[FRIAM] loopiness (again)

[Marcus Daniels]

Ok, one could imagine thousands of very lightweight processors that independently process very high resolution sensor data, and share it asynchronously.  Also one could show that the sensors were as good or better than human sensitivity.  All of the events could be tagged with very high precision atomic clocks and logged.  Then the events could be sorted by that tag.   Somehow `flattening' is important to you here, but I haven't figured out why.   Anyway, once flattening was accomplished to understand what was going on it would just have to be unflattened again, like using some communication sequential processes formalism.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] loopiness (again)

On 02/07/2017 01:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> For a robot built on digital technology, sensor data would be quantized to bits, thus non face-to-face words. 

I don't think so.  Proprioception is a critical type of sensor data, especially enteroception.  While it may seem like the robot's entire sensorimotor space can be flattened, I'm not convinced.  I even doubt the parallelism theorem (that any parallel computation can be perfectly simulated by a sequential one) when we're talking about _multiple_ processors interacting in a cross-trophic (time and space) way with each other and the environment.

To argue that all of what's inside can be adequately represented by what goes in or out (holographic principle) is fideistic.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove