[FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Tue Jun 25 10:34:48 EDT 2019

Nick,

I think I remember, from my time as a psych student, an experiment in which
the reversal of the retina was undone by special lenses and the subjects
adapted perfectly surprisingly quickly.  Is that correct?

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:16 AM Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Dave West  Wrot:
>
> *To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of
> the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental
> 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the
> apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is
> illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing
> retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily
> we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for
> enlightenment.*
>
>
>
> The Monist replyeth,
>
>
>
> *I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world.  All I care for is
> experience.  I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except
> insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience.  But the
> Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce
> unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience.  Why
> go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it
> away by the design of the retina? *
>
>
>
> 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: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
>
>
> re: "deep philosophical questions:
>
>
>
> Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical
> school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your
> "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs
> — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.
>
>
>
> Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus,
> some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy
> in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly
> changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and
> 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.
>
>
>
> I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and
> the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a
> 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect
> measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes
> from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via
> engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and
> constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements /
> adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic
> observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.
>
>
>
> The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides
> nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the
> advantage.
>
>
>
> To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of
> the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental
> 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the
> apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is
> illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing
> retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily
> we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for
> enlightenment.
>
>
>
> [Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last
> paragraph]
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> > 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
> <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
> <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
> <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-hel
>
> > > > p-
>
> > > > te
>
> > > > st-quantum-mechanics/
>
> > > >
>
> > > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
>
> > > > 2
>
> > > >
>
> > > > (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
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ============================================================
>
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190625/27daadcb/attachment-0001.html>