You are not the first person to point this out :-) I have argued for years that the power profile and dynamics required excludes Turing's models of computation from biophysics. See: https://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M
Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi < bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the paradox of >> simultaneity between distinctive events and their interrelationhips in >> mechanics. > > > If I understand Joseph, he is right to point out that the notion of > 'simultaneity' from a non-observer stance is not necessary, because the > distributed nature of physics is an ontological given in my Monist world > view. The confusion now is that humans often over extend the machine > analogy to explain currently unexplained phenomena, e.g. intelligence. It > is exactly the fact that most assume a priori that if the brain and > universe aren't actually digital, or at least mechanical, they can be > simulated to the point to duplication via such noiseless state machines. > > Not only do I argue that we have over-extended our industrial analogies > past the point of utility in the context of intelligence, mind, > significance, cognition, etc., I also suggest that such heuristics actively > obfuscate a viable path to discover such understanding. Why? > > Let's take vision. It is often assumed that our own retina digitizes EM > phenomena transducing them into independent states like bits in a square > wave. Or, at the very least, such evolved systems can be simulated to the > point of duplication via state machines. The problem is that a large > amount of energy is expended to create such independent discrete states, > states that are specifically designed not to be related in any way with > adjacent states. However, there is a vast amount of relationships, both > temporal and spatial, among potential observables embedded in the agent's > surroundings that can co-stimulate two adjacent rods thereby assimilating > not only two distinct events, but their spatio-temporal relations, > simultaneously. This potentially useful information to the agent is > embedded in the agent's environment for free, so to speak. Digitizing, on > the other hand, spends energy to filter out these inter-relations only to > re-create these relations later with still more energy and increased memory > consumption. > > In this way, Joseph is right to question the need to insert the notion of > simultaneity, because, the biology never took it out. It is our centuries > of trying to perfect our control over noiseless states that creates the > paradox; and, therefore, a need to overtly put it back in. > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi < > bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Pedro and Joseph, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I was away this >> weekend, and look forward to responding shortly to your comments. >> >> But, briefly: >> Pedro - I'm not sure I have access to Koichiro Matsuno's discussion re: >> paradoxes. Would you mind quoting some of the relevant portions of this >> discussion? >> >> Joseph - Your comments on simultaneity are very insightful. They bring >> much to mind; but, I will let these initial thoughts settle over the next >> day or so before I respond. >> >> Until then, best to all; >> Josh >> >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch < >> joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote: >> >>> Dear Josh, Pedro, Chuan and All, >>> >>> In Josh's original note and the subsequent comments on it, I see a >>> poetic sensibility with which I fully empathize. I return, however, to four >>> of Josh's expressions for I think require further discussion would be >>> useful to explicate the complex relations involved. In reverse order, they >>> are as follows, with my comments interpolated: >>> >>> · the self-efficacious relationship between agents and >>> surroundings >>> >>> JEB: a good expression of the need for looking at content and context >>> together; >>> >>> · the simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts and wholes >>> >>> JEB: ‘so-called parts’ suggests a non-separability or overlap between >>> parts and wholes, leading toward a necessary new mereology, but see point >>> 4; >>> >>> · a both/and outcome >>> >>> JEB: a necessary processual antidote to an either/or ontology; >>> >>> · a paradox of simultaneity >>> >>> JEB: here, the concept of simultaneity has been ‘imported’ from >>> classical logic and physics and I think there is a better alternative. If >>> classical simultaneity does not exist, as in General Relativity and other >>> absolutes also do not exist, there is no paradox to be explained. In the >>> case of time, the non-separability of time and space has as a consequence >>> that neither simultaneity nor succession is ‘pure’ but each is partly the >>> other, like parts and wholes. Thus the word ‘simultaneous’ in point 2 is >>> not required. >>> >>> >>> >>> To repeat, these somewhat more formal statements are not intended to >>> denature the original insights but show that they can be related to a >>> non-standard, >>> non-binary logic that better reflects, among other things, the dynamics of >>> intelligent processes. Thank you. Joseph >>> >>> ----Message d'origine---- >>> De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >>> Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST) >>> À : zh...