Cari Tutti, sforzandomi di interloquire e per quel che riesco a capire, ribadisco i contenuti dei due messaggi che ho inviato il 12 e il 14 settembre scorsi, al secondo dei quali ha risposto magnificamente Terry Deacon lo stesso 14 settembre. "Qui" ed "ora" mi limito a riportare il pensiero del neuro-biologo cileno H. Maturana: "L'esperienza del fisico, che si occupi di fisica classica, relativistica o quantistica, non riflette la natura dell'universo, bensì l'ontologia dell'osservatore come sistema vivente, in quanto egli "opera linguisticamente" mentre realizza le entità fisiche e le coerenze operative dei loro domini di esistenza. Come affermava Einstein 'le teorie (spiegazioni) scientifiche sono libere creazioni della mente umana' " (H. Maturana, "Autocoscienza e realtà", Milano 1993, p. 114). In questo con-testo, "operare linguisticamente" significa essere e vivere nel linguaggio, mediante una cooperazione comportamentale, ricorsiva e descritta semanticamente. Tutto esiste e si svolge all'interno della comunicazione, non al di fuori. Ed è per questo che non si può prescindere dal rapporto tra informazione e significato. Beninteso, niente di quanto ho scritto ha un significato polemico. L'obiettivo scientifico ed umano che mi pongo sempre è quello di realizzare un'economia del pensiero o un pensiero dell'economia inclusivo, non esclusivo. Grazie e saluti. Francesco Rizzo.
2015-09-21 10:44 GMT+02:00 Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]>: > Dear List, > > I ended my last note highlighting that Bits are strongly local and their > organization is arbitrary. > > The “word” in my last post is the binary word, such as “1010” and not > “THIS.” The latter is more complex than the former, although they both > depend upon an arbitrary organization. > > It may not seem that way to you but this is merely because we are familiar > with conventions that enable us to apprehend, to perceive or “feel,” a > particular organization. An 8bit or a 64bit word is equally arbitrary and > has little locality, except that which is useful for engineering, not > science. > > *On BIT Locality* > > So a weaker view of Bit Locality concerns the width of organization and, > necessarily because we are dealing with Bits, the step-wise nature of their > transformation. > > But let me point out that stated at its most dramatic nothing varies, the > world can be said to transforms. It moves from one distinct state > to another. But there is no “returning” to a prior state, there can be no > variable state. These are simply ways to speak about the world. > > Clearly we can dig a hole in the ground and place a stone in it. Between > us we may call this hole a “Bit.” We may agree that when there is a stone > in the hole its value is 1 and when there is no stone its value is 0. We > may dig a second hole at your house and we can do the same. We can agree to > combine the two such that were a stone in each hole the value can be said > to be “11” and when not the value can be said to be “00.” We may also > speak about the value “10.” To increase our confidence, perhaps, we may > pay a grandchild to stand by the hole and shout out whether or not there is > a stone in the hole. > > By this means we may eventually build a computing system, grandchildren > shattered all over the neighborhood. But this organization has little > locality, it does not “scale,” and it is not sustainable. Children tire, > holes eventually fill and stones break. > > And, this is especially challenging, each time a stone is placed in the > hole it is not, in fact, the same stone nor is it the same hole. Even > though this will not be how it will seem to our grandchildren. The reuse of > the stone and the hole is itself an arbitrary pragmatic. > > Automated information processing varies from this scenario only as a > matter of degree. Reducing the problem to microelectronics enables us to > put the machine into our pocket but it does not change the locality > question nor does it make the states the same. > > Every state is, in fact, new. The illusion that it is otherwise is > transitory. > > Now, obviously, engineers make best efforts to give us the impression that > things are other than this. And, of course, I understand that for practical > purposes we take the organization of machines to maintain repeatable states > for practical purposes. Indeed, we depend upon this fragile pragmatism. > > The illusion is so pervasive that we call our time the Digital Age and we > attempt to explain everything in terms of illusory Bits. We are enamored. > > *On Step-wise Functions* > > At the core of the Bit issue is a dualism that extends back to the start > of the twentieth century. It is the dualism of “This” and “That,” “True” > and “False.” It was brought to us largely by Bertrand Russell, his advocacy > of Logicism and his celebrated authorship of the Principia Mathematica. > > Gödel showed us in 1931 that this system is necessarily inconsistent and > even that the foundations of arithmetic based upon well considered but > none-the-less arbitrary axioms, like those of Peano, could express no > truth. > > I argue that the conventional axiomatic method is not well grounded and > must be replaced by one that has greater rigor. I suggest one that is > explicitly structuralist and covariant. > > It has to be admitted, of course, that despite these problems we have > achieved remarkable success. But, again, we must shake off our love of this > success in order to see how things are. > > Adoption of dualistic and strong bit-wise locality, arbitrary > organization, and step-wise functions (due to Alan Turing and Alonzo > Church) define the effective methods of modern computing. We have also > finally accepted that the parallel processing of large-scale data is > required. But this acceptance does not help us if we we are merely back to > where I started 30 years ago. > > In fact, step-wise functions are deeply flawed. The result of a step-wise > function is entirely unrelated to its former or subsequent value. In > addition, the parallel execution of such a function suffers the long known > problems of parallelism. Structure is hidden from such functions and is > present only as a matter of fait or deception and must be enforced or > imposed by engineering or mathematical artifice. > > I can hear many software engineers and applied mathematicians crying out > in rebellion that this simply cannot be the case, but it is an imposition > upon their minds that is involved and the truth of the matter has likely > never