I live in an area with a lot of undocumented workers. Federal boots due to do a raid on our local area soon which sucks ’cause the big farms need those workers. Anyway, they always drive at or just under the speed limit. Don’t get in trouble. Stay quiet. Go to work. Spend money. Paid 75% of what US workers would get, except US workers don’t want that kind of work. So, if the big black boots from Washington DC step foot in our local soil, it’ll disrupt the fast food tomatoes and stuff. Whatever. Just another day in “States have no say” USA.

I live in an [read full article]


Includes short overview of the development of “qualified immunity” which started in the late 1980s. granting many government officials and police broad extra-powers over citizens. For more information on Qualified Immunity and its history starting in 1982: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity As Mike Pompeo convenes a group to change what “unalienable rights” means, there is a strong probability that citizens will have less soon, further widening the gap. Follow this carefully.

Includes short overview of
[read full article]

You made my ears perk up with “embodiment, enactivism, and practopoietic models”. That’s where I’m at right now. I did the computer-metaphor for a long time alongside connectionism but it’s Lakoff’s embodied cognition and Danko Nikolic’s practopoiesis that hold my sway now. They don’t NEGATE practical modeling of subsystems utilizing computational or connectionist or hybrid means, but they provide a context for comprehending the information flow away from a “brains in vats” model.

You made my ears [read full article]


Connectionism and computationalism aren’t mutually exclusive and they are compatible but Pinker’s view has almost no such compromise to any significant degree. You can bring in Ramachandran and I’ll probably find Ramchandran agreeable to my view. But Ramachandran does not affect Pinker. This is from 1998 but I have not seen a fundamental shift in Pinker since. He misrepresents connectionism then rejects his misrepresentation in no uncertain terms. “We conclude that connectionists’ claims about the dispensability of rules in explanations in the psychology of language must be rejected, and that, on the contrary, the linguistic and developmental facts provide good evidence for such rules.”

Connectionism and computationalism aren’t [read full article]