Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

henrikkarlsson.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#51

Post by satvikpendem »

keybored wrote: post #39
satvikpendem wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, in fact, that is actually what drives them more toward physicalism! I think you are arguing a strawman, since no one said anything about being arrogant.

> None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, If they do research and this viewpoint works for them then who am I to judge. I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science…

> I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about).

Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#52

Post by satvikpendem »

llamaimperative wrote: post #43
satvikpendem wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, by using "just," it is a thought terminating word. However, again, I do believe we have it figured out, based on how we understand the rest of the universe to be physically-based as well. It is, in my experience, human arrogance that leads us to believe that we are somehow more than physical structures. It makes people feel uneasy to believe that so they invent something to solve that cognitive dissonance.

Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.” The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.

See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#53

Post by satvikpendem »

walterbell wrote: post #41
satvikpendem wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as we're far from being (just) "biological computers". What part is? Or rather, how can you show that we are not? Note that I use "computer" in the general sense, that which computes, by taking in input and emitting output.

Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory > The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloc…

This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#54

Post by keybored »

satvikpendem wrote: post #51
keybored wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of that relates to what I said though. Physicalists do continue to do research of the natural world, If they do research and this viewpoint works for them then who am I to judge. I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science…

> I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about). Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even su…

> Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points.

Again I urge the reductionists[1] to look in the mirror.

> No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here.

Unless the original poster is a relevant expert like a biologist[2] the point stands.

You already agreed that it is thought-terminating—and justifiably so. I don’t get why you are still here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41054500

[2] Or could range all the way to a psychologist because it’s a pretty broad topic.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#55

Post by bloopernova »

jalapenos wrote: post #45
bloopernova wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After a divorce, I met my soulmate. We're both weird and silly together, and together we discovered that we're both people with autism. We've stopped masking around each other, and we both support each other's growth in self understanding. The passage quoted in the parent comment really resonated with us both. We both know we're incredibly lucky and privileged to have found each other.

Around what age did you divorce, and what age did you meet this person?

Married at 25, divorced at 35, met my new wife about 6 months later.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#56

Post by paganel »

satvikpendem wrote: post #53
walterbell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory > The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloc…

This seems the opposite of what I'm asking. I am not asking how biological processes can be modeled by silicon based computers, I am asking in the general sense how one cannot say that biological machines compute just as silicon based computers do.

In that vein you can also ask lots of similar things, as in, why we're not refrigerators, or washing machines, or any other inanimate objects which carry out some mechanical-related stuff.

Trying to come up with a compelling reason for why we're not "biological computers" (and this "trying" in itself is half-giving away of one's point in this types of discussions) would involve long discussions going all the way back to the French Enlightenment and the likes of La Mettrie, not sure any online discussion would get to the end of it.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#58

Post by mistermann »

satvikpendem wrote: post #52
llamaimperative wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.” The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.

See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.

You have superb skills in leveraging often hard to spot ambiguity the English language offers, I think you would excel in sales of most any product, truth included.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#59

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

jalapenos wrote: post #44
wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

This is a very powerful concept, but people don't trust in it as much as they used to, because our culture has become hostile to it. Sexual promiscuity is counter to it. This level of fine detail requires a culture of commiting to a specific individual rather than a quantifiable generic gain. School is counter to it. It wants to shoehorn people into a specific definition of achievement. Internet is counter to it. The…

You're right about the Internet. But being promiscuous and not having children is what I want for myself, at least for this year

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#60

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

keybored wrote: post #18
mijustin wrote: post #2

These were the crucial bits for me: > "Sundays are for listing everything that went wrong during the week on the blackboard we painted on the wall of my study, so we can figure out what needs to change." and > "I liked to think about our life as a piece of software. We had our routines and our principles, this was the code. We ran the code by living it. The list on the blackboard was the bug log, a record of the ways…

There’s nothing more boring than someone who explains everything according to their passion-hobby or work. - Programmer: my life is a program - Marathoner: you know, life is like a great long race...

Not introspecting at all might be more boring.

Besides, I enjoy a good metaphor like a pitbull enjoys mauling

Post reply on HN