Wolfram Alpha - now there's an example of something not doing what it said on the tin at the launch! I shall go back.
They've found a wasp described as having a 'clock work brain'. Seen most of your finds James - which only shows our interests overlap. Your take on Deutsch hadn't occurred to me and set my mind spinning. I'm after a holy grail - something that would be a framework for rational discussion. Took a sleeping tablet last night because I couldn't switch off - a problem my laptop is having since W8! It now boots as rapidly as my first PC from a 5 inch floppy. Will get t your links and then walk dog (tail wag as I write this!) to let news spin. On 23 Nov, 04:48, James <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-histor... > > 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-a... > > 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-f... > > 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). --
