- They design for a parallel world instead of integrating with the existing world
- They design for visual accuracy and exhaustive visual capture, neither of which are necessary for direct perception, nor relevant for making a creative space integrated with the existing world
As a corollary, VR and the idea of the metaverse are entirely misguided
They never reproduce reality. They create an alternative world, which is always different, or approximate, to some degree. Now how much of a world they create doesn't depend on visual accuracy, but on the strength of the direct perception they render possible in the space.
#introduction I'm a computational neuroscientist and anarchist looking to change the way we do science.
As an anarchist, I want to replace hierarchies that hold science back. I've started with Neuromatch (http://neuromatch.io/), but hoping to do more. Next target, replacing journals.
Loving the fediverse philosophy!
Reading now: really cool work. I think an important read for computational interaction people in the #chi community. CHI largely treats enactivism and embodiment as outside computational and hypothesis testing approaches.
There are now good, tractable, formalisms for these ideas https://twitter.com/wehlutyk/status/1519209294515875840
So I'm looking forward to the conversations this opens up! Imagine the current conversation moves towards an empirically inspired, model-friendly dialogue about strong notions of embodiment and rationality. We're nearly there 😁
Of course, none of this means we should throw Game Theory down the drain! 😇
Instead, it shows a well defined, empirically observed behaviour that any model of human interaction needs to account for. Game Theory included.
In enactive parlance, Game Theory doesn't account for shared "becoming", a phenomenon which is well observed in Perceptual Crossing experiments.
More precisely, classical rationality and Game Theory do account for shared acts in the game (naturally, as Game Theory is all about co-dependence). But they don't account for the way participants permanently renegotiate the space of meanings in their interaction.
Now using the game theoretic framing, we can see how well Game Theory accounts for known behaviours in Perceptual Crossing, and how accurately such behaviours can be seen as classically rational.
TL;DR: classical rationality is not enough.
So could we compare Embodied and Classical rationality using such a paradigm? The paper shows that Perceptual Crossing can be partially described using formal Game Theory: the task for participants is shown to be a variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma, called the Assurance game.
Enter Perceptual Crossing: a minimal interaction interface where two participants control avatars on a shared virtual line and develop complex interaction patterns. The enactive approach understands these interactions very well - in fact, they elicit forms of Embodied Rationality
Across the gulf, Gallagher presents Embodied Rationality as operating in a continuous hand-language-thought system, as a "practised excellence in knowing what to do" from reflective thought to bodily performance. Can this be confronted with classical rationality? Using models?
Rationality is a hard nut to work with from an embodied/enactive perspective: if you let go of the computational metaphor of mind, what does rationality mean? You can set bounds to rationality (think Simon or Kahneman), but that doesn't let you off the computational hook.
Interested in the links between embodiment, rationality, and game theory?
Two weeks ago I published a paper that opens a new path for the discussion between embodied and classical approaches to rationality: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815691/full
A short thread to introduce it 👇
I finished reading How to Take Smart Notes a couple weeks ago. https://takesmartnotes.com/
Going to try out posting a few of the notes I develop from now on.
I'm using orgroam.com, which is a wonderful breeze. Looking forward!
Sounds like the perfect moment! To make this easier, bridge your twitter and mastodon accounts with https://moa.party/. Anything you posy on one appears on the other
So since The Husk is buying twitter, will we all agree to move to Mastodon finally?
It requires enough of us to do it to make it work for any of us.
Postdoc @EcsuOist melding embodied cog. science, anthropology and various hacks to build enactive humane tech. Working to support sense-making and interactions.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit