**From:** Mike Dougherty (*msd001@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Fri Feb 24 2006 - 13:21:06 MST

**Next message:**Peter de Blanc: "Re: Why playing it safe is the most dangerous thing"**Previous message:**micah glasser: "Re: The wisdom of AdWords"**In reply to:**Keith Henson: "Mandelbrot brains"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Algebra/MandelbrotIterations.shtml

while exploring this demo of iterative functions, I considered how much the

Mandelbrot looks like a bug, and that the graph resulting from Julia set

iterations at various points inside the Mandelbrot set reminds me of a an

MRI for the bug's nervous system.

For starting points that settle into cycles, it could be conceived that

there is sufficient coherence to build for the "thought" to be consistent

and deemed "True." Those starting points that do not cycle, yet remain

bounded within a region may be considered "Likely" within the bounding

region. This may be analogous to thoughts which continue to yield insights

after having been classified by a specific category. Points outside the

Mandelbrot may appear to be asymptotically close to the Mandelbrot boundary,

but iterate quickly away towards infinity. Those iterative processes that

run away to infinity might be considered divergent, inherently unTrue or

nonsensical.

Starting points in the first bulb to the left of the main body have values

ranging into the central region of the body, which struck me as an

interesting means of providing a non-locality of awareness. ex: suppose

navigating three iterations from starting point A yields a point responsible

for a particular subsystem. If that subsystem were "rooted" at point B,

then beginning a new iteration starting at B yields a new graph/set.

Consider that an iterative function starting from A yields a cycle of 12

values, each of which may be used as initial values for the iterative

function to yield a new graph (which may be bound by an attractor, thereby

capable of generating an infinite set) The point A would be effectively

"encoding" a conceptual framework of many idea-points using far less

information to compute than would be required to list. (I believe this

relates to the description of the potential information encoded in a zygote)

Does it seem to anyone else like there would be value in further exploring

this concept?

This reminds me of

Orphanogenesis<http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/01/Orphanogenesis.html>.

Also, the idea of consistency of cyclic iterations being an evaluation of

Truth reminds me of the Autoverse-native gnat swarm intelligence from

another Egan work, Permutation

City<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City>

.

On 2/24/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com> wrote:

*>
*

*>
*

*> This may have been stated here before, but the brain of a newborn
*

*> obviously
*

*> would require many orders of magnitude more information to describe it to
*

*> even the cell level than was present in the zygote.
*

*>
*

*> This is not unlike the Mandelbrot set--which can be inscribed on a postage
*

*>
*

*> stamp and expands to infinite complexity.
*

*>
*

*> Real life truncates after a small number of iterations. It might be worth
*

*> noting that one of the differences between chimps and humans is that human
*

*> precursor brain cells double two more times than chimps in the brain
*

*> development process. (IIRC, can't find the reference, but makes sense.)
*

*>
*

*> I don't know this has relevance to seed AI problems, but it might.
*

*>
*

*> Keith Henson
*

*>
*

*>
*

**Next message:**Peter de Blanc: "Re: Why playing it safe is the most dangerous thing"**Previous message:**micah glasser: "Re: The wisdom of AdWords"**In reply to:**Keith Henson: "Mandelbrot brains"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT
*