Where Can You Buycrutches For Halloween

Cognitive Science / Cognitive Science

During the period that sparked the cognitive sciences (cybernetics and at the same time), one can identify two different theoretical perspectives. The first was represented by
Von Neumann , and focused their interest on so-called systems heteronyms , that is determined from the outside, their characterization is obtained through relations of input and output, and they tend to create a representation of the environment. The second is represented by
Wiener, and his interest is directed to systems autonomous, that is determined from within, and these are characterized by organizational closure and the autocomportamenti , they also represent something existing in itself, but built, producing a world through a relationship with the environment.
What Varela points out, is that these two views are not in a logical opposition to each other, but rather are related according to a report of complementarity: we need both points of view for a complete knowledge of the system unit.

On this basis, Francisco Varela has tried to build a pluralist cognitive science, able to articulate the different perspectives available on the subject each other to investigate, also and primarily when these are based on theoretical frameworks irreducibly different. [...]
And 'This is one of the most profound messages that Francisco Varela has bequeathed to specialists in cognitive science: to maintain and articulate a plurality of diverse theoretical perspectives, because each of them, while producing zones 'shadow, it can illuminate the shadows generated by the other (1).

(1) M. Ceruti and L. Damiano, in M. Hood (ed.), Neurophenomenology , Bruno Mondadori, 2006, pp. 12-13.

Cellular Respiration Fish

2 / 1

In the last decades of the 900 scientific study of the processes by which knowledge is significantly developed, giving rise to so-called cognitive sciences .
In the fifties, the prevailing theoretical model was the one that can be defined computationalism , which is based on identifying the human cognitive apparatus with a digital computer.
Today this perspective has not met the high expectations that had been created around it, and the idea of \u200b\u200ba computation based on centralized and sequential operations, is considered outdated.

the emerging East of cognitive science is not merely acknowledge the highly connected and distributed to all neural processes, but comes to reject explicitly the idea of \u200b\u200ba cognitive apparatus that works according to an input-output, stimulus-response. He rejects the idea of \u200b\u200bbackground information, and preset defaults with respect to their development, and the idea of \u200b\u200ba knowledge which, proceeding by symbolic calculations, prepares copies of the outside world. Above all, it rejects the image of an abstract knowledge, without emotional coloring, and essentially independent from the intentionality (1).

(1) M. Ceruti and L. Damiano, in M. Hood (ed.), Neurophenomenology , Addison 2006, p. 10.

Can You Use A Universal Remotre With A Projector

Being and thinking / 3

We think, and thought we wonder from where he originally thought.

activation of neurons, the complexity of emergency brain structure, matter which is expressed in being conscious: here lies the answer.

But what matter? Also appears in a thought, the circle is closed. It intends
insistent the question: Where does the thinking?

Among the high fir ...

[...]

What is the most ancient of what comes into our thinking is as old
from behind us, and yet awaits us.

That thinking turns
advent of what is past, and is thought rammemorante.

Being old means at the appropriate time to stop, where the
thought of a way of thinking in his complexion
is launched.

step back from the philosophy of being in
thought we dare, just
origin of thinking is both intimate
now.

M. Heidegger, Among the high fir ... , in F. Cassinari Martin Heidegger - The thought poetante , Mimesis, 2000, p. 157.

Why My Milk Tastes Soapy?

Being and thinking / 2

Thinking thinking. Think
the being of thinking.
think that there is no thought.
think that this is thought.

Just when you thought it closes on itself and the contours of the world begin to fade, there emerges a different notice, because it captures the quality of the items, but the fact that they exist. This awareness does not go unnoticed.

Among the high fir ...

[...]

Obtenebration The world does not equal never

the light of being.

We come too late for the gods and
too soon to be. To whom poetry began
is the man.

blended with a star ...

think is the restriction to a single
thought that once and for all as a star in the sky

the world remains fixed.

M. Heidegger, Among the high fir ... , in F. Cassinari Martin Heidegger - The thought poetante , Mimesis, 2000, p. 149.

Comment Lire Rosetta Stonersd

Being and thought /

Being is a concept, an idea which expresses itself in thought? For Heidegger is quite the opposite in some way before being thought. Being can not be reduced, reduced completely at the thought. If only because the thought is .

When we look at a book on a table and we think there is a book on the table, usually mean that the book is placed on the table and use be in the sense of be placed in a determined: the book is on the table, for example, and not on the shelf. However, the significance of
not be exhausted in being in a certain point in space or in the relationship between an object and other objects, in fact, relations are .

Being, therefore, precedes thinking, and also above the relationships between things. So when it takes be in the most original, it captures something that is regardless of the relations it has with other objects. The single object loses, then the contours by which we think of as separate from other objects, they lose their specific identity and is perceived as a whole , no longer separate from the rest of the world.

Being and thought

Being - a figment of thought?
event is always thinking of being

Learn above all to give thanks
and you think

Nothing is for nothing
everything is unique.

M. Heidegger, Being and thought , in F. Cassinari Martin Heidegger - The thought poetante , Mimesis, 2000, p. 71.

Using Vsepr Theory Predict Shape Of H2se

Reductionism 1 / 4

To highlight how the reduction is not appropriate for studying certain phenomena, consider the example of a hammer could be analyzed at the molecular level of the material comprising the handle or the head of the hammer, but do not add nothing compared to the properties of the hammer as such. Indeed, these properties are somewhat independent of the fact that the handle is made of wood or plastic.
When, at a higher level, there are properties that can not be explained by reductionist analysis, then we say that these properties emerge from the lower levels, or rather, they emerge from ' organization that is created between the the most elementary components of the system.

A typical reductionist objections against emergentism is that when there is an emergent event, it is not produced anything new. That claim, however, is only half true. On closer inspection, it is true that it is not produced anything new: a hammer is made of the same elements they are made of its isolated components, neck and head. Yet something new, in fact it is produced: the interaction between the neck and head. Neither the wooden handle by itself, nor the head of the hammer can do (effectively) the typical functions of the hammer. But when we combine them together. "Emerging" properties of the tool. It is this interaction generated anew the essential property of any system "emerged" from the molecular level to higher levels. The emergency occurs thanks to new relationships (interactions) established between components not previously connected. Indeed, one of the fundamental reasons which must be the failure of reductionism is the fact they failed to consider the importance of such connections (1).

(1) E. Mayr, The uniqueness of biology, Cambridge University Press 2005 (2004), p. 79.

Ralphlaurenpigeonforge

Reductionism / 3

The extreme position of those who would reduce the study of biology to chemistry to physics and it does not seem sustainable, and this position can also be seen as a physicist Murray Gell-Mann:

forms of terrestrial life are the result of a large number of random events, each of which would have contributed to the remarkable regularity of terrestrial biochemistry, making them acquire, thus, a high effective complexity. [...]
The laws of biology depend on the laws of physics and chemistry, but also a great deal of additional information on how those events are determined accidental. Here, far more than in nuclear physics, condensed matter physics or chemistry, it is noted that there is a huge difference between the type of reduction to the fundamental physical laws that can, in principle, ordinary and type the word "reduction" might evoke in the minds of the naive reader. The study of living is much more complex of fundamental physics: in fact a very large number of the regularities of terrestrial organisms resulting from accidental events, as well as by the basic laws (1).

In other words, one can not trace the study of biology, and in particular of the biology of living, only a series of laws , because there is an element that makes an essential contribution to the development of biological organisms: the case . Due to the randomness is created history, understood as a series of events possible and not wholly attributable to a need, which becomes, in this context, an essential tool for scientific analysis. Consider, as an example of accidental cause, the disappearance of the dinosaurs and the consequences in the evolution, which it followed.
The presence of biological development in the case mean that certain information must be introduced at the same level that is being analyzed, because, by definition, the case is not reducible to causal explanations.

(1) M. Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar, Bollati Boringhieri 1996 (1994), pp. 140-141.

Where Can You Buycrutches For Halloween Costumes

Reductionism / 2

Another important distinction is that between analysis and reductionism .
The analytical method consists of dividing a system in its most elementary components, but will pursue this division operation only until you can actually get useful information. The analysis, in fact, is not convinced that knowledge of the smaller parts can provide all the answers:

[it] differs from the reduction because it says that the components of a system, proved analytically, provide full information on all properties of the system, since it (the analysis) does not provide an exhaustive description of the interactions established between the components of a system (1).

The analysis, therefore, leaves room to study the behavior of the system at different levels, highlighting how each level has unique characteristics that can not be explained by reference to the underlying layer.
For example, if you split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases , you can not explain his cash, and properties related with the same liquidity. In other words, you can not derive the hydrodynamic study of gas.

(1) E. Mayr, The uniqueness of biology, Cambridge University Press 2005 (2004), p. 74.

Josh Hutcherson Blue Boxer Briefs Bed

Reductionism / 1

The reductionism is an approach to scientific knowledge by which to explain a system must break them down into its constituent parts, then these elements will be further divided into elementary parts, and so on, until you get to the basic elements of reality.
In particular, according to a reductionist point of view applied to biology:

1. You can not understand any biological phenomenon of the higher level until it analyze the components present in the next lower level, this analytical breakdown should be continued for downlink to the level characterized by purely chemical and physical processes.
2. Such reasoning leads to further claims that the fact of knowing the components of the lower level allows us to reconstruct all higher levels, and provides a comprehensive knowledge of the higher levels. Such a reductionist claims arising from their conviction that every entity in the whole match nothing more than the sum of their parts (1).

opposes the reductionism approach Type holistic, taking into account the interactions among the parts of a system, showing how a complex system properties emerge that are characteristic of the level of description that is considered, and which are not reducible to lower-level items.

(1) E. Mayr, The uniqueness of biology, Cambridge University Press 2005 (2004), p. 74.