[Fis] Patterns of discharges

Karl Javorszky karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Thu Nov 8 15:22:02 CET 2018

Addendum to natural intelligence

They always said, if you have to explain what the article means, the
article is badly written. They also said, such things mostly happen,
because one presupposes something fundamental that needs no explicit
mentioning; but, they said, it can be that you are used to the idea and
believe it to be known to any and all.

The main meaning of the mentioning of the asynchronicity in natural
computers is that where there is no synchronicity there is no causality.
This is self-evident, as cause and effect have a temporal neighbourhood,
which is ordered, one before the other. In a web of neurons, there can be
no common clock, because the physiological processes of creating,
maintaining and upkeeping the cells are subject to a wide range of external
and internal differences. One can feed beans to a company of soldiers more
or less on schedule, using a clock, but the discharges of farts can by no
stretch of imagination assumed to be synchronised. We observe the discharge
patterns but cannot connect any one of them to a clock in any other but a
quasi-stochastic, statistical fashion. This is different to the
electrically powered system, where one always knows exactly, which of the
switches is when in which state. Lacking such a central clock, we have to
design a naturally intelligent system based on local synchronicities, but
not on a concept of global cooperation. No teleology in biology, for lack
of central clocks (aside Sun, Moon, seasons, tide, hunger, etc.).

We may for each individual cell state – in a quadrivial fashion - that
discharge is an effect of the cause of flooding with nutrients, because
here *discharge *follows *flooding*. The group of cells that creates and
manages an image of the fly in the brain of the frog can, however, not be
assumed to work along the *cause *precedes *effect* principle. We are not
about to point out, while the frog targets the fly, any 1 of its cells
having been fed in such a way to have caused 1 discharge at that
millisecond: this would be a senseless approach. The causality not being
present in the parts of the whole, it can hardly be present as we regard
the whole. The *Gestalt*, said to be *more than the parts of the whole,* is
an illusion of the perception. Cause and effect can be mixed up, therefore
the idea of a rational causality to be the guiding principle in biologic
matters must be given up.

The method Nature appears to use deals with a sufficiently large number of
individuals among which there are some types, each with a number of clones.
(One may imagine a grand dozen of things that can have a good dozen of
different kinds.) These are flooded with nutrients. The hypothesis is, that
the resulting collection of discharges will have a typical distribution,
which is descriptive of the kinds of nutrients, the modalities of the
flooding and anything extraordinary. The constant background noise
generated by the discharges has no specific attributes, other than being
the standard noise, the etalon, the Zero value of information. Any
extraordinary nature of a flooding will cause a specific deviation of the
background noise from its most expected varieties. The message is contained
in the noise; the message makes itself recognisable by the characteristics
of the noise’s deviation from its most predictable form.

Now to cause and effect: is it a consequence or a cause that during a
reorder of pairs (a,b) from order [b,a] into order [a,b] after 6 steps a
partial state of the collection is recurrent that has already been the
case? (You may propose better examples, e.g. for collisions,
transformations, impossibilities, etc.). Once the elements, their
properties, and the properties of the properties exist, the concept of
“order” is an implication. What I try to say here, is that an implication
is neither a cause nor an effect. An implication is a logical operation
which lives in the moment, therefore outside of the world of causation.
Once we have 1,2,3,… and their relations among each other in good standing,
we have defined the term order. What if Nature is made up of pairs, like
Castor and Pollux, and many other argumentative examples, and we represent
the first few of her elements in the form of pairs (a,b)? Then, questions
of places and occupants of places inevitably turn up. Territoriality being
a mighty force in the deep roots of our intelligence and culture, it could
turn out to be helpful to see, how the natural numbers fight it out among
themselves. (Spoiler alert: *17 *carries the day.)

Rhythmonomia has uttered her first sentence: The sequence N is a period of
unpredictable length, where each of the segments spawn off a cycle, which
cycles each have 1 more element than the cycle spawned in the previous
segment. Isn’t she cute?

Thank you for being pen-pals on a subject that is a conversation-killer.
Since a few decades, I have had not many successes trying to engage clever
people in a conversation about patterns to be observed while one
re-sequences things. This is not a subject people get excited about. *Au
contraire, *usually people show symptoms of unease, bewilderment,
embarrassment and change the subject or leave my company. I do not want to
believe that it is my special training and professional experience that
allows me to access highly shocking, horrible subjects, too. Aside a few
juicy anecdotes, my normal clientele does not necessitate a deep
un-dressing of taboos, de-culturalising, contra-anthropomorphising,
prejudice-sensitivising trainings that were commensurate to the avoidance
of the subject by non-psychologists and psychologists alike. What is so
reluctant on the idea that one sequences and re-sequences logical tokens
and watches the patterns that emerge (which are neither cause nor effect,
neither praemisse nor consequence, but implications)? The hobby is not
necrophilia, but rather clean, and the pairs (a,b) may appear disoriented,
almost everywhere or to be get lost as they wander around while finding the
ultimate order, but it is a tidy workshop and not a revolting sludge of
blood and gore. The subject is not *salonfaehig*, it appears. In polite
company, you do not discuss recurrent affairs, matters relating to places,
one’s own place, some minimal changes but otherwise all the same, one’s
position in a line, the expected places for many a person, one’s actual as
opposed to expected place, the rightfulness of it, how predictable it all
was, what they call order these days, is there an order at all, if only
there was an order, and related subjects.

Many thanks to Pedro for having made this possible.

------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181108/1c0bc733/attachment.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list