22 research outputs found
Simplifying the Management of Complexity: as Achieved in Nature
Governance scientists Dr Shann Turnbull and Prof James Guthrie AM use stakeholder firms to illustrate how to simplify the management of complexity and use natural laws to transform corporations into common good enterprises to counter global existential risks
Natural Computation of Cognition, from single cells up
At the time when the first models of cognitive architectures have been proposed, some forty years ago, the understanding of cognition, embodiment, and evolution was substantially different from today. So was the state of the art of information physics, information chemistry, bioinformatics, neuroinformatics, computational neuroscience, complexity theory, self-organization, theory of evolution, as well as the basic concepts of information and computation. Novel developments support a constructive interdisciplinary framework for cognitive architectures based on natural morphological computing, where interactions between constituents at different levels of organization of matter-energy and their corresponding time-dependentdynamics, lead to the complexification of agency and increased cognitive capacities of living organisms that unfold through evolution. Proposed info-computational framework for naturalizing cognition considers present updates (generalizations) of the concepts of information, computation, cognition, and evolution in order to attain an alignment with the current state of the art in corresponding research fields. Some important open questions are suggested for future research with implications for further development of cognitive and intelligent technologies
ΠΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ½Π° Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡΡΡ ΠΌΠΎΠ·ΠΊΡ Ρ ΠΎΡΡΠ± Π· ΡΡΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΡΠ²Π½Π΅ΠΌ Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΠ·ΠΌΡ-Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΠ·ΠΌΡ
The formation of a human personality and the peculiarities of its social behavior are influenced by both biological characteristics and psychophysiological data. Therefore, in order to determine the prevailing socio-type of personality, it is necessary to take into account all aspects and features that may affect individual-psychological characteristics. In addition, neuromarkers that indicate altruistic and selfish social behavior will show the effective use of neurotrainings for their correction and explain the mechanisms of social adaptation.The aim of the research: to find differences in brain activity of individuals with different social type by registration of their electric activity.Methods: psychological testing method, event-related synchronization/desynchronization method.Results: Individuals with selfish type of social behavior chose selfish stimulus more often than individuals with altruistic type of social behavior. Individuals with selfish type of social behavior show higher indexes of spectrum power in alfa- and betha-range. Desynchronization reaction is typical for individuals with altruistic social behavior; synchronization reaction is typical for selfish-directed individuals. Synchronization in central and parietal areas in selfish-directed individuals is mostly shown as a reaction to altruistic stimulus; altruistic-directed individuals showed synchronization reaction to the altruistic stimulus in these areas.Conclusions: EEG data in alpha-range suggest that mechanisms of attention are involved for longer time period in the individuals with altruistic social behavior type.Β The reaction to the opposite type of stimulus is characterized by the same behavioral effects, however, has different electroencephalographic characteristics. The results show the different nature of the subjective reaction to stimuli, which is opposite to the sociotype of the individuals. However, a more detailed analysis indicates a different neurophysiological and subjective component of these reactionsΠΠ° ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π΅Π΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π±ΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈ. ΠΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΌΡ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°Π΄Π°ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΠ° Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎ ΡΡΠΈΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π²ΡΠ΅ Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ΄ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ. ΠΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, ΠΏΠΎΠΈΡΠΊ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈ ΡΠ³ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ½Π³Ρ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π°Π΄Π°ΠΏΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ.Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ - Π½Π°ΠΉΡΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π² Π΄Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠ·Π³Π° Π»ΠΈΡ Ρ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΡ
ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ.ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ: ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ / Π΄Π΅ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΡΠΉ Ρ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ.Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ: Π»ΠΈΡΠ° Ρ ΡΠ³ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ±ΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΡΠ³ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»Ρ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π»ΠΈΡΠ° Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ° Π² Π°Π»ΡΡΠ°- ΠΈ Π±Π΅ΡΠ°-Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ½Π΅ ΠΎΠ±Π½Π°ΡΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ Ρ Π»ΠΈΡ Ρ ΡΠ³ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ. Π Π΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π° Π΄Π»Ρ Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅ΠΉ Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ; ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π° Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠ³ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊ. Π‘ΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ Π² ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠ°Ρ
Π² ΡΠ³ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π»ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΈΠΌΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ°Π·Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Ρ. ΠΠ»Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π»ΠΈΡ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π° ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»Ρ Π² ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠ°Ρ
.ΠΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ: ΠΠΠ-Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π² Π°Π»ΡΡΠ°-Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ½Π΅ ΡΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π»Π΅ΠΊΠ°ΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π΄Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈ Ρ Π»ΠΈΡ Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ. Π Π΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΈΠΏ ΡΠ°Π·Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈ ΠΆΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ, ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π΅Ρ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ. ΠΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΡΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»Ρ, ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΡΠΈΠΏΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΠΎ. ΠΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π΄Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΡΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΡΡΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½Ρ ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΉΠΠ° ΡΠΎΡΠΌΡΠ²Π°Π½Π½Ρ Π»ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ° ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΈ Π²ΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡ ΡΠΊ Π±ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠ½Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΡΠ·ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠ½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠΈ. Π’ΠΎΠΌΡ Π΄Π»Ρ Π²ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½Π½Ρ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²Π°ΠΆΠ°ΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΡ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΡΠ΄Π½ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ°Ρ
ΠΎΠ²ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠΈ ΡΡΡ Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈ ΡΠ° ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΡ, ΡΠΊΡ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΡΡΡ Π²ΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠ²ΡΠ΄ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠ½Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ. ΠΡΡΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΊ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠ΅ΡΡΠ² ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΡΠ° Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΡ Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ Π²ΠΈΠΊΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½Π³ΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΡ
ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΡΠ·ΠΌΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ Π°Π΄Π°ΠΏΡΠ°ΡΡΡ.ΠΠ΅ΡΠ° Π΄ΠΎΡΠ»ΡΠ΄ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½Ρ β Π·Π½Π°ΠΉΡΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΄ΠΌΡΠ½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π² Π΄ΡΡΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΌΠΎΠ·ΠΊΡ ΠΎΡΡΠ± ΡΠ· ΡΡΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ»ΡΡ
ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΡΡ
Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ.ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈ: ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ²Π°Π½Π½Ρ, ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠ·Π°ΡΡΡ / Π΄Π΅ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠ·Π°ΡΡΡ, ΠΏΠΎΠ²'ΡΠ·Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π· ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠΌΠΈ.Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈ: ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ ΡΠ· Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡΠ΅ Π²ΠΈΠ±ΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈ Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½Ρ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»ΠΈ, Π½ΡΠΆ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈ ΡΠ· Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΈ. ΠΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ Π² Π°Π»ΡΡΠ°- Ρ Π±Π΅ΡΠ°-Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ½Ρ Π²ΠΈΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡ Π² ΠΎΡΡΠ± ΡΠ· Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΈ. Π Π΅Π°ΠΊΡΡΡ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠ·Π°ΡΡΡ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π° Π΄Π»Ρ Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅ΠΉ Π· Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΎΡ; ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠ·Π°ΡΡΡ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π° Π΄Π»Ρ Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΏΡΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΡΠ±. Π‘ΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠ·Π°ΡΡΡ Π² ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Ρ ΡΡΠΌ'ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Π΄ΡΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΊΠ°Ρ
Π² Π΅Π³ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΏΡΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΡΠ± ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΄ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°ΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΊ ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΡΡ Π½Π° Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΈΠΊ. ΠΠ»Ρ Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΏΡΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΡΠ± Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π° ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠ·Π°ΡΡΡ Π½Π° Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½Ρ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»ΠΈ Π² ΡΠΈΡ
Π΄ΡΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΊΠ°Ρ
.ΠΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²ΠΊΠΈ: ΠΠΠ-Π΄Π°Π½Ρ Π² Π°Π»ΡΡΠ°-Π΄ΡΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ½Ρ Π²ΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅, ΡΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΡΠ·ΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ²Π°Π³ΠΈ Π·Π°Π»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π»ΡΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΡ Ρ ΠΎΡΡΠ± Π· Π°Π»ΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΈ. Π Π΅Π°ΠΊΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ»Π΅ΠΆΠ½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΈΠΏ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ° Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΡΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΆ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ½ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠΈ Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊ, ΠΌΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠ·Π½Ρ Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠ½Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ. ΠΡΡΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½Ρ Π΄Π°Π½Ρ Π²ΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΡΠ±'ΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»ΠΈ, Π·Π° ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠΌ ΡΠΈΠΏΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ»Π΅ΠΆΠ½Ρ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΡ Π΄ΠΎΡΠ»ΡΠ΄ΠΆΡΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ. ΠΡΠΎΡΠ΅ Π΄Π΅ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡΠΈΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΡΠ· Π²ΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΎΡΡΠ·ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠ½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ ΡΡΠ±ΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΅Π½Ρ ΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅Π°ΠΊΡΡ
