[FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

[Prof David West]

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-test-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
>