On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:59:05PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 24 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> >This is true, however real randomness is aavailable, through the very >> >first person ineterminancy phenomenon you mention below, and evolution >> >doesn't care, it will exploit whatever is at hand. >> >> That does not entail evolution will generate wheels, or quantum >> brains, or comp-brains (brains exploiting the first person >> indeterminacy). > > I'm not sure where the examples of wheels in evolution comes from, but > I believe there are several examples - tumbleweed being the most > prominent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems > lists quite a few examples. I think you may be referring to wheel and > axle analogues, which is much more difficult, engineering-wise, for > which the only know example appears to be the flagellum. > > As for exploitation of quantum superpositions, it now appears that > photosynthesis is an example. More examples may be found. > >> >> That kind of randomness can be used. I don't criticize this. Only >> the use of "genuine randomness". >> My point is just that free-will, creativity, consciousness does not >> need such genuine indeterminacy. We don't need "ontological or >> primitive indeterminacy", the one coming from inside (or from self- >> reference and self-induction) is enough. We seem to agree, thus. >> The FPI is used by "nature", but only with respect of the relative >> measure on the consistent histories/computations. >> >> >> >> >> >But for a simple animal, trying to flee a predator - think >> >fish fleeing a shark, for instance - their brains may not be >> >sufficiently complex to generate the sort of complex behaviour >> >required to outwit the predatit. In which case, evolution will exploit >> >the genuine randomness available in the environment. >> >> Well, the animals will survive on the branch where they make the >> right decision, but I think that their brain will use simple >> Turing-like complexity, not the FPI, unless they are quantum >> computers, or the equivalent comp-computers, which I doubt. It is >> conceivable; >> > > As for exploitation of quantum random processes by the brain, that > theory makes two specific predictions: 1) a source of quantum > randomness must be found - the stochastic thermal behaviour of the > synapse fits the bill there, and 2) the system must be able to amplify > small perturbations into whole-system changes, ie we must necessarily > see the signature of chaotic processes in the brain. Note that > our most complex machine avoid chaos like the plague. Nyquist noise is > suppressed at each component or wire. > > When this stuff was looked into (when Chaos theory was young and > trendy), that was exactly what was found - brains are wired for > chaos. See Walter Freeman, Sci Amer, vol 264, 78-85 (1991). I happen > to think this observation is significant.
Nice! I would think 2) is important also to maintain a state of self-organised criticality, or an unstable equilibrium. Empirically, I would point out how most of the information we receive is trivially incorporated (or discarded), but a few pieces of information can change you more profoundly -- I imagine a domino effect on the "belief network", however that's implemented. We experience that when we are learning something hard and suddenly everything clicks. Maybe creativity is a similar destabilisation that makes things "unclick". Highly speculative, of course. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
