<div dir="ltr">You are not the first person to point this out :-)<div><br></div><div>I have argued for years that the power profile and dynamics required excludes Turing's models of computation from biophysics. See: <a href="https://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M">https://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M</a></div><div><br></div><div>Steven</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bacigalupiworks@gmail.com" target="_blank">bacigalupiworks@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and their interrelationhips in mechanics.</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>If I understand Joseph, he is right to point out that the notion of 'simultaneity' from a non-observer stance is not necessary, because the distributed nature of physics is an ontological given in my Monist world view. The confusion now is that humans often over extend the machine analogy to explain currently unexplained phenomena, e.g. intelligence. It is exactly the fact that most assume a priori that if the brain and universe aren't actually digital, or at least mechanical, they can be simulated to the point to duplication via such noiseless state machines.</div><div><br></div><div>Not only do I argue that we have over-extended our industrial analogies past the point of utility in the context of intelligence, mind, significance, cognition, etc., I also suggest that such heuristics actively obfuscate a viable path to discover such understanding. Why?</div><div><br></div><div>Let's take vision. It is often assumed that our own retina digitizes EM phenomena transducing them into independent states like bits in a square wave. Or, at the very least, such evolved systems can be simulated to the point of duplication via state machines. The problem is that a large amount of energy is expended to create such independent discrete states, states that are specifically designed not to be related in any way with adjacent states. However, there is a vast amount of relationships, both temporal and spatial, among potential observables embedded in the agent's surroundings that can co-stimulate two adjacent rods thereby assimilating not only two distinct events, but their spatio-temporal relations, simultaneously. This potentially useful information to the agent is embedded in the agent's environment for free, so to speak. Digitizing, on the other hand, spends energy to filter out these inter-relations only to re-create these relations later with still more energy and increased memory consumption.</div><div><br></div><div>In this way, Joseph is right to question the need to insert the notion of simultaneity, because, the biology never took it out. It is our centuries of trying to perfect our control over noiseless states that creates the paradox; and, therefore, a need to overtly put it back in.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bacigalupiworks@gmail.com" target="_blank">bacigalupiworks@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Pedro and Joseph, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I was away this weekend, and look forward to responding shortly to your comments.<div><br></div><div>But, briefly:</div><div>Pedro - I'm not sure I have access to Koichiro Matsuno's discussion re: paradoxes. Would you mind quoting some of the relevant portions of this discussion?</div><div><br></div><div>Joseph - Your comments on simultaneity are very insightful. They bring much to mind; but, I will let these initial thoughts settle over the next day or so before I respond.</div><div><br></div><div>Until then, best to all;</div><div>Josh</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, <a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Josh, Pedro, Chuan and All,<br>
<br>
In Josh's original note and the subsequent comments on it, I see a
poetic
sensibility with which I fully empathize. I return, however, to four of
Josh's
expressions for I think require further discussion would be useful to
explicate the complex relations involved. In reverse order, they are
as follows, with my comments interpolated:<br>
<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.1in;text-indent:.15in"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>the self-efficacious relationship between agents
and surroundings</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">JEB: a good expression of the need
for looking at content and context together;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.1in;text-indent:.15in"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>the simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts
and wholes</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">JEB: ‘so-called parts’ suggests a
non-separability or overlap between parts and wholes, leading toward a
necessary new mereology, but see point 4; </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.1in;text-indent:.15in"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>a both/and outcome</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">JEB: a necessary processual
antidote to an either/or ontology;</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.1in;text-indent:.15in"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span>a paradox of simultaneity</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">JEB: here, the concept of
simultaneity has been ‘imported’ from classical logic and physics and I think
there is a better alternative. If classical simultaneity does not exist, as in
General Relativity and other absolutes also do not exist, there is no paradox
to be explained. In the case of time, the non-separability of time and space
has as a consequence that neither simultaneity nor succession is ‘pure’ but each
is partly the other, like parts and wholes. Thus the word ‘simultaneous’ in
point 2 is not required.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To repeat, these somewhat more formal statements are not
intended to denature the original insights but show that they can be related to
a<span> </span>non-standard, non-binary logic that
better reflects, among other things, the dynamics of intelligent processes. Thank
you. Joseph<br></p>
<blockquote style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:15px">----Message d'origine----<br>De : <a href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" target="_blank">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a><br>Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST)<br>À : <a href="mailto:zhaoc@cdut.edu.cn" target="_blank">zhaoc@cdut.edu.cn</a><br>Cc : <a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches<div><div><br><br>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Dear FISers,<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Herewith I respond to late messages from several colleagues. I think they are pretty much interrelated.<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">First, from Chuan and Yixin, about the scope of intelligence science. In my view, the evolutionary dimension has been missing. No other kind of intelligence has existed until recent decades in this planet
except that one existing in living beings--humans and many other animals. Cells themselves manifest intelligence, as I have argued several times in this list. All kinds of natural intelligence are finally due to the coupling between nucleic acids and their
protein transcripts. Then the essential “goal” becomes evident, as the maintenance and reproduction of the living organism. Failure to achieve that, particularly in front of another intelligence striving for its own goal –against the former subject- means
but natural selection in action: disappearance of the subject. Intelligence derives from life and has to be checked by how it subserves life’s goals. Otherwise we leave “empty”, baseless, that very important goal aspect.<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"><br>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Our own intelligence, answering Joseph, often evaluates situations, problems, relationships, etc. by the concurrent action of two systems (echoing Daniel Kahneman): system 1, fast and dirty, highly emotionally
