![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone here seems obsessed with removing all refs to practopoiesis, giving self-promotion as the reason. Self-promotion isn't the real issue, the important question is whether the idea is well sourced and sufficiently notable. If the person concerned had done his homework and consulted Google Scholar, he would have found that there are 8 entries, only 2 of which involve the author. One at least is from a journal and appears to be genuinely using the idea. And I must say (OR) that it looks like an interesting concept.
Did the person concerned do any research before doing his delete? I rather doubt it. Under the circumstances I'm inclined to class his actions, both on this page and on the autopoiesis page, as close to vandalism. In any case, I don't see that WP's self-promotion criteria legitimately apply here -- check them out. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 10:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There are 'Afference copy as a quantitative neurophysiological model for consciousness' published in the Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, and a paper in German: 'DIE KUNST DER SINNE – DIE SINNE DER KUNST (2015) ‚Digitale Synästhesie‘ als Modell für eine Kybernetik der Ästhetik', from a book on Cybernetics. So I don't think you can really maintain that the idea is being ignored (and neither, as far as one can tell, is anyone rejecting it). It is perfectly reasonable, IMHO, for some kind of reference to the idea to be included in the article, e.g. in the list of references. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In the last paragraph, isn't this someone just doing their own armchair philosophy, citing no references? It doesn't make any sense at all to me either. Who on earth would think that a system is independent of its environment? If so, a conscious being would not be able to see anything, hear anything, not sense anything in its environment. Mental states supervenient only on the body? What??
Isn't this always about systems within an environment (which together constitute another system). It doesn't make sense to talk about systems independent of environments. Or to publish armchair philosophy. 2001:2042:3307:1600:7559:D5E8:75CB:ECF2 ( talk) 20:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)