Here's a neat reference to brain development in a tiny wasp which
undergoes major neural expansion when it leaves the nest, dendrites to
the tune of seven to eight mm long in a brain the size of two grains of
sand.
Tiny But Adaptable Wasp Brains Show Ability To Alter Their Architecture
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014144738.htm
An offshoot for a member here, my father in law mentioned working in
audio biofeedback training \brain wave states with a woman 40 years ago
with successful results using EEG equipment. The tech may be available
in nano-sensor array headsets today (a gaming rig/platform).
I'm out of steam tonight, reading about exocortex theories, the memex
and ended up at this fascinating timeline at wolfram alpha!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/docs/timeline/computable-knowledge-history-5.html
Be well, happy turkey day, thanks gabby! :)
ps. These are pretty neat too, apparently I became fascinated by wasp
neurology a couple months ago.
Alien Wasps Abduct, Drop Ants to Get Food:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-aliens-wasps-ants-drop-food-new-zealand-animals-science/
Wasps Can Recognize Faces - Social species relies on recognition to keep
the peace, study suggests.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111202-wasps-people-faces-recognition-insects-science-animals/
On 11/20/2012 3:49 PM, archytas wrote:
I would certainly sign up for the brain-machine interface and a bit
of splicing with a prawn to see in 16 colours (preferably with an
alien who sees the dark). One possibility is that we don't know how
to use our brains much - capacity is massive potentially. I rather
like the idea that biological intelligence is short-lived and other
civilisations have passed through it. Stuff like Skydrive (which
sadly are attempts to rent software to us at high prices) could be
conceived as a thought-cloud in which individuality as we think of it
becomes as redundant as the PC once netware works. We may see a
network in which all skills are embodied and means of production
available to all. In some parts of science we are thinking the
machines are up to a lot we don't understand already.
More in my own field - we are finding brain changes associated with
social isolation. In mice these changes leave the mice uninterested
in new mice (the opposite of normal). The brain is much more plastic
than most imagine and humanity is changing. On the familiarity thing
James, E = mc2 is actually as slightly larger equation including p
(momentum) and looks like the right-angled triangle introduced to us
in Pythagoras' theorem. I take Deutsch as warning us against Bacon's
Idol of the Theatre.
On 20 Nov, 04:56, James<[email protected]> wrote:
Whew Neil, I lack the time to grasp it well, though my instincts tell me
to re-skim Pierce and modal logics to find out why it sounds so
familiar. In my limited view S4 really bites us in the cognitive bias
(meh, posterior) and Deutsche lays that out well on counterfactuals IMO.
Hope I get more time soon to compare his robot with the 3,2,1
configuration in Trikonic geometry (while fresh in memory).
Again, it points me toward a much less dramatic revolution for our
equation (depending on which emotions one prefers), transhumanism one
way or another (good and or bad), a very exciting time in the
anthropocene is it not? :p
Hope all is well everyone!
Best Regards
On 11/16/2012 11:14 AM, archytas wrote:
arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
Should produce David Deutsch's paper free.
This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking
boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to
put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be
restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to
posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts
to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion).
He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's
claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner.
The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with
ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a
believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has
always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for
not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly
scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't
work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its
decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at
CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved.
Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of
them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we
might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such.
The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he
wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma.
I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible
story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber
has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that
through history and rebellion against debt..
Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives)
and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a
turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another
turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down).
--
