> I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the paradox of
> simultaneity between distinctive events and their interrelationhips in
> mechanics.

If I understand Joseph, he is right to point out that the notion of
'simultaneity' from a non-observer stance is not necessary, because the
distributed nature of physics is an ontological given in my Monist world
view.  The confusion now is that humans often over extend the machine
analogy to explain currently unexplained phenomena, e.g. intelligence.  It
is exactly the fact that most assume a priori that if the brain and
universe aren't actually digital, or at least mechanical, they can be
simulated to the point to duplication via such noiseless state machines.

Not only do I argue that we have over-extended our industrial analogies
past the point of utility in the context of intelligence, mind,
significance, cognition, etc., I also suggest that such heuristics actively
obfuscate a viable path to discover such understanding.  Why?

Let's take vision.  It is often assumed that our own retina digitizes EM
phenomena transducing them into independent states like bits in a square
wave.  Or, at the very least, such evolved systems can be simulated to the
point of duplication via state machines.  The problem is that a large
amount of energy is expended to create such independent discrete states,
states that are specifically designed not to be related in any way with
adjacent states.  However, there is a vast amount of relationships, both
temporal and spatial, among potential observables embedded in the agent's
surroundings that can co-stimulate two adjacent rods thereby assimilating
not only two distinct events, but their spatio-temporal relations,
simultaneously.  This potentially useful information to the agent is
embedded in the agent's environment for free, so to speak.  Digitizing, on
the other hand, spends energy to filter out these inter-relations only to
re-create these relations later with still more energy and increased memory

