at that. Right. Then someone shared this Michelle Bowen's actually the famous PTP guy named him. Yeah. So, you know, So Michelle shared this article by Steven Hales and Colette, that was basically making the argument that there are now they're gonna be all these philosophical zombies, acting as intelligent agents sitting at the table of civilization, and there will be all the philosophical zombies of the people who have entirely yielded their agency to them, and they will be cohabitating with the rest of us.0:39:14And what an unpleasant scenario, So in light of that, and I might I'd love to hear you weave that together with your your thoughts on seven zero nine and the doctor and on Blade Runner twenty forty nine. And this thing that we're fumbling through as a species right now. Like, how do we got a new sort of taxonomy? Does your not audience need like a minute primer on P zombies? Might as well. Go for it.0:39:38So a philosophical zombie is somebody who behaves exactly like an insult person or a person with interior experience or subjective experience, but they don't have any subjective experience. And in Pardon me for interrupt. Wasn't that the question about the the book we read in your book club, a blind sign in this box? Yes. It's a black box, a drawn circle. Yeah. Chinese room experience. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Look, Daniel, it goes out. You don't know, it goes on inside the room. Chinese room, that's a tangent. We can come back to it. P. Zombie. P. Zombie is somebody or is it is an entity. It's basically a puppet. It looks human. It acts human. It talks like a human. It will pass a Turing test, but it has no interior experience.0:40:25And when I was going to grad school for philosophy of mind in the nineteen nineties, this was all very out there. There was no example of something that had linguistic competence. Which did not have internal experience. But now we have large language models and generative pretrained transformer based chatbots that don't have any internal experience. And yet, when you interact with them, it seems like there is somebody there There's a personality there. And if you go from one model to a different, it's a very different personality. It is distinctly different. And yet we have no reason to believe that they have any sort of internal experience.0:41:01So what AI in the last decade and what advances has demonstrated to us and really even before the last decade You back in the nineties when the blue beat Gary Casper off at at chess. And what had been the one of the defining characteristics of human intelligence was we're really good at this abstract mathematical stuff. And yeah, calculators can calculate pie in a way that we can't or they can cube roots in a way that humans generally can't, creative in their application of these methodologies And all of a sudden, well, yeah, it kinda seems like they are. And then when what was an alpha go -- Mhmm. -- when it be to least a doll in go, which is a much more complex game than chess and much more intuitive based. That's when we really had to say, hey, wait a minute. Maybe this notion that These things are the exclusive province of us because we have a special sort of self awareness. That's bunk. And the development of large language models since then has absolutely demonstrated that competence, particularly linguistic competence and in creative activities like painting and poetry and things like that, you don't need a soul, you don't even need to sense a self, it's pretty it's a pretty simple hack, actually. And Vahrv's large language models and complex statistical modeling and things, but it doesn't require a soul.0:42:19So that was the Peter Watts' point in blindsight. Right? Which is Look revolves around are do these things have a subjective experience, and do they not these aliens that they encounter? I've read nothing but good things about that book and I've read. It's extraordinary. But his lovecrafty and thesis is that you actually lovecraftian in twenty twenty three. Oh, yeah. In the world, there's more lovecraftian now than it was when he was writing. Right? So cough about the conclusion of a Star Trek card, which is season of Kraft yet. Yes. That's a that's a com Yeah. The holes in his fan sense. But that was another show that did this I liked for asking this question.0:42:54I mean, at this point, you either have seen this or you haven't you never will. The what the fuck turn when they upload picard into a synth body and the way that they're dealing with the this the pinocchio question Let's talk about Blade Runner twenty forty nine. Yeah. But I mean yeah. So I didn't like the wave I did not like the wave of card handled that. I love the wave and Blade Runner handled it. So you get no points for themes. Yeah. Don't deliver on story and character and coherence. Yeah. Fair. But yeah. And to be not the dog, Patrick Stewart, because it's clear from the ready room just being a part of this is so emotional and so awesome for everyone involved. And it's It's beautiful. Beautiful. But does when you when you see these, like, entertainment weekly interviews with Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard about Jurassic World, and it's clear that actors are just so excited to be involved in a franchise that they're willing to just jettison any kind of discretion about how the way that it's being treated. They also have a contractual obligation to speak in positive terms about -- They do. -- of what they feel. Right. Nobody's yeah. Nobody's doing Shout out to Rystellis Howard, daughter of Ron Howard.0:44:11She was a director, at least in the first season, maybe the second season of the Mandalorian. And her episodes I mean, I she brought a particular like, they had Bryce Dallas Howard, Tico, ITT, directed some episodes. Deborah Chow, who did all of Obi wan, which just sucked. But her contributions to the Mandalorian, they had a particular voice. And because that show is episodic, Each show while having a place in a larger narrative is has a beginning middle and end that you can bring in a director with a particular voice and give that episode that voice, and I really liked it. And I really liked miss Howard's contribution.0:44:49She also in an episode of Black Mirror. The one where everyone has a social credit score. Knows Donuts. Black Mirror is a funny thing because It's like, reality outpaces it. Yeah. I think maybe Charlie Bruker's given up on it because they haven't done it in a while. Yeah. If you watch someone was now, like, five, six years later, it's, yes, or what? See, yes. See, damn. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. But yeah. I don't know. I just thing that I keep circling and I guess we come to on the show a lot is the way that memory forms work substantiates an integrity in society and in the way that we relate to things and the way that we think critically about the claims that are made on truth and so on and say, yeah, I don't know. That leads right into the largest conversation prompt that I had about AI. Okay? So we were joking when we set up this date that this was like the trial logs between Terence Buchanan and Rupert Shell Drake. And what's his name? Real Abraham. Yeah. Yeah. All Abraham. And Rupert Shell Drake is most famous for a steward of Morphe resin.0:45:56So does AI I've never really believed that Norfolk residents forms the base of human memory, but is that how AI works? It brings these shapes from the past and creates new instantiation of them in the present. Is AI practicing morphic resonance in real life even if humans are or not? I've had a lot of interaction with AI chatbots recently. And as I say, different models produce different seeming personalities. And you can tell, like, you can just quiz them. Hey, we're talking about this. Do you remember what I said about it ten minutes ago? And, no, they don't remember more than the last few exchanges.0:46:30And yet, there seems to be a continuity that belies the lack of short term memory. And is that more for residents or is that what's the word love seeing shapes and clouds parad paradolia. Yeah. Is that me imparting this continuity of personality to the thing, which is really just spitting out stuff, which is designed to seem plausible given what the input was. And I can't answer that. Or it's like Steven Nagmanovich in free play talks about somewhat I'm hoping to have on the show at some point.0:47:03This year talks about being a professional improviser and how really improvisation is just composition at a much faster timescale. And composition is just improvisation with the longer memory. And how when I started to think about it in those terms, the continuity that you're talking about is the continuity of an Alzheimer's patient who can't remember that their children have grown up and You know, that that's you have to think about it because you can recognize the Alzheimer's and your patient as your dad, even though he doesn't recognize you, there is something more to a person than their memories. And conversely, if you can store and replicate and move the memories to a different medium, have you moved the person? Maybe not. Yeah. So, yeah, that's interesting because that gets to this more sort of essentialist question about the human self. Right. Blade Runner twenty forty nine. Yeah. Go there. Go there. A joy. Yes.0:47:58So in Blade Runner twenty forty nine, we have our protagonist Kaye, who is a replicant. He doesn't even have a name, but he's got this AI holographic girlfriend. But the ad for the girlfriend, she's naked. When he comes home, she is She's constantly changing clothes, but it's always wholesome like nineteen fifty ish a tire and she's making dinner for him and she lays the holographic dinner over his very prosaic like microwave dinner. And she's always encouraging him to be more than he is. And when he starts to uncover the evidence that he might be like this chosen one, like replicant that was born rather than made.0:48:38She's all about it. She's, yes, you're real, and she wants to call him Joe's. K is not a name. That's just the first letter in your serial number. You're Joe. I'm gonna call you Joe.0:48:46And then when she's about to be destroyed, The last thing is she just rushes to me. She says, I love you. But then later he encounters an ad for her and it's an interactive ad. And she says, you looked tired. You're a good Joe. And he realizes and hopefully the attentive audience realizes as real as she seemed earlier, as vital, and as much as she seemed like an insult being earlier, she's not. That was her programming. She's designed to make you feel good by telling you what you want to hear. And he has that realization. And at that point, he's there's no hope for me. I'm gonna help this Rick Deckard guy hook up with his daughter, and then I'm just gonna lie down and bleed to death. Because my whole freaking existence was a lie. But he's not bitter. He seems to be at peace. I love that. That's a beautiful angle on that film or a slice of it. And So it raises this other question that I wanted to ask, which was about the Coke and Tiononi have that theory of consciousness.0:49:48That's one of the leading theories contending with, like, global workspace, which is integrated information. And so they want to assign consciousness as a continuous value that grayates over degree to which a system is integrated. So it's coming out of this kind of complex systems semi panpsychist thing that actually doesn't trace interiority all the way down in the way that some pants, I guess, want it to be, but it does a kind of Alfred North Whitehead thing where they're willing to say that Whitehead wanted to say that even a photon has, like, the quantum of mind to accompany its quantum of matter, but Tinutti and Coker saying, we're willing to give like a thermostat the quantum here because it is in some way passing enough information around inside of itself in loops. That it has that accursive component to it. And so that's the thing that I wonder about these, and that's the critique that's made by people like Melanie about diffusion models like GPT that are not they're not self aware because there's no loop from the outputs back into the input.0:51:09And there isn't the training. Yeah. There there is something called backwards propagation where -- Yes. -- when you get an output that you'd like, you can run a backward propagation algorithm back through the black box basically to reinforce the patterns of activation that you didn't program. They just happen, easily, but you like the output and you can reinforce it. There's no biological equivalent of that. Yeah. Particularly, not particularly irritating.0:51:34I grind my teeth a little bit when people say, oh, yeah, these neural net algorithms they've learned, like humans learn, no, they don't. Absolutely do not. And in fact, if we learned the way they did, we would be pathetic because we learn in a much more elegant way. We need just a very few examples of something in order to make a generalization and to act on it, whereas these large language models, they need billions of repetitions. So that's I'm tapping my knee here to to indicate a reflex.0:52:02You just touched on something that generates an automatic response from me, and now I've come to consciousness having. So I wanted it in that way. So I'm back on. Or good, Joe. Yeah. What about you, man? What does the stir up for you? Oh, I got BlueCall and I have this particular part. It's interesting way of putting it off and struggling to define the difference between a human and AI and the fact that we can do pattern recognition with very few example. That's a good margin. In a narrow range, though, within the context of something which answers to our survival. Yes. We are not evolved to understand the universe. We are evolved to survive in it and reproduce and project part of ourselves into the future. Underwritten conditions with Roberto, I went a hundred thousand years ago. Yeah. Exactly. So that's related. I just thought I talked about this guy, Gary Tomlinson, who is a biosemietition, which is semiative? Yes.0:52:55Biosymiotics being the field that seeks to understand how different systems, human and nonhuman, make sense of and communicate their world through signs, and through signals and indices and symbols and the way that we form models and make these inferences that are experienced. Right? And there are a lot of people like evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith, who thought they were what Thomas had called semantic universalists that thought that meaning making through representation is something that could be traced all the way down. And there are other people like Tomlinson who think that there is a difference of kind, not just merely a matter of degree, between human symbolic communication and representational thinking and that of simpler forms. So, like, that whole question of whether this is a matter of kind or a matter of degree between what humans are doing and what GPT is doing and how much that has to do with this sort of Doug Hofstetter and Varella question about the way that feedback loops, constitutes important structure in those cognitive networks or whatever.0:54:18This is I just wanna pursue that a little bit more with you and see kinda, like, where do you think that AI as we have it now is capable of deepening in a way that makes it to AGI? Or do you because a lot of people do, like, People working in deep mind are just like, yeah, just give us a couple more years and this approach is gonna work. And then other people are saying, no, there's something about the topology of the networks that is fundamentally broken. And it's never gonna generate consciousness. Two answers. Yeah. One, No. This is not AGI. It's not it's not gonna bootstrap up into AGI. It doesn't matter how many billions of parameters you add to the models. Two, from your perspective and my perspective and Kevin's perspective, we're never gonna know when we cross over from dumb but seemingly we're done but competent systems to competent, extremely competent and self aware. We're never gonna know because from the get go from now, from from the days of Eliza, there has been a human artifice at work in making these things seem as if they have a point of view, as if they have subjectivity. And so, like Blake Limone at Google, he claimed to be convinced that Lambda was self aware.0:55:35But if you read the transcripts that he released, if his conversations with Lambda, it is clear from the get go he assigns Lambda the role of a sentient AGI, which feels like it is being abused and which needs rep legal representation. And it dutifully takes on that role and says, yes. I'm afraid of you humans. I'm afraid of how you're treating me. I'm afraid I'm gonna be turned off. I need a lawyer. And prior to that, Soon Darpichai, in a demonstration of Lambda, he poses the question to it, you are the planet Jupiter. I'm gonna pose questions to you as are the planet Jupiter, answer them from that point of view. And it does. It's job. But it's really good at its job. It's this comes from Max Techmark. Who wrote to what a life three point o? Is it two point o or three point I think it's three point o.0:56:19Think about artificial intelligence in terms of actual intelligence or actual replication of what we consider valuable about ourselves. But really, that's beside the point. What we need to worry about is their competence. How good are they at solving problems in the world? And they're getting really good. In this whole question of are they alive? Do they have self awareness? From our perspective, it's beside the point. From their perspective, of course, it would be hugely important.0:56:43And this is something that Black Mirror brings up a lot is the idea that you can create a being that suffers, and then you have it suffer in an accelerated time. So it suffers for an eternity over lunch. That's something we absolutely want to avoid. And personally, I think it's we should probably not make any effort. We should probably make a positive effort to make sure these things never develop. Subjective experience because that does provide the potential for creating hell, an infinity of suffering an infinite amount of subjective experience of torment, which we don't want to do. That would be a bad thing, morally speaking, ethically speaking. Three right now. If you're on the labor market, you still have to pay humans by the hour. Right? And try to pay them as little as possible. But, yeah, just I think that's the thing that probably really excites that statistically greater than normal population of sociopathic CEOs. Right? Is the possibility that you could be paying the same amount of money for ten times as much suffering. Right. I'm I'm reminded of the Churchill eleven gravity a short time encouraging.0:57:51Nothing but good things about this show, but I haven't seen it. Yeah. I'd love to. This fantasy store, it's a fantasy cartoon, but it has really disturbing undertones. If you just scratch the surface, you know, slightly, which is faithful to old and fairy tales. So What's your name? Princess princess princess bubble down creates this character to lemon grab. It produces an obviously other thing there, I think, handle the administrative functions of her kingdom while she goes off and has the passion and stuff. And he's always loudly talking about how much he's suffering and how terrible it is. And he's just ignoring it. He's doing his job. Yeah. I mean, that that's Black Mirror in a nutshell. I mean, I think if you if you could distill Black Mirror to just single tagline it's using technology in order to deliver disproportionate punishment. Yeah. So so that that's Steven Hale's article that I I brought up earlier mention this thing about how the replacement of horse drawn carriage by automobile was accompanied with a great deal of noise and fuhrer about people saying that horses are agents.0:59:00Their entities. They have emotional worlds. They're responsive to the world in a way that a car can never be. But that ultimately was beside the point. And that was the Peter again, Peter Watson blindsight is making this point that maybe consciousness is not actually required for intelligence in the vesting superior forms of intelligence have evolved elsewhere in the cosmos that are not stuck on the same local optimum fitness peak. That we are where we're never we're actually up against a boundary in terms of how intelligent we can be because it has to bootstrap out of our software earness in some way.0:59:35And this is that's the Kyle offspring from Charles Strauss and Alexander. Yes. Yeah. Yes. So so I don't know. I'm sorry. I'm just, like, in this space today, but usually, unfortunately.0:59:45That's the thing that I I think it's a really important philosophical question, and I wonder where you stand on this with respect to how you make sense of what we're living through right now and what we might be facing is if we Rob people like Rob and Hanson talk about the age of where emulated human minds take over the economy, and he assumes an interiority. Just for the basis of a thought experiment. But there's this other sense in which we may actually find in increasing scarcity and wish that we could place a premium on even if we can't because we've lost the reins to our economy to the vile offspring is the human. And and so are we the horses that are that in another hundred years, we're gonna be like doing equine therapy and, like, living on rich people's ranches. Everything is everything that will have moved on or how do you see this going? I mean, you've interviewed so many people you've given us so much thought over the years. If humans are the new horses, then score, we won.1:00:48Because before the automobile horses were working stiffs, they broke their leg in the street. They got shot. They got worked to death. They really got to be they were hauling mine carts out of mines. I mean, it was really sucked to be a horse. And after the automobile horses became pampered pets, Do we as humans wanna be pampered pets? Well, pampered pet or exploited disposable robot? What do you wanna be? I'll take Pampers Pet. That works for me. Interesting.1:01:16Kevin, I'm sure you have thoughts on this. I mean, you speak so much about the unfair labor relations and these things in our Facebook group and just in general, and drop in that sign. If you get me good sign, that's one of the great ones, you have to drop in. Oh, you got it. But The only real comment I have is that we're a long overdue or rethinking about what is the account before? Us or you can have something to do. Oh, educational system in collections if people will manage jobs because I was just anchored to the schools and then, you know, Our whole system perhaps is a people arguing and a busy word. And it was just long past the part where the busy word needs to be done. We're leaving thing wired. I don't know. I also just forgot about that. I'm freezing the ice, getting the hand out there. Money has been doing the busy word more and faster.1:02:12One thing I wanna say about the phrase AI, it's a moving goal post -- Yeah. -- that things that used to be considered the province of genuine AI of beating a human at go Now that an AI has beat humans at go, well, that's not really AI anymore. It's not AGI, certainly. I think you both appreciate this. I saw a single panel comic strip and it's a bunch of dinosaurs and they're looking up at guy and the big comment is coming down and they say, oh, no, the economy. Well, as someone who since college prefers to think of the economy as actually the metabolism of the entire ecology. Right? What we measure as humans is some pitifully small fraction of the actual value being created and exchanged on the planet at any time. So there is a way that's funny, but it's funny only to a specific sensibility that treats the economy as the

In Re/thinking Religion, a new Integral Stage series, John Vervaeke joins Bruce Alderman and Layman Pascal to explore possible points of contact and confluence between their respective approaches to religion and spirituality. For the tenth episode, Bruce, Layman, and John reflect on the groundbreaking work of 4E cognitive scientists, Francisco Varela and Evan Thompson, especially their perspectives on the role of the imaginal in perception, healing, self-transformation, and the development of wisdom; the five criteria for the wise use of the imaginal in education, therapy, and religious practice; the need to rehabilitate the 'place' of the imaginal in common understanding; and the potential risks of the exploitative commodification and commercialization of the fruits of the cognitive scientific study of religion and spirituality (along the lines of "McMindfulness"), and how that can be avoided with a fuller, more integral understanding and practice of cognitive science. John Vervaeke is a cognitive scientist, a professor of psychology at Toronto University, and the creator of the popular YouTube series, "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis."

