claim
active
claim:representation-as-explanatory-strategy-and-autonomy-as-constitutive-process-generate-an-apparent-contradiction-that-may-not-need-to-be-dissolved-but-confronted-opening-a-wider-domain-of-understandingRepresentation as explanatory strategy and autonomy as constitutive process generate an apparent contradiction that may not need to be dissolved but confronted, opening a wider domain of understanding.
Final unresolved theoretical tension the paper leaves open regarding whether representation is foundational or founded on autonomy.
Source paper
extracted_from(2026) · Samson Abramsky · Wolfgang Banzhaf · Leo S. D. Caves · Michael Levin +4
Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count
Papers (1)
paper
Claims (1)
claim
- Central open theoretical tension raised in the discussion.
Questions (1)
question
- Final open question of the discussion, left genuinely unresolved.
Quotes (1)
quote
- Varela quote grounding the paper's final tension between representation and autonomy.
Related by similarity (8)
cosine ≥ 0.65 · no typed edgeEntities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.
- Alexander's distillation of why the dynamic process produces living results that top-down design cannot.
- A summary generalization from the examples about the nature of living processes.
- Open theoretical problem CIMC acknowledges: precisely characterizing the representational format of perception
- The paper's operative definition of deliberation.
- Justifies why dynamical accounts necessitate stories; historical, contextual unfolding cannot be captured by timeless laws.
- Foundational claim of the paper, defining self-evidencing.
- Key principle about images vs. unfolding.
- Acknowledged gap in CIMC's theory: the exact computational description of the perceptual regime is not yet specified