Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches
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,
Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches
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