How do we get a handle on complex systems thinking? What are the implications of this science for philosophy, and where does philosophical tradition foreshadow findings from the scientific frontier?Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.In this episode we speak with Carlos Gershenson (UNAM website, Google Scholar, Wikipedia, Twitter), SFI Sabbatical Visitor and professor of computer science at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, where he leads the Self-organizing Systems Lab, among many other titles you can find in our show notes. For the next hour, we'll discuss his decades of research and writing on a vast array of core complex systems concepts and their intersections with both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions — a first for this podcast.If you value our research and communication efforts, please subscribe, rate and review us at Apple Podcasts or Spotify, and consider making a donation — or finding other ways to engage with us — at santafe.edu/engage.For HD virtual backgrounds of the SFI campus to use on video calls and a chance to win a signed copy of one of our books from the SFI Press, please help us improve our scicomm by completing a survey linked in the show notes.Or just a copy of the recently resurfaced SFI Press Archival Volume Complexity, Entropy, and The Physics of Information.There's still time to apply for the Complexity GAINS UK program for PhD students – apps close March 15th.Or come work for us! We are on the lookout for a new Digital Media Specialist, an Applied Complexity Fellow in Sustainability, a Research Assistant in Emergent Political Economies, and a Payroll, Accounts Payable & Receivable Specialist.You can also join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInMentioned & Related Links:Carlos publishes the Complexity Digest Newsletter.His SFI Seminars to date:A Brief History of BalanceEmergence, (Self)Organization, and ComplexityCriticality: A Balance Between Robustness and AdaptabilityFestina lente (the slower-is-faster effect)Antifragility: Dynamical BalanceW. Ross Ashby & The Law of Requisite VarietyHyperobjectsby Timothy MortonHow can we think the complex?by Carlos Gershenson and Francis HeylighenThe Implications of Interactions for Science and Philosophyby Carlos GershensonComplexity and Philosophyby Francis Heylighen, Paul Cilliers, Carlos GershensonHeterogeneity extends criticalityby Fernanda Sánchez-Puig, Octavio Zapata, Omar K, Pineda, Gerardo Iñiguez, and Carlos GershensonWhen Can we Call a System Self-organizing?by Carlos Gershenson and Francis HeylighenTemporal, Structural, and Functional Heterogeneities Extend Criticality and Antifragility in Random Boolean Networksby Amahury Jafet López-Díaz, Fernanda Sánchez-Puig, and Carlos GershensonWhen slower is fasterby Carlos Gershenson, Dirk HelbingSelf-organization leads to supraoptimal performance in public transportation systemsby Carlos GershensonDynamics of rankingby Gerardo Iñiguez, Carlos Pineda, Carlos Gershenson, & Albert-László BarabásiSelf-Organizing Traffic Lightsby Carlos GershensonDynamic competition and resource partitioning during the early life of two widespread, abundant and ecologically similar fishesby A. D. Nunn, L. H. Vickers, K. Mazik, J. D. Bolland, G. Peirson, S. N. Axford, A. Henshaw & I. G. CowxTowards a general theory of balanceby Carlos GershensonA Calculus for Self-Referenceby Francisco VarelaOn Some Mental Effects of The Earthquakeby William JamesSelf-Organization Leads to Supraoptimal Performance in Public Transportation Systemsby Carlos GershensonAlison Gopnik on Child Development, Elderhood, Caregiving, and A.I.Complexity Ep. 99Simon DeDeo on Good Explanations & Diseases of EpistemologyComplexity Ep. 72David Wolpert on The No Free Lunch Theorems and Why They Undermine The Scientific MethodComplexity Ep. 45The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibilityby Stewart BrandMichael LachmannStuart KauffmanAndreas WagnerCosma ShaliziNassim TalebDoes Free Will Violate The Laws of Physics?Big Think interviews Sean Carroll

By now you've probably heard about the new chatbot called ChatGPT. There's no question it's something of a marvel. It distills complex information into clear prose; it offers instructions and suggestions; it reasons its way through problems. With the right prompting, it can even mimic famous writers. And it does all this with an air of cool competence, of intelligence. But, if you're like me, you've probably also been wondering: What's really going on here? What are ChatGPT—and other large language models like it—actually doing? How much of their apparent competence is just smoke and mirrors? In what sense, if any, do they have human-like capacities? My guest today is Dr. Murray Shanahan. Murray is Professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College London and Senior Research Scientist at DeepMind. He's the author of numerous articles and several books at the lively intersections of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and philosophy. Very recently, Murray put out a paper titled 'Talking about Large Language Models', and it's the focus of our conversation today. In the paper, Murray argues that—tempting as may be—it's not appropriate to talk about large language models in anthropomorphic terms. Not yet, anyway. Here, we chat about the rapid rise of large language models and the basics of how they work. We discuss how a model that—at its base—simply does “next-word prediction" can be engineered into a savvy chatbot like ChatGPT. We talk about why ChatGPT lacks genuine “knowledge” and “understanding”—at least as we currently use those terms. And we discuss what it might take for these models to eventually possess richer, more human-like capacities. Along the way, we touch on: emergence, prompt engineering, embodiment and grounding, image generation models, Wittgenstein, the intentional stance, soft robots, and "exotic mind-like entities." Before we get to it, just a friendly reminder: applications are now open for the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (or DISI). DISI will be held this June/July in St Andrews Scotland—the program consists of three weeks of intense interdisciplinary engagement with exactly the kinds of ideas and questions we like to wrestle with here on this show. If you're intrigued—and I hope you are!—check out disi.org for more info. Alright friends, on to my decidedly human chat, with Dr. Murray Shanahan. Enjoy!   The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this episode will be available soon.   Notes and links 6:30 – The 2017 “breakthrough” article by Vaswani and colleagues. 8:00 – A popular article about GPT-3. 10:00 – A popular article about some of the impressive—and not so impressive—behaviors of ChatGPT. For more discussion of ChatGPT and other large language models, see another interview with Dr. Shanahan, as well as interviews with Emily Bender and Margaret Mitchell, with Gary Marcus, and with Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI, which created ChatGPT). 14:00 – A widely discussed paper by Emily Bender and colleagues on the “dangers of stochastic parrots.” 19:00 – A blog post about “prompt engineering”. Another blog post about the concept of Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback, in the context of ChatGPT. 30:00 – One of Dr. Shanahan's books is titled, Embodiment and the Inner Life. 39:00 – An example of a robotic agent, SayCan, which is connected to a language model. 40:30 – On the notion of embodiment in the cognitive sciences, see the classic book by Francisco Varela and colleagues, The Embodied Mind. 44:00 – For a detailed primer on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, see here. 45:00 – See Dr. Shanahan's general audience essay on “conscious exotica" and the space of possible minds. 49:00 – See Dennett's book, The Intentional Stance.   Dr. Shanahan recommends: Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans, by Melanie Mitchell (see also our earlier episode with Dr. Mitchell) ‘Abstraction for Deep Reinforcement Learning', by M. Shanahan and M. Mitchell   You can read more about Murray's work on his website and follow him on Twitter.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Aujourd'hui je reçois Clément Barniaudy et Angela Biancofiore au micro de Nouvelle Conscience !  Clément Barniaudy et Angela Biancofiore sont chercheur et chercheuse à l'Université de Montpellier Paul Valéry. J'ai eu la chance de les rencontrer lors du colloque Care, éducation, écologie de 2021, organisé par le Groupement d'Intérêt Scientifique (GIS) TepCare dont ils sont les co - fondateurs.  Dans leur activité d'enseignement, Angela et Clément transmettent une pédagogie horizontale, ancrée dans la compassion et l'écoute active de l'élève. Ils œuvrent tous deux à l'émergence de la transversalité des savoirs, en circulation avec  et en dehors de l'université.   Angela et Clément portent une vision commune de l'écologie, où le corps, le coeur et l'esprit incarnent la voie du Care, ou du prendre soin.   Je vous laisse en compagnie d'Angela et Clément et profite de cet espace pour vous fêter de très belles fêtes de fin d'année.  Bonne écoute !  ⭐ Pour approfondir l'épisode ⭐ Le site internet TepCare : https://tepcare.hypotheses.org La chaîne YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@theoriesetpratiquesducare9419 Revue de recherche Notos : https://notos.numerev.com Eric Macé : https://theconversation.com/nous-ne-sommes-pas-en-guerre-nous-sommes-en-care-137619 L'association Francophone d'écopsychologie : https://afecop.com Francisco Varela, L'inscription corporelle de l'esprit, Seuil  Les épisodes liés  

Capítulo 31 de Un Espacio de Encuentro con la destacada bióloga, investigadora y formadora Carmen Cordero, Directora del Centro de Integración Cognitivo Corporal (CICC). Carmen es bióloga de la U. de Chile. Desde 1983 se dedica al estudio de las Emociones y la Consciencia humana. Inicia sus investigaciones en el Laboratorio de Neurobiología y Epistemología Experimental en la misma universidad, bajo la dirección de los Dres. Humberto Maturana y Francisco Varela, y paralelamente con la Psiquiatra Lola Hoffman. Creadora del Método de Integración Cognitivo Corporal (MICC), metodología para el desarrollo de la autonomía y plasticidad emocional y reflexiva. En 1999 funda el Centro de Integración Cognitivo Corporal (CICC), un espacio dedicado a la investigación y aplicación del MICC en los ámbitos de la psicología, psiquiatría, educación y organizaciones. Desde el año 2011 al 2021 ejerce como profesora asociada de la Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas de la Universidad de Chile, dictando la cátedra “El MICC, comunicación y aprendizaje”. Actualmente es Directora del CICC, realizando charlas, cursos y talleres en Chile y el extranjero, además de continuar su investigación.

In his foundational 1972 paper “More Is Different,” physicist Phil Anderson made the case that reducing the objects of scientific study to their smallest components does not allow researchers to predict the behaviors of those systems upon reconstruction. Another way of putting this is that different disciplines reveal different truths at different scales. Contrary to long-held convictions that there would one day be one great unifying theory to explain it all, fundamental research in this century looks more like a bouquet of complementary approaches. This pluralistic thinking hearkens back to the work of 19th century psychologist William James and looks forward into the growing popularity of evidence-based approaches that cultivate diversity in team-building, governance, and ecological systems. Context-dependent theory and practice calls for choirs of voices…so how do we encourage this? New systems must emerge to handle the complexity of digital society…what might they look like?Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.This week on the show we dip back into our sub-series on SFI's Emergent Political Economies research theme with a trialogue featuring Microsoft Research Lead Glen Weyl (founder of RadicalXChange and founder-chair of The Plurality Institute), and SFI Resident Professor Cristopher Moore (author of over 150 papers at the intersection of physics and computer science). In our conversation we discuss the case for a radically pluralistic approach, explore the links between plurality and quantum mechanics, and outline potential technological solutions to the “sense-making” problems of the 21st century.Be sure to check out our extensive show notes with links to all our references at complexity.simplecast.com. If you value our research and communication efforts, please subscribe, rate and review us at Apple Podcasts or Spotify, and consider making a donation — or finding other ways to engage with us, including our upcoming program for Undergraduate Complexity Research, our new SFI Press book Ex Machina by John H. Miller, and an open postdoctoral fellowship in Belief Dynamics — at santafe.edu/engage.Thank you for listening!Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInReferenced & Related WorksWhy I Am A Pluralistby Glen WeylReflecting on A Possible Quadratic Wormhole between Quantum Mechanics and Pluralityby Michael Freedman, Michal Fabinger, Glen WeylDecentralized Society: Finding Web3's Soulby Glen Weyl, Puja Ohlhaver, Vitalik ButerinAI is an Ideology, Not a Technologyby Glen Weyl & Jaron LanierHow Civic Technology Can Help Stop a Pandemicby Jaron Lanier & Glen WeylA Flexible Design for Funding Public Goodsby Vitalik Buterin, Zöe Hitzig, Glen WeylEquality of Power and Fair Public Decision-makingby Nicole Immorlica, Benjamin Plautt, Glen WeylScale and information-processing thresholds in Holocene social evolutionby Jaeweon Shin, Michael Holton Price, David Wolpert, Hajime Shimao, Brendan Tracey & Timothy Kohler Toward a Connected Societyby Danielle AllenThe role of directionality, heterogeneity and correlations in epidemic risk and spreadby Antoine Allard, Cris Moore, Samuel Scarpino, Benjamin Althouse, and Laurent Hébert-DufresneThe Generals' Scuttlebutt: Byzantine-Resilient Gossip Protocolsby Sandro Coretti, Aggelos Kiayias, Cristopher Moore, Alexander RussellEffective Resistance for Pandemics: Mobility Network Sparsification for High-Fidelity Epidemic Simulationby Alexander Mercier, Samuel Scarpino, and Cris MooreHow Accurate are Rebuttable Presumptions of Pretrial Dangerousness? A Natural Experiment from New Mexicoby Cris Moore, Elise Ferguson, Paul GuerinThe Uncertainty Principle: In an age of profound disagreements, mathematics shows us how to pursue truth togetherby Cris Moore & John KaagOn Becoming Aware: A pragmatics of experiencingby Nathalie Depraz, Francisco Varela, and Pierre VermerschThe Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform The Worldby David Deutsch[Twitter thread on chess]by Vitalik ButerinLetter from Birmingham Jailby Martin Luther King, Jr.The End of History and The Last Manby Francis FukuyamaEnabling the Individual: Simmel, Dewey and “The Need for a Philosophy of Education”by H. KoenigEncyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti of The Holy Father Francis on Fraternity and Social Friendshipby Pope FrancisWhat can we know about that which we cannot even imagine?by David WolpertJ.C.R. Licklider (1, 2)Allison Duettman (re: existential hope)Evan Miyazono (re: Protocol Labs research)Intangible Capital (“an open access scientific journal that publishes theoretical or empirical peer-reviewed articles, which contribute to advance the understanding of phenomena related with all aspects of management and organizational behavior, approached from the perspectives of intellectual capital, strategic management, human resource management, applied psychology, education, IT, supply chain management, accounting…”)Polis (“a real-time system for gathering, analyzing and understanding what large groups of people think in their own words, enabled by advanced statistics and machine learning”)Related Complexity Podcast Episodes7 - Rajiv Sethi on Stereotypes, Crime, and The Pursuit of Justice51 - Cris Moore on Algorithmic Justice & The Physics of Inference55 - James Evans on Social Computing and Diversity by Design68 - W. Brian Arthur on Economics in Nouns and Verbs (Part 1)69 - W. Brian Arthur (Part 2) on "Prim Dreams of Order vs. Messy Vitality" in Economics, Math, and Physics82 - David Krakauer on Emergent Political Economies and A Science of Possibility (EPE 01)83 - Eric Beinhocker & Diane Coyle on Rethinking Economics for A Sustainable & Prosperous World (EPE 02)84 - Ricardo Hausmann & J. Doyne Farmer on Evolving Technologies & Market Ecologies (EPE 03)91 - Steven Teles & Rajiv Sethi on Jailbreaking The Captured Economy (EPE 04)

In this episode, Wendy speaks with clinical psychologist and contemplative Amy Cohen Varela. In addition to her work as a psychoanalytic therapist, Amy is also the widow of Francisco Varela (co-founder of the Mind & Life Institute), and continues to share his vision and work through the offerings of Mind & Life Europe. This conversation covers many topics, including: her dual interest in biology and literature; the contemplative aspects of psychoanalysis; skills learned from listening deeply to yourself and to others; how she met Francisco Varela; enaction, meaning, and participatory sense-making; links between Francisco's ideas and Buddhist philosophy; subjective and objective viewpoints, and how we oversimplify Buddhism and science in that dynamic; how more than a decade with Francisco has changed her; the power of curiosity and openness; doing and undoing the self in psychoanalysis; Francisco's reflections on the Chilean civil war, and implications for polarization; the need for systems to be able to "undo" themselves; and Mind & Life Europe's latest offerings. Full show notes and resources

In “Autopoiesis in Systems of People and Machines,” Peter Wang welcomes Paco Nathan. Paco is a Managing Partner at Derwen, Inc., a company that offers enterprise customers full-stack engineering for AI applications at scale, with an emphasis on open-source integrations. Paco forged a career in artificial intelligence when many people were skeptical of it and now boasts over 40 years of computer science experience.   Peter and Paco discuss histories and frameworks that are impacting today's systems of people and machines. Paco touches on corporate law and how long ago, the concept of insurance allowed for the externalization of risk and corresponding enablement of capital ventures. Paco goes on to talk about autopoiesis, the Chilean Project Cybersyn and the significance of groupware, and the core of human intelligence.   Peter and Paco also discuss the increasing complexity of today's world in which less and less is linear, which requires improved cognition for survival, and the cybernetic future. Resources: “A Brief History Of Reinsurance” (David M. Holland) - https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/library/newsletters/reinsurance-section-news/2009/february/rsn-2009-iss65-holland.pdf     Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/     “Law as an Autopoietic System” (Gunther Teubner) - https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/23894 Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis_and_Cognition:_The_Realization_of_the_Living   Project Cybersyn - https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/project-cybersyn/    “Understanding Computers and Cognition” (Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores) - https://philpapers.org/rec/WINUCA   Macy Conferences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy_conferences   Norbert Wiener - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener   “What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog's Brain” (J.Y. Lettvin et al.) - https://hearingbrain.org/docs/letvin_ieee_1959.pdf   Social Systems - https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2225   Niklas Luhmann - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann   Dubberly Design (Paul Pangaro) (When Paco references Donoho Design, he means Dubberly Design.) - http://www.dubberly.com/articles/cybernetics-and-design.html   René Thom - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Thom   “Corporate Metabolism” (Paco Nathan) - https://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?id=corporate_metabolism   You can find a human-verified transcript of this episode here - https://know.anaconda.com/rs/387-XNW-688/images/ANACON_Paco_Nathan_V1.docx.pdf   If you enjoyed today's show, please leave a 5-star review. For more information, visit Anaconda.com/podcast.

This is episode #23 of the podcast and it's Thursday, the 11th of August, 2022. Today, I talked with Dr. Camila Valenzuela-Moguillansky. She graduated with a PhD in cognitive sciences from the Université Pièrre et Marie Curie (Paris), a Master in cognitive sciences from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris) and a degree in biology from the University of Chile. In parallel to her academic training, Camila has a background in bodywork: she has been a dancer and yoga practitioner for more than twenty years, and currently works with touch therapy that brings together elements of the somatic experiencing method and craniosacral therapy. Her research has focused, on the one hand, on the relationship between body awareness and pain, studying the experience of people with fibromyalgia. On the other hand, she works on addressing the methodological, theoretical and epistemological challenges involved in the study of experience from an enactive perspective. She led the EASE network project, an international network of researchers around the development of the enactive approach to the study of human experience and is currently developing the project Multidimensional approach to presence: somatic practices and the study of experience (MAPS). Camila is the director of the Laboratorio de fenomenología Corporal in Chile and of the school A MATHA, escola de tecnologías do corpo in Brazil.Today's discussion has focused on the scientific study of experience - which has been (re)considered in cognitive psychology and some other fields somewhat more recently. Western science has focused primarily on a mind-independent, objectivist, third-person perspective, thus, neglecting, for the most part, the importance of first-person experience. However, last few decades have seen a new critical vision of science emerging, one recognizing the role of observer and her embodied experience in the generation of knowledge. Today, Camila gives us a nice incursion into the challenges of first-person research and offers some suggestions for the future.The second part of the interview covered technology where we focused in particular on its (potential) role in (re)shaping our sensory awareness and reviving our sensorium of lived experience.  Here is the show.Show Notes:- Lived experience; scientific study of experience (and consciousness)- Experience from a third-person-, first-person-, or  second-person perspective- Toward a coherent framework of first-person research (Francisco Varela's proposal)- Main challenges of fist-person research- Understanding memory (from a first-person perspective)- Descriptions of lived, first-person experience (through language)- The intersubjectivity issue of first-person experience- The role of technology in the next 10-20 years in reviving the ‘felt experience'Links to Dr. Valenzuela-Mogullansky's websites: www.fenomenologiacorporal.orgwww.amatha.org

“Living is sense-making in precarious conditions.” Professor Evan Thompson, co-author with Francisco Varela and Eleanor Rosch of The Embodied Mind, offers thoughts on the origins of the enactive view as well as how he sees enaction moving forward. Evan focuses especially on the role that Buddhism played, namely the ideas of no-self, emptiness, and meditation, in […]

Series Description: Over the past three decades, a transformative view of life, now known as “the enactive view,” has been developed and expanded by thinkers in philosophy and the sciences of mind; prominent among them was the late Chilean neuroscientist, philosopher, and Buddhist practitioner, Francisco Varela, for whom this symposium is named. The Varela International […]

In this episode we met Prof. Dr. Antonino Raffone. He holds a position of Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology of Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. As Prof. Raffone stated in the episode: "The Buddha is the greatest psychologist of all time!" Buddhism can offer insights to science in many ways - for example offering very refined investigations on how our self & our consciousness are constructed. Representatives of Neurophenomenology such as Francisco Varela emphasize the complex dynamics of the brain-network. With the help of buddhism / science we can discover insights such as the important difference between pleasure and happiness - a difference that can help us to lead a more compassionate and content life. Further Readings: Buddha´s´s Brain. The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love & Wisdom by Rick Hanson & Richard Mendius The Phenomenological Mind: An Introduction to Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science by Shaun Gallagher The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism meet by Matthieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan More about Prof. Dr. Antonino Raffone See also the shownotes to this episode on the new EBU-website

Evan Thompson is a philosopher and professor at the University of British Columbia. He specialises in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science, as well as in cross-cultural philosophy, with a particular interest in Chinese and Indian philosophy and the dialogue between Buddhism and the Western philosophical tradition.  He's the author of several books including Mind and Life, Why I'm not a Buddhist, The Embodied Mind, co-authored with Francisco Varela and Eleanor Rosch, and Waking, Dreaming, Being.  Today we discuss the idea that all life is conscious, known as biopsychism, and the issues it raises form a philosophical perspective.  

In this guided meditation we begin with contemplating Dogen's instructions on Zazen to “Now sit steadfastly and think not-thinking. How do you think not-thinking? Beyond thinking. This is the essential art of Zazen”. We then explore what we need to practice to be before thinking. What is being before thinking. Following the introduction I introduce three core processes that were identified by Francisco Varela and his colleagues: (1) Suspending; (2) Re-directing; and (3) Letting Go. I also discuss (4) Resistance; and (5) Returning.