occurred to them. > > *Holomorphism and at once “Functors”* > > I distinguish "step-wise functions” from “holomorphic functors.” > > True Holomorphism (a continuous and whole dynamic structure) is simply > impossible for a computing machine to simulate. > > The "at once” geometric transformation of a structure may only be > simulated by very fast machines using great electrical power burning and > time consuming step-wise functions for only small cases - or many such > small cases. We can and do fool ourselves into believing the magic by > pointing at the movie or the game screen. > > But it is all artifice, a sham of Moore’s law, timing, and the miracle of > theatre. > > There are important differences in the power profile of computing machines > and biology, two important differences that despite the clever short cuts > and mechanisms identified by Shannon and others demand that we accept that > Turing computation, in all of its forms (including neural networks), is > excluded from biophysics. > > These are the low power requirements of biology and the absence of > hotspots. Hotspots occur in computing systems because of locality in their > operation. There appears to be no such “hotspot" locality in biology. > > Alan Turing dismissed this lack of locality in his famous paper concerning > Computing Machines And Intelligence. > > "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery > about consciousness. There is, for instance, something of a paradox > connected with any attempt to localise it. But I do not think these > mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question > with which we are concerned in this paper.” Alan Turing, 1950. > > By dismissing locality Turing excludes a role for biophysical sensation, > what he calls “consciousness," in his mechanics. Of course, his paper > concerned the vague notion of “intelligence” and this really is a separate > question to that of sense. > > But I believe that if we are to build truly intelligent machines, machines > with the strength of the uniquely human skill set - admittedly shrinking > since the time of Turing, I am thinking of the things that are truly > unique: easy general recognition, self-maintenance, reproduction and > creativity, not chess, arithmetic etc… - then we must find a role for > sensation, feeling or “experience” in our physical mechanics. > > I make a pragmatic argument that Turing computation is necessarily > excluded from biophysics that runs along the following lines: The human > brain dissipates 15Joules of power per second in a profile that is quite > extraordinary. The power dissipation is uniform across the brain to within > 1degree everywhere. There are no hotspots. Neurons and astrocytes work > together to change blood flow, they change the brain’s structure. > > It has been widely predicted, although there is now a great deal of push > back from the neuroscience community, that the human brain can be simulated > in a machine with 10^18 operations (of some kind), the fabled “Exascale” > machine. > > Let us ignore the architecture of such a machine, and the hotspots, and > simply consider the numbers. If a brain possessed this much computing > power it would require 94eV per operation. Although estimates vary widely, > projections for the Exascale machine, with designs that are close to > physical limits, are 60MegaWatts, a reasonably sized power station > sufficient to power a moderately sized city. > > Biology has the locality problem solved, the Exascale machine does not. > Plus biology has the advantage of being able to function effectively on a > couple of burritos and a few cups of coffee per day. > > *Allosteric Conformance* > > The absence of locality in biophysics, generally refers to the variety of > biophysical conformances called Allostery. This is defined as "a > fundamental process by which ligand binding to a protein alters its > activity at a distant site.” > > The truth is that biophysicists are still mystified by this effect, > despite putting their best foot forward to provide an explanation is > conventional terms. See, for example, the latest edition of Essential Cell > Biology, 4th Edition. > > This absence of locality in biology defies Information Theory. If, > however, we listen to Brit Cruise closely we discover that he makes many > assumptions concerning locality despite the fact that he mentions the Bit > as the foundation of information theory. He fails, as do most information > theory presentations, to mention locality and existent structure as a > consideration. > > We speak about data structure, certainly, but data structure is not an > existential structure. Its various implementations are no less arbitrary > than the word. > > If I confront a Tiger alone on the path I feel the entire experience at > once across my physical structure. My apprehension is bound intimately with > my responses. There is no time for reasoned thinking. I stand or run as one > entity, fully coordinated, no part of me is standing still while the rest > of me is running. This is not merely a matter of software, it is one of > structure. > > At the end of the day only holomorphic functors can describe biophysical > sense and actions, allosteric conformances, and it is only the binding of > these as hyperfunctors that they can describe my sense and response at all > scales. > > *Shapes and Shaping* > > At its simplest, information in biophysics involves shapes and shaping. > These shapes are cell receptors and motor functions, changed and bound by > genetic mechanics in flexible closed structures (cells and membranes). We > can describe these shapes at all levels of the organism with dynamic > holomorphic functors. These describe the shapes upon the surface of cells, > be they receptor clusters or motor functions. > > These are sensitized by a necessary new basis. A universal that is across > all flexible closed structure and is responsible for the associated range > of sensation, allosteric shaping and coordination across these structures. > > > > I have one more piece to add, expanding information science into its > proper domain. > > > My apologies for the delay between posts. I am still in recovery and in > addition to the problems with the FIS server last week my Thyroid crashed > (the consequence of radiation treatment last year) leaving me feeling > pretty ill. > > Regards, > Steven > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Los Gatos, California. +1-650-308-8611 > http://iase.info > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
