Friam

sensitive, aren't we?

Classic

List

Threaded

26 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Re: sensitive, aren't we?

Hi Frank,

You are correct about the reversal, but it was not of the retina but of the lenses of the eyes, which invert the image. This work was done by Hans Wallach, who was my first chairman at Swarthmore College, and is probably the main reason I did not get to stay there: I annoyed him. But my concern is NOT about the lenses, but about the anatomy of the retina itself. The light-sensitive elements of the retina, the rods and cones, are at the BACK of the retina. The complex neuroanatomy of the retina, the ganglion cells that summarize and organize the incoming information all lie BETWEEN the rods and cones and the light. One theory is that the glial cells of the retina are already processing the light before it gets to the rods and cones. I don’t know what a monist would say about this, but I do know that the notion that the retina is a “film” is deeply flawed.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 10:35 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Nick,

I think I remember, from my time as a psych student, an experiment in which the reversal of the retina was undone by special lenses and the subjects adapted perfectly surprisingly quickly. Is that correct?

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:16 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave West Wrot:
To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

The Monist replyeth,

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

re: "deep philosophical questions:

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

davew

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
> interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
> would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the
> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of
> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
> the model right.
>
> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
> backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any
> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
> disadvantage?
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
> 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > David West
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > > David West
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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-hel
> > > p-
> > > te
> > > st-quantum-mechanics/
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
> > > 2
> > >
> > > (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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Prof David West

Re: sensitive, aren't we?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.

Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to be.

To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think (understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.

Hubristic, ain’t I?

davew

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave West Wrot:
To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

The Monist replyeth,

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

re: "deep philosophical questions:

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

davew

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
> interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
> would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the
> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of
> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
> the model right.
>
> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
> backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any
> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
> disadvantage?
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
> 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > David West
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > > David West
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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-hel
> > > p-
> > > te
> > > st-quantum-mechanics/
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
> > > 2
> > >
> > > (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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Prof David West

Re: sensitive, aren't we?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

The crazy days of undergraduate education. Did the lens experiment - it took, on average about 8-12 hours to adjust to an upside down world and back again. The 45 degree world was more difficult - lack of coordination between eyes and inner ear that was not a problem with 180 degree reversal as your inner ear still had you perpendicular to the gravity field.

Real fun was doing psychedelics while adjusting to the lens reversal. Both mescaline and psilocybin were used in the experiments. It seems as if inputs from the outside world were not so much skewed as ignored in favor of random, phantom, stimuli generated in the brain.

These experiments were for course credit under the auspices of the psychology department at my college.A golden age before the FBI decided that Leary was a terrorist and LSD was an existential threat to the American Way.

davew

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 6:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi Frank,

You are correct about the reversal, but it was not of the retina but of the lenses of the eyes, which invert the image. This work was done by Hans Wallach, who was my first chairman at Swarthmore College, and is probably the main reason I did not get to stay there: I annoyed him. But my concern is NOT about the lenses, but about the anatomy of the retina itself. The light-sensitive elements of the retina, the rods and cones, are at the BACK of the retina. The complex neuroanatomy of the retina, the ganglion cells that summarize and organize the incoming information all lie BETWEEN the rods and cones and the light. One theory is that the glial cells of the retina are already processing the light before it gets to the rods and cones. I don’t know what a monist would say about this, but I do know that the notion that the retina is a “film” is deeply flawed.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 10:35 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

Nick,

I think I remember, from my time as a psych student, an experiment in which the reversal of the retina was undone by special lenses and the subjects adapted perfectly surprisingly quickly. Is that correct?

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 8:16 AM Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dave West Wrot:
To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

The Monist replyeth,

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

re: "deep philosophical questions:

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

davew

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
> interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
> would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the
> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of
> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
> the model right.
>
> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
> backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any
> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
> disadvantage?
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
> 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > David West
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > > David West
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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-hel
> > > p-
> > > te
> > > st-quantum-mechanics/
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
> > > 2
> > >
> > > (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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Nick Thompson

Re: sensitive, aren't we?

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Oh when the words, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” were first spoken, I am sure they were spoken of me. I am a terrible intellectual amateur. So, stipulated.

However, your are just wrong if you say that experience talk cannot be monist talk. Experience can be of other experiences, and not of anything else. If you ask me, what was the first experience of, I will say, I dunno, but let’s worry about all the others before we worry about that one, eh? But you are correct: If one is a monist, and being rigorous, one cannot give any name to the stuff of which everything is composed, because any name implies the existence of its opposite, it’s contrast class, whatever. I use the term “experience monism” because it is the most neutral term I can think of, but it does lead to endless hassles, as you point out.

What exactly is this “you” that is doing the regulating?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:11 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.

Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to be.

To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think (understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.