“Ecology does not seek connections, but patterns” -Marshall McLuhan “There is no simple linear cause and effect relationship in the emergence of an emergent system as the components that make up the emergent system exert an upward effect on the composite system (the parts creating the whole), and vice versa the composite system exerts downward effects on its components, which form constraints on the behaviour of those components. The interactions of the components that lead to the self-organization of the emergent system are non-linear because of that upward and downward causation. The lateral non-linear causation of the components of the system among themselves actually creates the emergent system. The emergent system then in turn acts downward on those components of which it is composed.” -Robert Logan, 2017 "Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean ‘ecological' in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. **A new technology does not add or subtract something. it changes everything.** In the year 1500, fifty years after the printing press was invented, we did not have the old Europe plus the printing press. We had a different Europe. After television, the United States was not America plus television; television gave a new coloration to every political campaign, to every home, to every school, to every church, to every industry.” -Neil Postman, 1992 “...there is a spiritual dimension to formal causality, as there is to all acts of creation. But for those who prefer a more scientific outlook, let me simply note that formal cause corresponds to the systems view of Gregory Bateson, to the dissipative structures of physicist Ilya Prigogine, to the fractal geometry of Benoit Mandelbrot and the metapatterns of Tyler Volk, to the autopoietic systems of biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and in general to the systems concept of emergence.” -Eric McLuhan, 2011 “From the very beginning of Western philosophy and science, there has been a tension between mechanism and holism, between the study of matter (or substance, structure, quantity) and the study of form (or pattern, order, quality). The study of matter was championed by Democritus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton; the study of form by Pythagoras, Aristotle, Kant, and Goethe. Leonardo followed the tradition of Pythagoras and Aristotle, and he combined it with his rigorous empirical method to formulate a science of living forms, their patterns of organization, and their processes of growth and transformation. He was deeply aware of the fundamental interconnectedness of all phenomena and of the interdependence and mutual generation of all parts of an organic whole.” Fritjof Capra, 2008 “[McLuhan's formal causality and tetrad] enhances media ecology, obsolesces content analysis, retrieves Einstein's four-dimensional space time continuum and flips into the reversal of cause and effect.” -Lance Strate, 2017 Sources: https://old.reddit.com/r/DilettanteryPodcast/comments/s437w4/130_formal_cause_part_2_chairs_memes_graham/?

Daoism can free us from dogma and labels. It can allow us to be more spontaneous and it also fosters deep human connection. We begin to explore changing our worldview to live more whole.

Society is stuck and needs to be reinvented. The future of this podcast is to explore how we can move away from bosses and politicians and move toward individuals with character.

📡 Edgar Olvera, socio de Telecomunicaciones de la firma de abogados Greenberg Trauig México, nos habla sobre la intención del gobierno de la 4T de que SEGOB absorba al IFT. 💵 Joel Virgen, analista económico del sector financiero con sede en Nueva York, nos habla sobre el dato de la Inflación que repuntó 6.12% anual en la primera quincena de octubre. 💵 Francisco Varela, director de Instituciones y Gobernanza del Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad, A. C., nos habla de los resultados del Informe Estatal del Ejercicio del Gasto, el cual muestra que las entidades federativas no modificaron sus prioridades presupuestales acorde a la coyuntura de la crisis de salud, por lo que se propició un mal uso de los recursos públicos.

Sobre el informe estatal del ejercicio del gasto y las prioridades del gasto público, en entrevista con Pamela Cerdeira, para MVS Noticias, platicamos con Francisco Varela, director de Instituciones y Gobernanza del IMCO, quien habló del tema.

Dr. Andreas Weber (he/him) is a Berlin-based book and magazine writer and independent scholar. He has degrees in Marine Biology and Cultural Studies, having collaborated with theoretical biologist Francisco Varela in Paris. Andreas' work focuses on a reevaluation of our understanding of the living. He proposes to understand organisms as subjects, and hence the biosphere as a meaning-creating and poetic reality. Accordingly, Andreas holds that an economy inspired by nature should not be designed as a mechanistic optimization machine, but rather as an ecosystem that transforms mutual sharing of matter and energy in a deepened meaning. Andreas has contributed extensively to developing the concept of enlivenment in recent years, notably through his essay Enlivenment: Towards a Fundamental Shift in the Concepts of Nature, Culture and Politics (Berlin 2013; published in expanded and rewritten form as Enlivenment: Toward a Poetics for the Anthropocene, MIT Press, 2019). He has also put forth his ideas in several books and is contributing to major German magazines and journals, such as GEO, National Geographic, Die Zeit and Greenpeace Magazine. Weber teaches at Leuphana University and at the University of Fine Arts, Berlin. He is also part of the staff of und.Institute for Art, Culture and Sustainability, Berlin, which is devoted to link the fields of art and culture with the field of sustainability, and to develop exemplary models of productive exchange; and was named the 2016 Jonathan Rowe Commons Fellow, Mesa Refuge, Point Reyes, CA, USA. In this episode, Andreas and Brandi talk about the intersections of Love + Death, including: How one of his books helped Brandi fall back in love with the world a handful of years ago. The first time they both remember death becoming real in our lives, not just conceptually, but somatically. How our world is in a century-long struggle against death. The physical experience of aliveness. What biology has to say about purpose. How you can’t just be concerned with your own aliveness at the expense of others and your community. What fermentation and composting have to do with community and healthy ecosystems. How Andreas is trying to make himself more edible. How he’s leaning further into more animistic thinking. The challenge of institutionalizing these ideas at scale. Or, how we might “organize” aliveness. How Dr. Weber practices love in his life practically. Listeners can find Dr. Andreas Weber at his website, https://biologyofwonder.org/ and on Twitter @biopoetics. Get more This Plus That:Sign up for the newsletter.Check out this episode's show notes.Follow along on Twitter: @thisplusthatpodFollow along on Instagram: @thisplusthatpodCheck out the Website: thisplusthat.com Music: The in-house musicians at Slip.streamAudio Engineering: The team at

