defining the system signal distinction

All phenomenal behaviour is conditional, and dependant upon extrinsic circumstances.

If one biological system A, becomes coupled to another B, by influence of some side-effect or waste-product of A, we might observe ‘some behaviour of B is conditional to influence by signal from A’, or interpret that ‘A signals B’

Over time additional conditionality may evolve, such that the same behaviour of B becomes conditional to ’two signals’: separately; or coupled (say a different molecule). Over time different behaviours of B may evolve to become circumstantially conditional to several distinct signals.

Consider that ‘somewhere between’ A and B, some other system C is modifying the same original signal (from A) based upon other circumstances entirely; such that, now, it is circumstances of C which are coupled with B – and the original side-effect or waste-product of A is a mere substrate.

$$\ldots$$

For physical substrate – the scope of possible modifications (or signal variations), and the physical distance between A, C, and B – is limited by constraints of matter :

  1. ‘Finite legal forms’ of molecule
  2. Resource and manufacturing logistics
  3. Subsequent distribution logistics between A, C and B

Consider neuronal substrate – neurones :

  1. Translate conditionality to higher-dimensional space (more legal forms of variation)
  2. Simplified resource and manufacturing
  3. Change distribution logistics between systems: from the physical constraints of ‘matter as signal’ to electrical signal over protected physical substrate; centralised interpretation, with explicit signalling to other systems

$$\ldots$$

consider the brain is C

Consider the above relationship (between A, B and C), but now the brain implements constituents A and C – such that the signal substrate between A and B is neuronal, and that subsequently: signal conditionality (variation) is no longer limited by the constraints of matter (as a signal) – the circumstances of C which affect B; signalling from C to B is explicit, to distinct behavioural constituents of B

side note: note also that conditionality of C is no longer limited by the constraints of generational evolution; and is more akin to dynamic configuration; which evolves ‘in real time’

notes

survival {stimuli > interpretation > knowledge > conditionality > behaviour}

  1. When it comes to evolved biology I prefer to think in terms of minimal-viability – the simplest explanation, or delta from priors, is the most likely: 1. To evolve, and; 2. To benefit survival (simplest ongoing resource and operational demands, relative to priors. Dimensional changes notwithstanding)

  2. For evolved biology this presents a problem – minimal-viable interpretable distinction is inherently ambiguous, because we cannot know in advance all future circumstances through which any distinction must remain distinct, to reduce to absolute minimally-viable form (noting that of the two, minimal-viability wins over possible future use, because biological resources, and survival in the first instance of more primitive biology). The simplest solution to this problem (of minimally-viable interpretable distinction, without foresight) – is the simplest implementation which happens to solve disambiguating collisions between minimally-viable distinctions ‘in the wild’ (or operationally)

  3. Consider the broader picture, whereby circumstances of simultaneously arriving stimuli (circumstantially composed representational scene 1) act as a meta-signal {overall composite; or later weighted, interpreted}, which conditionally operationalises a {corresponding existing; or new} context for interpretation. Consider that it is the system which intercepts this compound signal, and switches context as necessary, not any one context interpreting the circumstances of another, to then switch to (looking at present approaches to AI, etc)

Distinct contexts :

  1. As segmentation, to minimise distinction 1. Evaluation, and; 2. Operation
  2. Limit the scope through which any minimally-viable distinction must remain distinct, in practice, disambiguate the same (or within threshold) distinctions across very different domains of concern
  3. Are conditional conditionality; a fundamental basis for cognition

Distinct contexts matter for us (that we must interpret contextually), because minimal-viable distinction is inherently ambiguous, representational construction and evaluation costs (in resources and time) 2.

#tbc

  1. See: autonomy ↩︎

  2. Whether maps (of territory) or words ↩︎