A Árvore do Conhecimento (Maturana & Varela, ). 1 like. Book. A Arvore Do Conhecimento – Humberto Maturana e Francisco Varela. MATURANA, H., Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: a history of these and other notions MATURANA, H.; VARELA, F., De Máquinas e seres vivos: autopoiese, a organização do MATURANA, H.; VARELA, F., A árvore do conhecimento: as bases biológicas do entendimento humano [The tree of knowledge].
|Published (Last):||9 August 2006|
|PDF File Size:||20.23 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page.
Preview — Tree of Knowledge by Humberto R. Tree of Knowledge by Humberto R. Its authors present a new view of cognition that has important social and ethical implications, for, they assert, the only world we humans can have is the one we create varelq through the actions of our coexistence. Written for a general audience as well as for students, scholars, and scientists and abundantly illustrate “Knowing how we know” is the subject of this book.
Written for a general audience as well as arvor students, scholars, and scientists and abundantly illustrated with examples from biology, linguistics, and new social and cultural phenomena, this revised edition includes a new afterword by Dr.
Varela, in which he discusses conhefimento effect the book has had in the years since its first publication. Paperbackpages. Published March 31st by Shambhala first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Tree of Knowledgeplease sign up. How can I read it online? See 1 question about Tree of Knowledge…. Lists with This Book. Dec 15, DJ rated it really liked it Shelves: Interested in cybernetics, theoretical biology, and philosophy but still find Dan Brown novels to require mental gymnastics?
Put on your philosophical training wheels and give “Tree of Knowledge” a spin! A mixture of dated scientific ideas, profound frameworks for thinking about living organisms, and unnecessarily complicated jargon, ToK is essentially conhecimenti children’s menu version of Maturana and Varela’s Autopoiesis and Cognition papers on living organisms, communication, and consciousness.
I hig Interested in cybernetics, theoretical biology, and philosophy but still find Dan Brown novels to require arfore gymnastics? I highly recommend reading ToK before Autopoiesis and Cognition and possibly even foregoing Autopoiesis and Cognition altogether.
ToK is not only more clearly written but is laden maturanq examples, something lacking in the uncompromisingly sterile Autopoiesis and Cognition.
The rest of this review is a summary of the deep and profound wisdom I gleaned from the Chileans, so you may want to skip it if you haven’t read the book yet. ToK’s more gentle approach along with post-reading conversations with a Chilean economist and Conhecimenyo physicist helped clear up a conhecimfnto I had after Autopoiesis and Cognition: It may seem obvious to look at me, carve a 2D surface over my skin, and call me a closed system, but give me a week maturaana a consistent supply of low-entropy energy and I’ll quickly succumb to the second law of thermodynamics.
The key trick is this: Different observers and even the same observer at different times with different goals will have different domains of interactions matugana will define a unity in a different way. For example, a given university may be a set of assets and liabilities, a collection of students, a football team, a physical space, or some combination of these things, depending on who you ask. Referring to a unity implies an act of distinction. Replication, copy, and reproduction can be distinguished by the amount of historicity in each process.
Replication repeated generation is ahistorical.
Copy creation from a mold is historical if iterated. Reproduction the fracture of a unity to create two unities of the same classhowever, is necessarily historical. Heredity and matudana are strongly complementary features. Heredity is the preservation of structure in a historical series of unities. Variation are the differences of structure in that series. Different components of a unity may exhibit different degrees of heredity and variation.
Unities may couple via inclusion think organelles or recurrent coupling with the maintenance of individual identities individual humans. The environment does not instruct an organism; it only triggers internal dynamics. To phrase it differently, the space of possible reactions to an environment is defined in the internal structure of an organism; the environment does not inject behavioral commands into an organism in any way.
To phrase it differently yet again, environmental stimuli modulate, they do not control.
Environmental input is imply one more “voice” in the “conversation” of internal dynamics. Organisms must exhibit variance of the time scale of their environment and in a complementary “direction” in order to adapt remain coupled. Adaptation in response to a single change in the environment affects the organism in a global way. A small change in structure may occur to accommodate one new feature of the environment, but through an internal domino effect, alter the way an organism interacts with other features.
Tree of Knowledge
The simplest neural systems allow detection of correlations between inputs on a sensory surface. A nervous system expands our possible behaviors by inserting a network with a huge range of possible patterns between our sensory and motor surfaces. Dec 10, Magi rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: This is the book that inspired me to give up fighting what I saw as mainstream unenlightened biological determinism in psychology, and enrol as a mature age student in psychology while a single parent of four.
The arcore is difficult and challenging and the concepts complex, it took me many attempts to get it, but worth the effort.
