You are not the first person to point this out :-)

I have argued for years that the power profile and dynamics required
excludes Turing's models of computation from biophysics. See:


On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi <> wrote:

> 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
> consumption.
> 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 <
>> 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, <
>>> 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 :
>>> Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST)
>>> À :
>>> Cc :
>>> 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 [] en nombre de 赵川 [
>>> *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)” 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 mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to