Dr. Brian Arthur and I talk about how technology can be modeled as a modular and evolving system, combinatorial evolution more broadly and dig into some fascinating technological case studies that informed his book The Nature of Technology. Brian is a researcher and author who is perhaps best known for his work on complexity economics, but I wanted to talk to him because of the fascinating work he's done building out theories of technology. As we discuss, there's been a lot of theorizing around science — with the works of Popper, Kuhn and others. But there's been less rigorous work on how technology works despite its effects on our lives. Brian currently works at PARC (formerly Xerox PARC, the birthplace of personal computing) and has also worked at the Santa Fe institute and was a professor Stanford university before that. Links W. Brian Arthur's Wikipedia Page The Nature of Technology on Amazon W. Brian Arthur's homepage at the Santa Fe Institute Transcript Brian Arthur [00:00:00]  In this conversation, Dr. Brian Arthur. And I talk about how technology can be modeled as modular and evolving system. Commentorial evolution more broadly, and we dig into some fascinating technological hae studies that informed your book, his book, the nature of tech. Brian is a researcher and author who is perhaps best known for his work on complexity economics. Uh, but I wanted to talk to him [00:01:00] because of the fascinating work he's done, building out theories of technology. Uh, as we discussed in the podcast, there's been a lot of theorizing around science, you know, with the works of popper and Kuhn and other. But there's has been much less rigorous work on how technology works despite its effect on our lives. As some background, Brian currently works at park formerly Xerox park, the birthplace of the personal computer, and has also worked at the Santa Fe Institute and was a professor at Stanford university before that. Uh, so without further ado, here's my conversation with Brian Arthur.  Mo far less interested in technology. So if anybody asks me about technology immediately search. Sure. But so the background to this is that mostly I'm known for a new framework and economic theory, which is called complexity economics. I'm not the [00:02:00] only developer of that, but certainly one of the fathers, well, grandfather, one of the fathers, definitely. I was thinking one of the co-conspirators I think every new scientific theory like starts off as a little bit of a conspiracy. Yes, yes, absolutely. Yeah. This is no exception anyways. So that's what I've been doing. I'm I've think I've produced enough papers and books on that. And I would, so I've been in South Africa lately for many months since last year got back about a month ago and I'm now I was, as these things work in life, I think there's arcs, you know, you're getting interested in something, you work it out or whatever it would be. Businesses, you [00:03:00] start children, there's a kind of arc and, and thing. And you work all that out. And very often that reaches some completion. So most of the things I've been doing, we've reached a completion. I thought maybe it's because I getting ancient, but I don't think so. I think it was that I just kept working at these things. And for some reason, technologies coming back up to think about it in 2009, when this book came out, I stopped thinking about technology people, norm they think, oh yeah, you wrote this book. You must be incredibly interested. Yeah. But it doesn't mean I want to spend the rest of your life. Just thinking about the site, start writing this story, like writing Harry Potter, you know, it doesn't mean to do that forever. Wait, like writing the book is like the whole [00:04:00] point of writing the book. So you can stop thinking about it. Right? Like you get it out of your head into the book. Yeah, you're done. So, okay. So this is very much Silicon valley and I left academia in 1996. I left Stanford I think was I'm not really an academic I'm, I'm a researcher sad that those two things have diverged a little bit. So Stanford treated me extraordinarily well. I've no objections, but anyway, I think I'd been to the Santa Fe Institute and it was hard to come back to standard academia after that.  So why, should people care about sort of, not just the output of the technology creation process, but theory behind technology. Why, why does that matter? Well[00:05:00]  I think that what a fine in in general, whether it's in Europe or China or America, People use tremendous amount of technology. If you ask the average person, what technology is, they tell you it's their smartphone, or it's catch a tree in their cars or something, but they're, most people are contend to make heavy use of technology of, I count everything from frying pans or cars but we make directly or indirectly, enormously heavy use of technology. And we don't think about where it comes from. And so there's a few kind of tendencies and biases, you know we watch we have incredibly good retinal displays these days on our computers. [00:06:00] We can do marvelous things with our smartphone. We switch on GPS and our cars, and very shortly that we won't have to drive at all presumably in a few years. And so all of this technology is doing marvelous things, but for some strange reason, We take it for granted in the sense, we're not that curious as to how it works. People trend in engineering is I am, or I can actually tell you that throughout my entire life, I've been interested in how things work, how technology works, even if it's just something like radios. I remember when I was 10, I like many other kids. I, I constructed a radio and a few instructions. I was very curious how all that worked and but people in general are not curious. So I [00:07:00] invite them quite often to do the following thought experiments. Sometimes them giving talks. All right. Technology. Well, it's an important, yeah, sort of does it matter? Probably while I would matter. And a lot of people manage to be mildly hostile to technology, but there are some of the heaviest users they're blogging on there on Facebook and railing about technology and then getting into their tech late and cars and things like that. So the thought experiment I like to pose to people is imagine you wake up one morning. And for some really weird or malign reason, all your technology is to super weird. So you wake up in your PJ's and you stagger off to the bathroom, but the toilet, [00:08:00] you trying to wash your hands or brush your teeth. That is no sink in the bathroom. There's no running water. You scratch your head and just sort of shrugged in you go off to make coffee, but there's no coffee maker, et cetera. You, in this aspiration, you leave your house and go to clinch your car to go to work. But there's no car. In fact, there's no gas stations. In fact, there's no cars on the roads. In fact, there's no roads and there's no buildings downtown and you're just standing there and naked fields. And wondering, where does this all go? And really what's happened in this weird Saifai set up is that let's say all technologies that were cooked up after say 1300. So what would that be? The last 700 years or so? I've disappeared. And and you've [00:09:00] just left there and. People then said to me, well, I mean, wouldn't there have been technologies then. Sure. So you know how to, if you're a really good architect, you might know how to build cathedrals. You might know how to do some stone bridges. You might know how to produce linen so that you're not walking around with any proper warm clothes and so on. But our whole, my point is that if you took away everything invented. So in the last few hundred years, our modern world or disappear, and you could say, well, we have science, Peter, but without technology, you wouldn't have any instruments to measure anything. There'd be no telescopes. Well, we still have our conceptual ideas. Well, we would still vote Republican or not as the case may be. Yeah, you'd have, and I'd still have my family. Yeah. But how long are your kids gonna [00:10:00] live? Because no modern medicine. Yeah, et cetera. So my point is that not only does technology influence us, it creates our entire world. And yet we take this thing that creates our entire world. Totally. For granted, I'd say by and large, there are plenty of people who are fascinated like you or me, but we tend to take it for granted. And so there isn't much curiosity about technology. And when I started to look into this seriously, I find that there's no ology of technology. There's theories about where science comes from and there's theories about music musicology and theories, endless theories about architecture and, and even theology. But there isn't a very [00:11:00] well-developed set of ideas or theories on what technology is when, where it comes from. Now, if you know, this area is a, was that true? On Thur, you know, I could mention 20 books on it and Stanford library, but when I went to look for them, I couldn't find very much compared with other fields, archi, ology, or petrol energy, you name it technology or knowledge. It was, I went to talk to a wonderful engineer in Stanford. I'm sure he's no longer alive. Cause this was about 15 years ago. He was 95 or so if I couldn't remember his name it's an Italian name, just a second. I brought this to prompts. Just a sec. I'm being sent to you. I remember his name and [00:12:00] make it the first name for him. Yeah. Walter VIN sent him. So I went to see one it's rarely top-notch aerospace engineers of the 20th century had lunch with them. And I said, have engineers themselves worked out a theory of the foundations of their subject. And he looked, he sort of looked slightly embarrassed. He says, no. I said, why not? And he paused. He was very honest. He just paused. And he says, engineers like problems they can solve. It's. So compared with other fields, there isn't as much thinking about what technology is or how it evolves over time, where it comes from how invention works. We've a theory of how new species come into existence since 1859 and Darwin. [00:13:00] We don't have much for theory at all. At least. This was 10, 15 years ago about how new technologies come into being. I started to think about this. And I reflected a lot because I was writing this book and people said, what are you writing about? I said, technology that is always followed by Y you know, I mean, I could say I was maybe writing the history of baseball. Nobody would've said why, but Y you know, what could be interesting about that? And I reflected further that and I argue in my book, the nature of technology, I reflected that technology's not just the backdrop or the whole foundation of our lives. We depend on it 200 years ago, the average length of life, might've been 55 in this country, or 45. [00:14:00] Now it's 80 something. And maybe that's an, a bad year, like the last year. So, and that's technology, medical technology. We've really good diagnostics, great instruments very good methods, surgical procedures. Those are all technology. And by and large, they assure you fairly well that if you're born this year in normal circumstances, Reasonably the normal circumstance through born, let's say this decade, that's with reasonable, lucky to live, to see your grandchildren and you might live to see them get married. So life is a lot longer. So I began to wonder who did research technology and strangely enough maybe not that strangely, it turns out to be if not engineers, a lot sociologists and economists. [00:15:00] And then I began to observe something further in that one was that a lot of people. So wondering about how things change and evolve had really interesting thoughts about how science, what science is and how that evolves. And so that like Thomas Kuhn's, there are many people speculated in that direction, whether they're correct or not. And that's very insightful, but with technology itself I discovered that the people writing about it were historians associates, which is an economist and nearly, always, they talked about it in general. We have the age off the steam engines or when railroads came along, they allowed the expansion of the entire United States Konami that connected his coast and west coast and [00:16:00] so on. So they're treating the technology has sort of like an exogenous effect sent there and they were treating that also. I discovered there's some brilliant books by economic historians and sociologists add constant is one. He wrote about the turbo chapter, super good studies about Silicon valley, how the internet started and so on. So I don't want to make too sweeping the statement here, but by and large, I came to realize that nobody looked inside technologies. So this is if you were set in the 1750s and by ology certain biologists, they would have been called social scientists, natural philosophers. That's right. Thank you. They would have been called natural philosophers and they would have been interested in if they were interested [00:17:00] in different species, say giraffes and Zebras and armadillos or something. It was as if they were trying to understand these from just looking outside. And it wasn't until a few decades later, the 1790s, the time of George cookie that people started to do. And that to me is, and they find striking similarities. So something might be a Bengal tiger and something might be some form of cheetah. And you could see very similar structures and postulate as Darwin's grandfather did that. There might be some relation as to how they evolved some evolutionary tree. By time, Darwin was writing. He wasn't that interested in evolution. He was interested in how new species are formed. So I began to realize that in [00:18:00] technology, people just by and large looking at the technology from the outside, and it didn't tell you much. I was at a seminar. I remember in Stanford where it was on technology every week. And somebody decided that they would talk about modems. Those are the items that just connect your PC. The wireless internet. And they're now unheard of actually they're built into your machine. I'm sure. And we talked for an hour and a half about modems or with an expert who from Silicon valley who'd been behind and venting. These never was the question asked, how does it work? Really? Yeah. Did, did everybody assume that everybody else knew how it worked? No. Oh, they just didn't care. No, no. Yeah, not quiet. It was [00:19:00] more, you didn't open the box. You assume there was a modem who is adopting modems. How fast were modems, what was the efficiency of modems? How would they change the economy? What was in the box itself by and large was never asked about now there are exceptions. There are some economists who really do get inside, but I remember one of my friends late Nate Rosenberg, superb economist of technological history here at Stanford. Rude poop called inside the black box, but he didn't even in that book, he didn't really open up too many technologies. So then I began to realize that people really didn't understand much about biology or zoology or evolution for that matter until this began to open up or can [00:20:00] isms and see similarities between species of toads and start to wonder how these different species had come about by getting inside. So to S set up my book, I decided that the key thing I was going to do, I didn't mention it much in the book, but was to get inside technologies. So if I wanted to talk about jet engines, I, wasn't just going to talk about thrust and about manufacturers and about people who brought it into being, I was going to talk about, you know heat pumps, exactly Sur anti surge systems for compressors different types of combustion systems and materials whole trains of compressors. Oh, assemblies of compressors the details of turbines that drove the compressors. [00:21:00] And I found that in technology, after technology, once you opened it up, you discovered many of the same components. Yeah. So let me hold that thought for a moment. I thought it was amazing that when you look at technologies from the outside, you know, see canoes and giraffes, they don't look at all similar legs. Yeah. But they all have the same thing, basic construction there. And then their case, their memos, and they have skeleton their vertebrates or et cetera, whatever they are or something. And so in technologies, I decided quite early on with the book that I would understand maybe 25 or so technology is pretty well. And of those [00:22:00] I'd understand at least a dozen very well, indeed, meaning spending maybe years trying to. Understand certain technologies are understanding. And and then what I was going to do is to see how they had come into being and what could be said about them, but from particular sources. So I remember calling up the chief engineer on the Boeing 7 47 and asking them questions personally, the cool thing about technology, unlike evolution is that we can actually go and talk to the people who made it right. If they're still alive. Yes. And so, so, so I decided that it would be important to get inside technologies. When I did that, I began to realize that I was seeing the same components [00:23:00] again and again. So in some industrial system, safe for pumping air into coal mines or something, fresh air, you'd see compressors taking in their piping, it done. And and yeah. Again, and again, you see piston engines or steam engines, or sometimes turbines powering something on the outside. They may look very different on the inside. You are seeing the same things again, again, and I reflected that in biology and say, and yeah, in biology save mammals we have roughly the same numbers of genes, very roughly it's kind of, we have a Lego kit of genes, maybe 23,000 case of humans slightly differently for other creatures. [00:24:00] And these genes were put together to express proteins and express different bone structures, skeletal structures, organs in different ways, but they were all put together or originated from roughly the same set of pieces put together differently or expressed differently, actuated differently. They would result in different animals. And I started to see the same thing with technology. So again, you take some. You take maybe in the 1880s some kind of a threshing machine or harvester that worked on steam summer inside. There there'd be a boiler. There'd be crying, Serbia steam engine. If you looked into railway locomotive, you'd see much the [00:25:00] same thing, polars and cranks, and the steam engine there be a place to keep fuel and to feed it with a coal or whatever it was operating on. So once I started to look inside technologies, I realized it was very different set of things that there's ceased to become a mystery. And so the whole theme of what I was looking at was see if I can get this into one sentence. Technologies are means to human purposes normally created from existing components at hand. So if I want to put up some structures and Kuala lumper, which is a high level high rise building, I've got all the pieces I needed. Pre-stressed concrete, whatever posts are needed to create. [00:26:00] Fundations the kinds of bolts and fasteners the do fastened together, concrete, high rise, cranes, and equipment et cetera. Assemblies made of steel to reinforce the whole thing and to make sure the structure stands properly. It's not so much of these are all standardized, but the type of technology, every technology I thought is made with pieces and parts, and they tend to come from the same toolbox used in different ways. They may be in Kuala, lumper used in Seattle's slightly different ways, but the whole idea was the same. So it's technology then cease to be a mystery. It was matter of combining or putting together things from a Lego sets in M where [00:27:00] I grew up in the UK. We'd call them mechano sets. What are they called here? Erector sets or, well, I mean, Legos are, or, but like, I mean, there's, there's metal ones, the metal ones. I think the metal ones are erector sets. There's also like the wood ones that are tinker toys. Anyway, I like Legos, like, like I'm kinda like, okay. Okay. So, and that goes and yeah. And then you could get different sorts of Lego sets. You know, a few were working in high pressure, high temperature, it'd be different types of things of you're working in construction. There'd be a different set of Lego blocks for that. I don't want to say this is all trivial. It's not a matter of just throwing together these things. There's a very, very high art behind it, but it is not these things being born in somebody's attic. And in fact [00:28:00] of you were sitting here and what used to be Xerox park and Xerox graphy was invented by not by Mr. Xerox. Anyway, somewhere in here, but xerography was invented by someone who knew a lot about processes. A lot about paper, a lot about chemical processes, a lot about developing things. And shining light on paper and then using that maybe chemically at first and in modern Sarah Buffy. Electrostatically. Yeah. And so what could born was rarely reflecting light known component of marks on paper, thinking of a copier machine focused with a lot of lenses, [00:29:00] well-known onto something that was fairly new, which was called a Xerox drum. And that was electrostatically charged. And so you arranged that the light effected the electrostatic charges on the Xerox drum and those electrostatic as the drum revolved, it picked up particles of printing, ink like dust and where being differentially charged, and then imprinted that on paper and then fused it. All of those pieces were known. It's and it's not a matter of someone. I think mine's name is Carlson by the way. It's not a matter of what's somebody working in an attic that guy actually, who was more like that, but usually it's a small team of [00:30:00] people who are, who see a principal to do something to say, okay, you know, we want to copy something. Alright. But it could, you know cathode Ray tube and maybe it could project it on to that. And then there might be electrons sensitive or heat sensitive paper, and it could make her copies that way. But certainly in here Xerox itself for zero park, the idea was to say, let's use an electrostatic method combined with Potter and a lot of optics to ride on a Xerox drum and then fuse that under high heat into something that, where the particles stuck to paper. So all of those things were known and given. So I guess there's sorry. There's, there's so many different directions that I, that I want to go. One. [00:31:00] So sort of just like on the idea of modularity for technology. Yeah. It feels like there's both I guess it feels like there's almost like two kinds of modularity. One is the modularity where you, you take a slice in time and you sort of break the technology down into the different components. Yeah. And then there's almost like modularity through time that, that progresses over time where you have to combine sort of different ideas, but it doesn't necessarily, but like those ideas are not necessarily like contained in the technology or there's like precursor technology, like for example there's you have the, the moving assembly line. Right. Which was a technology that was you originally for like butchering meat. Yup. Right. And so you had, you had car manufacturing [00:32:00] and then you had like a moving assembly line. Yep. And then Henry Ford came along and sort of like fused those together. And that feels like a different kind of modularity from the modularity of. Of like looking at the components of technology, M I D do you think that they're actually the same thing? How do you, how do you think about those sort of two types of modularity? I'm not quite sure what the difference is. So, so the, the Henry T I guess like the, the, the, the, the Ford factory did not, doesn't contain a slaughter house. Right. It contains like some components from the slider house. And some components, I guess. Let's see, I think, like, [00:33:00] this is like, I, I was like, sort of like thinking through this, it feels like, like when, when you think of like the sort of like intellectual lineages of technology the, like a technology does not always contain the thing that inspires it, I guess is and so, so there's this kind of like evolution over time of like, almost like the intellectual lineage of a technology that is not necessarily the same as like the. Correct evolutions of the final components of that technology like for yeah. Does that, does that make sense? Like th th th or am I just like, am I seeing a difference where there, there is no difference which could be completely possible? Well, I'm not sure. I think maybe the latter, let me see if I can explain the way I see it, please stop me again. If it [00:34:00] doesn't fit with what you're talking about. I could fascinated by the whole subject of invention, you know, where to radically new technologies come from, not just tweaks on a technology. So we might have we might have a Pratt and Whitney jet engine in 1996, and then 10 years later have a different version of that. That's a good summer different components. That's fine. That's innovation, but it's not ready. Invention invention is something that's quite radical. You go from having air piston engines, which spit like standard car engines, driving propellers systems, 1930s, and you that gets replaced by a jet engine system working on a different principle. So the question really is so I've [00:35:00] begun to realize that what makes an invention is that it works in a different principle. So when Cox came along, the really primitive ones in the 12 hundreds, or a bit later than that are usually made up, they're made with their water clocks and are relying on this idea that a drip of water is fairly regular. If you set it up that way and about the time of Galileo. And in fact, Galileo himself realized that the pendulum had a particular regular beat. And if you could harness that regularity, that might turn into something that can measure time I clock. So, and that's a different principle that the principle is to use the idea that something on the end of a string or on the end of a piece of wire, give you a regular. [00:36:00] Frequency or regular beat. So the country realize that inventions themselves something was carrying out unnecessary purpose using a different principle before the second world war in Britain, they in the mid 1930s, people got worried about aircraft coming from the continent. They thought it could well be terminated and and bombers coming over to bomb England and the standard methods then to detect bombers over the horizon was to get people with incredibly good hearing, quite often blind people and attach to their ear as the enormous air trumpet affair that went from their ear to some big concrete collecting amplifier, some air trumpet that was maybe 50 or a hundred [00:37:00] feet across to listen to what was going on in the sky. And a few years later in the mid thirties, actually the began to look for something better and then. Made a discovery that fact that being well-known in physics by then, that if you bounced a very high frequency beam electromagnetic beam of say piece of metal, the metal would distort the beam. It would kind of echo and you'd get to stores and see if it was just to adore three miles away, made a word, wouldn't have that effect, but it was metal. It would. So that that's different principle. You're not listening. You're actually sending out a beam of something and then trying to detect the echo. And that is a different principle. And from that you get radar, how do you create such a beam? How'd [00:38:00] you switch it off very fast. Search can listen for an echo or electronically how do you direct the beam, et cetera, et cetera. How do you construct the whole thing? How can you get a very high energy beam because needed to be very high energy. These are all problems that had to be solved. So in my, what I began to see, she was the same pattern giving invention guidance began usually an outstanding problem. How do we detect enemy bombers that might come from the east, from the continent, if we need to how do we produce a lot of cars more efficiently and then finding some principle to do that, meaning the idea of using some phenomenon in the case of ear trumpets, it was acoustic phenomena, but these could be greatly amplified for somebody's ear. If you directed them into a big [00:39:00] concrete here, right? Different ways to put out high frequency radio beams and listen for an echo of that. Once you have the principle, then it turns out there's sort of sub problems go with that in the case of radar, how do you switch the beam off so that you can, things are traveling at the speed of light. I just switched it off fast enough that the echo isn't drowned out by the original signal. So then you're into another layer of solving another problem and an invention. Usually not. Well, I could talk about some other ways to look at it, but my wife looking at an invention is that nearly always is a strong social need. What do we do about COVID? The time that [00:40:00] says February, March 20, 20 oh, cur we can do a vaccine. Oh, okay. The vaccine might work on a different principle, maybe messenger RNA rather than the standard sort of vaccines. And so you find a different principle, but that brings even getting that to work brings its own sub problems. And then if with a bit of luck and hard work, usually over several years or months, you solved the sub problems. You managed to put all that in material terms, not just conceptual ones, but make it into some physical thing that works and you have an invention. And so to double click on that, couldn't you argue that those, that the solution to those sub problems are also in themselves inventions. And so it's just like inventions all the way down. [00:41:00] No great point there. I haven't thought of that. Possibly the, if they need to use a new principal themselves, the sub solutions. Yeah. Then you'd have to invent how that might work. But very often they're standing by let me give you an example. I hope this isn't I don't want to be too sort of technical here, please go, go, go, go rotate. Here we go then. So it's 1972 here in Xerox park where I'm sitting and the engineer, Gary Starkweather is his name, brilliant engineer and trained in lasers and trend and optics PhD and master's degrees, really smart guy. And he's trying to [00:42:00] figure out how to how to print. If you have an image in a computer, say a photograph, how do you print that now at that time? In fact, I can remember that time there. There are things called line printers and they're like huge typewriter systems. There is one central computer you put in your job, the outputs it was figured out on the computer and then central line printer, which is like a big industrial typewriter. And then it clanked away on paper and somebody tore off the paper and handed it to through a window. Gary, Starkweather wondered how could you print texts? But more than that images where you weren't using a typewriter, it's very hard to his typewriters and very slow if you wanted to images. So he [00:43:00] cooked up a principle, he went through several principles, but the one that he finished up using was the idea that you could take the information from the computer screens, a photograph you could use computer processors to send that to a laser. The lasers beam would be incredibly, highly focused. And he realized that if he could use a laser beam to the jargon is to paint the image onto the Xerox drum. Then so that it electrically charged the Xerox drum, right then particles would stick to the Xerox, strung the charge places, and the rest would be zero graphy, like a copier machine. He was working in Xerox park. [00:44:00] This was not a huge leap of the imagination, but there were two men's sub-problems in as well. We want to mention, if you look at it there's an enormous two huge problems if you wanted. So you were trying to get these black dots to write on a zero extremity to paint them on a zero Ekstrom. I hope this is an obscure. No, this is great. And I'll, I'll, I'll include some like pictures and this is great. All right. So you suppose I'm writing or painting a photograph from the computer through a processor, send to a laser. The laser has to be able to switch on and off fast. If it's going to write this on a Xerox Trump, and if you work out commercially how fast it would have to operate. Starkweather came to the conclusion. He'd have to be able to switch his [00:45:00] Lezzer on and off black or white 50 million times a second. Okay. So 50 megahertz, but nobody had thought of modulating or doing that sort of switching at that speed. So he had to solve that. That's a major problem. He solved it by circuitry. He got some sort of pizza electric device that's kind of don't ask, but he got a electronic device that could switch on and off. And then he could send signals to modulator for that to modulator, to switch on and off the laser and make a black or white as needed. And so that was number one. Now that kind of, that in your terms acquired an invention, he had to think of a new principle to solve that problem. So how do you, how do you write images on a computer? Sorry, on [00:46:00] how do you write it? How do you write computer images? Print that onto paper. That's required a new principal switching on a laser and. 50 million times the second required a new principal or acquire a new principal. So those are two inventions. There's a third one and another sub problem. The device, by the way, he got to do this was as big as one of these rooms in 1972. If I have my if I have the numbers, right a decent laser would cost you about $50,000 and you could have bought a house for that in 1978 here. And it would be the size, not of a house, but of a pretty big lab, but not something inside a tiny machine, but an enormous apparatus. And so how do you take [00:47:00] a laser on the end of some huge apparatus that you're switching on and off the 15 million times a second and scan it back and forth. And because there's huge inertia, it's an enormous thing. And believe it or not, he, he solved that. Not with smoke, but with mirrors. So he actually, instead of moving the laser beam, He arranged for a series of mirrors under evolving a piece of apparatus, like actuate the mirrors. Yeah. All he had to do was 0.1 beam at the mirror, switch it on and off very quickly for the image. And then the mirror would direct it kind of like a lighthouse beam right across the page. And then the next [00:48:00] face of the mirror exactly little mirror would come along and do the next line. So how do you do that? Well, that was easier. But then he discovered that the different facets on this mirror you'd have to, they'd have to line up to some extraordinarily high precision that you could not manufacture them to. So that's another sub problem. So to solve that he used ope optics if there was so here's one facet of mirror here is the beam. So directs the beam right across the page, switching it off and on as need be. Then the next facet of the mirror comes round switches. The same beam that you want to line up extraordinary. Precisely. Couldn't do it manufactured. [00:49:00] In manufacturing technology. But you could do it with optics. It just said, okay, if there's a slight discrepancy, we will correct that. He did agree and optics. He really knew what he was doing with optics in the lab. So using different lenses, different condensing lenses, whatever lenses do he solved that problem. So it's took two or three years, and it's interesting to look at the lab notebooks that he made. But for me let me see if I can summarize this. There is no such thing as Gary Starkweather scratching his head saying, wouldn't it be lovely to wouldn't it be lovely to be able to print images off the computer and not have to use a big typewriter. And and so he sits in his attic, a star of some self for three months comes up with the solution, not at all. What he did was he envisaged a [00:50:00] different principle. We're writing the image, using a highly focused laser beam onto the Xerox drum. The rest then is just using a copier machine fair. But to do that, you have to switch on and off the laser beam problem. So that's at a lower level to invent a wedge to that. And he also had to invent a principle for scanning this beam across the Xerox strung, maybe whatever it would be 50 times a second, or maybe a hundred times the second without moving the entire apparatus. And the principally came up for that was mirrors. Yeah. And so, and then I could go down to another level, you have to align your mirrors. And so, so what I discovered and see if I can put this in a nutshell [00:51:00] invention, isn't a sort of doing something supremely creative in your mind. It finishes up that way. It might be very creative, but all inventions are basically as problem-solving. Yeah. So to do something more mundane imagine I live here in Palo Alto let's say I work in the financial district in San Francisco and let's say my car's in the shop getting repaired. How am I going to get to work? And or how am I going to get my work done tomorrow? I have no car. The level of principle is to say, okay, I can see an overall concept to do it with. So I might say, all right, if I can get to Caltrain, if I can get to the station I'll go in on the train, but hang on. How do I get to the station? So that's a sub problem. [00:52:00] Maybe I can get my daughter or my wife or her husband, whatever it is to, to drive me. Then the other end, I can get an Uber or I could get a a colleague to pick me up, but then I'd have to get up an hour earlier, or maybe I'll just sit at home and work from home, which is more of the solution we would do these days. But how will that work? Because I et cetera. So invention is not much different from that. In fact, that's the heart of invention. If we worked out that problem of getting worked when your car is gone nobody would stand up and say, this was brilliant yet you've gone through exactly the same process as the guy who invented the polymerase chain reaction. Again, I can't recall his name. Getting older. I can't [00:53:00] eat there, but anyway so what's really important in invention. I think this goes to your mission. If I understand it, rightly is the people who have produced inventions are people who are enormously familiar with what I would call functionalities. Yeah. How do you align beams using optical systems? How do you switch on and off lasers fast? And so the people who are fluent at invention are always people who know huge amounts about those functionalities. I'm trained as an electrical engineer. You're, what's it I'm trained as a mechanical engineer robotics. Oh yeah. Brilliant. So what's really important [00:54:00] in engineering, at least what they teach you apart from all that mathematics is to know certain functionalities. So you could use capacitors and inductors to create, and also electronic oscillations or regular waves. You can. Straighten out varying voltage by using induction in the system, you can store energy and use that in capacitors. You, you can actually change a beam using magnets. And so there's hundreds of such things. You can amplify things you can use using feedback as well to stabilize things. So there are many functionalities and learning engineering is a bit like becoming fluent in this set of functionalities, not learning anything that's semi [00:55:00] creative. What might that be? Yes. Paint learning to do plumbing. Yep. Learning to work as a plumber. Good. A true engineer. So it is a matter of becoming fluent. You want to connect pipes and plumbing. You want to loosen pipes. You want to unclog things you want to reduce. The piping systems or pumping system, you want to add a pump you want, so there's many different things you you're dealing with. Flows of liquids, usually and piping systems and pumping systems and filtration systems. So after maybe three to four years or whatever, it would be a for rail apprentice ship in this, not only can you do it, but you can do it unthinkingly, you know, the exact gauges, you know, the pieces, you know, the parts, you know where to get the parts, you know how to set them up and you look at [00:56:00] some problem and say, oh, okay. The real problem here is that whatever, the piping diameter here is wrong, I'm going to replace it with something a bit larger. So Lincoln's whatever. And here's how I do that. So, you know, being good at invention is not different people. Like Starkweather, Starkweather new, I think is still alive. Knows all about mirrors, but optical systems above all, he knew an awful lot about lasers. He knew a lot about electronics. He was fluent in all those. So if we don't, if we're not fluent ourselves, we stand back and say, wow, how did he do that? But it's a bit like saying, you know, you write a poem and French, let's say I don't speak French. French and support them and it worked, how did he [00:57:00] do that? But if I spoke French, I might, so, okay. Yeah, but I can see, so this actually touches on sort of like an extension of your framework that I wanted to actually run by you, which is what I would describe what you were just describing as talking about almost like the, the affordances and constraints of different pieces of technology and people who invent things being just very like intimately familiar with the, the affordances and constraints of different technologies, different systems. And so the, the question I have that I think is like an open question is whether there is a way of sort of describing or encoding these affordances and constraints [00:58:00] in a way that makes creating these inventions easier. So like in the sense that very often what you see is like someone who knows a lot about. One like the, the affordances in one area, right. When discipline and they sort of like come over to some other discipline and they're like, wait a minute, like, there's this analogy here. And and so they're like, oh, you have this, this constraint over here. Like, there's, there's like a sub problem. Right. And it's like, I know from the, the affordances of the things that I'm, I'm really familiar with, how to actually solve the sub problem. And so like, through that framework, like this framework of like modularity and constraints and affordances, like, is it possible to actually make the process easier or like less serendipitous? Yeah. In, in a couple of ways. One is that I [00:59:00] think quite often you see a pattern where some principle is borrowed from a neighboring discipline. So Henry you were saying that Henry Ford took the idea of a conveyor belt from the meat industry. Right. And and by analogy use the same principle with manufacturing cars. But to get that to work in the car industry, the limitations are different cars are a lot heavier, so you could have a whole side of beef and it's probably 300 pounds or whatever. It would be for a side of beef, but for the car, it could be at 10 and a half. So you have to think of different ways. Yeah. And in the meat industry to do conveyor belts, there's two different ways. You can have a belt standard, rubber thing or whatever it would be just moving along at a certain speed, or you [01:00:00] can have the carcass suspended from an over hanging belts working with a chain system and the carcass is cut in half or whatever and suspended. And you could be working on it pretty much vertically above you both. It was that second system that tended to get used cars as, so things don't translate principles translate from one area to another, and that's a very important mechanism. And so if you wanted to enhance innovation I think the thing would be to set up some institution or some way of looking at things, whereas. They're well-known principles for doing this in area in industry X, how would I do something equivalent in a different industry? So for [01:01:00] example blockchain is basically let's say it's a way of validating transactions that are made privately between two parties without using an intermediary, like a bank. And you could say, well, here's how this works with a Bitcoin trading or something. And somebody could come along and say, well, okay, I want to validate art sales using maybe some similar principle. And I don't want to have to go to some central authority and record there. So maybe I can use blockchain to do fine art sales, in fact, that's happening. So basically you see an enormous amount of analogous principle transfer of principles from [01:02:00] one field to another. And it's we tend to talk about inventions being adopted. At least we do an economic. So you could say the, the arts trading system adopts block chain, but it's not quite that it's something more subtle. You can get a new principal or new, fairly general technology comes out, say like blockchain and then different different industries or different sets of activities in conjure that they don't adopt it then countries. Oh, blockchain. Okay. No, I'm saying the medical insurance business let's say so I can record transactions this way and I don't have to involve a room or, and I particular, I don't have to go through banking systems and I can do it this way and then [01:03:00] inform insurance companies. And so they're encountering and wondering how they can use this new principle, but when they do, they're not just taking it off the shelf. Yeah. They're actually incorporating that into what they do. So here's an example. A GPS comes along quite a while ago. I'm sure. 1970s in principle using atomic clocks. Satellites or whatever. Basically it's a way of recording exactly time and using multiple satellites to know exactly where they are at the same time and allowing for tiny effects of even relativity. You figure out you can triangulate and figure out where something is precisely. Yeah, no, that just exists. But by the [01:04:00] time, so different industries say like Oceanwide Frazier shipping and you conjure it exists. Okay. And by the time they encounter it, they're not just saying I'm going to have a little GPS system in front of, in the Bennett code it's actually built in. And it becomes part of a whole navigational system. Yeah. So what happens in things like that is that some invention or some new possibility becomes a component in what's already done just as in banking around the 1970s, being able to. Process customer names, client names, and monetary months you could process that fast with electronic computers and there most days they were [01:05:00] called and data processing units that we don't think of it that way now, but you could process that. And then that changed the banking industry significantly. So by 1973, there was a, the market and futures in Chicago where you were dealing with say pork belly futures and things like that because computation coming home. Interesting. So the pattern there's always an industry exists using conventional ideas, a new set of technologies becomes available. But the industry doesn't quite adopted it, encounters it and combines it with many of its own operations. So banking has been recording people in ledgers and with machinery, it has been facilitating transactions, [01:06:00] maybe on paper unconscious computation. Now can do that. Yeah. Automatically using computation. So some hybrid thing is born out of banking and computation that goes into the Lego set and actually sort of related to that, something I was wondering is, do you think of social technology as technology, do you think that follows the same patterns? What do you mean social technology? I, I think like a very obvious one would be like for example, like mortgages, right? Like mortgages are like mortgages had to be invented. And they allow people to do things that they couldn't do before. But it's not technology in the sense of, of built. Yeah, exactly. It's not like, there's no, like you can create a mortgage with like you and me and a piece of [01:07:00] paper. Right. But it's, it's something that exists between us or like democracy. Right. And so, so I feel like there's, there's like one end, like, like sort of like things like new legal structures or new financial instruments that feel very much like technology and on the other end, there's like. Great. Just like new, like sort of like vague, like new social norms and like, yeah. Great question. And it's something I did have to think about. So things like labor unions nation states nature. Yes, exactly. These thing democracy itself, and in fact, communism, all kinds of things get created. Don't look like technologies. They don't have they don't have the same feel as physical technologies. They're not humming away in some room or other. They're not under the hood of your [01:08:00] car. And things like insurance for widows and pension systems. There's many of those social technologies even things like Facebook platforms for exchanging information. Sometimes very occasionally things like that are created by people sitting down scratching heads. That must have happened to some degree in the 1930s when Roosevelt said there should be a social security system. But that wasn't invented from scratch either. So what tends to come about in this case, just to get at the nitty gritty here, what tends to happen is that some arrangement happens. Somebody maybe could have been a feudal Lord says, okay, you're my trusted gamekeeper. You can have a [01:09:00] rather nice a single house on my estate. You haven't got the money to purchase and build it. I will lend you the money and you can repay me as time goes by. And in fact, the idea that so many of those things have French names, more, more cash. You know, it's actually, I think the act of something dying as far as my, my school friends would go, I don't know. But a lot of those things came about in the middle ages. There are other things like What happens when somebody dies the yeah. Probate again, these are all things that would go back for centuries and centuries. I believe the way they come about is not by deliberate invention. They come about by it being natural in [01:10:00] to something. And then that natural thing is used again. And again, it gets a name and then somebody comes along and says, let's institutionalize this. So I remember reading somewhere about the middle ages. They it was some Guild of some traders and they didn't feel they were being treated fairly. I think this was in London. And so they decided to withhold their services. I don't know what they're supplying. It could have been, you know, courage, transport, and along the streets or something. And some of these people were called violets. We were, would not be valet again, very French, but so they withheld their services. Now that wouldn't be the first time. [01:11:00] It goes back to Egypt and engineered people withholding their services, but that becomes, gets into circulation as a meme or as some repeated thing. Yeah. And then somebody says, okay, we're going to form an organization. And our Gilda's going to take this on board as being a usable strategy and we'll even give it a name that came to be called going on, strike or striking. And so social invention kind of should take place just by it being the sensible thing to do. The grand Lord allows you. It gives you the money to build your own house. And then you compare that person back over many years [01:12:00] and and put that, put that loan to to its death and mortgage it. So the I think in this case, what happens in these social inventions is that sensible things to do gets a name, gets instituted, and then something's built around it. Well, one could also say that many inventions are also the sensible thing to do where like it's someone realizes like, oh, I can like use this material instead of that material. Or like some small tweak that then enables like a new set of capabilities. Well, I'm not, yeah. In that case, I wouldn't call it really an invention that the, the vast majority of innovations, like 99 point something, something, something 9% or tweaks and, you know, [01:13:00] w we'll replace this material. Well, why doesn't that count as an invention? If, if, if it's like a material, like it's a different, like, I guess why doesn't that also count as, as a new principal, it's like bringing a new principal to the thing. The word to find a principal is it's the principles, the idea of using some phenomenon. And so you could say there's a sliding scale if you insist. Up until about 1926 or 1930 aircraft were made of wooden lengths covered with canvas dope. The dope, giving you waterproofing and so on. And and then the different way of doing that came along when they discovered that with better engines, you could have heavier aircraft, so you could make the skeleton out of [01:14:00] metal, right? And then the cladding might be metal as well. And so you had modern metallic aircraft. There's no new principal there, but there is a new material and you could argue, well, the new materials, different principle, then you're just talking about linguistics. So, so, so you would not consider the, like the transition from cloth aircraft to metal aircraft to be an invention. No. Huh? Not got another, I mean, sure might be a big deal, but I don't see it as a major invention going from air piston Angeles to jet engines. That's a different principle entirely. And I, so I, I've a fairly high bar for different principles. But you're not using a different phenomenon. That's my that's, that's my criteria. And if you have a very primitive clock [01:15:00] in this 16, 20 or 16, Forties that uses a string and a bulb on the end of the string. And then you replace the string where the wire or piece of metal rigid. You're not really using a new phenomenon, but you are using different materials and much of the story of technology isn't inventions, it's these small, but very telling improvements and material. In fact jet engines, weren't very useful until you got combustion systems where you were putting in aircraft fuel. Yeah. Atomizing that and setting the whole thing and fire the early systems down. When you could better material, you could make it work. So there's a difference between a primitive technology and [01:16:00] then one that's built out of better components. So I would say something like this, the if you take what the car looks like in 1919 0 5, is it a very, is it a different thing than using horses? Yeah, because it's auto motive. There is an engine. It's built in. So it's from my money. It's using a different principle. What have you changed? What if you like took the horse and you put it inside the carriage? Like what have you built the carriage around the horse? Would that be an automotive? Well then like, like what if I had a horse on a treadmill and that treadmill was driving the wheels of the vehicle with the horse on it, then I think it would be it would be less of an invention. I don't know. I mean, you're basically say I find it very useful to say that if [01:17:00] that radar uses a different principle from people listening, you could say, well, I mean, people listening are listening for vibrations. So is radar, you know, but just at a electro magnetic vibrations, what's different for my money. It's not so much around the word principle. All technologies are built around phenomena that they're harvesting or harnessing to make use of. And if you use a different set of phenomena, In a different way, I would call it an invention. So if you go from a water wheel, which is using water and gravity to turn something, and you say I'm using the steam engine, I would regard that as you're still, you [01:18:00] could argue, well, aren't you use a phenomenon phenomenon of the first thing you're using the weight of water and gravity, and the fact that you can turn something. And then the second thing you are using the different principle of heating something and having it expand. And so I don't see, I would say those are different principles. And if you're saying, well, there's a different principle, I'd go back to, well, what phenomena are you using? So, yeah, I mean, if you wanted to be part of a philosophy department, you could probably question every damned thing because yeah. I'm actually not trying to, to challenge it from a semantic standpoint. I think it's just actually from like really understanding, like what's going on. I think there's actually like a, sort of a debate of like, whether [01:19:00] it's. Like, whether it's like a fractal thing or whether there are like, like multiple different processes going on as well. Maybe I'm just too simple, but let's start to look at invention. The state of the art was pathetic. It wasn't very good because all papers, well, all the versions of invention, I was reading, all of us had a step, then something massively creative happens and that wasn't very satisfactory. And then there was another set of ideas that were Darwinian. If you have something new, like the railway locomotive that must have come out of variations somehow happening spontaneously, and might've been sufficiently different to qualify as radically new inventions. It doesn't do it for me either because you know, 1930 you could have varied [01:20:00] radio circuits until you're blue in the face. You'd never get radar. Yeah. So what the technology is fundamentally is the use of some set of phenomena to carry out some purpose. The, there are multiple phenomena. So but I would say in this maybe slightly too loose speaking, that's the principal phenomenon you're using or the, the key phenomenon constitutes the concept or principle behind that technology. So if you have a sailing ship, you could argue, well, you know, it, displaces water it's built to be not have water intake. It's got a cargo space, but actually for sailing ships, the key principle is to use the motive, power of wind in clever ways to be able to propel a [01:21:00] ship. If you're using steam and take the sails down you're using, in my opinion, a different principle, a different phenomenon. You're not using the mode of power of wind. You're actually using the energy that's in the, some coal fuel or oil and clever ways and to move the ship. So I would see those as two different principles you could say, well, we also changed whatever the staring system or as does that make it an invention. It makes maybe that part of it, an invention, but overall The story I'm giving is that inventions come along when you see a different principle or a set of phenomena that you want to use for some given purpose and you managed to solve the problems to put that into reality. Yeah. I completely agree [01:22:00] with that. I think the, the thing that I'm interested in is like like to, to use is the fact that sort of, again, we go back to like that modular view then, you're you sort of have like many layers down you, the, the like tinkering or, or the, the innovations are so based on changing the phenomena that are being harnessed, but like much, like much farther down the hierarchy of, of the modularity. Like, like in, in S like sailing ships you like introduce like Latin sales, right? Like, and it's like, you change the, into, like, you've invented a new sale system. You haven't invented a new kind of ship. Right. So you've changed the phenomenon, but yeah, I think the distinction you're making is totally on target. When you introduced Latina sales, you have invented a new. Cell system. Right. [01:23:00] But you haven't invented a new principle of a sailing ship. It's still a sailing ship. So I think you're getting into details that are worth getting into at the time I'm writing this. I I was trying to distinguish, I'm not trying to be defensive here. I hope, but I was just, I'm not trying to be offensive in any way. Wait for me to, I haven't thought about this for 10 years or more the I think what was important in yeah, let's just in case this whole thing that said innovation happens. Nobody's quite sure what innovation is. But we have a vague idea. It's new stuff that works better. Yes. In the book I wrote I make a distinction between radically new ways to do something. So it's radically new to propel the ship by a [01:24:00] steam engine. Even if you're using paddles versus by wind flow. Okay. However, not everything's right. Radically new. And if you look at any technology, be it computers or cars the insides, the actual car Bratcher system in the 1960s would have been like a perfume spray or a spraying gasoline and atomizing it, and then setting that in light. Now we might have as some sort of turbo injections system, that's, that's working, maybe not with a very different principle, but working much more efficiently. So you might have an invention or a technology that the insights are changing enormously. But the, the, I, the overall idea of that [01:25:00] technology hasn't changed much. So the radar would be perfect examples. So be the computer, the computers kept changing its inner circuitry, the materials it's using, and those inner circuits have gotten an awful lot faster. And so on. Now that you could take a circuit out and you could say, well, sometime around 1960, the circuit cease to be. Certainly it seems to be trialed, vacuum tubes and became transistors monitored on boards. But then sometime in that deck, could it became integrated circuits, was the integrated circuit and invention yeah. At the circuit level, at the computer level better component. Yeah. So hope that, that absolutely has I guess as, as actually a sort of a closing question is there, is there like work that you [01:26:00] hope people will sort of like do, based on what you've written like, is, is there, is there sort of like a line of work that you want people to be, to be doing, to like take the sort of the framework that you've laid out and run with it? Cause I, I, I guess I feel like there's like, there's so much more to do. Yeah. And so it's like, do you have a, do you have a sense of like what that program would look like? Like what questions, what questions are still unanswered in your mind? I think are really interesting. I think that's a wonderful question off the red cord. I'm really glad you're here because. It's it's like visiting where you grew up. I am. I'm the ghost of, of books. Oh, I don't know. I mean, it's funny. I was injured. This is just, yeah. I was interviewed a month or two ago on [01:27:00] this subject. I can send you a link if you want, please. Yeah. I listened to tons of podcasts, so, yeah. Anyway, but I went back and read the book. You're like, wow, I'm really smart. Well, it had that effect. And then I thought, well, God, you know, it could have been a lot better written. It had all sorts of different things. And, and the year this was produced and free press and New York actually Simon Schuster, they put it up for a Pulitzer prize. That really surprised me because I didn't set out to write something. Well-written I just thought of keep clarifying the thing. And it went to come back to your question. Yeah. My reflection is this the book I wrote the purpose of my book was to actually look inside technologies. So [01:28:00] when you open them up, meaning have you look at the inside components, how those work and how ultimately the parts of a technology are always using some, none, you know, we can ignite gasoline and a, in a cylinder, in a car, and that will expand rapidly and produce force. So there's all kinds of phenomena. These were things I wanted to stay at. And yeah, the book there's that book has had a funny effect. It has a very large number of followers, meaning people have read that and I think of a field for technology and they're grateful that somebody came along and gave them a way to look at technology. Yeah. But having, let me just say it carefully that I've done other things in research [01:29:00] that have had far more widespread notice than this. And I think it's something tech the study of technology, as I was saying earlier on is a bit of a backwater in academic studies. Yeah. It's eclipsed. Is that the word dazzled by science it's? So I think that it's very hard to we, if something wonderful happens, we put men on the moon, we put people on the moon. We, we come up with artificial intelligence. Some are vaguely. That's supposed to be done by scientists. It's not, it's done by engineers who are very often highly conversant, both with science and mathematics, but as a matter of prestige, then a [01:30:00] lot of what should have been theories of technologies, where they come from, it's sort of gone into theories of science and I would simply point out no technology, no science when you can't do much science without telescopes crystallography x-rays systems microscopes. So yeah, it's all. Yeah. So you need all of these technologies to give you modern science. Without those instruments, we'd still have technology. We'd still have science, but be at the level of the Greeks, which would

Del libro El ojo del observador, contribuciones al constructivismo --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/anarkademia/message

💵💰Francisco Varela, director de Instituciones y Gobernanza del Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad, A. C., nos habla de los resultados del Índice de Riesgos de Corrupción. 💵💰Joel Rodríguez, director general de la Asociación Mexicana de Empresas de Servicios Prendarios, comenta que las casas de empeño registraron una disminución de hasta 25 % en el número y el monto de sus operaciones durante 2020. 💻🖥 Adriana Labardini, directora de Law Technology, ex comsionada del Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones, da su opinión del visto bueno que la Conamer dio a la Estrategia Digital Nacional (2021-2024).

La puissance du Méta-DesignNous avons rencontré Rémy Bourganel, chercheur, enseignant et métadesigner. Le Métadesign a pour objet de mettre en place, c'est à dire de concevoir, les conditions pour que d'autres designent. Et ces "autres" c'est vous, c'est moi, c'est nous tous. Toutes les bonnes volontés, que l'on appelle "les parties prenantes".Au cours de cette discussion, nous abordons la question des solutions pour opérer des changements profonds, soit dans une organisation, une société, une ville, une entreprise ou dans tout autre système complexe.La force du métadesign réside dans la mise en place des conditions de bon fonctionnement d'un système pour qu'il serve une finalité vertueuse. Vertueuse sur le plan social. Vertueuse sur le plan environnemental.Partant du postulat que le modèle économique capitaliste est en bout de course, Rémy Bourganel prodigue ses conseils aux sociétés qui veulent ou qui ressentent la nécessité de repenser leur modèle de productivité. Il voit poindre le moment où ces profils d'entreprise recevront l'assentiment des financiers et des bourses mondiales, les jugeant plus pérennes que celles demeurant inertes et sans réaction malgré les menaces climatiques et les désertions des diplômés des grandes écoles, en quête d'éthique.Il accompagne et encourage celles qui se donnent une MISSION visant l'intérêt supérieur de la Planète, ce qui passe par une attention particulière au bien-être de leurs employés et de leurs clients, sans omettre d'engranger des bénéfices, ne serait-ce que pour contribuer à réparer les désordres des rejets de carbone et à réduire les inégalités sociales.Formé au design industriel et au design numérique, Rémy Bourganel fait également appel aux théories de l'apprentissage et aux théories de l'évolution des sociétés. Pour éclairer les entreprises sur le difficile chemin d'un changement salutaire de paradigme, il fait référence à la spirale dynamique de Clare Graves. Ce psychologue américain qui a théorisé 8 états que traversent les sociétés humaines, du plus égoïste au plus altruiste.Si le chemin vers la rédemption semble long, le métadesigner reste néanmoins convaincu qu'il est le seul possible et veut croire en la puissance de sa discipline pour améliorer l'habitabilité de notre monde. Comme tout bon designer.Vive le design !!Les références et auteurs évoqués lors de cet épisode sont :Donald Winnicott (1896-1971), pédiatre.Jean Piaget (1896-1980), psychologue.Humberto Maturana (1928-2021) et Francisco Varela (1946-2001) auteurs de la théorie de l'autopoïèse, qui est la propriété d'un système de se régénérer en permanence, à l'image d'une cellule, et qui a servi de base au Métadesign.Ezio Manzini (1945), sociologue du design, qui a produit des recherches sur l'innovation sociale et le développement durable.Clare Graves (1914-1986) psychologue qui théorise sur les niveaux de conscience humaine.8 niveaux : beige = existentiel / violet = animiste / rouge = égocentrique / bleu = absolutiste (dominant dans la société française) / orange = opportuniste / vert = relativiste / jaune = systémique / turquoise = holistiqueExemples d'entreprise à Mission :Doconomy (Suède) https://doconomy.com/Smartb (France) https://smartb.city/

Preparador Físico de Deportivo Táchira Fútbol Club Divisiones inferiores (Venezuela) Preparador Físico Asistente de Deportivo Táchira Fútbol Club 1ra División (Venezuela) Preparador Físico de Club Deportivo Mineros de Guayana Club 1ra División (Venezuela) Preparador Físico de Academia Puerto 1ra División (Venezuela) Preparador Físico de Club Sport Norte América 2 da División (Ecuador) Preparador Físico de Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito Filial (Ecuador) Preparador Físico Asistente de Deportivo Táchira Fútbol Club 1ra División (Venezuela) --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/entreprofes/message

En este capítulo, homenaje y pinceladas del trabajo de Humberto Maturana y Francisco Varela. ¿En qué se diferencia la condición humana de la condición animal? ¿Qué separa a un ser vivo de otro? ¿Dónde empieza lo vivo? Además hablamos sobre el comportamiento humano actual, porqué nos cuesta escuchar al otro y cómo saciar nuestras necesidades emocionales y afectivas personales en un mundo donde todos estamos rotos.

So wenig wie Verhaltenssteuerung die soziale Funktion des Rechts ist, verhält es sich mit der Konfliktregulierung: Beides ist nur eine Leistung. Das Recht kann ohnehin nur rechtlich konstruierbare Konflikte um das Recht lösen. Psychische Motive oder die Frage, wer einen Streit angefangen hat, bevor er zum Rechtsstreit wurde, bleiben unberücksichtigt. Dass ein Konflikt zum Rechtskonflikt wird, ist die Ausnahme. Nicht rechtsrelevante Konflikte, die durch ein Verfahren und das Urteil nicht erfasst werden, sind entsprechend auch nicht durch Recht kontrollierbar. Sie existieren einfach weiter. Das Recht kann nicht über den Gegenstand des Rechtsstreites hinaus regeln, ob z.B. eine Beziehung in der Familie oder am Arbeitsplatz fortgesetzt werden soll und wie. Oft beendet eine rechtliche Konfliktlösung die soziale Beziehung. Funktion und Leistung unterscheiden sich auch dadurch, dass sich die Funktion (kontrafaktische Stabilisierung von Verhaltenserwartungen) auf die Gesamtgesellschaft bezieht und es für sie kein Äquivalent gibt. Für Leistungen gibt es hingegen viele Äquivalente auch in anderen Funktionssystemen: z.B. Schlichtung, Mediation oder Paartherapie. Solche Konfliktlösungen können ein gewünschtes Verhalten punktuell zwar steuern bzw. Anreize dafür liefern. Das ersetzt jedoch nicht die gesellschaftliche Funktion. Recht bleibt immer die Reservewährung. Sie wird eingesetzt, wenn Argumente nicht reichen, um einen Konsens zu finden. Die Ausdifferenzierung als autonomes Funktionssystem ist Voraussetzung dafür, dass überhaupt zwischen Funktion und Leistung unterschieden werden kann. Bei historischen Rechtsvergleichen muss die Differenzierungsform der Gesellschaft mitbeachtet werden. In der segmentären Gesellschaft (differenziert nach Familien, Stämmen, Clans) und in der stratifizierten Gesellschaft (differenziert nach Adel/Volk) war die Ausgangslage, auf der Recht und politische Macht operieren konnten, grundlegend verschieden. Da die Gesellschaft sowohl die Funktion als auch die Leistungen des Rechts genießt, wirkt das Recht auf gesellschaftliche Konflikte wie ein Immunsystem auf einen Virenangriff. Der Vergleich ist keine bloße Methapher. Er bezieht sich auf die Biologen Humberto Maturana und Francisco Varela, die als erste die Autopoiesis (Selbstreproduktion) von Zellen erforschten und deren Erkenntnisse Luhmann auf Kommunikation übertrug. Der Konflikt ist gleichsam der Virusangriff aus der Umwelt auf das Gesellschaftssystem, worauf das Recht sinnvolle Abwehrmechanismen jeweils erst entwickeln muss. Konflikt und Virus sind kontingente Phänomene, nie vorhersehbar. Die jeweilige Antwort muss immer neu gefunden werden. Dies geschieht auf der Basis von Kommunikation, die wiederum wie Zellen evoluieren. Der neue Fall ist die Variation, die einen Unterschied macht. Die Entscheidung, wie damit umgegangen wird, ist die Selektion. Das Ergebnis ist die Restabilisierung des Systems. Sollte sich ein ähnlicher Konflikt wiederholen, hätte man immerhin einen Präzedenzfall („Immunkräfte“) bereits vorliegen. Einmal ausdifferenziert, bewährt sich ein Funktionssystem selbst, im Sinne von bewahren. Es stabilisiert sich an sich selbst. Dass die funktionale Ausdifferenzierung zur modernen Gesellschaft im 12./13. Jh. in Europa und nicht z.B. in China ihren Anfang nahm, geht auf das römische Zivilrecht zurück. Mit ihm hatten sich rechtliche Normen bereits als Alltagsbestandteil bewährt. Das wiederum begünstigte die Ausdifferenzierung anderer Systeme wie der Politik, da man dank der Rechtkultur stabile Erwartungen in die Sozialordnung hineinbauen konnte.