Hubristic, ain’t I?

davew

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave West Wrot:
To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

The Monist replyeth,

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

re: "deep philosophical questions:

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

davew

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
> interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
> would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the
> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of
> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
> the model right.
>
> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
> backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any
> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
> disadvantage?
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
> 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > David West
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > > David West
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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-hel
> > > p-
> > > te
> > > st-quantum-mechanics/
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
> > > 2
> > >
> > > (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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Nick Thompson

Re: sensitive, aren't we?

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi, David,

I realize I didn’t really address your points, I think mostly because I don’t understand them. Please see larding below.

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:11 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.

[NST==>by whoooooom? <==nst]

There is no such thing as experience that is not OF something — at least as long as experiences are intermediated, first by embodied senses, then by cognitive “constructions.” YOU cannot regulate your experiences, only the process of experiencing can yield what might appear to be regularities / patterns / consistencies.[NST==>Even in a monist system, can’t a model of the self-screen experience and thus lead to different experiences. Hence, self-control? <==nst]

Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to be.

[NST==>I have no idea what you mean be this… honestly. <==nst]

Quantum sensitivity is not “thrown away” by the design of your retina, or any other sense organ. The only thing that can ‘block’ such sensitivity are those pesky cognitive constructs, and they do not block so much as they establish a willful disregard.[NST==>I still don’t know what a quantum signal would look like, so I don’t know what quantum sensitivity would be sensitivity to. But it seems to me that if one threw in random input between a quantum signal, whatever that might be, and the optic nerve, whatever sensitivity the cone cells might have would be sensitivity to extraneous events in the retina (the passing blood cell, say), rather to anything in your dualist’s world “out there”. <==nst]

To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think (understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.

[NST==>As I said earlier, I can enumerate all sorts of sins that you might be accusing me of here, but I don’t know which one, and I don’t see why I should do the work of accusation for you. Thus your hubris is matched by my bone-headedness. <==nst]

You somewhere nice?

Hubristic, ain’t I?

davew

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dave West Wrot:
To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

The Monist replyeth,

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

re: "deep philosophical questions:

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

davew

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
> interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
> would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the
> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of
> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
> the model right.
>
> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
> backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any
> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
> disadvantage?
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
> 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > David West
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > > David West
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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-hel
> > > p-
> > > te
> > > st-quantum-mechanics/
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
> > > 2
> > >
> > > (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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Prof David West

Re: sensitive, aren't we?

Nick,

not larded, but referenced response:

"by whoooom?"

From Wikipedia: Philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include Heraclitus, Karl Marx,^[4] Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson, Martin Heidegger, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Alfred Korzybski, R. G. Collingwood, Alan Watts, Robert M. Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare, Nicholas Rescher, Colin Wilson, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze." My library is in Utah, so I cannot point to other references that confirm Wikipedia's inclusion of Peirce in the process school.

"Who is this YOU of whom you speak?"

Nick T. stated he (might) use mental constructions to regulate experience. I used the pronoun 'you' to refer to Nick T. and make the assertion that Nick T. could not regulate experience.

"can’t a model of the self-screen experience and thus lead to different experiences?"

No. There is no model of the self anymore than there is a self, or an 'out-there-other' - at least if you want to be a real experiential monist asserting that nothing IS except experience.

If you really want to be an 'experiential monist' I believe you will have to become a process philosopher yourself. There is no "experience" no "experienc-er" there only is the process of "experienc-ing." The hyphen is intended to divorce the neologism from the common word, which implies a who — but retain the notion of constant dynamic process.

Process philosophers (and Buddhists) are not 'dualists' (nor am I) and all pretty much deny, to a greater or lesser degree of absolutism, that there is an "out there."

Satori is an altered state of awareness where you see through the illusory, concrete | solid | physical, world 'out-there' to the reality behind it which is the dynamic, statistical, super-positioned, quantumn-ness underpinning it all. BTW, if you can still see "the individual photon" you are not quite there yet - because neither both you and it are illusory constructs. Satori is experience, in-and-of-itself-only.

"Peirce as fragile foundation."

No accusations, no sin. Peirce, again to the degree I have any understanding, wrestles with the problem of speaking about a 'non-dualist' reality using a language saturated with the verb 'to be'. As an aficionado, you inherit the same problem.

"somewhere nice"

Amsterdam, fifth floor office looking down on two canals and a horizon of downtown. Ride bicycle to and from everyday, including a ferry ride across the IJ river. Interesting place, nice people, new adventures (actually new wine in old bottles as I am doing software development, but "my way"). Bureaucracy is interesting: taking three months to open a business bank account, six months to get residency/work permit. Jenny Quillien just down the road in Weesp and she sends her hello and kind regards. If you ever travel, we both have space to crash and tours to offer.

davew

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 3:27 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi, David,

I realize I didn’t really address your points, I think mostly because I don’t understand them. Please see larding below.

