[FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
Nick Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
Mon Jun 24 12:52:51 EDT 2019
Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So, an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the first intuition is "entirely." In meteorology, they talk about the "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which they based their predictions of future ones. I wonder what sort of tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting the model right.
But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it? Is there any world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a disadvantage?
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 12:42 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
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
>
============================================================
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
More information about the Friam
mailing list