In this way, Joseph is right to question the need to insert the notion of
simultaneity, because, the biology never took it out.  It is our centuries
of trying to perfect our control over noiseless states that creates the
paradox; and, therefore, a need to overtly put it back in.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi <
bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pedro and Joseph, thank you for your thoughtful replies.  I was away this
> weekend, and look forward to responding shortly to your comments.
> But, briefly:
> Pedro - I'm not sure I have access to Koichiro Matsuno's discussion re:
> paradoxes.  Would you mind quoting some of the relevant portions of this
> discussion?
> Joseph - Your comments on simultaneity are very insightful.  They bring
> much to mind; but, I will let these initial thoughts settle over the next
> day or so before I respond.
> Until then, best to all;
> Josh
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <
> joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>> Dear Josh, Pedro, Chuan and All,
>> In Josh's original note and the subsequent comments on it, I see a poetic
>> sensibility with which I fully empathize. I return, however, to four of
>> Josh's expressions for I think require further discussion would be useful
>> to explicate the complex relations involved. In reverse order, they are as
>> follows, with my comments interpolated:
>>  ·         the self-efficacious relationship between agents and
>> surroundings
>> JEB: a good expression of the need for looking at content and context
>> together;
>> ·         the simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts and wholes
>> JEB: ‘so-called parts’ suggests a non-separability or overlap between
>> parts and wholes, leading toward a necessary new mereology, but see point
>> 4;
>> ·         a both/and outcome
>> JEB: a necessary processual antidote to an either/or ontology;
>> ·         a paradox of simultaneity
>> JEB: here, the concept of simultaneity has been ‘imported’ from classical
>> logic and physics and I think there is a better alternative. If classical
>> simultaneity does not exist, as in General Relativity and other absolutes
>> also do not exist, there is no paradox to be explained. In the case of
>> time, the non-separability of time and space has as a consequence that
>> neither simultaneity nor succession is ‘pure’ but each is partly the other,
>> like parts and wholes. Thus the word ‘simultaneous’ in point 2 is not
>> required.
>> To repeat, these somewhat more formal statements are not intended to
>> denature the original insights but show that they can be related to a  
>> non-standard,
>> non-binary logic that better reflects, among other things, the dynamics of
>> intelligent processes. Thank you. Joseph
>> ----Message d'origine----
>> De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
>> Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST)
>> À : zh...@cdut.edu.cn
>> Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
>> Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE
>> - unless reaches
>>  Dear FISers,
>> Herewith I respond to late messages from several colleagues. I think they
>> are pretty much interrelated.
>> First, from Chuan and Yixin, about the scope of intelligence science. In
>> my view, the evolutionary dimension has been missing. No other kind of
>> intelligence has existed until recent decades in this planet except that
>> one existing in living beings--humans and many other animals. Cells
>> themselves manifest intelligence, as I have argued several times in this
>> list. All kinds of natural intelligence are finally due to the coupling
>> between nucleic acids and their protein transcripts.  Then the essential
>> “goal” becomes evident, as the maintenance and reproduction of the living
>> organism. Failure to achieve that, particularly in front of another
>> intelligence striving for its own goal –against the former subject- means
>> but natural selection in action: disappearance of the subject. Intelligence
>> derives from life and has to be checked by how it subserves life’s goals.
>> Otherwise we leave “empty”, baseless, that very important goal aspect.
>>  Our own intelligence, answering Joseph, often evaluates situations,
>> problems, relationships, etc. by the concurrent action of two systems
>> (echoing Daniel Kahneman): system 1, fast and dirty, highly emotionally
>> laden, and system 2, slow and reflective, implying the most rational
>> capabilities. The former is closer to our deeper personal goals as living
>> entities, a faithful transmitter of what we need inside, and the second
>> acts as a sort of high-level, discursive, logic intelligence. It is not
>> easy integrating them plainly, but Poetry, I think, uses both in the most
>> cohesive way, taking the best of both worlds –see the poems we have posted
>> these days, and personally I find Machado’s poem rather astonishing vitally
>> and rationally.
>>  Then, Josh's views about the information paradox, are not easy to
>> confront. On the one side, I understand that he equates (or at least
>> compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and
>> their interrelationhips in mechanics. Koichiro Matsuno has posted about
>> that paradox in this list, so I refrain to comment. But on the other side,
>> when the paradox is essentially considered as addressed to significance in
>> the organisms sense, I fail to fully grasp it. Maybe it is because I see
>> that very information paradox (beautiful term!) as that which occurs
>> between self-production and communication with the environment by the
>> agent. I have written recently about the “intertwining” of both aspects,
>> but I understand that Josh’s paradox only implies the communication aspect.
>> If it is so, we are left in the first paragraph’s absence again, missing
>> the essential goal of the informational, intelligent agent—its own
>> life-cycle maintenance, the self-production dimension… was I wrong in my
>> understanding?
>> Greetings to Roulette, Dino, Dai, and other new colleagues in this nice
>> discussion.
>> Regards to all—Pedro
>>  ------------------------------
>> *De:* Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de 赵川 [
>> zh...@cdut.edu.cn]
>> *Enviado el:* viernes, 27 de marzo de 2015 15:10
>> *Para:* Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.; Rafael Capurro; Joseph Brenner
>> *Cc:* FIS论坛
>> *Asunto:* [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE
>> - unless reaches
>>   *Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,*
>>          After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one mail
>> now.
>>          Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many
>> suggestions: common sense & aberrant common sense; critical thinking and
>> intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages,  Subjunctive,
>> biological issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's
>> perspectives, and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of
>> diamond! I enjoy you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in
>> worldwide cultures and languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your
>> mentioned, we are study Symmetry phenomena in Chinese that abstract a
>> common issue as Symmetry of Language. Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal:
>> The Language of 'Gitanjali': the Paradoxical Matrix (in: The Criterion,
>> 2012) http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf” that is fine. And
>> let me connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more
>> inspirations. Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As
>> another example to such paradox here is a lines from Buddha:
>> it is impossible to reach
>>  but it is impossible to escape suffering
>>                  unless one reaches
>> --- from Buddha   Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014
>>          I am an adviser of a poetry association of students in our
>> university, I organized a Poem-island Morning Chant three years ago, and
>> yesterday I open it of 2015, spring team. This is the words of encourage
>> from an India Prof. Mihir Chakraborty sent for such an events. We consisted
>>  90days last spring team. Read Chinese ancient style poem, modern poems
>> and English poems. Really has a Poem-Island in our campus.
>>          Buddha’s paradox words are so powerful and really wisdom. Yes,
>> Symmetry phenomena in Chinese and Gitanjali’s paradox Matrix are similar
>> parallel manners of thinking and language. This is the point I should
>> special explain soon. Thanks for Rafael’s comment, just put together is
>> precious, we should let some link together. Know you see: so many
>> information/consciousness streams are interweaving – forming worldwide new
>> culture.
>>          More later.
>> *best wishes, good weekend, *
>> *Chuan*
>> *March 27, 2015*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to