5 ms·

An Ecology of Mind: A daughter's portrait of Gregory Bateson

69 points by apsec112 6y ago

lukifer 6y ago
I've enjoyed Nora Bateson's appearances on the Future Thinkers and Jim Rutt Show podcasts, very curious about this film. Had to hunt a bit to find a streaming source: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/bateson https://vimeo.com/ondemand/bateson
LeonB 6y ago
Here is a talk by Jessica Kerr, that I find really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9I4loWogqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9I4loWogqw It mentions Nora Bateson, "Symmathesy" and mental models quite a lot. It covers many different ideas, all of them worth thinking about.
rutherblood 6y ago
What a strange coincidence. currently reading bateson's book with that title.
- termy 6y ago
  do you like it?
mvn9 6y ago
>The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think If we eradicate nature and replace it with technology, will we reach a state without problems? If we turn all planes and forests into photovoltaic power stations and use chemical processes to generate food, and everything becomes an image of our thinking processes, will life be good?
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Yesss, let's do it. Disassemble the earth for material for a Dyson swarm, let's go!
- rutherblood 6y ago
  the critical question is: is it economical? let's take the example of replacing all plants with something humans made. Let's take one function (among innumerable others we might know or not know of) performed by plants critical to life: photosynthesis to trap energy to organic material & fill the air with oxygen. could we make something cheap enough to do this? the plants currently do this for free for us. they're also self-replicating mostly. could we build something like that? wouldn't we end up making something similar to what plants were and how they worked albeit with all this unneeded effort? let's say we can even do this, wouldn't you end up making something so similar to plants that it could actually be a plant? You can ask the same question for all the other functions that plants perform. most of these functions we might not even know of and only realize once it's missed. in short, it's not economical for us to do. it might not even be possible for us to do fully given all that complexity that millions of years in evolution captures. life on earth can be seen as a huge huge body of knowledge. dont people mourn of loss of ancient libraries or cultures for this very reason? many of the things entrapped in such a culture or body of knowledge are tacit, unknown, maybe even unknowable, it definitely cannot be exactly replicated once it's lost
  - mvn9 6y ago
    Unneeded efforts is where all the technology began. Some ape grabbing a stick instead of shoving more leaves into his mouth. Investing time and resources, thinking, that's where technology starts. We use technology to create more food than nature provides voluntarily. Plants have become technology and we will use them as long as their synthesizing processes are more efficient as pure technological ones. But at one point, it will be more efficient to go full synthetic. If you kill all life, all fungi, all bacteria, everything will be dead matter, and like rocks on Mars or frozen seals at the poles, nothing will move in an uncontrolled way and everything will be in line with the way humans think. For sure, we have killed precious knowledge and as you say, we will never get it back. But that's due to humans being short-sighted and acting in a non-technological way. Like guns, it's not technology that is destroying the rain forest and reducing biodiversity. It's humans who follow their natural urges.
    - rutherblood 6y ago
- solitus 6y ago
  Unless humans remain for millions of years, nature has the upper hand. Hence humans should get with nature's program, not the other way around. Disclaimer: I am for technological advancements, I'm not saying we should stop and go live in caves. I merely think we should try to connect with nature at a deeper level; we'd probably all be happier for it.
- munificent 6y ago
  I think you're externalizing "nature", but my guess is that Bateson would include our own biology, impulses, instincts, and cognitive biases in his definition of "nature". We are a flawed biological brain that can also perform some logical computation (in the same way that you can implement a digital computer using analog electronics). The latter often conflicts with the former.
- pjmorris 6y ago
  Technology is made out of nature. Sooner or later, thermodynamics will have its way.
mark_l_watson 6y ago
There is a good recent conversation with Nora Bateson on the Team Human podcast.

69 points by apsec112 6y ago

I've enjoyed Nora Bateson's appearances on the Future Thinkers and Jim Rutt Show podcasts, very curious about this film. Had to hunt a bit to find a streaming source: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/bateson https://vimeo.com/ondemand/bateson

LeonB 6y ago

Here is a talk by Jessica Kerr, that I find really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9I4loWogqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9I4loWogqw It mentions Nora Bateson, "Symmathesy" and mental models quite a lot. It covers many different ideas, all of them worth thinking about.

rutherblood 6y ago

What a strange coincidence. currently reading bateson's book with that title.

termy 6y ago
do you like it?

mvn9 6y ago

>The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think If we eradicate nature and replace it with technology, will we reach a state without problems? If we turn all planes and forests into photovoltaic power stations and use chemical processes to generate food, and everything becomes an image of our thinking processes, will life be good?

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Yesss, let's do it. Disassemble the earth for material for a Dyson swarm, let's go!
rutherblood 6y ago
the critical question is: is it economical? let's take the example of replacing all plants with something humans made. Let's take one function (among innumerable others we might know or not know of) performed by plants critical to life: photosynthesis to trap energy to organic material & fill the air with oxygen. could we make something cheap enough to do this? the plants currently do this for free for us. they're also self-replicating mostly. could we build something like that? wouldn't we end up making something similar to what plants were and how they worked albeit with all this unneeded effort? let's say we can even do this, wouldn't you end up making something so similar to plants that it could actually be a plant? You can ask the same question for all the other functions that plants perform. most of these functions we might not even know of and only realize once it's missed. in short, it's not economical for us to do. it might not even be possible for us to do fully given all that complexity that millions of years in evolution captures. life on earth can be seen as a huge huge body of knowledge. dont people mourn of loss of ancient libraries or cultures for this very reason? many of the things entrapped in such a culture or body of knowledge are tacit, unknown, maybe even unknowable, it definitely cannot be exactly replicated once it's lost
- mvn9 6y ago
  Unneeded efforts is where all the technology began. Some ape grabbing a stick instead of shoving more leaves into his mouth. Investing time and resources, thinking, that's where technology starts. We use technology to create more food than nature provides voluntarily. Plants have become technology and we will use them as long as their synthesizing processes are more efficient as pure technological ones. But at one point, it will be more efficient to go full synthetic. If you kill all life, all fungi, all bacteria, everything will be dead matter, and like rocks on Mars or frozen seals at the poles, nothing will move in an uncontrolled way and everything will be in line with the way humans think. For sure, we have killed precious knowledge and as you say, we will never get it back. But that's due to humans being short-sighted and acting in a non-technological way. Like guns, it's not technology that is destroying the rain forest and reducing biodiversity. It's humans who follow their natural urges.
  - rutherblood 6y ago
solitus 6y ago
Unless humans remain for millions of years, nature has the upper hand. Hence humans should get with nature's program, not the other way around. Disclaimer: I am for technological advancements, I'm not saying we should stop and go live in caves. I merely think we should try to connect with nature at a deeper level; we'd probably all be happier for it.
munificent 6y ago
I think you're externalizing "nature", but my guess is that Bateson would include our own biology, impulses, instincts, and cognitive biases in his definition of "nature". We are a flawed biological brain that can also perform some logical computation (in the same way that you can implement a digital computer using analog electronics). The latter often conflicts with the former.
pjmorris 6y ago
Technology is made out of nature. Sooner or later, thermodynamics will have its way.

mark_l_watson 6y ago

There is a good recent conversation with Nora Bateson on the Team Human podcast.