Jenny's Class Journal
●
Poker table - improv - table
position impacting “conversation”
●
https://courseware.ku.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-7051502-dt-content-rid-25881114_1/courses/4189-25334/Resilience%20as%20a%20Unifying%20Concept.pdf
- This paper on resilience from the general readings looks very useful for our
project and defining resilience in groups, networks, and individuals
●
Susan Dikker’s work: http://www.suzannedikker.net/projects/
(brain entrainment between partners documented in her projects)
●
This honors thesis paper provides
information to cite regarding auditory driving / brain wave entrainment in
ritual groups: https://web.stanford.edu/group/brainwaves/2006/AuditoryDrivingRitualTech.pdf
●
Good book for general background
reading and anyone in our project: SYNC by Steven Strogatz
●
Doelling KB, Poeppel D. Cortical
entrainment to music and its modulation by expertise. PNAS. 2015. (www.pnas.org/content/112/45/E6233) All people
sync brainwaves to music but musicians a bit differently - http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/45/E6233.full.pdf
●
Guitarists in duet / in a
band sync brainwaves : https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312/full
●
Brain waves sync at musical shows across audience / crowd / concertgoers - https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-brain-synchronize-music.html Look up full paper (this is
just a popular summary)
● https://www.wired.co.uk/article/musicians-synch-brain-waves (popular article, find original source paper)
●
Look up papers on ritual rhythms as establishing cooperation
/ collaboration in hunters in tribal peoples if possible / available
● Tango dancer brainwave sync -
Music
as providing an input which “entrains” everyone in a group / conversation /
environment (“top down” cause, although can link to impacts on brain waves,
physics, etc)
(Attach
extra notes here on emergent cognition if needed for project, possibly not interesting
here)
Question: do people working in entrained groups (rhythmic dancers, etc) perform better on functions such as hunting? Address in research.
To address: position in room in a conversation
as factor in entrainment in conversation / participation in conversation
outcomes. (Height obvious impactor, much research done on height as impactor,
look up and cite this)
George Ellis - How Can Physics Underlie the
Mind? Top Down Causation…. Source to potentially cite on emergence (maybe,
maybe not -- physicist playing philosopher…..)
George Ellis on emergence:
https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Ellis_FQXI_Essay_Ellis_2012.pdf ←- Informal description of Ellis’s
thoughts via Ellis
G
Auletta, G F R Ellis, and L Jaeger (2008) “
Top-down
causation by information control: from a philosophical problem to a scientific
research program”. J. R. Soc. Interface 5, 1159–1172.
-----------
Thoughts on readings (very sketchy, more notes in handwritten pages):
Bickhard Talk / Papers (x2) – Focus on
nonlinear systems, functional origins of representation. (Transcribe
handwritten notes here from Bickhard talk). Similar ideas to Prigogine,
Kauffman (although Bickhard does not like Kauffman as believes Kauffman does
not cite his sources).
Ideas --
●
The candle flame as an individual
which is also a relationship of multiple interacting systems which are in some
cases entirely exchangeable (different air, etc).
●
Process oriented philosophy.
(process metaphysics: relationalism unfolding in space time)
○
Relationships between relata
○
(relata all the way down)
Brings up issues with Millikan (Bickhard
believes histories cannot be used to define functions due to the “lion that
pops up from nowhere” paradox or the swamp man paradox) and Fodor (does not
believe Fodor has successfully resolved disjunction problem)
Bickhard introduces recursive self-maintenance as part of the functionally defined
“representation” concept. (See Normative
Representation paper)
Bickhard Talk had many interesting points but
was rambling / scattered a bit.
I am
curious that his type of strong emergence is not necessarily not in some way a
result of parts/relationships (the whole is greater than sum of parts but still
a result of sum of parts).
For
him, emergence is not merely epiphenomenal, because “If being configurational makes a
property or power epiphenomenal, then everything is an epiphenomenon. That is
the reductio ad absurdum of this position.” (Campbell and Bickherd,
Physicalism, 11)
//
Tim O’Connor
Readings – Focus on “strong emergence” vs weak emergence in Skype talk.
Strong emergence as something completely new, not reducible to actions of parts
or configurations of those parts. Consciousness as an example of strong
emergence. (Transcribe hand written notes here.)
Strong Supervenience:
A-properties supervene on B-properties = Df.
Necessarily, for any object x and A-property a, if x has a, then there is a
B-property b such that (i) x has b, and (ii) necessarily, if anything has b, it
also has a.
“A-properties” and “B-properties” -- families of
properties. In the case of
emergents, the A-properties will be the set of
emergent properties and the B-properties may be understood as the set of
(non-emergent) physical properties generally.)
(O’Connor)
//
Symons – Brute Facts paper.
●
Brute Fact - facts about the
natural world with no explanation
●
To accept emergence is to accept brute facts,
which is to invalidate PSR.
●
But PSR is not generally accepted
due to the argument that under PSR all truths are necessary truths, which would
contradict the intuitively obvious idea of possible truths.
○
So perhaps not so big a thing to
give up.
○
Physicalists could preserve closed
physicality in emergence by adding emergent properties as a posteriori
fundamentals, but this is not satisfying for physicalism. Takes physicalism as
an assumption.
//
Other notes: Kim “saves” physicalism via
supervenience as an inaccurate model (via Bickherd).
//
Sterbenz
Sterbenz
Robustness vs Resilience (as discussed in
class)
Dependability
Complexity
Threats to systems - (require resilience to
attack)
Flaws
in systems / “faults”
Comments
Post a Comment