Natural Computational Architectures for Cognitive Info-Communication
Recent comprehensive overview of 40 years of research in cognitive architectures, (Kotseruba and Tsotsos 2020), evaluates modelling of the core cognitive abilities in humans, but only marginally addresses biologically plausible approaches based on natural computation. This mini review presentsa set of perspectives and approaches which have shaped the development of biologically inspired computational models in the recent past that can lead to the development of biologically more realistic cognitive architectures. For describing continuum of natural cognitive architectures, from basal cellular to human-level cognition, we use evolutionary info-computational framework, where natural/ physical/ morphological computation leads to evolution of increasingly complex cognitive systems. Forty years ago, when the first cognitive architectures have been proposed, understanding of cognition, embodiment and evolution was different. So was the state of the art of information physics, bioinformatics, information chemistry, computational neuroscience, complexity theory, selforganization, theory of evolution, information and computation. Novel developments support a constructive interdisciplinary framework for cognitive architectures in the context of computing nature, where interactions between constituents at different levels of organization lead to complexification of agency and increased cognitive capacities. We identify several important research questions for further investigation that can increase understanding of cognition in nature and inspire new developments of cognitive technologies. Recently, basal cell cognition attracted a lot of interest for its possible applications in medicine, new computing technologies, as well as micro- and nanorobotics. Bio-cognition of cells connected into tissues/organs, and organisms with the group (social) levels of information processing provides insights into cognition mechanisms that can support the development of new AI platforms and cognitive robotics
A Fractal Epistemology for Transpersonal Psychology
The role of science has been controversial within the nascent field of transpersonal psychology. Traditional linear and reductionist models are insufficient to address rare and unreproducible states of mind, fringe rather than normative experiences, and highly personal or culturally specific aspects of awareness. Through a fractal epistemology this paper introduces novel metaphors, models, and methods within a more holistic, organic, and synthetic branch of science. Principles of the epistemology illuminate observer dependence, fuzzy boundaries, recursive patterns, and higher dimensional phenomena that emerge within the infinite expanses between ordinary, finite (Euclidean) dimensions
Recommended from our members
Neural and Psychological Coordination in Social Communication and Interaction
Dynamic, naturalistic study of social interactions in humans is a small but growing literature. Emerging from this work is the theory that social interaction creates a βmerged mindβ between interlocutors β they come into psychological, behavioral, and neural alignment in order to better predict each other and coordinate as one social unit. However social interaction is diverse, so more work is needed to understand the specific nature of alignment between people in a variety of interactive contexts. In particular, itβs unclear how heterogeneities among members of an interaction impact their ability to align. This work aims to help address this gap by first evaluating and improving ways to collect neuroimaging data in naturalistic, social settings (Chapter 2). Then, empirical research is presented that examines how personal similarity factors impact the extent of alignment during personal disclosure interactions, where one person speaks and the other listens (Chapter 3). Finally, further empirical research investigates different types of alignment that may be present in a dyadic back-and-forth discussion in a joint decision-making paradigm. How this work contributes to a broader understanding of the ways people communicate and work together, and how this research can continue with improved methods, is discussed
How cybernetics explains behavioural tensegrity and its advantages for society
This article explains the crucial role of the paradoxical dual contrary~complementary but interdependent properties of tensegrity. It is a neglected phenomenon in understanding how living things and their social organisations can become self-regulating and self-governing. Tensegrity is a defining feature of the architecture of nature. It is the driver of evolution. Organisations that include tensegrity into a polycentric self-governing process identified by Ostrom establish a basis from which to form an ecological form of governance for citizens to self-govern the sustainability of their host bioregions for the global common good. This requires engineering system scientists working with social scientists in educating students to become governance architects to custom design ecological firms. Research opportunities are identified in six hypotheses that include fundamental aspects of the universe
Polycentric self-governance and Indigenous knowledge
This article's main aim is to discuss research exploring how the self-governing practices found in Indigenous societies, biota and modern organisations can be embedded into the constitutions of legal entities to protect and share the wellbeing of humanity, biota and the planet. In this paper, we explore how Australian Indigenous knowledge and practices can be embedded into organisational entities and discuss how this can be achieved by reformatting Ostrom's design principles to be incorporated into corporate constitutions following an ecological form of governance practised by Indigenous Australians. This form of polycentric self-governance can aggregate the voices of minorities representing local environments up to a global level. We use case studies, system science and biomimicry to explore polycentric self-governance and how organisations can adopt it to focus on the wellbeing of all stakeholders. In particular, the paper highlights how Indigenous knowledge can contribute globally to achieving societal sustainability