Trying to argue there is a deep dependency between cognitive agency as an intelligent general problem solver and fact brain exists within a bio-economy.
Body is not Cartesian-clay that we drag around and shape into the desires of our self-enclosed immaterial minds, not a useless appendage
Body is an auto-poeitic bioeconomy that makes cognition possible
Without it don’t have the machinery necessary for ongoing evolution of relevance realization
Body is constitutive of cognitive agency
Embedded:
Biological fittedness of a creature not a property of the creature per-se. It’s a real relation between the creature and the environment
Adaptivity not a property intrinsic to it per se. It’s an affordance between it and the environment
Relevance not a property in the object, not a property of subjectivity of the mind nor of objectivity
Property that is co-created by how environment and embodied brain fitted together in a dynamic evolving fashion
We don’t subjectively project relevance
We don’t detect it either empirically
Transjective: a real relationship between the organism and the environment
Relevance is realized.
Objective sense to realization: to make real.
Subjective sense: coming into awareness
Anti-cartesian: connection mind and body is one of dependence, mind needs the body.
(this is also the case in Integrated Information Theory which posits that information integration must be in 3d space. Embodied)
The world and the organism are co-creating, co-determining the fittedness
Need to transcend the objective and subjective - changes how we interpret spirituality: functional sense of connectedness that affords wisdom, self-transcendence, etc.
Efficiency-Resiliency Tradeoffs
Initially the machinery of RR has to be internal to an embodied embedded system of adaptivity
Want a way to optimize efficiency/resilience tradeoffs
Logistical norms (constraints) can be realized in particular virtual engines
Internal Bioeconomic Properties:
External Interactional Properties:
Eventually give rise to goals in the world as opposed to constitutive goals in the system.
Go back and forth
If want to be adaptive, a general problem solver - two kinds of machines can be:
General Purpose Machine:
Ex: hand: can be used in many contexts and many tasks.
Jack of all trades, master of none
Not as good as a hammer or screwdriver
Use the same thing over and over again
More efficient
Special Purpose Machine:
Outperform GPM in some contexts
More resilient
Sometimes you’re adaptive by being a GPM, other times by being SPM
Want to be able to move between these.
Want to be able to use the same set of functions over and over again. SPM don’t use as often, gets inefficient - carry it around but not using it. But makes me resilient. When a lot of new things that GPM can’t handle ready for it to deal with SPM
Want to constantly trade between them.
Information Processing
How would you make information processing more efficient?
Want functions using to be as generalizable as possible - use the same functions in many places
Relevance Realization in the Emerging Cognitive Science: paper
People who are trying to make AI already implementing these strategies
Data Compression (Application)
In science, take two variables, scatterplot w line of best fit
Line may touch none of data points. Allows to interpolate and extrapolate. Go beyond the data. But taking a chance.
Popper: all good science takes good chances
Allows to make predictions, generalize the function
Data compression
Trying to pick up on what’s invariant. Information always contains noise want to pick up on what’s invariant and extend that.
If the data compression lets me generalize my function, feeding through the sensory-motor loop, protecting and promoting auto-poeitic goals will be reinforced
Particularization (Scope)
Trying to create a function that overfits with the data
Emphasize pick up on variations
Make the system more context sensitive
Make the organism adaptive going back and forth. Though skewed one way or the other. Some are more biased to overfitting/particularizing, others to generalizing/compressing
If get scope going the right way will get coupled to this pattern of interaction that will fit you well to pattern of change/stability in the environment
Exploiting vs. Exploration
Deals with timing. Should stay here get as much as can (exploiting) or move and try and find new things. Trade off.
Different strategies being considered.
Reward when system doesn’t make an error, punish when makes an error. Makes it more curious and conscientious
Reward error reduction, punish error increase
Cognitive tempering vs. Projectibility of processing.
Not claiming these are exhaustive. Exemplary of ways in which can trade efficiency/resiliency and create virtual engines that will adapt through system of constraints
Exploitation efficient: don’t have to expend much, can just stay here. But things have to stay the same.
Exploration: have to expend a lot of energy but only rewarding if significant difference.
Sometimes what makes something relevant is how its the same, sometimes it’s what makes something different
Have to constantly shift between them because that’s what reality is doing
There are many of these trade-offs. All regulated by the opponent processing of efficiency/resiliency
Bioeconomics: cost of processing
Might also need to trade between scope/temporary and applicability/projectability
Flexible gambling: Have to be flexible in how gamble. May decide to hedge bets and activate as many functions as can, or go for the big thing and give priority to just this function
Sometimes focusing, sometimes diversifying
All of it can be represented mathematically
Scope, temporing, prioritizing between them
RR is always taking place in this space.
Moving around in a state space.
Developmental
Data compression - integrate information vs. differentiation
Can argue that these map onto two fundamental processes that Piaget said drive development: Assimilation
Assimilation: have a cognitive schema (set of constraints) - integrate assimilate new information - compression.
Opposite: accomodation: opens you up. Causes you to change structure, schemas.
If we just assimilate machinery gets brittle and distortive
RR is inherently dynamic and developmental - it develops by functioning and by functioning it develops
Complexification: simultaneously integrating and differentiating
If highly differentiated can do many different things but if not integrated fly apart
As systems complexify they self-transcend - go through qualitative development
Ex: start out life as zygote, initially cells just reproduce, then get cellular differentiation, also integrate, self-organize into heart, eye, etc. Biological complexification
Give emergent abilities: transcend yourself as a system
If we are RR we are inherently:
Dynamical
Self-organizing
Autopoeitic
Developmental
Self-transcending
RR as a Unified Phenomena
Spierman: general factor of intelligence
How kids doing in math predictive of how doing in english and sports
Strong positive manifold: interpredictability in different tasks.
Underwrites being a general problem solver
When testing intelligence often testing for general intelligence
RR is actually the underlying ability of general intelligence
RR is a good candidate for general intelligence.
GI is a unified thing. Keeps getting replicated.
If had to know one thing about you to predict: one thing that tells more than anything else. GI crushes how well do in an interview in predicting if get a job
So therefore RR is a unified thing. RR = GI.
GI is a dynamic developmental evolution of your sensory motor fittedness, regulated by virtual engines regulated by the logistical normativity of the opponent processing between efficiency and resiliency
Spending so much time on this because this is the lynchpin argument on the cognitive science side of the whole series. Everything leads to RR. Naturalistic explanation.
Argue: how RR embedded in procedural, perspectival participatory knowing, embedded in transjected dynamic coupling to the environment and the affordance of the agent/arena relationship, mind/body, central to mind/consciousness
Allows to explain so much at the center for human spirituality
How we can integrate cognitive science and human spirituality.