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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Prof David > West > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM > To: [email protected] > 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:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Prof David > > > West > > > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > 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:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Prof > > > > David West > > > > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > 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:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Prof > > > > > David West > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > 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 >
============================================================ 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