laden, and system 2, slow and reflective, implying the most rational capabilities. The former is closer to our deeper personal goals as living entities, a faithful transmitter of what we need inside, and the second acts as a sort of high-level, discursive,
logic intelligence. It is not easy integrating them plainly, but Poetry, I think, uses both in the most cohesive way, taking the best of both worlds –see the poems we have posted these days, and personally I find Machado’s poem rather astonishing vitally and
rationally. <u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"><br>
</font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Then, Josh's views about the information paradox, are not easy to confront. On the one side, I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events
and their interrelationhips in mechanics. Koichiro Matsuno has posted about that paradox in this list, so I refrain to comment. But on the other side, when the paradox is essentially considered as addressed to significance in the organisms sense, I fail to
fully grasp it. Maybe it is because I see that very information paradox (beautiful term!) as that which occurs between self-production and communication with the environment by the agent. I have written recently about the “intertwining” of both aspects, but
I understand that Josh’s paradox only implies the communication aspect. If it is so, we are left in the first paragraph’s absence again, missing the essential goal of the informational, intelligent agent—its own life-cycle maintenance, the self-production
dimension… was I wrong in my understanding?<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Greetings to Roulette, Dino, Dai, and other new colleagues in this nice discussion.<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Regards to all—Pedro </font>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#000000;font-size:16px">
<hr>
<div style="direction:ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>De:</b> Fis [<a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a>] en nombre de 赵川 [<a href="mailto:zhaoc@cdut.edu.cn" target="_blank">zhaoc@cdut.edu.cn</a>]<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> viernes, 27 de marzo de 2015 15:10<br>
<b>Para:</b> Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.; Rafael Capurro; Joseph Brenner<br>
<b>Cc:</b> FIS论坛<br>
<b>Asunto:</b> [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><a name="14c6e89a668f4ce2_14c691c142b274b2_14c632ab19fb3d83_OLE_LINK7"></a><a name="14c6e89a668f4ce2_14c691c142b274b2_14c632ab19fb3d83_OLE_LINK6"><span><b><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,</font></span></b></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><span><b><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"> </font></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span>
</span>After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one mail now. </font>
</span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><font face="Calibri"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><span>
</span>Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many suggestions:</span><span lang="EN-US">
</span></span></span><span><span><span lang="EN-US">common sense & aberrant common sense; critical thinking and intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages,
<span> </span>Subjunctive, biological issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's perspectives, and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of diamond! I enjoy you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in worldwide
cultures and languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your mentioned, we are study Symmetry phenomena in Chinese that abstract a common issue as Symmetry of Language. Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal: The Language of 'Gitanjali': the Paradoxical Matrix (in:
The Criterion, 2012) </span></span></span></font><a href="http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf" target="_blank"><font color="#800080"><font face="Calibri"><span><span><span lang="EN-US">http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf</span></span></span><span><span></span></span></font></font></a><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">”
that is fine. And let me connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more inspirations. Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As another example to such paradox here is a lines from Buddha:
<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></font></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span>
</span></font></span></span></span></p>
<pre style="line-height:19.25pt"><span><span><span style="font-size:11.5pt" lang="EN-US"><font face="宋体">it is impossible to reach</font></span></span></span></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;line-height:19.25pt;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left">
<span><span><span style="font-family:宋体;color:black;font-size:11.5pt" lang="EN-US">but it is impossible to escape suffering</span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;line-height:19.25pt;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left">
<span><span><span style="font-family:宋体;color:black;font-size:11.5pt" lang="EN-US"><span>
</span>unless one reaches</span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span style="font-family:宋体;color:black;font-size:11.5pt" lang="EN-US">--- from Buddha<span>
</span>Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014</span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"> </font></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><font face="Calibri"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><span>
</span>I am an adviser of a poetry association of students in our university, I organized a Poem-island</span></span></span><span><span><span lang="EN-US">
</span></span></span></font><span><span><span style="font-family:宋体;color:black" lang="EN-US">Morning
</span></span></span><font face="Calibri"><span><span><span lang="EN-US">Chant
</span></span></span><span><span><span lang="EN-US">three years ago, and yesterday I open it of 2015, spring team. This is the words of encourage from an India Prof. Mihir Chakraborty sent for such an events. We consisted
<span> </span>90days last spring team. Read Chinese ancient style poem, modern poems and English poems. Really has a Poem-Island in our campus.
</span></span></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span>
</span>Buddha’s paradox words are so powerful and really wisdom. Yes, Symmetry phenomena in Chinese and Gitanjali’s paradox Matrix are similar parallel manners of thinking and language. This is the point I should special explain soon. Thanks for Rafael’s comment,
just put together is precious, we should let some link together. Know you see: so many information/consciousness streams are interweaving – forming worldwide new culture.
</font></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"><span>
</span>More later. <span> </span><span> </span></font></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:left;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt" align="left"><span><span><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri"> </font></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><span><b><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">best wishes, good weekend,
</font></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><span><b><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">Chuan</font></span></b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span><span><b><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri">March 27, 2015</font></span></b></span></span><b><span lang="EN-US"></span></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br></div></div></blockquote><br><p></p><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>