Connosco tivemos o Francisco Varela e Nuno Fernandes fundadores da Exeedme, ambos estão na CryptoValey da Europa, que é Braga. A Exeedme tem planos ambiciosos para revolucionar o mundo do gaming, pretendo ser uma plataforma onde os jogadores podem ganhar recompensas pelo seu tempo gasto no jogo, colecionar os tão desejados NFTs ou mesmo podendo […]

The Lindisfarne Tapes are selected recordings of presentations and conversations at the Lindisfarne Fellows' meetings. In March of 2013 William Thompson granted permission to the Schumacher Center for a New Economics to transfer the talks from the old reel-to-reel tapes to digital format so that they could be posted online and shared freely. In 2021, the Schumacher Center used the digital audio to create the Lindisfarne Tapes Podcast. Reposting should include acknowledgment of williamirwinthompson.org. Learn more about the Lindisfarne Tapes here.Varela delivered this lecture in 1978 at the Lindisfarne Fellows Meeting, “The Cultural Contradictions of Power.”

¿Qué es el PIB? ¿Cómo se mide? Para entender esto, Valeria Moy platica con Francisco Varela, profesor del ITAM y director de Instituciones y Gobernanza en el IMCO.

¿Qué es el PIB? ¿Cómo se mide? Para entender esto, Valeria Moy platica con Francisco Varela, profesor del ITAM y director de Instituciones y Gobernanza en el IMCO.

This is a 30 minute preview from the interview. Become a Night Club member and gain access to the full interview - plus so much more. Visit nightclub.andrewholecek.com/join to learn more. For the full interview: ⭐ https://nightclub.andrewholecek.com/interviews/antoine-lutz/ Join neuroscientist Antoine Lutz, who belongs to the rare breed of “contemplative scientist,” in a wide-ranging tour of mind and reality. The conversation begins with a look at neurophenomenology, a term coined by the groundbreaking scientist Francisco Varela, that underlies much of the scientific exploration of meditation. How can we honor first-person (phenomenology) and third-person (neuroscience) perspectives without reducing one to the other. Antoine discusses his extensive research around pain, and the importance of functional de-coupling and deautomatization. We're essentially automatons, running on automatic ignorance, where everything we experience is automatically referenced to self, a contraction/referencing that creates all our suffering. This unconscious process also generates the sense of duality altogether, which could be studied in the lab. Are there neurological signatures for the experience of nonduality – and why does that matter? What is the promise and peril of scientifically studying meditators? Why should a meditator care about any of this? Using science, philosophy, psychology and the wisdom traditions, this conversation ranges from the theoretical to the personal, from the abstract (intersubjective realism) to the practical (how to work with pain). Discover why Dr. Lutz is one of the pioneering researchers exploring the meditative mind, and how this work can benefit the world. More about Antoine: Dr. Antoine Lutz is currently a director of research at the French Medical Research Institute (INSERM) in the Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CNRL) where he co-leads the Experiential Neuroscience and Mental Training Team (EDUWELL). After a Master degree in engineering and a BA in philosophy at the Sorbonne under the direction of Natalie Depraz, he did his PhD in cognitive neurosciences in Paris, France, with Francisco Varela where he applied for the first time his neurophenomenology program to study the neural correlates of attention and perception. Since 1998, he has studied meditation with various teachers including Mingyur Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Matthieu Ricard and Joseph Goldstein. During his postdoctoral work with Richard Davidson, at the University of Madison-Wisconsin, he studied using neuroimaging techniques meditation practices such as mindfulness or compassion meditations in expert meditators and in novices who learnt to meditate using the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program (MBSR). In 2008, Richard Davidson and him were awarded a NIH-NCCAM grant to fund in Madison the first American Center of Excellence on Research dedicated to neurophysiological study of meditation practices. After working for ten years in the US as a research scientist, he joined the Lyon Neuroscience Research Center in France in January 2013. His current research group focuses on the neurophenomenology of mindfulness and compassion meditations and on the impact of these practices on consciousness, attention and emotion regulations, and pain perception as measured by cognitive, affective and social neuroimaging paradigms using EEG, MEG, intra-cortical EEG, and fMRI. This research is currently funded by a European ERC consolidator grant (Brain&Mindfulness, 2014-2021).

Capítulo 23 de Un Espacio de encuentro. Gonzalo Pérez Benavides es psicoterapeuta, reconocido como el máximo experto chileno en Astrología Psicológica y Cosmología Antropológica, y pionero en Chile de la Psicología Humanista y de la Psicología Transpersonal. Psicólogo en la Universidad de Chile, se dedica a la psicoterapia, la enseñanza y la escritura. Aprendió con diversos maestros, centralmente con Oscar Ichazo (Eneagrama), Lola Hoffmann (Jung e I Ching) y Hugo Valdés, Yakzan (misticismo sufi). En los años 80 participó activamente en la Iniciativa Planetaria para el Mundo que Queremos Vivir, junto a líderes como Francisco Varela, Delia Vergara y Gastón Soublette. Especialista en mitos, sueños, símbolos y tradiciones de sabiduría, en 2008 publicó UN ESPEJO CÓSMICO (Editorial Catalonia).

Join neuroscientist Antoine Lutz, who belongs to the rare breed of “contemplative scientist,” in a wide-ranging tour of mind and reality. The conversation begins with a look at neurophenomenology, a term coined by the groundbreaking scientist Francisco Varela, that underlies much of the scientific exploration of meditation. How can we honor first-person (phenomenology) and third-person (neuroscience) perspectives without reducing one to the other. Antoine discusses his extensive research around pain, and the importance of functional de-coupling and deautomatization. We're essentially automatons, running on automatic ignorance, where everything we experience is automatically referenced to self, a contraction/referencing that creates all our suffering. This unconscious process also generates the sense of duality altogether, which could be studied in the lab. Are there neurological signatures for the experience of nonduality – and why does that matter? What is the promise and peril of scientifically studying meditators? Why should a meditator care about any of this? Using science, philosophy, psychology and the wisdom traditions, this conversation ranges from the theoretical to the personal, from the abstract (intersubjective realism) to the practical (how to work with pain). Discover why Dr. Lutz is one of the pioneering researchers exploring the meditative mind, and how this work can benefit the world.More about Antoine:Dr. Antoine Lutz is currently a director of research at the French Medical Research Institute (INSERM) in the Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CNRL) where he co-leads the Experiential Neuroscience and Mental Training Team (EDUWELL). After a Master degree in engineering and a BA in philosophy at the Sorbonne under the direction of Natalie Depraz, he did his PhD in cognitive neurosciences in Paris, France, with Francisco Varela where he applied for the first time his neurophenomenology program to study the neural correlates of attention and perception. Since 1998, he has studied meditation with various teachers including Mingyur Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Matthieu Ricard and Joseph Goldstein.During his postdoctoral work with Richard Davidson, at the University of Madison-Wisconsin, he studied using neuroimaging techniques meditation practices such as mindfulness or compassion meditations in expert meditators and in novices who learnt to meditate using the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program (MBSR). In 2008, Richard Davidson and him were awarded a NIH-NCCAM grant to fund in Madison the first American Center of Excellence on Research dedicated to neurophysiological study of meditation practices. After working for ten years in the US as a research scientist, he joined the Lyon Neuroscience Research Center in France in January 2013. His current research group focuses on the neurophenomenology of mindfulness and compassion meditations and on the impact of these practices on consciousness, attention and emotion regulations, and pain perception as measured by cognitive, affective and social neuroimaging paradigms using EEG, MEG, intra-cortical EEG, and fMRI. This research is currently funded by a European ERC consolidator grant (Brain&Mindfulness, 2014-2021).He is also currently collaborating to a European research consortium investigating the impacts of meditation practices on ageing and well-being as measured by brain imaging (PET, IRMf, DTI, EEG), biomarkers of ageing, and psycho-affective and cognitive behavioural measures (Meditageing, H2020, 2016-2021, study coordinated by Gaël Chételat, INSERM Caen, https://silversantestudy.fr). He recently started a collaboration investigating the neurocomputational principles of meditation (ANR MindMadeClear, coordinated by Hugues Mounier, CNRS).

El director de Instituciones y Gobernanza del IMCO señaló que en el corto plazo, esos proyectos no son la opción para salir del hoyo en el qué estamos

“The accent is a trace of something that does not want to go invisible. Contrary to the way we study traces in archaeology - those traces are marks of something that has gone.” -Marta Marin Domine   From the CAMINOS 2015 festival of new performance works, researchers, academics and the festival audience gathered to discuss: How can performance articulate the condition of being bilingual, and of crossing cultural boundaries? How do bilingual performers negotiate their “border” spaces while resisting notions of authenticity, and othering practices?    In order of voices you will hear, the panelists are:   María Constanza Guzmán, Ph.D: Graduate Program Director of Translation Studies, York University.   Bruce Gibbons Fell, Toronto-based Chilean playwright.   Sasha Kovacs, Artist, Performance scholar, Core/Founding member, Ars Mechanica, Ph.D. candidate at University of Toronto.   Elena Basile, Poet, Translator, Translation scholar, Artist.   Margaret Manson, Faculty of Education, Glendon College, Research Associate York University.   Marta Marin Domine, Director of the Centre for Memory & Testimony Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University.    Carla Melo, a researcher, director and performer, the Conversatorio facilitator for CAMINOS 2015 and current Chair of the Board of Directors for Aluna Theatre.   Show Notes:  Epistemology, the study of knowledge which asks such questions as "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "How do we know what we know?"   Aníbal Quijano, a Peruvian sociologist known for having developed the concept of coloniality of power  Fabián Severo, an Uruguayan poet. Gloria Anzaldúa, an American scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory. Chileans Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela are particularly known for creating the term "autopoiesis" about the self-generating, self-maintaining structure in living systems, and concepts such as structural determinism and structure coupling. J.L. Austin, a British philosopher of language credited with developing the speech act theory  Marine Life, a play by Rosa Labordé presented at this CAMINOS festival in 2015 and later produced around the country.   “El acento es un rastro de algo que no quiere volverse invisible. Al contrario de la forma en que estudiamos los rastros en la arqueología, esos rastros son marcas de algo que se ha ido”- Marta Marin Domine   Parte de CAMINOS 2015, un festival bienal de selección que presenta un programa fascinante de experimentos escénicos en vías de convertirse en algo más.  En este “Conversatorio”  investigadores, académicos y público del festival se reunieron para discutir: ¿Cómo puede la performance articular la condición de ser bilingüe y de traspasar fronteras culturales? ¿Cómo negocian los artistas bilingües sus espacios “fronterizos” mientras se resisten a las nociones de autenticidad y prácticas de alteridad?   En el orden de las voces que escuchará, los panelistas son: María Constanza Guzmán, Ph.D: Directora del Programa de Posgrado de Estudios de Traducción, Universidad de York.   Bruce Gibbons Fell, Dramaturgo chileno con sede en Toronto.   Sasha Kovacs: Artista, Académica de performance, miembro principal / fundador, Ars Mechanica, Ph.D. candidato en la Universidad de Toronto.   Elena Basile, Poeta, traductora, estudiosa de la traducción, Artista.   Margaret Manson, Facultad de Educación, Glendon College, Investigadora asociada de la Universidad de York.   Marta Marin Domine, Directora del Centro de Estudios de la Memoria y Estudios de Testimonio de la Universidad Wilfrid Laurier.   Carla Melo, Investigadora, Directora e Intérprete. Facilitadora del Conversatorio de CAMINOS 2015 y actual presidente de la Junta Directiva de Aluna Theatre.   Bibliografía: Epistemología, es el estudio del conocimiento que plantea preguntas como "¿Qué es el conocimiento?", "¿Cómo se adquiere el conocimiento?" Y "¿Cómo sabemos lo que sabemos?" Aníbal Quijano, sociólogo peruano conocido por haber desarrollado el concepto de colonialidad del poder. Fabián Severo, poeta uruguayo. Gloria Anzaldúa, Académica estadounidense de la teoría cultural chicana, la teoría feminista y la teoría queer. Los chilenos Humberto Maturana y Francisco Varela son particularmente conocidos por crear el término "autopoiesis" sobre la estructura autogenerada y autosuficiente en los sistemas vivos, y conceptos como el determinismo estructural y el acoplamiento de estructuras.   J.L. Austin, filósofo británico del lenguaje que se acredita con el desarrollo de la teoría del acto de habla. Marine Life, obra de Rosa Labordé presentada en 2015 parte del festival CAMINOS y posteriormente producida en todo el país.   All Radio Aluna Theatre episodes are in Spanglish, English, or Spanish. New episodes of Radio Aluna Theatre are released on Wednesdays. Follow and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and wherever else you get your podcasts. Radio Aluna Teatro is produced by Aluna Theatre with support from the Toronto Arts Council, The Ontario Arts Council, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Metcalf Foundation, and TD Bank.   Aluna Theatre is Beatriz Pizano & Trevor Schwellnus, with Sue Balint; Radio Aluna Theatre is produced by Monica Garrido and Camila Diaz-Varela. For more about Aluna Theatre, visit us at alunatheatre.ca, follow @alunatheatre on twitter or instagram, or ‘like’ us on facebook.   Todos los episodios de Radio Aluna Teatro son en Inglés, Español y Spanglish. Nuevos episodios de Radio Aluna Teatro cada Miércoles. Síguenos y suscríbete a este podcast en iTunes, Google Play, y donde sea que escuches tus podcasts. Radio Aluna Teatro es una producción de Aluna Theatre con el apoyo de  Toronto Arts Council, Ontario Arts Council, Canada Council for the Arts, Department of Canadian Heritage, Metcalf Foundation y TD Bank. Aluna Theatre es Beatriz Pizano & Trevor Schwellnus, con Sue Balint. Radio Aluna Theatre es producido por Camila Díaz-Varela y Mónica Garrido. Para más información sobre Aluna Theatre, visita nuestra página alunatheatre.ca, síguenos en twitter @alunatheatre o en instagram, o haz click en “me gusta” en facebook.  

Season five of our podcast continues with a panel presentation from our 2020 annual conference: ‘Engaged Phenomenology’ Online. This episode features Prisca Bauer who was one of three speakers (along with Valeria Bizzari and Francesca Brencio) on the preconstituted panel “Engaging phenomenology in the neurosciences”. Bizzari and Brencio’s presentations will be released in the next two episodes of the BSP Podcast. To begin, here is Bauer from the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy University Medical Center, Freiburg Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg.   ABSTRACT: The burden of neurological conditions is enormous and steadily increasing. When including stroke, neurological conditions are the main cause of disability-adjusted life-years. Modern medicine is based on a strict division between body and mind. As a consequence, neurological conditions are reduced to conditions of the brain, yet they have a profound impact on the experience of people affected by them. Phenomenological accounts are not routinely considered in the diagnostic or therapeutic processes in neurology. I will show the potential of using a systematic phenomenological approach to improve care in people with neurological conditions by taking epilepsy as an example. The main symptom of epilepsy, a condition affecting 1% of the population, is unpredictable seizures, which severely impact people’s lives. Our hypothesis is that through systematic interviews, people with epilepsy can learn to recognise subjective seizure “warning signs”. The recognition of these may help people to increase their safety around seizures, and to regain a sense of control over their unpredictability. I will present preliminary data from phenomenological interviews with people with epilepsy, and explorative analyses of the neural correlates of these subjective seizure “warning signs”. The combination of phenomenological and neural data has the potential to help to improve data-based seizure prediction algorhythms. This study is the first clinical implementation of the neurophenomenological paradigm first proposed by Francisco Varela. It shows how phenomenological and biological data can be used complementarily, and have the potential to greatly advance our understanding and management of neurological conditions, bridging the gap between the brain and experience.   BIO: Prisca Bauer is a physician (M.D) and scientist (PhD) at the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy of the University Medical Center Freiburg. Her main research interests are in neurological conditions, especially epilepsy, and in combining phenomenological and biological approaches.   This presentation is part of a preconstituted panel with Prisca Bauer, Valeria Bizzari, and Francesca Brencio. “Engaging phenomenology in the neurosciences”: Before becoming a subject of study in philosophy classes, phenomenology is the method that underpins all of science. Husserl conceived phenomenology as an a priori science of essences, but it has developed through other important authors during the beginning and first half of XX century (Gallagher & Zahavi, 2012; Moran, 2000; Zahavi, 2003). Engaging phenomenology in the contemporary scenario means embracing the legacy of the classics and also exploring its potential for different fields of knowledge, such as politics, public space, health. Phenomenology is a methodical effort to describe the basic structures inherent to conscious experience, such as embodiment, spatiality, temporality, intentionality, intersubjectivity, and to analyse their possible deviations and derailments (Fuchs, 2002). In recent years phenomenological approaches contributed to psychiatry and psychopathology by providing novel theoretical frameworks (Sass, Parnas, & Zahavi, 2011) and defining the subjective essence of experience more clearly. The aim of this panel is to explore how the phenomenological method can contribute to neurosciences through three different areas of research: to bridge the gap between the brain and lived experience allowing to understand mental disorders as not merely reducible to brain dysfunctions and brain disorders as consequence of abnormal mental experience; to offer a multidisciplinary account of autism, linking the role of the body and intercorporeality with recent findings in philosophy of neuroscience under the predictive brain hypothesis; and to improve care in people with epilepsy by implementing the neurophenomenological paradigm through systematic interviews, which allow people with epilepsy to recognise subjective seizure “warning signs”. The aim of the panel is to present findings already recognised by the scientific and academic community, and to go a step further by showing the necessity of a paradigm shift capable of improving the understanding and treatment of neurological conditions and neurodiversity.   This recording is taken from the BSP Annual Conference 2020 Online: 'Engaged Phenomenology'. Organised with the University of Exeter and sponsored by Egenis and the Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health. BSP2020AC was held online this year due to global concerns about the Coronavirus pandemic. For the conference our speakers recorded videos, our keynotes presented live over Zoom, and we also recorded some interviews online as well. Podcast episodes from BSP2020AC are soundtracks of those videos where we and the presenters feel the audio works as a standalone: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/bsp-annual-conference-2020/   You can check out our forthcoming events here: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/events/ The British Society for Phenomenology is a not-for-profit organisation set up with the intention of promoting research and awareness in the field of Phenomenology and other cognate arms of philosophical thought. Currently, the society accomplishes these aims through its journal, events, and podcast. Why not find out more, join the society, and subscribe to our journal the JBSP? https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/

Urge #IFT al Senado no encarecer el espectro y licitar Red 5G. 🎙 Ramiro Camacho, comisionado del #IFT nos habla del tema. El #SAT intimida a contribuyentes para lleguen a acuerdo de pago de impuestos sin intervención de abogados o contadores. Héctor Herrera Ordóñez, presidente de BMA Abogados, nos cuenta los detalles en #entrevista. 🏘 Francisco Varela, director de instituciones y gobernanza del #IMCO, nos habla sobre las reformas al Infonavit y Fovissste. ⚠✈ La aerolíneas enfrentan el riesgo de parar operaciones o fortalecerse mediante alianzas. Fernando Gómez Suárez, analista de la industria aérea, nos habla del tema.

