Re: Mind's Eye Constructor Theory Thinking

Here's a neat reference to brain development in a tiny wasp which
undergoes major neural expansion when it leaves the nest, dendrites to
the tune of seven to eight mm long in a brain the size of two grains of
sand.

Tiny But Adaptable Wasp Brains Show Ability To Alter Their Architecture
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014144738.htm

An offshoot for a member here, my father in law mentioned working in
audio biofeedback training \brain wave states with a woman 40 years ago
with successful results using EEG equipment. The tech may be available
in nano-sensor array headsets today (a gaming rig/platform).

I'm out of steam tonight, reading about exocortex theories, the memex
and ended up at this fascinating timeline at wolfram alpha!

http://www.wolframalpha.com/docs/timeline/computable-knowledge-history-5.html

Be well, happy turkey day, thanks gabby! :)


ps. These are pretty neat too, apparently I became fascinated by wasp
neurology a couple months ago.

Alien Wasps Abduct, Drop Ants to Get Food:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-aliens-wasps-ants-drop-food-new-zealand-animals-science/

Wasps Can Recognize Faces - Social species relies on recognition to keep
the peace, study suggests.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111202-wasps-people-faces-recognition-insects-science-animals/



On 11/20/2012 3:49 PM, archytas wrote:
> I would certainly sign up for the brain-machine interface and a bit
> of splicing with a prawn to see in 16 colours (preferably with an
> alien who sees the dark). One possibility is that we don't know how
> to use our brains much - capacity is massive potentially. I rather
> like the idea that biological intelligence is short-lived and other
> civilisations have passed through it. Stuff like Skydrive (which
> sadly are attempts to rent software to us at high prices) could be
> conceived as a thought-cloud in which individuality as we think of it
> becomes as redundant as the PC once netware works. We may see a
> network in which all skills are embodied and means of production
> available to all. In some parts of science we are thinking the
> machines are up to a lot we don't understand already.
> More in my own field - we are finding brain changes associated with
> social isolation. In mice these changes leave the mice uninterested
> in new mice (the opposite of normal). The brain is much more plastic
> than most imagine and humanity is changing. On the familiarity thing
> James, E = mc2 is actually as slightly larger equation including p
> (momentum) and looks like the right-angled triangle introduced to us
> in Pythagoras' theorem. I take Deutsch as warning us against Bacon's
> Idol of the Theatre.
>
> On 20 Nov, 04:56, James<ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Whew Neil, I lack the time to grasp it well, though my instincts tell me
>> to re-skim Pierce and modal logics to find out why it sounds so
>> familiar. In my limited view S4 really bites us in the cognitive bias
>> (meh, posterior) and Deutsche lays that out well on counterfactuals IMO.
>> Hope I get more time soon to compare his robot with the 3,2,1
>> configuration in Trikonic geometry (while fresh in memory).
>>
>> Again, it points me toward a much less dramatic revolution for our
>> equation (depending on which emotions one prefers), transhumanism one
>> way or another (good and or bad), a very exciting time in the
>> anthropocene is it not? :p
>>
>> Hope all is well everyone!
>> Best Regards
>>
>> On 11/16/2012 11:14 AM, archytas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439
>>> Should produce David Deutsch's paper free.
>>
>>> This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking
>>> boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to
>>> put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be
>>> restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to
>>> posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts
>>> to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion).
>>
>>> He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's
>>> claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner.
>>
>>> The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with
>>> ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a
>>> believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has
>>> always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for
>>> not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly
>>> scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't
>>> work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its
>>> decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at
>>> CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved.
>>
>>> Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of
>>> them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we
>>> might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such.
>>> The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he
>>> wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma.
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible
>>> story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber
>>> has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that
>>> through history and rebellion against debt..
>>
>>> Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives)
>>> and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a
>>> turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another
>>> turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down).
>

--