A classic, an all time favorite. I read it twenty years ago, after having the privelege of attending a workshop with the author, a delightful shamen of a man. Vrela u This vrela the book that inspired me to give up fighting what I saw as mainstream unenlightened biological determinism in psychology, and enrol as a mature age student in psychology while a single parent of four.
His ultimate message is that human beings are biologically programmed for love, and that love and relationship in language is what makes us human. Jan 18, zynphull rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Recommended to zynphull by: This is the best book I’ve read probably since I began to read.
Undoubtedly, it is at least the conceptual cherry in the proverbial intellectual cake I’ve been cooking for at least the past two years as I reflected upon and studied about justice, political philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, as well as, most notably recently, systems conhecimentoo, complexity and cognitive science.
A árvore do conhecimento, cap. 5 e 6 (Maturana e Varela) by Angélica Santos on Prezi
Through existing we “put forth a world” that is a result not of direct contact with “objective external realit This is the best book I’ve read probably since I began to read.
Through existing we “put forth a world” that is a result not of direct contact with “objective external reality” thus not a representational mind nor a fantasy of our imagination thus not a solipsistic dreamland.
We experience reality as autonomous unities in “structural coupling” with the environment which, for each of us, include other beings as well. The main takeaway of this view, for myself, lies in short in its ability to present incredible insights into human cognition and behavior while making it clear how they are absolutely incompatible with traditional notions of ‘objectivity vs.
That means we are equal in our uniqueness of limitation. The world we perceive and think about cannot be any other than the one we put forth through our own cognition. Thus, the world a 21st century American woman perceives and lives in, though ‘objectively’ the same, is filled with values, notions or lack thereof of right, wrong, old, new, roles, goals, that are for the most part wildly different than the ones through which, say, a native Mongolian in the 15th century perceived.
Francisco Varela – Google Scholar Citations
It is not just that we are different agvore we learned different things. Our brains quite literally are unable to perceive or rather, should I say ‘produce’?
I could spend hours talking maturxna it, but that might be mostly pointless – it is usually easier for one to read the book itself, and besides what I took away mtaurana it is not a result of the book by itself and my ‘interpretation’ of it, but rather -in fashion with the book itself- of my past experiences, that have helped shape my awareness of such ideas.
But please, do read this. It is highly accessible, requires no prior understanding of its subjects beyond basic high school biologyand will enable you, if you give yourself into it, to become someone new – or, rather, to be xonhecimento aware of what you are, and what you are not. The following passage from the last chapter of the book helps illustrate my amazement a little, and will close this review: It compels us to adopt an attitude of permanent vigilance against the temptation of certainty.
It compels us to see that the world will be different only if we live differently. It compels us because, when we know that we know, we cannot deny to ourselves or to others that we know. That is why everything we said in this book, through our knowledge of our knowledge, implies an ethics that we cannot evade, an ethics that has its reference point in the awareness of the biological and social structure of human beings, an ethics that springs from human reflection and puts human reflection right at the core as a constitutive social phenomenon.
Hence, the only possibility for coexistence is to opt for a broader perspective, a domain of existence in which both parties fit in the bringing forth of a common world. A conflict is always a mutual negation. It can never be solved in the domain where it takes place if the disputants are ‘certain.
The knowledge of this knowledge constitutes the social imperative for a human-centered ethics. The authors present a unified theory of cognition and concept formation, that can be extended to explain knowledge, knowing, social interactions. The basic concept is autopoiesis, “Our proposition is that living beings are characterized in that, literally, they continually self-producing. We indicate this process when we call the organizations that defines them an autopoietic organization.
Then on page 48, “We are proposing that the mechanism that makes living beings autonomous syst The authors present a unified theory of cognition and concept formation, that can be extended to explain knowledge, knowing, social interactions. Then on page 48, “We are proposing that the mechanism that makes living beings autonomous systems is autopoiesis.
This characterizes them as autonomous systems. Jun 28, Abailart rated it liked it. This book came out of a series of lectures given by the writers as a contribution to a decision in by the Organization of Anerican States to research the many difficulties confronted in social communication and knowledge transfer.
It begins by unmasking the ‘temptation of certainty’ in all branches of knowledge and proceeds thence to present ‘a coherent formulation of the foundation of communication as the biological being of man. We began with the features of our experience common to our shared social life.
From that starting point we moved on to cellular autopoiesis, the organization of metacellulars and their behavioral domains, the operational closure of the nervous system, the linguistic domains, and language.
Along the way, we put together the building blocks of an explanatory system capable of showing how the phenomena proper to living beings arise.
The beginning is the end. We have thus completed the task we set for ourselves, namely, that a theory of knowledge ought to show how knowing generates the explanation of knowing. This situation is very different from what we usually find, where the phenomenon of explaining and the phenomenon explained belong to different domains.