@cdut.edu.cn >>> Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es >>> Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE >>> SCIENCE - unless reaches >>> >>> >>> Dear FISers, >>> >>> >>> >>> Herewith I respond to late messages from several colleagues. I think >>> they are pretty much interrelated. >>> >>> >>> >>> First, from Chuan and Yixin, about the scope of intelligence science. In >>> my view, the evolutionary dimension has been missing. No other kind of >>> intelligence has existed until recent decades in this planet except that >>> one existing in living beings--humans and many other animals. Cells >>> themselves manifest intelligence, as I have argued several times in this >>> list. All kinds of natural intelligence are finally due to the coupling >>> between nucleic acids and their protein transcripts. Then the essential >>> “goal” becomes evident, as the maintenance and reproduction of the living >>> organism. Failure to achieve that, particularly in front of another >>> intelligence striving for its own goal –against the former subject- means >>> but natural selection in action: disappearance of the subject. Intelligence >>> derives from life and has to be checked by how it subserves life’s goals. >>> Otherwise we leave “empty”, baseless, that very important goal aspect. >>> >>> >>> Our own intelligence, answering Joseph, often evaluates situations, >>> problems, relationships, etc. by the concurrent action of two systems >>> (echoing Daniel Kahneman): system 1, fast and dirty, highly emotionally >>> laden, and system 2, slow and reflective, implying the most rational >>> capabilities. The former is closer to our deeper personal goals as living >>> entities, a faithful transmitter of what we need inside, and the second >>> acts as a sort of high-level, discursive, logic intelligence. It is not >>> easy integrating them plainly, but Poetry, I think, uses both in the most >>> cohesive way, taking the best of both worlds –see the poems we have posted >>> these days, and personally I find Machado’s poem rather astonishing vitally >>> and rationally. >>> >>> >>> Then, Josh's views about the information paradox, are not easy to >>> confront. On the one side, I understand that he equates (or at least >>> compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and >>> their interrelationhips in mechanics. Koichiro Matsuno has posted about >>> that paradox in this list, so I refrain to comment. But on the other side, >>> when the paradox is essentially considered as addressed to significance in >>> the organisms sense, I fail to fully grasp it. Maybe it is because I see >>> that very information paradox (beautiful term!) as that which occurs >>> between self-production and communication with the environment by the >>> agent. I have written recently about the “intertwining” of both aspects, >>> but I understand that Josh’s paradox only implies the communication aspect. >>> If it is so, we are left in the first paragraph’s absence again, missing >>> the essential goal of the informational, intelligent agent—its own >>> life-cycle maintenance, the self-production dimension… was I wrong in my >>> understanding? >>> >>> >>> >>> Greetings to Roulette, Dino, Dai, and other new colleagues in this nice >>> discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards to all—Pedro >>> ------------------------------ >>> *De:* Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de 赵川 [ >>> zh...@cdut.edu.cn] >>> *Enviado el:* viernes, 27 de marzo de 2015 15:10 >>> *Para:* Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.; Rafael Capurro; Joseph Brenner >>> *Cc:* FIS论坛 >>> *Asunto:* [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE >>> - unless reaches >>> >>> *Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,* >>> >>> >>> >>> After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one >>> mail now. >>> >>> Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many >>> suggestions: common sense & aberrant common sense; critical thinking >>> and intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages, Subjunctive, >>> biological issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's >>> perspectives, and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of >>> diamond! I enjoy you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in >>> worldwide cultures and languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your >>> mentioned, we are study Symmetry phenomena in Chinese that abstract a >>> common issue as Symmetry of Language. Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal: >>> The Language of 'Gitanjali': the Paradoxical Matrix (in: The Criterion, >>> 2012) http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf” that is fine. And >>> let me connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more >>> inspirations. Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As >>> another example to such paradox here is a lines from Buddha: >>> >>> >>> >>> it is impossible to reach >>> >>> but it is impossible to escape suffering >>> >>> unless one reaches >>> >>> --- from Buddha Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014 >>> >>> >>> >>> I am an adviser of a poetry association of students in our >>> university, I organized a Poem-island Morning Chant three years ago, >>> and yesterday I open it of 2015, spring team. This is the words of >>> encourage from an India Prof. Mihir Chakraborty sent for such an events. We >>> consisted 90days last spring team. Read Chinese ancient style poem, >>> modern poems and English poems. Really has a Poem-Island in our campus. >>> >>> Buddha’s paradox words are so powerful and really wisdom. Yes, >>> Symmetry phenomena in Chinese and Gitanjali’s paradox Matrix are similar >>> parallel manners of thinking and language. This is the point I should >>> special explain soon. Thanks for Rafael’s comment, just put together is >>> precious, we should let some link together. Know you see: so many >>> information/consciousness streams are interweaving – forming worldwide new >>> culture. >>> >>> More later. >>> >>> >>> >>> *best wishes, good weekend, * >>> >>> *Chuan* >>> >>> *March 27, 2015* >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fis mailing list >>> Fis@listas.unizar.es >>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
