[FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Tue Jun 25 10:46:53 EDT 2019

And what about stochastic resonance?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 24, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> Ah Nick,
> 
> because they finely tune the carrier wave (that which you perceive as neural noise) in such a way that my quantum signal, being the delicate creature it is, can survive multiple synaptic shocks as it moves from neuron to neuron — the way you would want a well padded barrel when going over Niagara Falls.
> 
> davew
> 
> (I assume you are wearing your hip boots as standard gear in the MIB.)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> David, 
>> 
>> I will see your "bushwash" and raise you a hornswaggle.
>> 
>> Why, my feathered friend, if quantum accuracy is so important, do you 
>> wear your retina backwards?  Why do you see through your ganglion 
>> cells.  
>> 
>> Nick 
>> 
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>> Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>> 
>> Nick said:
>> "I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT  
>> long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea,
>> etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that. 
>> 
>> So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the elements 
>> are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system 
>> cannot  resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near."
>> 
>> Not to impugn your professors, but bushwah!
>> 
>> To make an analogy: the "neural noise" is akin to "junk DNA" just 
>> because they had not figured out what signals existed within the noise 
>> and how they were transmitted and received does not mean lost signal.
>> 
>> While "the system" seldom makes the effort to resolve at quanta scale 
>> does not mean that it cannot. (Why it seldom does is whole 'nuther 
>> thread.)
>> 
>> But, assuming your professors were correct, would it be permissible to 
>> ask why the organism evolved the sensitivity only to evolve  the 
>> blockade? Or, having evolved the blockade why then evolve the 
>> sensitivity? Where is the competitive advantage in having either the 
>> sensitivity or the blockade? Or, do such questions tend not to 
>> edification?
>> 
>> I have seen the angels dancing on the head of the pin, so I know it can 
>> be done. Have also consorted with others, directly or intermediated by 
>> words, who can say, and demonstrate, the same.
>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> Can somebody forward this on to Mike Daly, whose email I can NEVER recover?
>>> 
>>> I was taught this fascinating trope in graduate school... yes, THAT 
>>> long ago.  There is a second shoe, however.  Yes the retina (cochlea,
>>> etc.) is that sensitive BUT the neural noise is much louder than that.  
>>> So ... I think this is the right language ... even though the elements 
>>> are sensitive to the smallest stimuli possible, the whole system cannot
>>> resolve stimuli that small ... anywhere near.   To do what it does, it 
>>> needs to weed out its own noise.  So accuracy in vision is not a 
>>> question of accuracy of the elements, but of the ingenuity of 
>>> construction.  Note, for instance that we wear our retinas "backwards":
>>> we actually see THOUGH the many layers of the retina because the light 
>>> sensitive elements ... the rods and cones ... are at the back of the 
>>> retina.  So all that sensitivity of light sensing elements is rudely 
>>> cast away in the organization of the retina.  It's like we are a 
>>> football players who wear our jerseys inside out but boast about the
>>> precision, detail, and color of our logos.    
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hope you are well.  Where are you well?  
>>> 
>>> All my Peirce books were lost in the mail coming here, so I have been 
>>> focusing on my garden.  Mild, calm June.  May be the best garden ever.
>>> But my mind?  Not so sure about that. 
>>> 
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University 
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David 
>>> West
>>> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>>> 
>>> Doing some reading on quantum consciousness and embodied mind and came 
>>> across these items:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-te
>>> st-quantum-mechanics/
>>> 
>>> https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282
>>> 
>>> (A Rebecca Holmes from Los Alamos Natl. Labs is part of the Scientific 
>>> American reported research.)
>>> 
>>> not only can the human eye perceive individual photons (and perhaps 
>>> quanta level phenomena) "The healthy human cochlea is so sensitive 
>>> that it can detect vibration with amplitude less than the diameter of 
>>> an atom, and it can resolve time intervals down to 10µs [i.e., 
>>> microseconds, or millionths of a second]. It has been calculated that 
>>> the human ear detects energy levels 10- fold lower than the energy of 
>>> a single photon in the green wavelength…” Regarding human tactile and 
>>> related senses (haptic, proprioceptive), it has recently been 
>>> determined that “human tactile discrimination extends to the nanoscale 
>>> [ie, within billionths of a meter],” this research having been 
>>> published in the journal, Scientific Reports (Skedung et al 2013)"
>>> 
>>> interesting stuff
>>> dave west
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>> 
>> 
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
>> 
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
> 
> 