Visual texture corresponds to tactile/haptic/touch texture. Timbre in sound corresponds to texture. A previous post has a paper explaining. Timbre helps us identify an instrument regardless of pitch. Texture helps us identify an object’s material regardless of how fast we run our fingers over it or look at it. Pitch corresponds to speed. But does it go the other way?

Visual texture corresponds to … [read full article]


Oh yes, this is how I think of consciousness too. Good good. “Before we get into the details of our model, let us be clear about what we mean by sentience or consciousness as it is manifested in unicellular species. We are referring to feelings, subjective states, a primitive awareness of events, including an awareness of internal states. We are using these terms in what is generally referred to as a “folk psychology” fashion. It is likely that these forms of sentience are experienced along a valenced “good-bad” continuum and that the internal representational form is determinative of actions. A prokayote encountering a nutrient rich environment and detecting these life-enhancing molecules experiences, in our framework, a feeling, an internal state of satisfaction and decisions about suspending locomotion are engaged. One moving into an environment with an uncomfort- ably high salt content has a negative subjective state that elicits movement back toward a remembered earlier, less aversive environment. In these and scores of similar experiences, all of which are well-known in cell biology, prokaryotes, we maintain, experience valence-marked, subjective, internal, representa- tional states. We are calling all these forms of subjective awareness, either of environmental events or of organismal internal states, sentience, consciousness. “

Oh yes, this is
[read full article]

“A difference between the terrestrial and open-ocean environment lies in the degree to which animals can control their paths. Caribou migrating across tundra, or insects crawling across the ground, can be reasonably assured of moving in the same direction in which they walk. Even birds, which can be blown off course by winds while migrating, can often mitigate drift by maintaining visual contact with the ground and by landing when conditions are adverse (Richardson, 1991; Erni et al., 2002). Circumstances differ for pelagic migrants. In the open sea, the movements of animals are continuously susceptible to the influence of currents; animals also lack stationary visual references against which drift can be gauged and cannot opt out by grounding themselves. This difference in the ability of terrestrial and pelagic animals to control their paths has significant implications for navigation. On land, some navigational strategies depend on an expectation that the direction and distance traveled approximately reflect the direction and duration of an animal’s attempted movements; examples include the path integration of desert ants (Wehner et al., 1996) and the clock-and-compass orientation that guides many young birds during their first migration (Wiltschko and Wiltschko, 2003). Such strategies are unlikely to be successful for migrants in the open ocean, where swimming movements are permanently uncoupled from solid substrate. For pelagic migrants traveling long distances to specific target areas, navigational systems must therefore accommodate continuous drift and correct for errors that will inevitably arise. Read more:

How do you navigate?
[read full article]

The biogenic approach to cognition Pamela Lyon Cognitive Processing 7 (1), 11-29, 2006 After half a century of cognitive revolution we remain far from agreement about what cognition is and what cognition does. It was once thought that these questions could wait until the data were in. Today there is a mountain of data, but no way of making sense of it. The time for tackling the fundamental issues has arrived. The biogenic approach to cognition is introduced not as a solution but as a means of approaching the issues. The traditional, and still predominant, methodological stance in cognitive inquiry is what I call the anthropogenic approach: assume human cognition as the paradigm and work ‘down’ to a more general explanatory concept. The biogenic approach, on the other hand, starts with the facts of biology as the basis for theorizing and works ‘up’ to the human case by asking psychological questions as if they were biological questions. Biogenic explanations of cognition are currently clustered around two main frameworks for understanding biology: self-organizing complex systems and autopoiesis. The paper describes the frameworks and infers from them ten empirical principles—the biogenic ‘family traits’—that constitute constraints on biogenic theorizing. Because the anthropogenic approach to cognition is not constrained empirically to the same degree, I argue that the biogenic approach is superior for approaching a general theory of cognition as a natural phenomenon.

The biogenic approach to … [read full article]


Now I know that a Raleigh waves govern touch transmission which are pressure waves that exhibit this exact same center surround focus … and that octopus cells in the cochlear nucleus have the same immediate response (for the same Frequencies – 80-1000hz), all thats left would be smell and taste for the basic 5 and then on to the other senses for whatever we know about them.

Now I know that … [read full article]


if the path from non-verbal to abstract language communication were a communication protocol like TCP, what would the handshake look like? (this would compress 24 months of human cognitive/social development) Do any existing protocols use the same pattern for handshaking and negotiating meaning and building understanding? What about development of pidgins?

if the path from … [read full article]