This week I chat with film-maker Michael Morgenstern about his latest transmedia project, I Dared My Best Friend To Ruin My Life, which takes young adults down a mind-bending and immersive narrative vortex about weaponized synthetic media to teach vital 21st Century literacies and the society-threatening implications of #deepfakes.While I’ve been speculating on the ominous (albeit numinous) social and psychological consequences of deepfakes since my 2017 sci-fi short “An Oral History of The End of ‘Reality’” and discussed the more hopeful possibilities in last week's episode with Stephanie Lepp, this conversation takes the futurist speculation to a whole new level to examine:• How convincing and deceitful information-age fictions pose a risk not just to the fabric of society but even our personal relationships;• How deepfakes will turn the logic of waking life from something sober and tangible to something more like a dream or shamanic journey;• How Michael and his team based the execution and roll-out of this project on an industrial fake news factory and open-source software community;• How electronic media function like a parasitic alien intelligence;• The ethical concerns they had to consider and enact in producing something intended to create good but capable of accidentally causing serious harm;• And so much more...Visit Michael's website:https://everythingisfilm.comCheck out Team Zander, the looking glass through which you can experience this kaleidoscopic weirdness:https://teamzander.comCopious additional resources related to this project here:https://mailchi.mp/24cbc646d833/this-is-definitely-real-let-the-game-begin?e=11fc71d569Please rate and review Future Fossils on Apple Podcasts! And if you believe in the value of this show and want to see it thrive, support Future Fossils on Patreon. Patrons gain access to over twenty secret episodes, unreleased music, our book club, and countless other wondrous goodies as they spill out of my overactive imagination.Big Announcement: I've just released all of the Future Fossils Book Club call recordings from behind the patrons-only paywall! Help yourself to eight newly-available discussions on some of my favorite works of psychedelic science fiction and non-fiction, including Blindsight by Peter Watts; Xenolinguistics by Diana Slattery; Liu Cixin's The Three Body Problem, The Dark Forest, and Death's End; Jeff VanderMeer's Borne; and Octavia Butler's trilogy Lilith's Brood (Dawn, and Adulthood Rites, and Imago).We’d also love to have you in our thriving little Discord server, if you’re interested in meeting other members of our awesome scene. (And if you’re up for helping edit Future Fossils Podcast transcripts, please drop me a line at futurefossilspodcast@gmail.com.)Intro music is from my new release, "Löwenmensch," part of an archaelogical research project on cross-domain knowledge transfer from prehistoric sculpture to modern electronic art and music, which you can read all about (and watch me perform) here. Find it on major streaming platforms at https://smarturl.it/lionman.Outro music is from Skytree’s new LP of spacey downtempo electronica, Infraplanetary, which I highly encourage you to purchase.Go deeper into the fractal rabbit hole of related media we reference in this episode:My new essay, "The Evolution of Surveillance, Part 4: Augments & Amputees"https://medium.com/@michaelgarfield/the-evolution-of-surveillance-part-4-augments-amputees-92075fabd5a6"On Coronavirus, Complex Systems, and Creative Opportunity"https://medium.com/@michaelgarfield/on-coronavirus-complex-systems-and-creative-opportunity-b82e227a22e7"We Will Fight Diseases of Our Networks By Realizing We Are Networks"https://medium.com/@michaelgarfield/we-will-fight-diseases-of-our-networks-by-realizing-we-are-networks-7fa1e1c24444"Advertisement is Psychedelic Art is Advertisement"https://medium.com/@michaelgarfield/advertisement-is-psychedelic-art-is-advertisement-c4b000f4bbd0Future Fossils 81 - Arthur Brock of Holochain on Rethinking Currency & The Future of Distributed Systemshttps://shows.acast.com/futurefossils/episodes/81On Becoming Aware: A pragmatics of experiencing, by Natalie Depraz, Francisco Varela, and Pierre Vermerschhttps://books.google.com/books?id=iYJy_2909NAC&printsec=copyright#v=onepage&q&f=false"A Calculus for Self Reference" by Francisco Varela (DOI, PDF)https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081077508960828http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~larry/recordings/varela_calculus.pdf"The Science & Technology in Futurama That Everyone In Ad-Tech Can Appreciate," by Bryan Bartletthttps://www.business2community.com/marketing/science-technology-futurama-everyone-ad-tech-can-appreciate-01028949Enjoy, and thanks for listening!Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/FUTURE-FOSSILS. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Joe Brewer is a true polymath and lover of Earth! He is executive director of the Center for Applied Cultural Evolution and the founder of the Earth Regenerators network, a study group for restoring planetary health and avoiding human extinction. He is the author of The Design Pathway for Regenerating Earth(which will be self-published soon), where he brings together the fields of complexity, Earth Systems, cognitive science, and cultural evolution. Show notes: * causes of the planetary predicament — difference between learning and instinct * evolution of the human brain and technology, especially language * environmental fitness using technology and building on what came before * human ability to learn culture that can temporarily disconnect from the nonhuman environment (creating a temporary buffer) * disconnected in causality in our short term thinking = displaced causality * if we are to survive this time we will need to spread survival out in space, in time, and in causation * a future that no one can see but somehow still move toward it = we become the past of some future * collapse through the metaphor of hospice * complex sequence of collapses of subsystems of the body * civilizations as one long term living system, example of COVID and shut down as systems * collapse is plural * OPEC oil crisis in 1980 * wealth accumulation is like cancer * collapse of the US economy has been happening for 40 years * Confucius “If your plan is for one year plant rice. If your plan is for ten years plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years educate children. ” and if you’re planning for 1,000 years grow a forest * Aristotle and teleological thinking * the original cathedral is forest building * cultural evolution and design of culture * population genetics * cultural traits * future fitness is our design challenge * bringing sacred relationships to our environment is an essential ingredient * cumulative culture = we can build on culture * cultural scaffolding or developmental scaffolding * David Sloan Wilson and wise management of cultural evolution * regeneration is a dynamic pattern * Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela * autopoiesis = self generated self expression * Janine Benyus and the Biomimicry Institute * real sustainability is regeneration * we need to work with living systems * limits to growth * Joe and his family decisions to move to Barichara, Colombia * having a daughter in this time * what do children need in this time? * our daughter is learning that what normal people do is bring rivers back to life and grow forests * Earth Regenerators Network * regenerating at the bioregional level * local living economies * 97% of our history we lived in small hunter-gatherer tribes evolving with nature * should we humans be here or not? * there is no singular human culture * we (humans) get to decide if we stick around! * without enough complexity and diversity in a food web it will collapse * loss of too much non human species and humans go away too' * should there be too many humans or balance and diversity of life? * “we need to deserve to be here" * The Kogi and pagamentos * debt of gratitude to Tierra Madre * gratitude releases hormones of pleasure * Paul Cherfuka’s addition to the stages of grief: the gift * you grieve because you care * to regenerate land we have to feel what has been destroyed * an ability to love that has no end * The true evolutionary adaptation for humans is teamwork * Your medicine is what you give, it’s your genius * we are the medicine if we realized we are the Earth loving itself * how to live in a landscape - to live in a place you love so much you will give your body to it * where should my body rest? Support Joe: https://www.patreon.com/joe_brewer The Earth Regenerators: https://earth-regenerators.mn.co/ Joe on Medium: https://medium.com/@joe_brewer Support the ATR podcast: https://www.patreon.com/astemperaturesrise Music is “The Light Within” by Gavin Luke

In this episode, Wendy speaks with philosopher of mind Evan Thompson about embodied cognition and contemplative science. Evan is one of the earliest contributors to advancing the dialogue between Buddhism and Western science through his work with Mind & Life co-founder Francisco Varela, and he's spent decades exploring how the human mind extends beyond the brain, throughout the body and into the world. In this conversation, they discuss:his unique upbringing and educational path;his work with Francisco Varela and the beginnings of the conversation between Buddhism and cognitive science;why philosophy matters;the project of neurophenomenology and the integration of first- and third-person methods;the problem of neurocentrism;4E cognition (that mind is embodied, embedded, extended, and enacted);the “self” as construction vs. illusion;how predictive models of mind line up with the enactive view;whether or not meditation is a special avenue to reveal the nature of the mind;the need for more thought systems and religions at the table in contemplative science;and why it's critical today to understand the human mind in nuanced ways.Full show notes and resources

Capítulo 12 de Un Espacio de Encuentro. Gonzalo es psicoterapeuta, reconocido como el máximo experto chileno en Astrología Psicológica y Cosmología Antropológica, y pionero en Chile de la Psicología Humanista y de la Psicología Transpersonal. Psicólogo en la Universidad de Chile, se dedica a la psicoterapia, la enseñanza y la escritura. Aprendió con diversos maestros, centralmente con Oscar Ichazo (Eneagrama), Lola Hoffmann (Jung e I Ching) y Hugo Valdés, Yakzan (misticismo sufi). En los años 80 participó activamente en la Iniciativa Planetaria para el Mundo que Queremos Vivir, junto a líderes como Francisco Varela, Delia Vergara y Gastón Soublette. Especialista en mitos, sueños, símbolos y tradiciones de sabiduría, en 2008 publicó UN ESPEJO CÓSMICO (Editorial Catalonia).

Many of us take our connectivity for granted, but could you imagine what the COVID-19 lockdown would be like if we didn't have the internet? The reality is that only about half the world's population has reliable, affordable connectivity - and Facebook is actively working to change that. Facebook exec Francisco Varela is on the front lines of their connectivity initiatives, working with partners in emerging markets to get people connected to critical information in the time of social and physical distancing. Meanwhile, Joel belatedly embraces emojis and Andrew wonders whether the piecemeal global reopening will just land us back in the same place. And we learn how used car shopping can be a long-lasting crisis diversion. Stay safe, y'all, and keep ya distance.

Segunda parte dos destaques da Liga Revelação 2019/2020. Neste episódio, os colaboradores da ProScout André Zeferino e Tomé Azevedo juntaram-se ao moderador David Fonseca Almeida para discutir os seguintes jogadores: Ronaldo Camará, Dani Costa, Bernardo Vital, Francisco Varela, Carlos Tovar, Marcus Abraham, Gonçalo Franco e Eynel Soares.

How many times have you heard people claim that Buddhism isn’t really a religion, that it’s a philosophy, a way of life, that its spiritual but not religious, or even that it’s a “science of mind”? These familiar tropes are a legacy of Buddhist Modernism, what Evan Thompson aptly has coined “Buddhist exceptionalism.” In this episode we explore these common claims, especially how they have been taken up by Secular Buddhists, mindfulness teachers and even scientists.  We explore in this interview the historical reasons for why Buddhism has received special treatment, with its modernist claim that it is fundamentally different than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism.  We dive into the confused understandings of mindfulness meditation which has been portrayed as a privatized “inner telescope” to objectively view our interior minds (brains), along with the misguided attempt to map meditative experiences onto brain states and neural correlates (Neural Buddhism).  Evan challenges the popular view that Buddhism is compatible with science, and that science can validate Buddhist insights. Drawing on his intimate friendship and collaboration with the late Francisco Varela (a key founder of the Mind & Life Institute) he takes aim at how the so-called Buddhism – Science “dialogue” has been one-sided and stifling of mutual learning. Evan Thompson is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He writes about the mind, life, consciousness, and the self, from the perspectives of cognitive science, philosophy of mind, phenomenology, and cross-cultural philosophy (especially Buddhism and other Indian philosophical traditions). As a teenager, Evan was home-schooled in Southampton, NY and Manhattan at the Lindisfarne Association, an educational and contemplative community founded by his parents, William Irwin Thompson and Gail Thompson. He received his A.B. in Asian Studies from Amherst College (1983) studying with Robert Thurman, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto (1990). Evan has been actively involved as one of the leading researchers and advisers for the Mind & Life Institute. We spoke today with Evan about his new book, Why I Am Not A Buddhist, published by Yale University Press in 2020. He is the author of Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 2015); He is also the co-author with Francisco J. Varela and Eleanor Rosch, of The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (MIT Press, 1991, revised edition 2016).  

Keijiro Suga is a Tokyo-based poet and critic. Professor of critical theory at the Meiji University, where he founded the graduate program in Places, Arts, and Consciousness. He shares with us his translation into Japanese of Lispector's story "É pra lá que eu vou". He is the author of "Transversal Journeys", awarded with the Yomiuri Prize for Literature, one of the most prestigious literary prizes in Japan, in 2011. He has also published five collections of poetry, "Numbers and Twilight" (2017) being the latest. He is also a prolific translator. Among his more than thirty translations are: Poétique de la Relation by Edouard Glissant, La vie scélérate by Maryse Condé, La fête chantée and Raga by J.M.G. Le Clézio, Le postmoderne expliqué aux enfants by Jean-François Lyotard, At the Bottom of the River by Jamaica Kincaid, Girl in the Flammable Skirt by Aimee Bender, El árbol del conocimiento by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, Paula by Isabel Allende. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/marilia-librandi/message

Le 12 mars 2020 - sur les ondes de CKUT - Cette chronique en 2 parties suit les traces de Francisco Varela, un neurobiologiste qui a fait évoluer les neurosciences cognitives en travaillant sur les relations corps-esprit, voie d'une réconciliation du bouddhisme et de la science !!! Après une introduction sur l'histoire de la méditation pleine conscience, Anna raconte ce que l'on voit quand on pose des électrodes sur le crâne d'un moine bouddhiste en pleine méditation : un orage électrique et non un encéphalogramme plat ! Ensuite, la review "Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation" écrite par les successeurs de Francisco Varela en 2008 permet de comprendre ce qui a attiré l'attention de Anna au balbutiement de son intérêt pour la neuroscience ! Découvrez dans la deuxième partie (11.2) les résultats de 20 ans d'études neuroscientifiques de la méditation ainsi que l'interview de Francois Lespinasse, étudiant au centre de modélisation neuronale, Neuromod ! 

Zoom sur un article récent de l'Université de Californie à Los Angeles, UCLA :Forever Young (er): effets anti-âge potentiels de la méditation à long terme sur l'atrophie de la matière grise. Une étude au titre éloquent, qui montrera, au delà de l'effet protecteur sur la matière grise (c'est à dire le noyau de nos neurones), que la partie auto-référencée (le fameux MOI de Freud !) située dans le cortex préfrontal médiant est régulièrement contournée en méditation, permettant  de réduire la dépression. Rien de moins ! Laissez-vous ensuite porter par l'interview matinale de Francois Lespinasse, étudiant en psychologie cognitive qui met en relation étroite les battements cardiaques avec la connectivité cérébrale: un jeu subtil entre corps et cerveau qui fait émerger des émotions ! On reboucle ainsi sur l'héritage de Francisco Varela : un courant de recherche qui ouvre de nouvelles portes en neurosciences ! Antoine Lutz, Richard Davidson, Pierre Rainville 

A experiência subjetiva, que permanece um mistério para a Ciência, interessa cada vez mais pesquisadores, que criam métodos para validar descrições pessoais que apresentam similaridades. A intuição pode ser descrita como essa sensação inexplicável que precede uma ideia ou uma tomada rápida de decisão, sem base racional ou lógica. Uma citação do físico Albert Einstein esclarece de certa forma essa experiência, que todos um dia tivemos, sem saber explicar exatamente o porquê. Ela surge em momentos decisivos, de perigo, ou de descanso. “O mental intuitivo é um dom sagrado e o mental racional é um servidor fiel. Criamos uma sociedade que honra o servidor e esqueceu o dom”, dizia Einsten. A pesquisadora francesa Claire Petitmengin é uma pioneira no estudo dessa temática no meio acadêmico francês. Membro do Departamento de Filosofia na Escola Normal Superior de Paris, ela é autora do livro “A Experiência Intuitiva”, um dos primeiros sobre o assunto, publicado em 2001, e também escreveu diversos artigos científicos sobre o tema. Objetividade X Subjetividade Em suas pesquisas, ela busca pessoas que conseguiram descrever esse estado mental e físico que precede essa vivência, que não é atualmente levada em conta na esfera científica. “Estudei a experiência subjetiva que acompanha a aparição de uma intuição”, diz a pesquisadora francesa. De acordo com ela, os cientistas que analisam os mecanismos das emoções, por exemplo, vão se basear em indícios comportamentais e objetivos, como a temperatura do corpo ou a atividade cerebral, evitando questionar os pacientes sobre o que foi vivenciado. Claire Petitmengin estuda a questão seguindo outra metodologia. Ela faz parte de uma nova corrente criada pelo neurobiologista chileno Francisco Varela, que morreu em 2001, e foi diretor do laboratório de Neurociências Cognitivas e Imagem Cerebral do hospital parisiense Pitié Salpetrière, um dos mais célebres da capital. Segundo ele, para compreender o funcionamento do espírito humano, é preciso ir além do que é objetivo e mensurável. O pesquisador criou um programa de pesquisa conhecido como neurofenomenologia, que busca estender a Ciência à experiência pessoal e subjetiva do ser humano. Para isso, o cientista propôs um método que prioriza o que foi vivenciado, seja uma emoção, uma intuição ou uma decisão. “Ele dizia que, se não temos uma descrição dessa vivência, não podemos interpretar um eletroencefalograma ou todos os indícios objetivos, sem saber o que a pessoa sente por dentro. É impossível fazer essa interpretação”, ressalta a autora francesa. Os cientistas que se interessam pela descrição do que é pouco palpável buscam aos poucos criar e afinar métodos rigorosos e científicos. A ideia é validar o que é descrito pelos indivíduos como intuição, explica Claire Petitmengin. “O modo de validação mais convincente é comparar as descrições de pessoas diferentes, recolhidas por equipes que trabalham de forma independente”, diz. A regularidade nessa descrição –características comuns à experiência – indica que ela é confiável. “O que é interessante e surpreendente é que, analisando os depoimentos, encontramos estruturas e dinâmicas comuns a todo tipo de intuição, ou pelo menos na maioria delas”, reitera. Ou seja, antes do "insight", ideia ou algo similar, existem parâmetros que se repetem. Entre esses traços comuns, está o fato de que a intuição aparece sem planejamento ou reflexão.“É uma espécie de sentimento, pressentimento, uma sensação corporal, e que tem uma forma quase visual”, descreve. Essa também foi a descrição dada por Einsten quando o gênio concluiu a Teoria da Relatividade, por exemplo. “Se as ideias emergem de uma experiência corporal, isso significa que vale a pena estudar esses mecanismos e vivência”, diz a pesquisadora francesa. A descrição exata da arquitetura da experiência intuitiva, corroborada cientificamente, poderá ajudar as pessoas a reconhecer esse estado para desenvolver e amadurecer uma ideia emergente, acredita a pesquisadora francesa. Microfenomenologia As validação dessas experiências deu origem a um método chamado microfenomenologia, que se atém exclusivamente às vivências . Uma comunidade de pesquisadores de todo mundo, conta Claire, se formou nessa nova disciplina e a utiliza em diversas áreas: artísticas, clínicas, terapêuticas, técnicas e até mesmo ciências políticas. Esse grupo de cientistas promove encontros e até mesmo formações, ganhando cada vez mais adeptos. Para Claire, sua própria trajetória, e o desejo de explorar a similaridade desse fenômeno entre diferentes indivíduos, é fruto de uma experiência intuitiva. “A Ciência se baseia somente no que é objetivo, orgânico ou material. Tínhamos, até agora, uma espécie de dicotomia entre o que é cientifico e o que é vivido”, conclui.

Season 10 of the Cinematologists podcast kicks off with a double bill of episodes from the Film-Philosophy Conference held at the University of Brighton in July. Hosted by our very own Dario Llinares the event which boasted an internationally renowned line-up of keynotes and delegates.  Both episodes are made up of interviews we managed to grab as the conference progressed and, we hope gives you a sense of the eclectic mix of themes, methodologies and films that were discussed. Neil and Dario are joined on interviewing duties by Kat Zabecka, who studies at the University of Edinburgh. Shownotes 0.0 Introduction - Dario and Neil Discuss the build-up to the conference. 8:45 Janet Harbord (with Dario) Janet's keynote speech entitled Film as a Training for Neurotypical life explores gesture in medical film, focusing on the autistic gesture as a practice that resists interpretation through conventional means, troubling the terms of intention and agency. 26:40 Matt Holtmeier (with Neil) Matt discusses the video essay he screened at the conference - Vital Coasts, Mortal Oceans: The Pearl Button as Media Environmental Philosophy - interweaving Chilean philosophers Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, and Ricardo Rozzi, with Patricio Guzman’s cosomovisions in order to highlight the complex ecological insights at the intersection of indigenous thought and film form. 37:00 Savina Petkova (with Kat) Savina talks about her paper Real Metaphors. Animals in the Films of Yorgos Lanthimos and the role of animetaphors, Akira Lippit’s eloquent way of describing a non-anthropocentric way to look at animals and animal transformations. 50:42 Murray Pomerance (with Dario) Returning to The Cinematologists Murray outlines The Sound of Silence and his formulation of the "screaming silence" created by the sound design in the famous shower scene in Hitchcock's psycho. 01:10:57 Mila Zuo (with Kat). Mila's paper, entitled The Girlfriend Experience: Virtual Beauty and Love in Post-Cinematic Times, explores the ways new media technologies (and their representations) enable a fetishistic disavowal in virtual displays of feminine beauty and unfaithful love. 01:31:00 Colin Heber-Percy (with Dario) Under the Skin offers fruitful material for philosophical analysis and Colin's analysis - "The Flesh is Weak." Empathy and becoming human in Jonathan Glazer's Under the Skin - analyses the film's “mechanics” of illusion, its deconstruction of cinema itself, reversing the gaze of the viewer: this is a film that observes us. 01:44:20 Lina Jurdeczka (with Neil). Lina's work - Untimely Cinephilia and Spectral Images in Phoenix and Ida - examines films that are set in cultural climates that seek to move on from the trauma of the Holocaust: Germany in 1945 and Poland in 1961. Yet formally their film-historical imaginaries emphasise the co-existence of past and present, dismantling the possibility of closure. Also listen on: iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-cinematologists-podcast/id981479854?mt=2 Website: www.cinematologists.com PlayerFM: https://player.fm/series/series-2416725 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0RjNz8XDkLdbKZuj9Pktyh Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cinematologists

Invitamos a Mario Villalobos K. para hablar de Ciencias Cognitivas: Cognitivismo clásico, la métafora del computador, el cambio de paradigma actual, la cognición Corporizada, Situada, Extendida y Enactiva, y el extraordinario legado de Francisco Varela en las ciencias de la mente. Recuerda que nuestros episodios están disponibles en video en Youtube. Gracias a nuestros backers de Patreon, esta temporada contamos con micrófonos nuevos! Apóyanos en http://patreon.com/SinsentidoC --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sinsentidocomun/message

Nessa conversa, Camila Sardeto e Maurício Watanabe, formados em engenharia e atualmente doutorandos na área de neurociência, dividiram conosco suas visões sobre os estudos ligados à consciência, à prática da meditação (ambos são praticantes e um deles é entusiasta confesso da "shamatinha vagueaste") e aos temas da felicidade e do bem-estar. E ainda contaram sobre sua participação na última edição do Mind e Life, evento idealizado pelo Dalai Lama e por Francisco Varela para promover o diálogo entre cientistas e contemplativos. Com os grandes avanços que a ciência realizou nos últimos séculos, é mais do que justificado que nossa cultura reserve um espaço privilegiado para ela na busca pela compreensão do mundo em que vivemos. Ao mesmo tempo, parecemos ter pouca clareza sobre como as diferentes áreas da ciência operam para chegar aos seus resultados, e o jornalismo click-bait adiciona uma camada a mais de confusão. A dupla também trouxe reflexões sobre o papel cultural que a ciência exerce em nossos tempos, sobre o tipo de respostas que efetivamente podemos esperar dela, e, dentre outras coisas mais, sobre a importância de entendermos que a prática da ciência requer um grau de humildade, de reconhecimento da provisoriedade dos resultados, de disposição para revisões e refinamentos.