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:11 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

BTW - Pierce is considered to be a process philosopher.
[NST==>by whoooooom? <==nst]

There is no such thing as experience that is not OF something — at least as long as experiences are intermediated, first by embodied senses, then by cognitive “constructions.” YOU cannot regulate your experiences, only the process of experiencing can yield what might appear to be regularities / patterns / consistencies.[NST==>Even in a monist system, can’t a model of the self-screen experience and thus lead to different experiences. Hence, self-control? <==nst]

Disintermediated ‘experience’ is possible - that is what Satori is supposed to be.
[NST==>I have no idea what you mean be this… honestly. <==nst]

Quantum sensitivity is not “thrown away” by the design of your retina, or any other sense organ. The only thing that can ‘block’ such sensitivity are those pesky cognitive constructs, and they do not block so much as they establish a willful disregard.[NST==>I still don’t know what a quantum signal would look like, so I don’t know what quantum sensitivity would be sensitivity to. But it seems to me that if one threw in random input between a quantum signal, whatever that might be, and the optic nerve, whatever sensitivity the cone cells might have would be sensitivity to extraneous events in the retina (the passing blood cell, say), rather to anything in your dualist’s world “out there”. <==nst]

To the extent you inherit or borrow aspects of your monism from Pierce, I think (understanding him only partially and incompletely) it is a fragile thing.
[NST==>As I said earlier, I can enumerate all sorts of sins that you might be accusing me of here, but I don’t know which one, and I don’t see why I should do the work of accusation for you. Thus your hubris is matched by my bone-headedness. <==nst]

You somewhere nice?

Hubristic, ain’t I?
davew

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Dave West Wrot:
To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

The Monist replyeth,

I care not for your quantum or Newtonian world. All I care for is experience. I care not at all if it is experience OF anything, except insofar as such constructions help me to regulate my experience. But the Monist still wonders why the design of my retina does not introduce unnecessary turbulence in the prediction and control of my experience. Why go to all the trouble to have a quantum-sensitive system, and then throw it away by the design of the retina?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 2:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?

re: "deep philosophical questions:

Two (at least) quite different answers depending on the philosophical school answering. One, the Rationalists among us will agree with your "entirely" comment. Precision is required for both the model and the inputs — subject of course to the odd butterfly or two.

Process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead, Heidegger, Korzibski, Heraclitus, some Postmodernists, Alan Watts and most Buddhists) would assume inaccuracy in both model and input. A 'process' is highly dynamic and constantly changing, at least in 'detail'. What appears to be 'consistency' and 'predictability' is more akin to a kind of momentum.

I have to take a ferry each morning and evening across the IJ river and the process of steering a multi-ton, 35-meter, ferry to align with a 5-meter opening at the dock on each side requires constant imperfect measurements of dynamic forces of varying degrees - river current, wakes from passing ships, wind, etc. - and imperfect or 'gross' adjustments via engines and rudder is a process. There is not model, except a transient and constantly changing one in the captain's head and measurements / adjustments arise from another process - constant adjustment of heuristic observations synthesized (overlay fashion) with memories.

The assumption for a process philosopher is that the world provides nothing but messy inputs to the ability to deal with them would be the advantage.

To bring the sensitivity question back into play: the real messiness of the external world arises from the quantum level - the fundamental 'process' occurs within (below, underneath, at different level) the apparent stability and predictability of the Newtonian world. The latter is illusion and attempts to conform to it lead to silliness like wearing retinas backwards, attachment, karma, rebirth, politics, etc. etc. Luckily we have sensitivity to the quantum and therefore have the potential for enlightenment.

[Imagine the smile on my face as I contemplate Nick reading the last paragraph]

davew

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Deep philosophical question: I don't think the nervous system is
> interested in accuracy, per se. It is interested in prediction. So,
> an "inaccurate" system that give a better prediction of future events
> would be favored overran accurate one. The deep question, which I
> suspect you Wise Guys are in a position to answer for me is: to what
> degree is predictive accuracy dependent on accuracy of input. Now the
> first intuition is "entirely."   In meteorology, they talk about the
> "initiation of models", which I take to mean how good were the
> measurements that they plugged in for today's observations on which
> they based their predictions of future ones.   I wonder what sort of
> tradesoff exist between getting the original points right and getting
> the model right.
>
> But I note, even as I drown here, how come we wear our retina's
> backwards. Seems awfully careless of us, doesn't it?   Is there any
> world in which messy input is an advantage, or at least, not much of a
> disadvantage?
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David
> West
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:42 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sensitive, aren't we?
>
> 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > David West
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 4:24 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof
> > > David West
> > > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:15 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > 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-hel
> > > p-
> > > te
> > > st-quantum-mechanics/
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/news/people-can-sense-single-photons-1.2028
> > > 2
> > >
> > > (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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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