And what about stochastic resonance? Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 24, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]] 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]] 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-help-te >>> st-quantum-mechanics/ >>> >>> https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.20282 >>> >>> (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
