I have a question
kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Dec 31 12:47:18 EST 2004
"Michael Olea" <oleaj at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:BDF9ECB3.E520%oleaj at sbcglobal.net...
| in article 41d3e42a at dnews.tpgi.com.au, John Hasenkam at johnh at faraway. wrote
| on 12/30/04 3:17 AM:
| > Shit I am getting stupid, while posting the other I didn't notice I was
| > downloading the article at:
| > http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/WP-96-027.pdf
| I took a quick look - 80 page paper - I'll have to put it on my stack for
I gave it a quick look, too. It's an elaborate-'nothing'.
The 'paper' struck me as a hoax.
One cannot do 'chemical calculus' and/or describe
"self-organization", without establishing a rigorous
coordinate system in which it happens, and which
rigorously-couples to the rest of physical reality.
In NDT, that's the "special topological homeo-
morphism ["STH", and it orders =everything= "
all the way down", and "all the way up", with re-
spect to external experiential physical reality [that
'portion' of physical reality that actually impinges-
upon all that's ordered by, and within, the STH.
| Still plowing through papers from that discussion on CAP (I took time
| out to reread Shannon's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" so I
| would be in a better position to understand the relationship of
| hyperspheres, ribosomes, and the capacity of molecular mahines - information
| theory of binding sites, that sort of thing).
I tried to find this discussion in CAP. Do you
have a thread title? Or is it archived?
k. p. collins
| But I note this Fontana and
| Buss work at first glance seems to be in the spirit of Stuart Kaufman's
| autocatalytic cycles. Fontana is associated with the Santa Fe Institute, so
| maybe no coincidence...
| > "John Hasenkam" <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
| > news:41d3e254 at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
| >> Did a quick search on Fontana and Buss, they're still pushing that bus so
| > if
| >> you're still interested in standing behind it ...
| >> http://www.vcu.edu/complex/discussion/archive0497/0034.html
| >> http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/AuthPage/F/FontanaW.html
| >> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol 91, 757-761,
| > Copyright
| >> © 1994 by National Academy of Sciences
| >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| > --
| >> ----
| >> ARTICLE
| >> What Would be Conserved if "the Tape were Played Twice"?
| >> W Fontana and LW Buss
| >> We develop an abstract chemistry, implemented in a -calculus-based
| > modeling
| >> platform, and argue that the following features are generic to this
| >> particular abstraction of chemistry; hence, they would be expected to
| >> reappear if "the tape were run twice": (i) hypercycles of self-reproducing
| >> objects arise; (ii) if self-replication is inhibited, self-maintaining
| >> organizations arise; and (iii) self-maintaining organizations, once
| >> established, can combine into higher-order self-maintaining organizations.
| >> "Michael Olea" <oleaj at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
| >> news:BDF8B7C2.E471%oleaj at sbcglobal.net...
| >>> in article 41d36b5a at dnews.tpgi.com.au, John Hasenkam at johnh at faraway.
| >> wrote
| >>> on 12/29/04 5:59 PM:
| >>>> There is a very rare condition when a person can no longer perceive
| >>>> movement, only see a series of still shots. Don't know the name of the
| >>>> condition, probably related to damage to the visual - parietal areas
| >>>> (ventral stream?).
| >>> Ramachandran, in "Phantoms in the Brain" refers to it simply as "motion
| >>> blindness". He discusses the case of a Swiss woman who had bilateral
| >> damage
| >>> to MT.
| >>>> <behdadm at gmail.com> wrote in message
| >>>> news:1104189924.193906.161060 at z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >>>>> Hi,
| >>>>> I think you are wrong.
| >>>>> "Handbook of Perception and Human Performance" page 16-8:
| >>>>> "It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that the peripheral retina is
| > more
| >>>>> sensitive to motion than the fovea. In fact the threshold of motion
| >>>>> increases steadily with eccentricity"
| >>>>> Although the rods are more sensitive to motion than cones, there are
| >>>>> many other factors that can influence the motion sensitivity of fovea
| >>>>> and other parts of field of view. For example, each receptor is
| >>>>> connected to one ganglion cell in the fovea, but at the periphery 25
| >>>>> receptors are connected to 1 ganglion.
| >>>>> What is your reference?
| >>>>> Sorry but I didn't understand the meaning of "AoK, Ap6".
| >>>>> Thanks
More information about the Neur-sci
Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net