Radical Relation, Scaling without Hierarchies, Models without the Meat

Hello, welcome everyone. It is October 15th, 2025. We're in active guest stream 122.1 with Andrea Hiot, who will be presenting and discussing radical relations, scaling without hierarchies, models without meat. So if you're watching live, please write any comments or questions in the live chat. Otherwise, Andrea, thank you for joining. Looking forward to sharing and discussing. Thanks, Daniel. It's really good to be here. Sort of last minute. So this is very exploratory. And yeah, I'm Andrea Hiot, and I'm going to try and link some ideas kind of as we go. We'll see. We'll see how it goes. I just wrote a paper called Radical Embodied Relation at Any Scale, and it's coming out of the Radical Embodied tradition. I think you've had a few people on here from that tradition in the streams. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking deeply at the paper. But I am going to think about it in relation to active inference and also to this other paper, which came out very recently with some people in Heidelberg, from some people at the University at Heidelberg, which is where I'm at, and other places too in Germany. A lot of this comes from my time at Max Planck with the Dole Lab. And a lot of these themes are about the hippocampus and movement. And this paper, Grid Cells Accurately Track Movement During Path Integration-Based Navigation Despite Switching Reference Frames, is a really exciting paper. I know the title might not show that unless you know about all these things. But they're moving forward some of the things that I talk about in my paper in an interesting way. So if I can get the... Okay, did that shift? Yeah. And feel free to interrupt me anytime if there's any way to do to... You too, Daniel, because if I say something that doesn't make sense with active inference, I'd love to know. So I'm thinking about radical embodiment meets active inference. I actually think they're already really doing a lot of similar things. In the way that I present it in that paper. Of course, there's a million ways to think about all of this. But one sort of obstacle that isn't an obstacle for me, but that comes up a lot when I'm talking about Carl Fursten's work or about other work is this idea of the model being in the brain. And Carl and I had a talk about that on Love and Philosophy. And one of the things that most... A lot of people wrote emails to me about was that. Models in the brain. It's... And I know it frustrates Carl and others, but I think it's worth lingering on a little bit here because I think it's a kind of confusion that we can really get past. And maybe these two... There's a lot of different traditions, traditions actually. That I think once we move past that block, start to start making a lot of resonance. And that's one reason I talk about way making, which is another sort of annoying word I know for some people maybe because it sounds like a little bit sweet. But what I'm really trying to do with that is pull back from all these dualistic ways that we say we don't take part in anymore in terms of mental, physical, or mind, body, or whatever. Pick your dualism. Or body, brain, or mind, brain. But we still... Our language is still sort of pushing us into those, which is often what's happening with this models in the brain thing. So way making is just kind of trying to understand all of this action in this process in a way that we can assess from different points of view. And it's just trying to present an approach that gets us out of those routes of the binary that we don't always notice. And if you really care about that, you can find other ways, other places I've written about it. But this is just coming out of that a little bit. And the way making is really just an approach. It's not some kind of rigorous thing. It's what I'm trying to do to break us out of those patterns. And then we can assess different forms of navigability in different landscapes. So they could be geographical, conceptual, emotional, etc. But…