Nessa conversa, Camila Sardeto e Maurício Watanabe, formados em engenharia e atualmente doutorandos na área de neurociência, dividiram conosco suas visões sobre os estudos ligados à consciência, à prática da meditação (ambos são praticantes e um deles é entusiasta confesso da "shamatinha vagueaste") e aos temas da felicidade e do bem-estar. E ainda contaram sobre sua participação na última edição do Mind e Life, evento idealizado pelo Dalai Lama e por Francisco Varela para promover o diálogo entre cientistas e contemplativos. Com os grandes avanços que a ciência realizou nos últimos séculos, é mais do que justificado que nossa cultura reserve um espaço privilegiado para ela na busca pela compreensão do mundo em que vivemos. Ao mesmo tempo, parecemos ter pouca clareza sobre como as diferentes áreas da ciência operam para chegar aos seus resultados, e o jornalismo click-bait adiciona uma camada a mais de confusão. A dupla também trouxe reflexões sobre o papel cultural que a ciência exerce em nossos tempos, sobre o tipo de respostas que efetivamente podemos esperar dela, e, dentre outras coisas mais, sobre a importância de entendermos que a prática da ciência requer um grau de humildade, de reconhecimento da provisoriedade dos resultados, de disposição para revisões e refinamentos.

Čeprav še pred nekaj desetletji v znanosti ni bilo prostora za raziskovanje zavesti, postaja počasi tudi raziskovanje posameznikovega doživljanja del znanstvene metodologije. Predvsem zadnjih nekaj let meje na tem področju premikajo mladi raziskovalci, velike zasluge za to pa ima tudi dr. Claire Petitmengin, utemeljiteljica mikrofenomenologije. Gre za disciplino, ki bi ji, sicer zelo površno, lahko rekli tudi uporaba čuječnosti v znanosti, saj znanstveniki preučujejo natančne opise osebnih izkušenj intervjuvanca, kar od njega zahteva popolno pozornost in osredotočenost na to, kar doživlja v sebi in česar se ponavadi ne zavedamo. Prvi je ta program predstavil Francisco Varela, čilski biolog, filozof in kognitivni znanstvenik Francisco Varela, pravi naša sogovornica, ki je pod njegovim mentorstvom delala tudi svoj doktorat: “Osnovna ideja tega programa je, da je nemogoče raziskovati človeški um le z objektivnimi orodji. Do takrat je namreč veljalo, da raziskovalec, ki na primer preučuje čustva, do njih dostopa prek objektivnih meritev: na primer pulza, dihanja, potenja, očesnega gibanja. Prepovedano pa je bilo vprašati človeka, kaj čuti in kako se ima. Francisco Varela je menil, da smo s tem zavili v slepo ulico in da moramo v raziskovanje vključiti tudi točne in stroge opise njegove izkušnje, torej tega, kaj doživlja v sebi. Svojo odločitev je argumentiral s tem, da mora znanstvenik, ki interpretira električne signale v možganih, vedeti, kaj in kako človek doživlja. Še bolj ključen razlog pa je bil, da so naše izkušnje v bistvu vse, kar imamo. Tudi znanstveni podatki so dejstva o izkušnjah. Do njih dostopaš tako, kot jih doživljaš. Ni druge poti do znanosti! Če se tega zavedamo in se ne zmenimo za izkušnje, je to nesmisel.” S francosko kognitivno znanstvenico Claire Petitmengin, ki je mikrofenomenološke tehnike uporabila za raziskovanje vznikov epilepsije, intuicije in za doživljanje meditacije, smo se pogovarjali o tem, kako sploh lahko preučujemo osebno doživljanje, ki se odvija v posamezniku, in na katerih področjih bi si lahko pomagali s to mlado raziskovalno disciplino. Sama je na primer prišla do zanimivih rezultatov pri študiji epileptičnih bolnikov, aplikacij te discipline pa je še več.

Horacio Melo and I have been trying to organize a time to do this podcast for a few years and I'm excited to finally be able to share it. Once the Executive Director of Start-Up Chile, Horacio went on to build his own startup - just two months after becoming a Dad for the first time. Horacio knows what it takes to build a great company; after all, he watched and mentored over 1000 startups as they passed through Start-Up Chile. His solar energy company, Solarity, has raised three rounds of investment, starting with US$650K in their seed round, then adding a US$8M Series A and another $10M recently. Horacio can speak to the difficulty of selling an innovative business idea to conservative corporates in Chile and Latin America, despite Chile being one of the best places in the world for solar energy. He also discusses his transition from corporate jobs to entrepreneurship, the importance of culture in building a sustainable startup, and what he learned as Executive Director of Start-Up Chile. Horacio’s entrepreneurial roots started at age 12 Not every entrepreneur knows that they wanted to be an entrepreneur, but Horacio deliberately searched for opportunities to build his own business at a young age. Despite spending the first seven years of his career in corporate settings, he always found ways to innovate. In his own words, he preferred to use other people’s money to make mistakes before launching his own startup. Horacio learned lean startup methodology during his corporate career before he became the director of Start-Up Chile. Check out the rest of this episode to find out how Horacio learned to build a company long before he founded Solarity. The challenge of Chilean conservatism in large corporations Chile is still a conservative society, despite having a reputation for being innovative. Many employees prefer to not take a risk than to speak up about a new idea and risk their reputations. Horacio had to face this reality when trying to sell Solarity’s unique solar power model to Chile’s largest corporations. Despite having one of Chile’s biggest, most-conservative organizations among his first clients, Horacio still struggles to create a more agile sales process for the company. Solarity’s sales challenges have nothing to do with the quality of the product. Chilean corporate culture strongly curbs risk-taking behavior, meaning no one wants to stick their neck out for a new idea. Find out why Horacio thinks this pattern is just starting to change, and what that means for Chilean startups, in this episode of Crossing Borders. Why Chilean VC still lags behind the US The Cornershop acquisition sparked a controversial discussion about why the delivery startup had no Chilean investment. Yet Horacio’s experience with Chilean VC was different - for the better. He was able to raise US$650K from Chilean angels, and has had positive experiences with Chilean investors in his future rounds. The problem, according to Horacio (and I agree!), is the lack of exits in Chile to date. Exits lead to entrepreneurs who turn around to invest in the ecosystem, with founder-friendly deals and experience that leads to better investment outcomes. Despite having worked for Start-Up Chile, Horacio shares similar frustration with CORFO as I do. Find out why Horacio thinks Chilean investors need to be made “uncomfortable” so they can have a more significant impact on the ecosystem by listening to this episode. Horacio Melo has played a significant role in building up Chile’s entrepreneurial ecosystem through his tenure at Start-Up Chile, his success in raising funding for his startup and building a business around it. Check out his podcast to hear why corporates need to take more risk, why startups should pay attention to culture, and where Chile’s ecosystem is going next. Show Notes: [1:29] - Nathan introduces Horacio [2:28] - Why is Chile an interesting place for a solar energy company? [3:54] - The first step after starting the business [5:11] - Did you always know you wanted to be an entrepreneur? [7:26] - The start of Horacio’s corporate career [9:06] - Does working abroad help you start a business? [11:07] - The decision to shift over to Start-Up Chile [13:00] - Becoming the director of Start-Up Chile [14:09] - What did you learn from evaluating so many startups? [15:35] - Best and worst traits for an entrepreneur [17:00] - Starting Solarity the day after leaving SUP Chile [21:54] - Horacio’s craziest rejection story [24:40] - Did the SODIMAC deal help with sales? [28:53] - Cost of installation in Chile vs. US [30:57] - Experience raising 650k with Chilean angels [40:09] - How did you give returns to your angels through your Series A? [42:32] - What’s next for Solarity? [45:30] - Plans to expand out of Chile? [48:02] - How Horacio builds culture at Solarity [50:13] - Why culture is important [51:49] - Horacio’s advice for himself before becoming an entrepreneur Resources Mentioned: Nicolas Shea on Crossing Borders Zero to One by Peter Thiel Let My People Go Surfing by Yvon Chouinard Un Puente para Dos Miradas by Francisco Varela and Jeremy Hayward Solarity Start-Up Chile Rocio Fonseca - Ex Startup Chile Director Sebastian Vidal - Ex Startup Chile Director, now Parallel 18

What you're about to hear is a live episode of the podcast that we recorded on October 4 in San Francisco. This event coincided with the launch of The Side View website and it gave me a chance to describe the TSV vision in front of a few friends and colleagues. In the first 30 or 40 minutes of the episode, I take a deeper dive into some of the philosophical influences that went into creating The Side View. I talk about the French philosopher Pierre Hadot and his conception of philosophy as a mode of existential training or exercise, I get into a little bit of phenomenology through the work of Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Dan Zahavi, and I talk about the role of media ecology and affordance environments in The Side View's general philosophy. As I mention at the start of the talk, you can also find a shorter four-minute version of these ideas on the About page of our website, but if you want the full back story on TSV and its inspirations, this episode is a great place to start. As always, feel free to drop us a line if these lines of thought spark any new questions or ideas for you. I hope you enjoy the episode.

Welcome back to the Imperfect Buddha Podcast. After our lively discussion of theory and practice, we embark on a new series of interviews for all you Imperfect Buddhas. Our first for 2018 features Evan Thompson, professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, well known for his books “Waking, Being, and Dreaming: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy”, “The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience”, co-authored with the late Francisco Varela, “Mind in Life: biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind” as well as “Self, No Self?: perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions”. Evan was invited onto the podcast due to his 2016 closing address to the ISCS and what appeared as a critical turn from Evan in the form of a critique of the fetishisation of mindfulness and its co-option for neo-liberal ends. Evan also argued for an embodied view of consciousness in his talk and critiqued the idea, popular in neuroscience work on meditators, that technology such as FMRI can give us a full or accurate picture of mind and an adequate picture of the significance of meditation and other contemplative practices. In his writing, Evan explores cognitive science, phenomenology, the philosophy of mind, and cross-cultural philosophy, especially Buddhist philosophy in dialogue with Western philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Evan has additionally been involved with the Mind and Life institution and its dialogues between scientists and the Dalai Lama. Matthew O'Connell is a life coach and the host of the The Imperfect Buddha podcast. You can find The Imperfect Buddha on Facebook and Twitter (@imperfectbuddha). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the Imperfect Buddha Podcast. After our lively discussion of theory and practice, we embark on a new series of interviews for all you Imperfect Buddhas. Our first for 2018 features Evan Thompson, professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia, well known for his books “Waking, Being, and Dreaming: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy”, “The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience”, co-authored with the late Francisco Varela, “Mind in Life: biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind” as well as “Self, No Self?: perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions”. Evan was invited onto the podcast due to his 2016 closing address to the ISCS and what appeared as a critical turn from Evan in the form of a critique of the fetishisation of mindfulness and its co-option for neo-liberal ends. Evan also argued for an embodied view of consciousness in his talk and critiqued the idea, popular in neuroscience work on meditators, that technology such as FMRI can give us a full or accurate picture of mind and an adequate picture of the significance of meditation and other contemplative practices. In his writing, Evan explores cognitive science, phenomenology, the philosophy of mind, and cross-cultural philosophy, especially Buddhist philosophy in dialogue with Western philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Evan has additionally been involved with the Mind and Life institution and its dialogues between scientists and the Dalai Lama. You can find out more about Evan by visiting his site: https://evanthompson.me Sponsor and Music O’Connell Coaching: http://oconnellcoaching.com 'See as the good sees' by Simone Zampieri: www.theleadingguy.com

This week’s guest is one of my greatest inspirations: the historian, poet, and mythographer William Irwin Thompson. Author of sweeping works of synthetic insight like At The Edge of History (a finalist for the National Book Award in 1972), The American Replacement of Nature, and Coming Into Being: Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness, Bill Thompson’s greatest work may not have been a book but a community: The Lindisfarne Association, a post-academic “intellectual concert” for the “study and realization of a new planetary culture,” which anchored in various locations across the United States as a flesh-and-blood meta-industrial village for most of its forty years. Lindisfarne’s roster reads like a who’s who of influential latter-20th Century thinkers: Gregory Bateson, Lynn Margulis, Ralph Abraham, Stuart Kauffman, Paolo Soleri, Francisco Varela, David Abram, Hazel Henderson, Joan Halifax-Roshi, James Lovelock, Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry, Gary Snyder, Maurice Strong, and Michael Murphy were among them. In his latest and last book, Thinking Together at the Edge of History, Thompson looks back on the failures and successes of this project, which he regards as a “first crocus” budding up through the snow of our late-industrial dark age to herald the arrival of a planetary renaissance still yet to come. Bill’s wisdom and humility, vast and inclusive vision, and amazing skill for bringing things together in a form of freestyle “wissenkunst” (or “knowledge art”) made this and every conversation that I’ve had with him illuminating and instructive.(Here are links to the first two chats we had in 2011 and 2013, as well as to my video remix of one of Bill’s lectures with footage from Burning Man.)For anyone who wants to know what happens after universities and nations lose their dominance and both economy and identity “etherealize” in a new paradigm of ecological human interbeing that revives premodern ways of knowing and relating – and/or for anyone who wants to help build institutions that will weather the chaotic years to come and help transmit our cultural inheritance and novel insights to the unborn generations – here is a conversation with one of the master thinkers of our time, a mystic poet and professor whose work and life challenged our assumptions and proposed a powerful, complete, and thrilling view of our emergent role as citizens of Earth.We talk Trump and our future-shocked need for charismatic strongmen, digital humans and the tragicomedy of the smartphone takeover, technocracy versus the metaindustrial village-monastery and “counterfoil institutions,” the “necessary exercise in futility” of dealing with rich and influential people to fund important work, how the future arrives unevenly, and how to get involved in institutional work without losing your soul…Also, cryptocurrencies and universal basic income as symptoms of the transition of the global economy from a liquid to a gaseous state; QUOTES:“Austin is, of course, an air bubble in the Titanic…”“The counterfoil institution is a fractal…it’s the individual and the group, kind of like Bauhaus…it had an effect, but it was very short lived. So I argued in Passages [About Earth] that these entities [including artistic movements like Bauhaus, but also communities like Auroville and Fyndhorn] were not institutions, but ENZYMES – they effected a kind of molecular bonding and effected larger institutions, but they themselves weren’t meant to become institutions. And so Lindisfarne, which was a temporary phenomenon of Celtic Christianity, getting absorbed by Roman Christianity, was my metaphor for this transformation.”“When you’re getting digested and absorbed [into the system], it can either be thrilling because you really WANT to become famous and you want to become a public intellectual, and you want to namedrop and be part of the power group…but if you’re trying to energize cultural authority, then it’s difficult in America. You can get away with it, I think, more successfully in Europe, where there is this tradition of Great Eminences, and in Paris, once you’ve done something of value as an intellectual, then you’re part of it for your life. It isn’t like, ‘What are you doing next? Do it again, do it again, do it again.’ So American culture, based on this kind of hucksterism and boomerism and success culture, is very resistant to that sensibility.”“We’re always a minority. If we look at The Enlightenment, we’re talking about, what, twelve intellectuals in all of Europe? If you’re an extraterrestrial and you flying-saucered into Florence in the 15th Century and said, ‘Hey, I hear you guys are having a Renaissance?’ And they said, ‘What?’ What do three painters mean? It’s still the Middle Ages for them. And so everybody’s in different times’ laminar flow. Some are faster and more ultraviolet and high energy, and others are very wide, slow, and sluggish. And that’s how nature works.”“Each person makes his own dance in response to the laws of gravity…if we didn’t have gravity, we wouldn’t have ballet.”“If you’re running a college, or a dance troupe, or an orchestra, or ANYTHING – someone in the group has to learn how to deal with money. And I think I failed, even though I succeeded in raising millions, by being a 60’s kind of countercultural type who was suspicious of money. I crossed my legs and was afraid of violation. And I didn’t come fully to understand the importance of money. But now that we bank online…” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Join TNS Host Steve Heilig in conversation with Andreas Weber, a Berlin-based book and magazine writer and independent scholar. Andreas’ work has focused on a re-evaluation of our understanding of the living, and the disconnection between humans and nature, arguably the root cause of most of the environmental catastrophes unravelling around us. In his recent book, The Biology of Wonder, Andreas proposes a new approach to the biological sciences, a “poetic ecology” which intimately connects our species to everything that surrounds us, showing that subjectivity and imagination are the prerequisites of biological existence. Dr. Andreas Weber Dr. Andreas Weber has degrees in Marine Biology and Cultural Studies, and collaborated with theoretical biologist Francisco Varela in Paris. His work has appeared German magazines and journals such as GEO, National Geographic, Die Zeit and Greenpeace Magazine. Weber teaches at Leuphana University and at the University of Fine Arts, Berlin. He has published more than a dozen books, most recently the English editions of Enlivenment: Towards a Fundamental Shift in the Concepts of Nature, Culture and Politics (Heinrich Böll Foundation 2013), and Biology of Wonder: Aliveness, Feeling and the Metamorphosis of Science (New Society Publishers 2015). Andreas is part of the staff of und.Institute for Art, Culture and Sustainability, Berlin, which is devoted to link the fields of art and culture with the field of sustainability, and to develop exemplary models of productive exchange. Andreas was named as the 2016 Jonathan Rowe Commons Fellow at the Mesa Refuge, a writing residency center in Point Reyes, CA Find out more about The New School at tns.commonweal.org.

Evan Thompson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, is an expert in the fields of cognitive science, philosophy of mind, phenomenology, and cross-cultural philosophy, especially Buddhist philosophy in dialogue with Western philosophy and science. He co-wrote the ground-breaking The Embodied Mind with Francisco Varela and Eleanor Rosch, which was the arguably the first book to explore the relationship between Buddhist Philosophy and cognitive science. He's also the author of Colour Vision and Mind in Life. He's here to talk to us today about his latest book ‘Waking, Dreaming,  Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy' and how it might relate to the Middle Way.

Right now, humanists across very different disciplinary fields are trying to create the kinds of cross-disciplinary conversations that might open up new ways to conceptualize and ask questions of our objects of study. John Protevi‘s new book offers a wonderfully stimulating conceptual toolbox for doing just that. Life, War, Earth: Deleuze and the Sciences (University of Minnesota Press, 2013) creates (and guides readers through) a dialogue between the work of Gilles Deleuze and some key works and concepts animating contemporary geophilosophy, cognitive science, and biology. In doing so, Protevi’s work also has the potential to inform work in STS by turning our attention to new possibilities of thinking with scale, and with a process-oriented philosophy (among many other things). A first introduction lays out some of the basic conceptual tools and orientations emerging from Deleuze’s work, and a second introduction uses some of these ideas to explore the work of Francisco Varela in terms of a political physiology of “bodies politic.” After this pair of introductions, the following chapters focus on particular case studies, ranging from ancient and modern warfare, to hydropolitics, to the notion of a “socially mediated neuroplasticity” in cognitive science, to the role of affect in understanding the Occupy Wall Street movement, to the “eco-devo-evo” of Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and much, much else. It’s a fascinating study that has much to offer for the reader who is interested in the creative and analytic possibilities of bringing continental philosophy to bear in science studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Right now, humanists across very different disciplinary fields are trying to create the kinds of cross-disciplinary conversations that might open up new ways to conceptualize and ask questions of our objects of study. John Protevi‘s new book offers a wonderfully stimulating conceptual toolbox for doing just that. Life, War, Earth: Deleuze and the Sciences (University of Minnesota Press, 2013) creates (and guides readers through) a dialogue between the work of Gilles Deleuze and some key works and concepts animating contemporary geophilosophy, cognitive science, and biology. In doing so, Protevi’s work also has the potential to inform work in STS by turning our attention to new possibilities of thinking with scale, and with a process-oriented philosophy (among many other things). A first introduction lays out some of the basic conceptual tools and orientations emerging from Deleuze’s work, and a second introduction uses some of these ideas to explore the work of Francisco Varela in terms of a political physiology of “bodies politic.” After this pair of introductions, the following chapters focus on particular case studies, ranging from ancient and modern warfare, to hydropolitics, to the notion of a “socially mediated neuroplasticity” in cognitive science, to the role of affect in understanding the Occupy Wall Street movement, to the “eco-devo-evo” of Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and much, much else. It’s a fascinating study that has much to offer for the reader who is interested in the creative and analytic possibilities of bringing continental philosophy to bear in science studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices