Post

Fascinating.

That is obviously difficult since classical binary computers and animal brains are extremely dissimilar in the way they process data. Back of the napkin you'd need 9 gates to represent each neuron connection. Probably hundreds of FPGAs to emulate a dead fish. Nevermind a live one.

Excellent. I mused about this here metapsychosis.com/what-kind-of... but I've been looking for more to dig into on it.

true. i love lakoff's talks on embodiment. makes sense.

The fluid mechanics on the fish was already fascinating but this is a cherry on top.

😎

Too dark? :-)

this is really cool, so as I understand it, just the structure of the fish's body makes it swim if force is applied to it so if it has no energy, all the energy must be transfered from steam of water to the body of the fish? evolution for the f'ing win!

That fish video is fascinating. It’s easy to see how people observing this could believe it implies some kind of perpetual motion. Its complexity defies even most college physics courses. What I want to know is: when are we going to see flexible submarines? 🙂

This is more like a samara from a maple tree

not usually considered a mind/body problem, but pretty much on the same line: a genome needs to be inside a cell to go to work. see venter's 𝘔𝘺𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘮𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘶𝘮. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycopla...

This won an igNobel prize, I think!

That is a really good point!

Well, that's creepy

Haven't done that one. Could be really fun.

Where'd you read that he was theosophist? More like his work was corrupted by theosophy. He had curious ideas about esoterica like blood memory that he learned from folklore as a forester, but he wasn't part of any mystical groups. His works were almost all practical, with very little theory behind.